ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: Annual reports on the effectiveness of policies

It would be helpful if, in addition to the formal reports on the transposition into national law of Community legislation, the Commission drew up annual reports on the effectiveness of its policies. These reports would be extremely helpful for facilitating parliamentary scrutiny.

What plans does the Commission have in this area in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)

The Commission's annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, and in particular the opening sections on the situation sector by sector, provides information on the effectiveness of transposal:

- general evaluations of the broad areas of Community policy (for example, internal market, social policy, agriculture, environment);

- more specific information on infringement proceedings relating to the quality of the transposal (incorrect measures) or on the ineffective application of directives in specific cases.

A more detailed view of the effectiveness of the various Community policies can be obtained from the Commission's other reports and publications, such as the General Report on the activities of the European Union, the annual economic report, the annual report on the single market, the report on employment, the annual agricultural report and the report on competition policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Council (13 August 1996)

Subject: Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the Council

Rule 97(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament give the Council the right to ask Parliament to deal with an item by urgent procedure. As Council and Parliament are now jointly responsible for adopting legislation that falls under the codecision procedure, should Council's Rules of Procedure not provide for a similar possibility for Parliament to ask Council to deal with a matter urgently?

Answer (13 December 1996)

The Honourable Member will have noted that, as a general rule, the Treaties as they stand at present set no time limits for the first reading of proposals for legislative acts or opinions which the institutions or other bodies are required to deliver.

As acknowledged by the case-law of the Court of Justice ((See, for example, the judgment of 30.3.1995, European Parliament v. Council (GSP) Case C-65/93, Case Reports I-643. )) and as established in the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure themselves, situations can arise in the life of the Community which demand urgent decisions, requiring the Council to request the European Parliament to deliver its Opinion as a matter of urgency. However, the Council adopted arrangements on 22 May 1995, which were communicated to the European Parliament, stipulating that requests for application of the urgent procedure must be genuinely exceptional in nature and supported by reasons.

The Council is in this respect not in the same position as the European Parliament as it cannot take a decision at first reading until it has obtained the Opinion of the European Parliament. Article 139 of the EC Treaty enables the Council to request the European Parliament to meet in extraordinary session. The option of requesting an emergency debate is a way of speeding up proceedings without recourse to the cumbersome procedure provided for in Article 139.

The European Parliament can, however, when it delivers its Opinion, call upon the Council to take a decision or adopt its common position swiftly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/96 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Budget for participants in the social dialogue (UNICE, CEEP and ETUC)

When the Social Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht came into force, the role of the European social partners (UNICE, CEEP and ETUC) was redefined. Accordingly, European collective agreements may now be concluded which subsequently acquire the force of law through a decision of the Council of Ministers. In that event, the costs incurred in attendance at meetings are refunded to the social partners.

1. What is the amount of these refunds?

2. Apart from these refunds, do UNICE, CEEP and ETUC receive other payments from the Community budget?

Please specify the budget lines involved.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

1. As part of the application of the Agreement on Social Policy annexed (in Protocol No 14) to the EC Treaty, the Commission regularly consults a wide range of organisations (approximately 30) about Community social proposals.

Only one set of negotiations has been concluded so far on the basis of these consultations and concerns the reconciliation of family and working life: the Union of Industries of the European Community (UNICE), the European Confederation of Public Enterprises (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) began negotiations, which, after seven meetings held between July and November 1995 with an average of 40 participants, led to an agreement on "parental leave¨.

The allowances for participants who came from places other than Brussels covered the costs of travel in economy class and a flat-rate daily allowance of ECU 110.92.

