ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Barriers to trade with China

Once again, European companies have protested against the barriers imposed by the Chinese authorities - high customs tariffs, quantitative restrictions, illegal exploitation of intellectual property, etc. - which continue to hinder trade with China.

What action is the Commission to take in response to this state of affairs?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)

The People's Republic of China continues to be an attractive market for Community entrepreneurs and investors, but one which often proves difficult to penetrate.

The Commission supports China's goal of integrating its economy into the open multilateral trading system backed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Pending the successful conclusion of negotiations, however, the Commission routinely uses its bilateral dialogue with the Chinese authorities to raise any problems relating to access to Chinese markets.

The Commission intends to continue with this twin-track approach, which has led in recent months to solid if insufficient progress on opening up Chinese markets to European entrepreneurs and investors. Recent meetings to negotiate Chinese membership of the WTO, in particular, have held out the prospect of some progress on lowering tariff barriers, abolishing quotas, liberalising licensing requirements for service industries setting up in China and more effective measures to protect intellectual property. The Community expects China to make good its undertakings on liberalisation in the months to come.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: EU funding for the slaughter of ostriches in Raiano (Italy)

According to a report in the daily newspaper 'Il Messaggero' of 3 March 1997, work has begun on the first slaughterhouse for ostriches in Raiano (L'Aquila), involving 'an investment of five billion lire, 70% of which is to be funded under special terms by the EU and the state'.

Can the Commission confirm this report and say from what budgetary chapter and on what grounds this funding has been provided?

Since there are no rules on the protection of ostriches on farms and in slaughterhouses, does the Commission not consider that to allow this activity would pose a direct threat to the welfare of these animals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

According to the information available to the Commission and the details provided by the regional and national authorities in Italy, the Structural Funds have provided no finance for slaughterhouses for ostriches in Abruzzi. If the Honourable Member has more detailed information, the Commission will investigate the matter further.

This type of stock-raising, which could be an economic activity aimed at a niche market and boost agricultural income, must, however, take account of the specific requirements of the species and animal welfare rules. Any activity concerned with stock-raising and the processing of production must, of course, comply with Community and national rules on health and hygiene governing meat production.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2042/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Charity organizations

Has the Commission any plans to introduce EU-wide legislation to curb the actions of bogus charity organizations?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1879/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 June 1997)

Subject: Development of the social dialogue

The Commission has issued a 'Communication concerning the Development of the Social Dialogue at Community Level' (COM(96) 0448 final).

In view of the major policy changes facing the European Union, the Commission considers that it is time to reflect on the whole framework of the social dialogue at Community level.

Since the Commission has a formal obligation under the Treaty (Article 118(b)) to develop the social dialogue between management and labour (the social partners) at European level and, under the Agreement attached to the Protocol on Social Policy in the Treaty on European Union (Agreement on Social Policy), has the task of promoting the consultation of the social partners at Community level and taking any relevant measures to facilitate the social dialogue, the aim of this Communication is to find ways to strengthen the social dialogue, to make it more adaptable and to associate the work of the social partners more closely in the development and implementation of EU policies, particularly employment and economic growth.

With regard to the dialogue under the Protocol on Social Policy, the six-week deadline set by the Commission for the social partners to reply to its questions is too short. Will the Commission extend the deadline to eight or ten weeks?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

The question of the deadline imposed upon the social partners in the context of the consultations organised in connection with the Agreement on Social Policy is addressed in the Commission's Communication on the development of the Community social dialogue ((COM(96) 448 final. )).

The Commission suggests keeping the general deadline of six weeks, but making provision for a flexible consultation deadline established on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the nature and complexity of the subject.

The point to bear in mind is that the purpose of consultation is to improve the process of decision-making at Community level. There are several factors which speak in favour of retaining the indicative deadline of six weeks. For one thing, it is necessary to avoid delaying the legislative process unduly. Secondly, consideration must be given to the wishes generally expressed by the social partners.

