ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1089/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families

In its communication on the medium-term social action programme 1995-1997 (COM(95)134), the Commission stated that it would adopt a recommendation in the first half of 1995 encouraging Member States to adopt the 1990 UN international convention on the protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families with a view to improving the position of migrant workers and their families resident in the Union and ensuring that the rights accorded to them correspond to international standards.

Can the Commission say what action has been taken to follow up this intention and what has been the response of the various Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families has not been ratified by the Member States of the Community.

The Commission has indeed in its medium term social action programme ((COM(95)134. )) declared that it will adopt a recommendation encouraging Member States to ratify the UN Convention in order to improve the position of migrant workers and their families resident in the Community and ensure that the rights accorded to them correspond to international standards.

The Commission is proceeding with the preparatory work, including the drafting of a report on the difficulties and possibilies of ratification by the Member States and the added value of ratification of this Convention in comparison with other international instruments adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Council of Europe.

Since the Commission's work is still in the preparatory stages, it is not possible to provide information on the reactions of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1361/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-5076 (Rehabilitation and reconstruction measures for the developing countries), can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs or other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies, together with the exact amount of such subsidies during the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1360/96 and E-1361/96 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (21 June 1996)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Automatic compensation for victims of accidents

Has the Commission considered the various positions in Member States for dealing with compensation to victims?

As the current situation in the UK leaves the onus on the victim to claim any compensation from insurers, invariably leading to lengthy legal proceedings, is the Commission proposing to address this problem to improve the rights of the individual?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1996)

The Commission is aware that compensation for accidents is organised differently by the various Member States.

The risk of suffering injury as the result of a traffic accident is covered in all Member States by compulsory third party insurance. Under this cover the insurer pays if the policyholder is liable. In most Member States liability depends on some sort of 'fault' of the driver. The question whether the driver was at fault may in fact lead to lengthy legal proceedings. The same holds true for defining the amount of compensation to be paid.

These problems could only be solved by introducing a no-fault system for accidents which would imply an approximation or even harmonisation of the varying liability laws in the Member states. As already expressed in the Commission's answer to written question No 1334/87 by Mr Hänsch ((OJ C 57, 6.3.1989. )), both for reasons of competence and achievablity the Commission has no plans to initiate work in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1233/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Member State derogations from Directive 91/497/EEC

At the end of 1995 in England there were some 160 slaughterhouses operating under temporary derogations from the Fresh Meat (Hygiene Inspection) Regulations 1992 (which implemented Directive 91/497/EEC ((OJ L 268, 24.09.1991, p. 69.))).

(As at 1 March 1996, there were a total of 477 licenses slaughterhouses in England, Scotland and Wales).

Could the Commission please tell me:

1. How many licensed slaughterhouses there are in each Member State?

2. Which Member States have yet to complete their implementation of Directive 91/497/EEC?

3. How many derogations from Directive 91/497/EEC are in operation in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1996)

1. The Commission can tell the Honourable Member that the number of fresh meat establishments licensed under Directive 91/497/EEC (slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold storage warehouses) was as follows:

>TABLE>

2. Fourteen Member States have given notification of national measures to implement Directive 91/497/EEC. Only Finland has not.

3. The Commission has not yet received lists from all Member States of those establishments benefiting from derogations under the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1489/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Suspension of third instalment of state aid to Olympic Airways

Pursuant to the Commission's decision of 30 April 1996, payment of the third instalment of state aid to Olympic Airways to increase the company's capital as part of its restructuring process has been suspended. The main reason for suspending payment is that the company has received Drs 11 billion from the national budget to subsidize pensions for staff taking early retirement.