2. Apart from these allowances, the Community budget makes no provision for specific payments for UNICE, CEEP and ETUC to cover participation in the above-mentioned meetings.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the existing budget headings (in 1996) for promoting the social dialogue, training or informing the social partners are B3-4000, B3-4001, B3-4002, B3-4003, B3-4004 and B3-4005.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Spalato Belleré (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Research into, and prevention of, asthma

In view of the fact that the Commission has provided financial support for a major research project into asthma carried out by the EFA (European Federation of Asthma and Allergy Associations) and that the WHO (World Health Organization) has shown, by means of epidemiological studies, that, in terms of prevalence, seriousness and mortality, asthma is nowadays one of the most widespread chronic illnesses, could the Commission put the following proposals to all the Member States:

1. that an epidemiological monitoring agency should be set up to study asthma with a view to preventing, in schools and at the workplace, respiratory diseases connected with domestic (active and passive smoking), urban and industrial air pollution;

2. that there should be tax relief on healthcare expenditure by patients suffering from obstructive respiratory conditions.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1996)

1. The Commission has considered the evidence adduced from the studies mentioned in the question.

The Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a decision by the Parliament and the Council adopting a programme on pollution-related diseases in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health which will cover respiratory diseases, in particular asthma. The creation of a respiratory disease-specific epidemiological observatory, or indeed a more general health observatory, is intended to be studied in the context of the Community action programme on health monitoring ((COM(95)449; amended proposal COM(96)222. )).

2. Since Community action in the field of public health is based on Article 129 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is not in a position to propose any measures in relation to the organisation or financing of health services.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2554/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: Environmental damage caused by the destruction of withdrawn fruit and vegetables

In its Annual Report concerning the financial year 1994 the Court of Auditors expresses its concern at the environmental impact of the destruction of withdrawn produce; according to the Court of Auditors, in many cases rotten fruit has polluted the surface and ground water in several regions.

In its replies to the Court of Auditors, the Commission confirmed that it was aware of these serious environmental problems and was studying how to solve them and the possibility of finding other ways of disposing of this produce.

Can the Commission say what conclusions these studies have reached, and what are the possible alternative outlets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1996)

The Commission requests the Honourable Member to refer to the joint answer which it gave to Written Questions E-1901/96, 1902/96 and 1903/96 from Mr Kreissl-Dörfler. ((OJ C 60, 26.2.1997.))

The conditions set out below have been laid down by the new common market organization for fresh fruit and vegetables.

- Producers' organizations, which are responsible for withdrawals, must notify the national authorities of the measures taken to safeguard the environment when withdrawals are carried out; these authorities must in turn inform the Commission.

- Member States must establish a national framework for drawing up specifications for environmentally-friendly methods of withdrawing fruit and vegetables.

- Proposals for national frameworks will be sent to the Commission, which may request amendments within three months if it considers that they fall short of the objectives laid down in Article 130r of the EC Treaty and the Fifth Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development. ((COM(94) 453 final.))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Ionian Islands, Measure 2 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare'

Measure 3.2 of the regional operational programme for the Ionian Islands provides for funding of health and welfare facilities in the region comprising: improvement and expansion of hospitals and the construction of a new hospital in Corfu with a corresponding increase in the number of hospital beds; improvements to health centres and community clinics, improved facilities and the creation of new community clinics; supplying these hospitals and clinics with the necessary electronic and medical equipment.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 2 320 000 for 1994 and ECU 4 350 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

3. Can the Commission provide details of the progress made with this measure?

Supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1484/96 and E-1485/96 given by Mme Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 June 1996 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 126. )), the Commission can now provide the following details.

Funding in 1994 and 1995 for the 'Health and Welfare' measure of the operational programmes (OP) referred to totalled ECU 72.1 million. The take-up over the same period was ECU 10.13 million. As the programmes started at the end of 1994, the funds were actually taken up in 1995.

Most of the financing under this measure goes on projects to build large hospitals. These require major planning, study and preparatory work before construction or equipment purchases can go ahead, hence the take-up delay in 1995.

