ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B3-306 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 5 May 1997 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 28. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2727/97 by Luigi Caligaris (ELDR) to the Commission (30 July 1997)

Subject: MEDA funding for interregional cooperation with Mediterranean third countries (MTCs) under the 1997/99 ECOS-OUVERTURE programme

Following a report by the Court of Auditors highlighting serious irregularities in the implementation of the MED programmes on multilateral and interregional cooperation, the Commission has decided to suspend the allocation of funds from the MEDA budget (around ECU 350 m) earmarked for interregional cooperation with Mediterranean third countries (MTCs).

While most of these funds are intended for the financing of measures scheduled under the MED programmes, a small proportion of the funding is aimed at financing 'external interregional cooperation' projects under the ECOS-OUVERTURE programme in which MTCs have been allowed to participate since 1996.

1. Can the Commission explain why all these funds are still being blocked?

2. Does the Commission not believe that, if this situation persists, it may discourage the partnership initiatives that are on the point of being implemented between the regional and local authorities of the Union and those of the MTCs, thereby hampering the Euro-Mediterranean policy launched at the Barcelona Conference?

3. Does the Commission intend to take the necessary steps in the near future to release the MEDA funding for multilateral and decentralized cooperation?

4. In view of the specific characteristics of the 1997/99 ECOS-OUVERTURE programme, which is the only programme with a broad partnership scheme open to the local authorities of the Member States, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Mediterranean third countries with the aim of strengthening economic and social cohesion, can the Commission give precise details of the proportion of MEDA funding which it intends to earmark for that programme and the time needed to allocate such funding?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

1. and 3. The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there has been no decision to block funding of multilateral cooperation under MEDA. The decentralised cooperation programmes were blocked pending the outcome of the Parliament's discussion of the Court of auditors report, but all other multilateral activities are proceeding. Now that the Parliament has voted its resolution on the programmes it will be possible to proceed to relaunch them on the terms agreed by the Parliament.

2. The relaunching of the programmes, in particular Med Urbs, will encourage the active participation of local authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

4. It is not at present envisaged to provide financing from Meda for local authorities to participate in ECOS-Ouverture. This question will be examined in the light of progress made on relaunching the decentralised cooperation programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 June 1997)

Subject: List of SMEs which have taken part in EU research programmes

The Commission and the Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee (IRDAC/CORSI) have referred several times to a list of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which have taken part in the European Union's research programmes.

Has this list already been published?

Could the Commission inform me of the SMEs in the north-west area of Italy which have participated in EU research programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-2634/96 by Mr Friedrich ((OJ C 83, 14.3.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/97 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL), María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 July 1997)

Subject: Establishment of a directive on equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians in the EC

In 1994, Parliament adopted a report by the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs on equal rights for homosexuals and lesbians in the EC (A3-0028/94), the rapporteur for which was Claudia Roth.

The report proposed that a directive should be drawn up to deal with this issue, which has major implications for society as a whole.

Can the Commission say what stage the draft directive has reached?

Does the Commission not consider that, after four years, there should already be a directive which, given the length of time allowed for the transposition of directives, would already be part of the national laws of most of the Member States?

What reasons can the Commission put forward to account for the fact that no such directive yet exists?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2307/97, E-2407/97 and E-2435/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1997)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Members that, at the time when the Roth report was adopted (February 1994), the Community Treaties did not bestow on the institutions any specific powers for tackling discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The draft Treaty of Amsterdam introduced a new legal basis (new Article 6a in the EC Treaty) for the adoption of Community measures needed to combat, among other things, discrimination based on sexual orientation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/97 by José Happart (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Flax production in the United Kingdom

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 ((OJ L 146, 4.7.1970, p. 1. )) concerns the common organization of the market in flax. A promotional programme defines the strategy of granting aid per hectare to the Member States of the European Union.

With regard to the United Kingdom, how many hectares under flax have received the European Union premium as regards:

- the textiles sector

- the oils sector?

How many hectares are actually harvested?

Which industries process the product?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1997)

The areas planted to flax (fibre and oilseed) in the United Kingdom which received Community aid in the last five years are as follows:

>TABLE>

It should be noted that only fibre flax (i.e. flax intended principally for the production of fibres) is covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70. From 1993 oilseed flax has received compensatory aid for arable crops.

As to the number of hectares actually harvested, it should be noted that the rules on fibre flax include an obligation to harvest but those on compensatory aid for arable crops (including oilseed flax) do not. The Commission therefore has no statistics on the number of hectares of oilseed flax harvested in the United Kingdom.