The government has responded to the suspension by claiming that the manner in which the relevant decisions have been formulated in law (No. 2271794) gives the impression that the sums in question are state aid, whereas they could be regarded as social assistance. In view of this:

1. Will the Commission reconsider its decision, and

2. will it say what other problems it has encountered during implementation of the Olympic Airways restructuring programme?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1996)

In its decision of 30 April 1996, the Commission reopened the Article 93(2) EC Treaty proceedings concerning aids granted to Olympic Airways which had been approved in a previous decision of 7 October 1994. It also opened the same proceedings concerning new aids that had been identified during the verification process prior to the payment of the second tranche of the approved aid. The Commission is now awaiting comments from the Greek government as well as other Member States and other interested parties in the framework of these proceedings. It will reach a final decision on all the aids taking into account all the relevant elements.

The reason for the Commission decision of 30 April 1996 is that certain conditions of its decision of 7 October 1994 have not been respected. A new aid of 11,000 million drachmas was given to Olympic Airways by the Greek government to counterbalance an improvement of the retirement conditions of the Olympic employees decided upon by the Greek Parliament. The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that, from a legal point of view, the social character of an aid has no effect on its nature as state aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0124/96 by María Aramburu del Río (GUE/NGL), Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL), María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Carlos Carnero González (GUE/NGL) to the Council (7 February 1996)

Subject: Situation in the Western Sahara

It is now twenty years since the signing of the tripartite agreements on the Western Sahara, but no solution in line with the UN resolutions has yet been reached.

What action is the Council taking to support compliance with the UN resolutions and ensure that the referendum on self-determination is held with full democratic guarantees?

What support is it giving to the Saharan people pending a lasting solution to the question of their national self-determination?

Reply (7 August 1996)

1. The Council is monitoring closely the situation in the Western Sahara. The European Union has given and is giving its full support to the United Nations peace plan, involving a free, fair and impartial referendum on the self-determination of the Saharan people, and to all the efforts made by the United Nations Secretary-General to find a solution to the problem of the Western Sahara. As it has already done on several occasions, the Council will continue to appeal to the parties to cooperate with the United Nations and in particular with MINURSO in order to progress towards a settlement. As regards the presence of the United Nations in the Western Sahara, the Council endorses Security Council Resolution 1056 which, while reducing the MINURSO staff, extends its mandate for six months, in line with the United Nations Secretary-General's recommendations.

2. The support and humanitarian aid provided by the European Community to the Saharan people are the responsibility of the Commission, in particular of the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) as regards humanitarian aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/96 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Council (12 February 1996)

Subject: Child migration from Europe

According to the Child Migrant Trust, a British self-help organization, the UK sent almost 10 000 British children to work in Australia after the war, often without the consent of their parents. Many of these children were physically and sexually abused when they arrived there. The last group of children was sent in 1967.

1. Is the Council aware of child migration of this type?

2. What does it plan to do to help those affected?

3. Has the Family Policy Observatory taken this matter up?

4. Can the Family Policy Observatory do anything to help those affected?

Reply (7 August 1996)

The Council has not been informed of any of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0594/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Council (13 March 1996)

Subject: Mordecai Vanunu

Is the Council aware that Parliament has adopted several resolutions in the past on the continuing imprisonment of Mordecai Vanunu in Israel?

Has the Council made any attempt to persuade the Israeli Government to end its long vendetta against this man?

Joint reply to Written Questions E-0274/96 and E-0594/96 (2 August 1996)

Mr Vanunu's case has not been raised in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Council (26 February 1996)

Subject: Immigration legislation and gender discrimination

What action is being taken by the Council under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to ensure that Member States' immigration legislation is in compliance with Article K.2.1 of the TEU and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

Furthermore what measures is the Council taking to encourage Member States to adopt non-discriminatory legislation in the area of immigration, and in particular to remove provisions that discriminate on grounds of gender, such as the refusal of the UK Immigration Act to recognize women British Overseas citizens as heads of household?

Reply (7 August 1996)

All the texts adopted by the Council under Title VI comply with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular with Article K.2(1), which provides for compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including its principle of non-discrimination on grounds of gender.