Much of the preparatory work has been completed this year and work has started on building some hospitals. Consequently, an increase in the take-up of funding can now be expected. The Commission is closely monitoring this measure in both the regional and 'Health and Welfare' operational programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Disabled

The disabled account for 10% of the population in the European Union, but the Maastricht Treaty makes no specific reference to disability and the forms of social, cultural, occupational, and economic discrimination arising from it. Bearing in mind that the Intergovernmental Conference to revise the Treaties is now in progress, will the Commission ensure that:

1. the Maastricht Treaty harmonizes economic and financial matters in the narrow sense by laying down a provision aimed first and foremost at upgrading social policies, especially for more vulnerable groups, the necessary basis for which already exists in Article 2 of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the Treaty;

2. the Treaty is amended with a view to guaranteeing equal opportunities by means of specific references to the disabled in the relevant legislation, especially as regards to the right to care, work, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society;

3. the Agreement on social policy is incorporated into the body of the Treaty in order to enhance the credibility of the European institutions and create an appropriate social climate for European integration and economic development?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1996)

The Commission supports the inclusion in the EC Treaty of general provisions banning all forms of discrimination, including that based on disability, in areas where the Treaties are applicable.

To that end, it feels that the Protocol (No 14) on social policy annexed to the Treaty should be incorporated into the Treaty and strengthened, in particular by:

- including special clauses banning all forms of discrimination with regard to employment, working conditions and the fight against social exclusion;

- improving the decision-making process in order to make Community action more effective and more democratic in these areas.

The Commission will continue to defend these causes throughout the negotiations for amendments in the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1480/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Crete, Measure 3 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare Facilities'

Measure 3.3 of the regional operational programme for Crete provides for funding of secondary health care and welfare facilities in the region. The objective of the measure is to improve health services and hospital facilities (number of beds) in Crete.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 5 172 000 for 1994 and ECU 13 793 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

Supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1484/96 and E-1485/96 given by Mme Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 June 1996 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 126. )), the Commission can now provide the following details.

Funding in 1994 and 1995 for the 'Health and Welfare' measure of the operational programmes (OP) referred to totalled ECU 72.1 million. The take-up over the same period was ECU 10.13 million. As the programmes started at the end of 1994, the funds were actually taken up in 1995.

Most of the financing under this measure goes on projects to build large hospitals. These require major planning, study and preparatory work before construction or equipment purchases can go ahead, hence the take-up delay in 1995.

Much of the preparatory work has been completed this year and work has started on building some hospitals. Consequently, an increase in the take-up of funding can now be expected. The Commission is closely monitoring this measure in both the regional and 'Health and Welfare' operational programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2386/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Target system

Do the Treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination also apply to the planned Target settlement system so that no distortions of competition can arise between banks within and without those participating in Economic and Monetary Union?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1996)

The Target (Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer) system is being set up under the auspices of the European Monetary Institute (EMI). It is an essential infrastructure for the smooth operation of the single monetary policy. It is through Target that, by injecting or withdrawing liquidity, the European Central Bank and the national central banks in the euro zone will in practice conduct monetary policy; and it is through Target that the commercial banks, by exploiting the opportunities for arbitrage between financial centres, will equalize short-term interest rates and ultimately ensure the unity of monetary policy. Hence, Target is basically a monetary policy instrument for the euro zone.

Target is also designed to provide a safe, effective system for settling intra-day cross-border payments. Its introduction will be a significant improvement on the present situation, since the objectives of the Directive on cross-border payments will be exceeded by far. Target will reduce systemic risk in the Community and facilitate transactions in the single market. In its 1995 annual report, the EMI stated unequivocally that the real-time gross settlement systems of the non-participating countries could also be connected to Target, but only for transactions carried out in euros.

In the light of the information at its disposal, the Commission considers that the special conditions which should apply to the non-participating Member States so that the essential monetary-policy constraints of all members of the economic and monetary union can be taken into account must be determined later. The Commission will study the conditions that are proposed and will assess their impact in the light of the Treaty's provisions, in particular those relating to the single market and to competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1879/96 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (12 July 1996)

Subject: EU relations with Burma

What is the reaction of the EU to the inclusion of Burma in the ASEAN Regional Forum with which the EU will be meeting on 22 July? Will the EU delegation take this opportunity to renew the aborted 'critical dialogue' with the delegation from Burma? If not, by what other means does the EU intend to carry out a 'critical dialogue' with Burma?

