ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2389/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Newspaper distribution

Has the Commission taken into account the findings of the 1993 Monopolies and Mergers Commission enquiry into newspaper distribution?

Does it intend to take any action regarding its findings in the light of existing legislation within other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

The report published by the Monopolies and mergers commission in December 1993 concerned newspaper distribution in the United Kingdom. Allegations of anti-competitive behaviour in individual Member States which do not affect trade between Member States fall to be examined by national competition authorities and not by the Commission. At the time, there was no indication that trade between Member States was affected as a result of the policy or practices of newspaper distribution in the United Kingdom.

Thus, the Monopolies and mergers commission's report resulted in the introduction of remedies designed to meet the competition problems which had been identified in the United Kingdom. Since then the Office of fair trading has been monitoring the changes which have taken place in the distribution of publications in general.

Given the absence of an effect on trade between Member States of the policies and practices of newspaper distribution in individual Member States, the Commission does not have the intention to investigate further. However, should new information come to light the Commission would, as always, review this position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Situation of children

The Treaty on European Union (TEU) contains no provisions on the protection of Europe's 120 million children, a growing number of whom are at risk of social exclusion.

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce programmes or adjust existing programmes with a view to ensuring acceptable living conditions for children, independently of the employment situation of their parents?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

The communication from the Commission on family policies ((COM(89) 363 final. )) had proposed regular concertation at Community level which should cover the impact of other Community policies on the family, notably on child protection and take account of activities within the Council of Europe and other international organizations more particularly concerning the International Convention on the rights of the child.

Under budget line B3-4100 (family policy), the Commission finances the European observatory on national family policies. This observatory's annual reports contain chapters on families under stress, which includes child abuse (mostly taking place within the family) and violence in the family. These reports are disseminated to key persons in the political and social fields in all Member States.

Furthermore, a number of projects have been cofinanced under the same budget line, including research on the situation of children in Europe, and the support of non governmental organizations active in this field.

Under budget line B3-4103 (poverty and social exclusion), the Commission has supported a number of model actions and projects aimed to help children affected by social exclusion.

However, it is the Member State authorities which are mainly responsible both for combating social exclusion, and for promoting family policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Human rights in the United States

In an answer to a question I put to the Commission earlier in the year (No. E-0681/96 ((OJ C 185, 25.6.1996, p. 79. )), Mr Marin stated that 'cooperation agreements must explicitly invoke a basis in respect for human rights and... penal law, particularly the procedural aspects, has an obvious bearing on these fundamental issues'.

In view of the fact that the International Commission of Jurists has found the exercise of the death penalty in the United States to be 'arbitrary and racially discriminatory' will the Commission raise the issue of this serious breach of human rights during future trade negotiations, or are such interventions considered appropriate only for poorer third countries?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

The Commission agrees that the death penalty is a serious matter, and that the guarantees laid down in the International pact of civil and political rights and other international instruments have to be respected.

It does not however consider the matter requires to be raised with the United States, where justice is guaranteed in particular by the right of defence and the existence of appeal procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Preliminary draft budget 1997

While welcoming the Commission's decision to institute a new budget line A-3014, 'Our Europe', to help launch the 'Our Europe' Association, can the Commission justify its willingness to help the association in its early stages, and say whether this aid is part of a co-financing arrangement or represents the association's only source of income?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1996)

The working objectives pursued by 'Our Europe' are directly related to the process in which the Community is engaged. The Commission felt that support for an initiative of this type would help to advance thinking about European integration. Assistance will take the form of co-financing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2300/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Disabled people's rights to participate in mainstream programmes

To what extent are disabled people's rights to participate in mainstream programmes being addressed in LEONARDO, SOCRATES, PHARE, TACIS and other relevant Community programmes?

What steps is the Commission taking to improve this in future calls for funding applications?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (18 October 1996)

All Community programmes in the field of education and training comprise measures designed to ensure the participation of disabled persons.

The programme Youth for Europe aims to encourage the participation of disadvantaged young people, including young people who are physically or mentally disabled. One third of the programme's annual budget is earmarked for projects involving disadvantaged young people.

In accordance with the decision adopting it, the Socrates programme caters to the needs of the disabled through a series of positive measures, notably by giving priority to projects promoting the education of young disabled people.

The decision setting up the Leonardo programme also stipulates that one of the programme's objectives is to promote equal access for the disabled to initial and continuing training. Hence the disabled are one of the programme's target groups and are given priority attention. In 1995 17 projects were adopted that are specifically devoted to the disabled.

The Phare and Tacis programmes have launched specific actions in favour of the disabled in the form of measures in the context of the sub-programmes Democracy and LIEN. These initiatives mainly fund projects set up by non-governmental organisations which are designed to contribute to the non-discrimination and social integration of the disabled.