The experience of previous consultations is that the social partners have been able to comply with the six-week deadline. For these reasons, and taking account of the contributions presented by the social partners under the consultation process on the development of the social dialogue at Community level, the Commission intends to maintain the same approach.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/97 by Jean-Claude Martinez (NI) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Acquisition of French land by Belgian farmers

Belgian farmers who purchase land in France do not pay farmers' social security contributions nor tax of any kind.

As far as France is concerned, these Belgian farmers are considered to be based in Belgium and should therefore pay tax and other contributions in Belgium. Under Belgian rules, they come under French law since their land is in France. Given the unfair situation this is creating with regard to the payment of contributions and the resulting distortion of competition, what does the Commission intend to do to stop this injustice?

Another consequence of this situation is that Belgian farmers can offer French landowners very attractive buy-out terms in order to purchase land at very low prices, in the knowledge that they will also benefit from extremely favourable conditions of use.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The tax situation of Belgian farmers who farm land in France while keeping their tax domicile in Belgium is governed by the convention concluded between these two Member States on 10 March 1964, as amended by the codicil of 15 February 1971. Pursuant to Article 3 of the convention, income derived from real estate, including farms (irrespective of the method of farming), is taxable only in the Member State where the land is situated. Consequently, such Belgian farmers pay income tax in France, as non-residents, on the income they derive from the land which they farm in France. They are, of course, taxable on the rest of their income in their Member State of residence, i.e. Belgium. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that Belgian farmers who farm land in France do not benefit from special tax conditions under ordinary law.

The Commission will place itself, however, at the disposal of the Honourable Member in order to examine those special cases where he can supply further details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Line C for the Rome underground

I have already tabled two questions on this matter, in May 1996 (E-1508/96 ((OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 48. ))) and March 1997 (E-1271/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 98.))), highlighting Rome City Council's failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment, as required by European law, in connection with the construction of line C for the Rome underground.

In spite of the enormous technical difficulties standing in the way of completion of the work before the year 2000, Rome City Council has stated that it intends to go ahead with the project submitted, which forms part of the programme of works for the 2000 jubilee, towards which the European Investment Bank is to contribute LIT 1.4 billion.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. on 4 December 1996 it forwarded to the Mayor of Rome a letter or request regarding the above matter, and, if it did, whether it will publish the contents thereof?

2. it is true that PRAGMA srl, whose head office is located at Via Salaria 290 in Rome, was commissioned by Rome City Council (or by the Co.Tra.L. or some other agency) to conduct opinion polls and enquiries regarding underground line C?

3. given that work on the opinion polls started at the end of March 1997, it would agree that such enquiries are in breach of the spirit of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.)), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.)), which requires inter alia the authorities to ensure public involvement throughout the entire decision-making process?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

The letter sent to the Italian authorities is being examined as part of an enquiry which could result in proceedings being instituted against Italy for infringement of Article 169 of the EC Treaty. Its contents may not therefore be divulged.

The Honourable Member will in any event be informed of the contents of the reply from the Italian authorities once it reaches the Commission.

Regarding the question relating to Pragma srl, the Commission is not aware of the matters the Honourable Member refers to.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1369/97 by Abdelkader Mohamed Ali (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Abolition of export refunds in the sector of milk and milk products exported to Ceuta and Melilla

Regulation (EC) No 756/96 ((OJ L 103, 26.4.1996, p. 13. )) does not establish export refunds for products under CN code 406 destined for Ceuta and Melilla. In view of the isolated position of these territories, products sent there become more expensive and this problem becomes worse in the case of essential products. Other territories with similar characteristics have a special system for the supply of basic products.

The absence of refunds makes the products more expensive and hence has repercussions on the services sector. This is a particularly serious situation, in view of the fact that Melilla's GDP is among the lowest and its rate of unemployment among the highest in the European Union.

In view of this, will the Commission consider establishing export refunds for products under CN code 406 destined for Ceuta and Melilla?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1997)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer to Written Question E-2836/96 by Mr Viola and others ((OJ C 91, 20.3.1997. )), in which the Commission explained the constraints arising from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), indicated the means at its disposal for respecting its commitments under that Agreement and at the same time preserving to a maximum the Community's milk product exports, and specified the criteria used for differentiating refunds by destination and abolishing them for certain destinations.