The Commission carried out on-the-spot checks on aid to fibre flax in the United Kingdom in September 1995 and January 1996. On one of the three holdings visited, it was found that the harvest had not yet taken place at the end of September. The findings of these checks will be considered in the context of the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Guarantee Section.

These checks also found that flax straw is not usually processed into fibre. As a result the Commission proposed to the Council the introduction of a system of compulsory contracts between growers and approved processors which would include an undertaking to process. The Council adopted this proposal (Regulation (EC) No 154/97 laying down general rules for granting aid for flax and hemp ((OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. ))). This means that from this year the actual processing of straw into fibre is a condition for the granting of aid.

In the United Kingdom there are two factories which process flax straw into short fibres. These are used mainly to produce paper, geotextiles and some items used in motor vehicle manufacture.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1532/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Information on EC assistance granted to the Rhineland-Palatinate from January to December 1996

In what amounts and for what measures did the Rhineland-Palatinate receive Community resources in 1996 from:

1. the European Social Fund,

2. the Fourth Framework Research Programme,

3. the European Regional Development Fund,

4. the Community environment and energy programmes,

5. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance and Guarantee Sections,

6. other Community programmes?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/97, E-1531/97 and E-1532/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-1528/97 ((OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 24. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1813/97 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Council (29 May 1997)

Subject: Ombudsman

The Guardian of 24 March 1997 reported that the Council of Ministers had decided that the European Ombudsman should not deal with matters coming under the third pillar.

Is it true that the Ombudsman's remit has been restricted in this way and, if so, what was the legal basis for the Council's decision?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1722/97 and E-1813/97 (28 October 1997)

The sphere of competence of the European Ombudsman is laid down in Article 138e of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). That Treaty is applicable to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) insofar as Article K.8 of the TEU so provides. However, Article 138e is not cited in the list of TEC provisions made applicable to Title VI of the TEU.

The new Amsterdam Treaty lays down that the provisions referred to in Article 138e of the TEC are to apply to provisions relating to the fields referred to in Title VI of the TEU.

By letters dated 26 March and 20 June 1997 the Council sent a detailed reply to the Ombudsman concerning Mr Bunyan's complaints. The Honourable Members will receive directly a copy of the two letters sent by the Council to the Ombudsman ((The explanations of vote given by members of the Council on the matter have been released to the public. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: EU Milk Availability Scheme

Since the withdrawal of the UK from the EU's Milk Availability Scheme, the cost of milk in British schools has increased in some instances by over 100%.

Does the Commission recognize the importance of milk in a child's diet? Would the Commission agree that those affected most by the withdrawal of 'discretionary elements' are children from deprived backgrounds, who are no longer able to benefit from subsidized milk? Does the Commission believe it desirable to see the scheme reintroduced throughout all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

The United Kingdom has continued to apply the Community school milk scheme but decided in 1995 to limit the application of the scheme to its compulsory elements. To the extent that these changes have affected the selling price of milk and milk products for certain schoolchildren, the impact of these measures may have been different according to the background of the children concerned.

In view of the importance of milk in a child's diet and of the positive role of the Community school milkscheme in this respect, the Commission is in favour of applying the scheme throughout the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2360/97 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Discrimination against women employees

According to reports in the Greek press, companies in Greece, particularly multinationals, have recently been requiring women employees to enter into secret contracts or oral agreements to the effect that they will not become pregnant during the course of their contract, on pain of instant dismissal or payment of a sum equal to the cost of the allowances to which they are entitled.

Apart from the legal protection provided to female employees under national legislation and international agreements, will the Commission say what measures, if any, can be taken against companies which pursue such policies and, more generally, whether it intends to investigate this whole question and take appropriate action?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member, and notes that her question is based on articles read in the Greek press. Having said that, the Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concern. She notes that, in accordance with the consistent case law of the Court of Justice, making a woman redundant solely on the grounds of pregnancy constitutes discrimination directly based on gender (see, for example, the judgment of 14 July 1994 in Case C-32/93 Webb v EMO, ECR I-3567).

Article 11 of Directive 92/85/EEC concerning pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding ((OJ L 348, 28.11.1992. )) makes provision for payment of an appropriate allowance subject to certain conditions (for example, a period of employment prior to maternity leave). The effect of this Directive would be prejudiced if national legislation allowed employers to insert a clause providing for reimbursement of the benefit in question. Such a situation would constitute an infringement of Community law. However, the Commission has no reason to suppose that this is the case with Greek legislation.

Under the terms of Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission may only bring before the Court of Justice matters relating to the failure of Member States to fulfil their obligations. It does not have the legal means to enable it to take measures to end practices contrary to Community law where these are carried out by private operators.