Finally, in the framework of its new strategy for equal opportunities for the disabled, the Commission generally plans to focus more closely on the rights and needs of the disabled in the different Community policies. A series of initiatives has been adopted to this end.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Community rules for the protection of territorial waters

Having regard to the Royal Decree of the kingdom of Belgium of 21 June 1994 establishing fishing licences and containing temporary measures to implement the Community rules for the conservation and management of fishery stocks (Article 19);

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 ((OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1. )) of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, and with particular reference to Article 6(2) and Annex I thereof;

Whereas by letter of 18 January 1995 the European Commission expressed the opinion that the special fishery rights of subjects of other Member States within Belgian coastal waters are determined by the direct applicability of the provisions of Article 6(2) in connection with Annex 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992;

Whereas by letter of 24 March 1995 the European Commission invited Belgium to take appropriated measures to repeal Article 19(3) of the Royal Decree of 21 June 1994 within a period of one month;

Having regard to the Royal Decree of 4 May 1995 amending Royal Decree of 21 June 1994 establishing fishing licences and containing temporary measures to implement the Community rules for the conservation and management of fishery stocks which repeals Article 19(3) of the Royal Decree of 21 June 1994;

What action does the Commission intend taking to guarantee compliance with the abovementioned Regulation, given that fishery vessels of other Member states are still fishing in Belgian coastal waters and hence there are evident shortcomings in compliance with the Regulation?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) n° 3760/92, vessels from other Member States are authorized to conduct fishing activities within the coastal waters of Belgium.

Competence to inspect these vessels lies exclusively with the national control authorities which have to ensure that all vessels fishing in national waters comply with the relevant conservation and management measures.

The national control activities of all Member States including Belgium are monitored by the Commission through inspection mission by its fisheries inspection service. An assessment of the effectiveness and the range of resources deployed for control tasks is made each year for each Member State. In relation to 1994, the Commission found no evidence that non-Belgian vessels were not being inspected nor any indication that this category of vessels did not comply with the relevant rules ((Monitoring the Common Fisheries Policy COM(96) 100 final. )). If information is provided which suggests that inspection and monitoring is less than adequate, the Commission will investigate the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/96 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Cross-border transfers

Until 1995 postal transfers from an account in France to one in Austria were free of charge.

However, since 24 January 1996, when France joined EUROGIRO, a 1% charge has been levied with a minimum fee of FF 50.

For countries not belonging to EUROGIRO the charge is only FF 20.

Is it usual for charges to be higher within the European Union?

Is the Commission aware that practices of this kind damage the Union's image in the eyes of public opinion?

Can the Commission offer any explanation for this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1996)

The Commission has enquired into the situation outlined by the Honourable Member. Following contacts with EuroGiro, it would appear that postal transfers from an account in France to an account in Austria have never been free of charge. Until the end of 1995, a fee of 20 FF was applied to all paper-based payment transactions, and also to transactions executed through the new EuroGiro network during its experimental phase. At the end of 1995, paper-based transactions were replaced, for all giro-payments to EuroGiro countries, by innovative EuroGiro transactions which offer enhanced quality of service, in particular faster execution. The fee for EuroGiro transfers is 0,1% of the transferred amount, with a minimum of 50 FF. Paper-based transactions continue to be sent to some French speaking African countries and countries (excluding the vast majority of Member States) which are not yet connected to the new EuroGiro payment facilities. For these transactions the fee remains at 20 FF.

The Commission concludes that this situation reflects normal business decisions, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition. It does not consider therefore, that these decisions, taken by a group of postal banks, damage the Community's image in the eyes of the public.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Rights in the Belgian merchant navy

The Antwerp merchant navy 'pool' made up of trade unions, shipowners and the Belgian Government is apparently negotiating an agreement with the following objectives:

- abolition of the pool of seamen,

- changes to the labour relations and social rights in force under the current agreement governing the pool.

If this pool of seamen were indeed to be abolished, it would affect the social rights acquired by Community workers (1200 Belgian workers, 280 Spanish workers, etc.).

Does the Commission have any information on the subject? Has the Commission taken or will it take any steps to prevent the loss of rights acquired by this group of workers?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1996)

The Commission does not have any information concerning the possible abolition of the pool of seamen in Antwerp.

The organisation of this pool and the relations between the trade unions, employers and the authorities in the Member States are the responsibility of the Member States, and the Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter, except in the event of an infringement of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/96 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: Hunting permits for non-residents

Further to written questions 1754/82 ((OJ C 129, 16.5.1983, p. 5. )), 244/86 ((OJ C 290, 17.11.1986, p. 35. )) and 2171/88 ((OJ C 227, 4.9.1989, p. 20. )),

is the Commission aware that any hunter wishing to hunt in a Member State other than his Member State of origin can do so using a visitor's permit without ever having taken a test which residents are required to take? In the Netherlands, for example, any non-resident may apply to the Special Laws Office of The Hague Municipal Police for a visitor's permit valid for six days.