Answer (17 January 1997)

1. The European Union took part in the third ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Jakarta on 23 July 1996. The meeting was attended by all the participants in the Regional Forum, including India and Burma/Myanmar for the first time. The European Union also held a bilateral meeting with Burma/Myanmar alongside the ARF. The Union availed itself of this opportunity to express its concern at the situation prevailing in the country. Burma/Myanmar set out the path which it is following with a view to setting up a democratic regime and stated that its aim was to organize presidential elections and guarantee the separation of powers. The European Union emphasized the importance it attached to the commitments undertaken by Burma/Myanmar in this respect.

2. On 26 September 1996 the European Union also had a bilateral meeting with Mr OHn GYAW, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Burma/Myanmar, on the occasion of the 51st United Nations General Assembly. At this meeting the European Union again expressed its concern at recent developments in the situation in Burma/Myanmar. The European Union was disappointed at the outcome as Burma/Myanmar did not seem interested in pursuing a meaningful dialogue with it. Nevertheless, the European Union reaffirmed its determination to resume such dialogue at any time.

3. The European Union is concerned at the absence of progress towards democratization and at the continuing violation of human rights in Burma/Myanmar. It notes that the military regime has yet to demonstrate convincingly its intention to establish civilian democratic rule, within a credible time-frame. In addition, the European Union notes the failure of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) to demonstrate any willingness to respond to the concerns of the United Nations General Assembly and the European Union.

4. With a view to promoting progress towards democratization and securing the immediate and unconditional release of detained political prisoners, the European Union recently confirmed the measures already adopted (explusion of all military personnel attached to the diplomatic representations of Burma/Myanmar in Member States of the European Union and withdrawal of all military personnel attached to diplomatic representatives of the Member States of the European Union in Burma/Myanmar; an embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment and the suspension of non-humanitarian aid or development programmes).

It also adopted additional measures, such as a ban on entry visas for senior members of the SLORC and their families and for senior members of the military or the security forces and the suspension of high-level governmental visits.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2783/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: ESF Objective 3 Single Programming Document (UK)

Is the Commission aware of the considerable concern among social economy organizations in the United Kingdom that delays in signing the Single Programming Document may lead to delay in the approval of, start of and payments to projects to assist the unemployed?

What are the reasons for this delay and when does the Commission expect agreement to be reached with the British Government on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

The single programming document for objective 3 Great Britain for 1997-1999 was agreed by the Commission and the British authorities on 4 November 1996. It received approval from the European social fund advisory committee on 13 December 1996 and was adopted by the Commission on 16 December 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3102/96 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Driving licence testing

EC Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237 of 24.8.1991, p. 1. )) on driving licences requires that persons applying for a motorbike licence must take the test with a motorbike without a sidecar. This test is classified as a Category 'A' or minimum vehicle test. The Directive came into force in 1991 with a requirement for a review after five years.

Will the Commission drop the requirement on a motorbike without a sidecar to allow those persons with a sidecar to take the test? I understand that at least one Member State has interpreted the Directive to allow for the use of a sidecar in testing. Could the Commission also outline progress so far on the review of this Directive?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences provides that a category A licence is valid for motorcycles with or without side-car. A specific category for motorcycles with side-car only has not been accepted by the Council. This means that a person who wants to ride a motorcycle with a side-car needs to apply for a category A licence and pass the test in accordance with the provisions of Annex II.8., i.e. on a motorcycle without side-car.

Member States may allow the use of a side-car in testing in accordance with the derogation permitted under Article 4.2. of the Directive as a way to provide mobility to people who could not pass the normal testing procedures, for example, persons with a locomotive disability.

Concerning the review, Article 11 of the Directive provides that:

'Five years after this Directive has been put into effect, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall review the national provisions concerning any optional subcategories which may have been established in accordance with Article 3, with a view to their possible harmonization or elimination.'

A motorcycle with side-car combination is not an optional sub-category and therefore is not covered in principle by the review.

In view of the fact that the Directive only entered into effect on 1 July 1996, the Commission considers that it is premature to prejudge the possible content of the review.