Given the substantial reduction on refunds in cheeses that have been made since then any reintroduction of refunds for Ceuta and Melilla would have little impact on prices or the service sector.

In the light of the above, the Commission is not in a position to reintroduce refunds for products of CN code 0406 exported to Ceuta and Melilla.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1238/97 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Council (8 April 1997)

Subject: Racist attacks on Italians in Germany

It is horrifying to note that acts of violence, manifestly inspired by xenophobia, are once more being perpetrated against Italian nationals in Germany. Indeed, in the latest case, Antonio Melis, a 37-year-old Sardinian immigrant, was brutally murdered in Caputh, Brandenburg.

The judiciary and the local police are attempting to minimize the seriousness of the incidents by playing down or denying their racist character.

The renewed upsurge of this kind of crime is blatantly at odds with the unvarying declarations of principle and the related values of solidarity and tolerance, repeatedly invoked in specific Community programmes, from which the Union itself draws inspiration and by which the Member States have promised to abide without reservation.

Will the Council make immediate vigorous representations to the German Government in order to persuade it to safeguard the dignity and the right to life and work of Italian nationals in the Union who are seeking to translate much-vaunted European citizenship into a living reality?

Answer (14 July 1997)

1. The Council condemns all acts of violence of the kind mentioned in the written question. However, court action against the perpetrators of such acts is the responsibility of the Member States.

2. The Council recalls that all Member States are parties to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and that they guarantee respect for human rights on their territory.

3. In order to facilitate cooperation in combating racism and xenophobia, the Council adopted on 15 July 1996 a Joint Action on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia (OJ L 185, 24.7.1996, p. 5).

The Council particularly emphasizes in this Joint Action that the right to freedom of expression implies duties and responsibilities, including respect for the rights of others, as laid down in Article 19 of the United Nations International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Green Paper on a reduction in working hours

The Commissioner responsible for social affairs and employment, Mr Flynn, has submitted to the Council of EU Employment Ministers a Green Paper on consultation with a view to a reorganization of working patterns, which constitutes the Commission's response to some of the suggestions put forward by Parliament in the report by Mr Rocard on a reduction in, and a redistribution of, working hours.

Could the Commission specify what institutional procedure is to be applied to the Green Paper and indicate the timescale envisaged for translating the substance of the Green Paper into practical proposals?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission adopted its green paper, 'Partnership for a new organisation of work' ((COM(97) 128. )) on 16 April 1997. As indicated during the debate in the Parliament on 17 September 1996 on the report by Mr Rocard on working time, it was prepared as a response to the Parliament's initiative, though, as foreseen at that time, it sets the debate in the wider context.

The green paper is being given a wide circulation. It has been sent formally to the Parliament and other Community institutions and to organisations representing management and labour at European level. The main aim of the document is to stimulate a European debate on new forms of work organisation. The Commission looks forward, in particular, to the debate in the Parliament.

The green paper calls for comments by 30 November 1997. The Commission will decide what further action to take in the light of the comments received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/97 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Amending the EC Treaty at the IGC to enable a motion of censure to be tabled against individual Members of the Commission

Part A of the final report of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry on alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law in relation to BSE, which was adopted by the European Parliament, by a very large majority, on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 during its February part-session in Strasbourg, makes provision in the section entitled 'Recommendations' for the Commission to submit proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) for an amendment to the Treaty enabling a motion of censure to be tabled against individual Members of the Commission.

As part of the critical scrutiny of the Commission's implementation of the measures recommended by the European Parliament, I have the following questions for President Santer, President of the Commission:

Will the Commission follow the above recommendation made by the European Parliament?

If not, why not?

If so, what practical steps has the Commission taken so far to ensure that this recommendation is implemented?

What are the elements making up the Commission proposal?

In the Commission's view, what are the ten most important questions arising in connection with this matter?