Does this not constitute discrimination against residents, who are required to take a test, and does it not provide a means of frustrating the Commission's efforts to ensure that hunters take proficiency tests?

Is the Commission aware, furthermore, that the Netherlands issues permits to those who have taken the hunting test in Germany, Luxembourg or Austria, but not to French hunters who have done the same in the departments of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin, despite the fact that the test to be taken there is the same as that in Germany?

Does the Commission still intend to submit a proposal concerning a European proficiency test, partly in implementation of the European directive on the conservation of wild birds, as indicated in its reply to my question 244/86?

If so, in what form? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1996)

In its answers to Written questions No 1754/82 and No 244/86, the Commission has already pointed out that there are wide variations between the Member States concerning the authorities responsible for issuing hunting licences as well as the actual nature of the licences.

Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )) is silent on the issue of proficiency tests for hunters. It only states in Article 7, ¶ 4, that Member States shall ensure that the practice of hunting complies with the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of birds concerned. Therefore the matter of proficiency tests lies within the competence of the Member States and lies outside the scope of the Commission's powers to address under existing legislation.

Furthermore, as indicated in its answer to written question 244/86, the Commission is of the opinion that hunting licences do not justify priority treatment at Community level. There are currently no proposals for measures on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: The 'democratic deficit' in relation to BSE

The 'mad cow' crisis has provided an alarming illustration of the distance between government and citizen; in particular, the Commission has done nothing to restore consumer confidence in relation to the potential threat represented by bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Would the Commission attempt to remedy this democratic deficit by taking emergency measures and introducing as soon as possible a new food policy based on respect for consumers' expectations and preferences with regard to production methods, labelling and monitoring?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

Since the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom in 1986, numerous measures of various kinds have been taken at Community level by, or on a proposal from, the Commission for the purpose of safeguarding human health, eradicating BSE in the United Kingdom and preventing it from spreading to other countries.

Following the announcement by the United Kingdom authorities on 20 March 1996 that a link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease could not be ruled out, even more stringent measures were taken, such as the export ban on British beef products, increases in research grants, the setting-up of a multidisciplinary scientific committee to advise the Commission and coordinate the Commission's scientific committees already involved in consumer protection and the fight against BSE, consultation with consumers' organisations * particularly the Consumers' Committee * and the creation of an interdepartmental group within the Commission to provide better consumer information and restore consumer confidence. These measures will evolve in order to gradually restore confidence in the coming months. A return of consumer confidence is already becoming apparent in the pick-up in beef consumption in the Member States.

The Commission is currently drawing up a Green Paper on Community foodstuffs legislation. This will look at production methods, labelling and monitoring, and the Commission will encourage comments and proposals from consumers' organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: Quality control with regard to the processing of citrus fruit in Italy

In its annual report for 1994 the Court of Auditors draws attention to a large number of irregularities concerning monitoring arrangements for the admission and processing of citrus fruits in Italy, in particular the absence of quality control documentation. The Commission acknowledged that it was aware that the arrangements were being improperly implemented during the 1993-1994 season and that there were problems relating to the quality of products entering this country.

What financial adjustments have been made by the Commission in response to this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1996)

In its response to the Court of Auditors' annual report, the Commission did indeed state that adjustments would be proposed for financial year 1994.

The Commission has not yet fixed the quantities of the financial adjustments, as procedures are still in hand for the 1994 clearance of accounts. The Commission will take account of the Court's remarks in working out the appropriate financial corrections when drawing up the clearance dossier.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Anti-dumping procedure in respect of raw cotton fabrics

1. Can the Commission say whether it has initiated an anti-dumping procedure in respect of raw cotton fabrics produced in non-Community countries?

2. If so:

(a) would it not be more appropriate for the procedure to cover the finished fabric and not a product that is the basic material for most European producers of printed and finished fabrics?

(b) is not the procedure out of step with an international economic climate in which markets are becoming more globalized and protectionist manoeuvres are being abandoned?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)

An anti-dumping proceeding was initiated by the Commission on 21 February 1996, following the lodging of a complaint by the Community industry, concerning imports of flat unbleached cotton fabrics containing at least 85% in weight of cotton, originating in Egypt, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.

The basic anti-dumping Regulation ((Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995. OJ L 56, 6.3.1996. )) only allows the Commission to initiate an investigation - and consequently to propose the imposition of measures - upon presentation of a properly documented complaint by the Community industry. In the absence of a complaint against finished fabrics, there is no legal ground for initiating an anti-dumping proceeding on that product. The only proceeding currently initiated concerning finished cotton fabrics is bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan. This proceeding was initiated on 13 September 1996.

Finally, the Commission would stress that dumping is an unfair trade practice which is actionable under the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement. The anti-dumping legislation of the Community, which is fully in line with the WTO agreement, is only intended to protect against unfair trade practices and not to disrupt trade relations between the third countries concerned and the Community.