ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Disposal of used catalytic converters

Since 1995 67 000 catalytic converters for motor vehicles should have been replaced in Greece, but only 10 000 have actually been replaced. Of this number, 1500 have been sent for recycling abroad via official dealers and the rest are either being kept in the garages which replaced them or being sold, according the newspaper 'To Vima', as scrap metal.

Given that:

a) Catalytic convertors contain substances which pose a public health hazard;

b) There is no institutional or legislative framework in Greece governing the monitoring, the replacement or the disposal of convertors; and

c) The disposal of these convertors in Greece may be described as dangerous;

Will the Commission say:

1. What measures have been taken at European level to deal with the problem of used convertors?

2. How does it intend to address this problem as part of its policy for the protection of the environment, consumers and public health?

Answer given Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

In line with the Commission's work programme for 1996 ((COM(95) 512 final. )) a proposal is being prepared on end of life vehicles which aims to ensure that the management of end of life vehicles, including their components (therefore also catalysts removed from end of life vehicles) does not represent a hazard for the environment and human health. Since the preparatory work in relation to this proposal has not been completed, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Honourable Member with more information on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Delays in payment of export refunds

Under current Community legislation, there is no stipulated period within which payment of export refunds must be made. The period therefore varies from country to country, ranging from less than one month in the Netherlands or France, to 4 months in Spain or Italy.

This state of affairs clearly demonstrates the absurdity (which, furthermore, has been acknowledged by the EAGGF) of establishing a right for operators and at the same time reducing its effectiveness in practice. What is more, it is leading to distortions of competition.

Given the above, would the Commission agree that provisions establishing a maximum payment period should be incorporated into the relevant Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission confirms the Honourable Member's assertion that, under current Community legislation, there is no stipulated period within which payment of refunds to operators must be made by paying agencies in the Member States: paying agencies must often await proof of arrival at destination in the third country of goods for which a refund has been applied before proceeding to settle payment. However, the Commission, in its relations with the Member States, monitors closely the processing and settlement of refund payments. It informs the paying agencies and, where applicable, the national authorities, without fail if the payment periods are subject to undue or improper delay. The Commission considers that payments should be made within a reasonable period so as not to prejudice the economic objective of the measure.

The Commission would also point out that, in order to mitigate the adverse consequences of prolonged refund payment periods, provision is made, in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, ((OJ L 351, 14.12.1987. )) for an exporter to obtain all or part of an advance on the refund following the lodging of a security.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: 1997 budget - category 2 payments

Is the Commission prepared to submit a supplementary budget in 1997 if the payment appropriations in category 2 prove insufficient?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

If payment provisions in the 1997 budget as a result of the cuts operated in the draft budget prove insufficient to ensure that the commitments are covered by payments in the areas of objectives 2, 3, 4, 5, the Commission will introduce a supplementary budget at the beginning of October 1997.

The Commission made a declaration along these lines on the occasion of the budget Council on 25 July 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/96 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: The problem of illegal immigrants

Over the last five months the number of illegal immigrants coming from Asian countries via Turkey who have been arrested on their arrival in Greece or afterwards, has been five times higher than during the corresponding period in 1995. Although this is a serious problem which is a matter of concern in all European countries, Turkey has rejected the repeated requests by the Greek authorities for cooperation in oppressing it.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to provide Greece with financial assistance so that controls can be stepped up on its eastern borders which, being maritime borders, are difficult to control?

2. Given that the majority of illegal immigrants enter Greece from Turkey and are smuggled in by Turks under inhuman conditions, does it intend to exert pressure on the Turkish authorities to clamp down on illegal immigration and the trade in human beings in cooperation with the relevant Greek authorities?

Answer given by Ms Gradin on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

1. The rules governing the crossing of external frontiers by persons who are not citizens of the Union or members of their families, the implementation of border controls and the fight against illegal immigration are all questions which the Member States consider to be of common interest, and are the subject of cooperation within the framework of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission, which is fully associated with the work in these areas, shares the Honourable Member's concerns on the risks resulting from the flow of illegal immigrants from non-member countries and on the need to combat the trade in human beings.

In 1993, the Commission presented a proposal for a convention ((OJ C 11, 15.1.1994. )) which laid down common rules for the implementation of border controls. In its recitals, the draft proposal stipulates that 'the introduction of a system of controls at external frontiers requires that particular attention be paid to the questions of infrastructure and frontier surveillance on the part of countries which, because of their geographical position and configuration, are exposed to increased migratory pressure'. The Commission regrets that, despite the position taken by the European Council on several occasions (most recently at Florence in June 1996), the Council has been unable to reach a consensus on the matter. Consequently, controls in relation to persons who do not enjoy the right of free movement in the Community are exercised in accordance with national laws or international agreements between two or more Member States.