The Council has already taken measures for improved non-discriminatory integration of persons legally resident on a long-term basis in a Member State of the European Union (see OJ C 80 of 18.3.1996) and will examine other measures in the matter which do not and certainly will not give rise to discrimination on grounds of gender. However, the Council is responsible only for the acts which it adopts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1341/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Age limit for the recruitment of interpreters and translators

According to press reports in Sweden, the Commission does not recruit people over the age of 35 as interpreters or translators. Is this true? If so, what is the legal basis for such blatant discrimination against experienced people in their prime? Is such ageism really compatible with EU rules and general human rights principles?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1996)

It is true that the Commission puts a maximum age limit of 35 in its competitions for recruitment at the basic grades. These competitions include those for interpreters and translators.

In certain cases, however, the age limit has been raised to 40, for instance, for translators of Finnish and Swedish languages at the LA7/LA6 grades. A higher limit (usually 55) applies to the recruitment of interpreters and translators at the LA5/LA4 grades.

Annex III, Article I(g) of the staff regulations allows the Commission and the other institutions to fix age limits for their competitions. The Commission has explained the justification for the approach it adopts in recent parliamentary answers, for example, to the written questions E-1051/96 by Mrs Waddington ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p.77. )) E-355/96 by Mr Cabezón Alonso and Mr Colino Salamanca ((OJ C 137, 8.5.1996. )), E-3526/95 by Mr White ((OJ C 109, 15.4.1996. )), E-2404/95 by Mrs Stenius-Kaukonen ((OJ C 40, 12.2.1996. )), E-1194/95 by Mr Megahy ((OJ C 222, 28.8.1995. )), E-984/95 by Mr Megahy ((OJ C 202, 7.8.1995. )), E-2214/94 by Mr Mather ((OJ C 75, 27.3.1995. )), E-1966/94 by Mrs Oddy ((OJ C 55, 6.3.1995. )), E-3611/93 by Mr Bird ((OJ C 6, 9.1.1995. )), E-3542/93 by Mrs Oddy and 3491/93 by Mr Smith ((OJ C 296, 24.10.1994. )) and E-394/92 by Mr Seligman ((OJ C 296, 24.10.1994. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1369/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (22 May 1996)

Subject: The Athens Acropolis

The Acropolis in Athens is rightly considered one of the most representative monuments of Greece and European culture.

For the City of Athens it is also the main focus of tourism. This very ancient monument is, however, now being threatened by the passage of time and environmental pollution.

Work to preserve this monument is progressing very slowly owing to a lack of funds.

Will the Commission say what scope there is for providing emergency financial aid, and what procedures Greece must follow to attain this important objective?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that due to the exceptional importance of the Acropolis in historic, cultural and architectural terms, the Community has been contributing since 1983 to the conservation and restoration works carried out by the Greek authorities, with a financial contribution in recent years of 400 000 ECU a year.

The slow progress of the conservation and restoration projects is due to the complex and delicate nature of the works rather than to lack of financial resources.

In addition to this contribution, the Operational programme (OP) tourism-culture provides for the restoration of historic monuments liked to the development of tourism.

The structural funds are willing to examine a plan to restore the Acropolis if the Greek authorities propose it and if it falls within the framework of the culture part of the tourism-culture OP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1126/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Type-approval of motor-vehicle components

The need to harmonize type-approval procedures for motor vehicles, in addition to the need to reduce noise and atmospheric pollution levels and combat the practice of tampering, is the basis for the proposal for a directive COM(93) 449 final ((OJ C 177, 29.06.1994, p. 1. )).

Two-wheeled vehicles would seem to offer a guaranteed solution in the fight against the traffic congestion which afflicts Europe's cities; however, the Commission's proposals in the directive are aimed in the opposite direction.

As the manufacture of motor cycles and mopeds becomes increasingly out of reach economically, a growing percentage of the population are turning to the car.

Can the Commission therefore take steps to amend the excessively low noise and emission limit values laid down in the directive for models currently on the market which would require major changes in the manufacturing process?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)

As the Honourable Member says, the proposal for a directive on two or three-wheeled motor vehicles, which still need to be regulated for the implementation of the type-approval procedure, is necessary both to harmonize the diverging laws of the Member States and to ensure that the environment is adequately protected, both against air pollution and against noise pollution.