In what way will the Commission work together with the European Parliament to implement this recommendation?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1997)

This question basically covers the same ground as the Honourable Member's written question No. 684/97 ((See page 25. )).

As regards the recommendation that it should be possible for motions of censure to be tabled against individual Members of the Commission, the Commission clearly set out its position in a communication on its composition, organization and operation adopted on 5 March 1997. A copy of this has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat-General.

The Commission would stress that it is and must remain collectively answerable to the European Parliament. Motions of censure against individual Commission Members should not be entertained, since they would undermine the Commission's status as a collegiate body.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: EC Energy Centre, Katowice

Can the Commission confirm that the EC Energy Centre in Katowice, Poland has secured further funding?

The project is well received by local government and industries in Katowice. The restructuring problems facing regions such as Katowice, make such European Union efforts essential and should be supported and secured.

Can the Commission supply details of the proposed funding in the forthcoming budget allocation?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Katowice centre created under the Thermie programme and later on (1996) supported under the Synergy programme is engaged in a transfer process to the State agency for restructuring of the hard coal industry. In the meantime, the Synergy contract which allowed the support to the centre to the end of 1996 has been extended to mid-1997 to ensure a smooth transfer.

Future cooperation activity is envisaged in the framework of the 1997 Synergy programme. The final decision, which is subject to the completion of the procedures foreseen by Regulation (EC) No 701/97 amending a programme to promote international cooperation in the energy sector - Synergy programme ((OJ L 104, 22.4.1997. )), is to be expected in the second half of 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Office for harmonization in the Internal Market

1. How many people, at what grade, are employed in the OHIM Alicante Office?

2. Who is the director of the office?

3. What is the purpose of the office, and to which directorate or Commissioner does it report in the Commission?

4. Are annual reports on the work of the office sent to the European Parliament, and to national parliaments?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

1. On 25 April 1997, the Office for harmonization in the internal market (trade marks and designs) employed a total staff of 192 (including temporary agents). 67 are A grades, 45 are B grades, 77 are C grades, and 3 are D grades.

2. The president of the Office is Mr Jean-Claude Combaldieu, a former president of the French patent office (INPI). Mr Combaldieu was appointed as the first president of the Office following a decision of the Council in 1994.

3. The Office was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark ((OJ L 11, 14.1.1994. )). It is charged with the handling of applications for the registration of Community trade marks and any subsequent acts with regard to the maintenance or cancellation of registered Community trade marks.

The office is an independant Community agency. It is run by a board consisting of a representative of each Member State, and a representative of the Commission. The Commission representative is a deputy director general of DG XV (internal market and financial services).

4. Pursuant to Article 137 of Regulation No 40/94, accounts of the Office's total revenue and expenditure for the precending financial year are sent to the Parliament, the Court of auditors and the Commission each year, not later than 31 March. According to the same provision, these accounts are also transmitted to the budget committee of the Office, which is composed of representatives of the Member States and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Utilization of international fisheries agreements

What percentages of the quotas laid down in international fisheries agreements are actually caught by the Community fleet?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1997)

The fisheries agreements concluded on the basis of reciprocity give the Community fishing opportunities in the northern Atlantic (i.e. the exclusive economic zones of the Faroes, Iceland and Norway) and in the Baltic. These fishing opportunities are normally fully taken up by Community fishing vessels.

The annual catch tonnage (250 000 tonnes) permitted under the agreement with Argentina to vessels operating within joint enterprises and joint ventures has so far been fully utilized.

In the case of the agreements with Morocco and 14 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP States), there are no fixed catch quotas; fishing opportunities are expressed in gross registered tonnage (GRT) for trawlers and in numbers of vessels in the tuna fisheries. The catch tonnages, which depend on the extent to which these possibilities are taken up, are declared by Community shipowners directly to the authorities of the third countries, in accordance with the agreements. In the case of the tuna agreements, the Commission has figures for the tonnages caught each year by the Community fleet and would be able to send them to the Honourable Member. For the agreements concerned mainly with trawling, Member States have begun to send the Commission, under the 'control' regulation, overall data which require detailed examination.