However, those concerned may bring the matter before the national courts, which have the task of ensuring compliance with national law. In the event of doubts over the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Community law, the national courts may or must, as appropriate, refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 177 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/97 by Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) to the Commission (17 July 1997)

Subject: Rights of the Tupinikim and the Guaranis to their land (Brazil)

Aracruz Celulosa, a multinational company, produces and commercializes cellulose in Espirito Santo (Brazil) in an area to which the Tupinikim indians lay claim. Under the Brazilian constitution, indians have an historic right to the land which they have owned and occupied from time immemorial.

The Tupinikim, who were joined some years ago by a group of Guaranis, have asked the Funai (the competent organ of the Brazilian Government) to return the land that was taken away from them. They have reafforestation plans and want to reintegrate the members of their tribe - who are for the most part destitute and scattered - back into society and so make it possible for them to survive as an independent ethnic group.

Is the Commission aware of the situation described above? What steps will it take to prevent imports of cellulose made by Aracruz Celulosa, which has highly dubious production methods, from reaching Europe?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

The three reserves located on land owned by Aracruz Celulosa (most of the capital of which is Community held) have gone through all the stages of the territorial demarcation process (boundary marking) provided for by Brazilian law and are already officially recognised. This demarcation process is being carried out in partnership with the Indians.

Aracruz Celulosa has always conducted its activities within the confines of its property and respected all the rights and lands of the Indians. In recent years the company has carried out health and education measures for the Indians living on its property. In its sector of activity the company is seen as one of those most committed to protection of the environment. In the last few years it has carried out a rapid reforestation programme on the whole of its property.

A ban on imports of cellulose to Europe on the grounds of a company's production methods would not comply with current WTO rules.

However, the WTO trade and environment committee is continuing its work to decide whether amendments to multilateral trade rules are needed to ensure their compatibility with multilateral agreements on the environment. In this connection, an ever growing number of NGO and representatives of civil society are calling for a convention on the protection of forests. The Commission is following these developments closely and remains sensitive to the links between trade and the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2549/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: The forthcoming extraordinary European Council on Employment

It appears from statements by certain Council officials that the extraordinary European Council on employment will be devoted mainly to analysing successful national job-creation practices.

Is any funding expected to be made available to support active employment measures?

Is it likely that decisions will be taken which contribute EU 'value added' to national employment policies?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2547/97, E-2548/97 and E-2549/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

The inclusion of an employment title in the Treaty of Amsterdam places employment as a priority issue for the Union on an equal footing with monetary and fiscal objectives. While primary responsibility for employment policy remains with each Member State, employment is now considered as an issue of common concern, which requires a coordination of policies at European level.

The new Treaty also requires that employment be taken into account in all Community policies. This means that there will be an explicit assessment of the employment impact in the design and implementation of all policy actions.

The convening of an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in November 1997 indicates the degree of commitment of the Member States to immediate implementation of the provisions of the new Treaty. The meeting is expected to focus on three issues: first an assessment of the employment situation and progress made in the implementation of the European employment strategy, second, an examination of the manner in which each Member State intends to implement the provisions of the Treaty, and identification of national best practice in combatting unemployment and marginalization, and third, the definition of operational targets for national employment policies of the initial guidelines on employment which the Commission will propose to Member States.

Once ratified by all the Member States article 5 of the employment title will allow the Council to adopt incentive measures to encourage cooperation between Member States, and support their action through initiatives aimed at developing exchanges of experience and best practice.

The conclusions of the Presidency as well as the resolution on growth and employment adopted at Amsterdam contain a political commitment for an early implementation of these provisions. The Commission will do everything that is necessary to make this possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Organic food

Following representations from a business in my constituency, is the Commission aware that 60 per cent of organic food sales in Britain are met by imports because no local supply is available?

Does the Commission have similar figures for other EU countries?

What assistance is provided through the common agricultural policy to stimulate the production of organic foods in Member States?

Could the Commission provide information of schemes within individual states which also stimulate organic food production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The Commission has no detailed data on the quantities of organic products imported from third countries into the Community. In the framework of Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991. )), only qualitative information relating in particular to the nature of the imported products and the inspection arrangements in the third countries, are exchanged between the Member States and the Commission.

The common agricultural policy (CAP) support mechanisms do not differentiate in principle between agricultural products from conventional production and those from organic production, and in fact they support both methods of production. However, since it is a method which is favourable for the environment, the organic production method is well placed to benefit from the financial support mechanisms in Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )).

Moreover, organic production is supported by the regime of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, which creates a framework of fair competition to the benefit of the organic producers, and a credibility for the organic products among consumers.

Beyond the measures accepted by the Commission in the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, the Commission has no detailed and systematic information on further support mechanisms in the individual Member States.