Since the technological means of meeting the proposed requirements were available on the dates scheduled and the cost-benefit ratio was positive, the proposal received the backing of the majority of experts from the Member States and industry.

The Commission would point out that most of the amendments proposed by Parliament at the first reading were accepted by the Commission and the Council in the common position adopted on 23 November 1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1394/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety of workers

How can the Commission reconcile the notion of the company with the principle of free competition when Directive 89/391/EEC ((OJ L 183 of 29.6.1989, p. 1. )) makes the protection of health at the workplace depend on the obligations of an employer who owns a company, or in other words an establishment and thus identifies the workplace with such a term?

How can the Commission maintain that the Member States may adapt some measures relating to the employer in the light of the nature of the activities and size of the undertakings when the Court of Justice provides that Community directives are not satisfactorily applied unless they are applied in a restrictive sense, thus not allowing the Member States to adopt the provisions to a level lower than the minimum requirements set out in the directives?

How can the Commission claim that the Member States are not obliged to impose rigid protection and prevention structures on professions when it has previously stated that these directives should be fully applied to professional people, including intellectuals?

Which EU Member States, if any, have applied Directive 89/391/EEC to persons exercising intellectual professions protected by membership of a professional register?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

The concept of 'undertaking' within the meaning of Directive 89/391/EEC does not relate to specific categories of workplace, and the provisions of the Directive apply to any natural or legal person who has an employment relationship with a worker and is responsible for the undertaking or establishment.

This flexibility is a direct result of the nature of the directives based on Article 118a of the EC Treaty and containing minimum requirements which Member States are free to make more stringent. Furthermore, certain provisions of the framework Directive, for example Article 7 (7) on protective and preventive services and Article 9 (2) concerning various obligations on employers, allow Member States to tailor implementation to criteria such as the nature of activities and the size of the undertaking.

The fact that the provisions of the directives relating to health and safety at work apply in full to workers employed by employers exercising liberal professions necessarily implies that those professions can also benefit from the flexibility described above.

At the moment, the Commission is not aware of any Member State having excluded workers employed by employers exercising liberal professions from the scope of national measures transposing the framework and individual Directives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0457/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Council (29 February 1996)

Subject: Legislation on hunting in Malta

The European Union is preparing to accept the Republic of Malta as a member country in the next few years, so Malta will have to adapt its legislation to Community legislation.

One of the difficulties to be resolved is Malta's legislation on hunting which is very permissive and has already been sharply criticized by the Commission.

At this very moment Parliament and the Commission are working on further improvements to the Community directive on the conservation of wild birds which unfortunately often find themselves in the line of fire of Maltese double-barrelled shotguns as soon as they leave the protection of European airspace during migration. At the same time, with an eye to the national elections and yielding to pressure from the hunting lobby, the Maltese Government is following up partial adaptation of its legislation to the Community's with further liberalization, especially as regards the shooting season and permissible hunting methods, to the consternation of ecological movements. It is therefore to be feared that Malta's accession to the EU will be seriously impeded by these problems.

What has the Council done to induce the Maltese authorities to adapt their hunting legislation to the Community's in time?

Reply (8 August 1996)

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the Community Institutions, each within its own field, are concerned with the protection of wild birds. In a necessary desire for consistency, the Council adopts the same attitude both with regard to its action within the Community and outside, most particularly in respect of third countries engaged in the process of accession to the European Union.

In this connection, as the Honourable Member is aware, those countries take part in a structured dialogue designed to facilitate preparations for their accession. In the context of that dialogue an assessment is made of the degree of approximation of their legislation with that of the Community in all areas, including the environment. Such a dialogue specifically concerned with the environment will take place with Malta under the Italian Presidency, which will not fail to point out to its Maltese counterparts the concerns raised by the situation as regards its legislation on hunting.