2. Within the framework of the Interreg Community initiative, Greece has received Community funds to be used for transfrontier cooperation aimed at strengthening its external borders. Such arrangements are currently in place with Albania and Bulgaria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1890/96 by Christian Rovsing (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Long-distance coach tours

Does the Commission think it is in keeping with the EU's rules of competiion for Danish coach regulations to enable public monopoly companies such as DSB (Danish state railways) to prevent the passenger traffic council from allowing private bus companies to operate long distance in Denmark as has just happened when the passenger traffic council rejected an application from a number of express coach companies to provide a long-distance service in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The Commission considers, as a matter of principle, that Community competition rules should be respected by all transport modes including public undertakings. However, certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest may be granted special or exclusive rights under certain conditions established in Article 90 EC Treaty. Such restrictions on access to the market might be justified especially when authorities impose on these undertakings public service obligations which are compensated through public funding.

Whether the Danish regulations and current practices concerning national regular bus services and railway systems are compatible with Community competition rules would have to be determined on a case by case basis. The Commission has so far not received information indicating a violation of these rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/96 by Stelios Argyros (PPE) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 89/48/EEC on the recognition of higher education diplomas

Mrs I. Bye-Diplaris, a British national permanently resident in Greece holding a postgraduate degree in pedagogics from the University of East London, has submitted an application and supporting documentation to the Inter-University Centre for the Recognition of Degrees acquired Abroad (DIKATSA), seeking recognition of her qualifications. Although her degree fulfils the requirements of Directive 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. )), the DIKATSA has refused to recognize it.

Does the Commission not agree that refusal to recognize her diploma is contrary to the principle of freedom of movement of workers within the European Union (Article 48 of the Treaty)?

What steps will the Commission take to ensure the proper implementation of this directive and compliance by the Greek national authorities with their obligations arising from Community provisions relating to freedom of movement and, in particular, the mutual recognition of diplomas?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 established a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration. It was to be transposed in each Member State by 4 January 1991. The Commission, which has received several complaints in this connection, learned that transposal had not been carried out in Greece. It therefore referred the matter to the Court of Justice, which, in its judgment of 23 March 1995, considered that Greece, by not transposing the Directive within the time-limit set, had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

In the ensuing weeks the Commission requested Greece to comply with the Court's judgment. Since no satisfactory response was received, it instituted proceedings under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

It should also be pointed out that, under Community law, failure to transpose a directive into national law could not serve to justify failure on the part of national authorities to respect the rights enjoyed by individuals under the directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Calves

1. Can the Commission state how many calves have been imported annually into the European Union from Romania since 1990:

(a) for fattening,

(b) for consumption,

(c) in transit to third countries?

2. Can the Commission state how many calves have been imported annually into the European Union from the Czech Republic since 1990:

(a) for fattening,

(b) for consumption,

(c) in transit to third countries?

3. Can the Commission state how many calves have been imported annually into the European Union from Hungary since 1990:

(a) for fattening,

(b) for consumption,

(c) in transit to third countries?

4. Can the Commission state how many calves have been imported annually into the European Union from Poland since 1990:

(a) for fattening,

(b) for consumption,

(c) in transit to third countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2367/96 and E-2368/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

As regards points (a) and (b), Community statistics do not distinguish between calves imported for fattening and those imported for consumption. In the Commission's view, where calves originating from the countries in question are concerned, there is not in general any demand on the market for immediate consumption. The calves are mainly destined for fattening. The relevant figures broken down by country of origin and year have been sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

As regards (c), the pertinent figures are not available to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/96 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Council (1 July 1996)

Subject: Cold-blooded murder of Greek Cypriot national guardsman by Turks in Cyprus

On 3 June 1996, the Turkish occupying forces in Cyprus killed in cold blood a 19-year old Greek Cypriot national guardsman, Stelios Panayis, who had entered no-man's-land to talk to a Turkish Cypriot soldier. He was the seventh Greek Cypriot national guardsman to be killed in this way, a victim of Turkish aggression and of the continued Turkish military occupation of part of the island of Cyprus.

What is the Council's position in this particular case and what steps will it take to ensure that such deplorable incidents do not reoccur in the future?

Joint Reply to Written Questions E-1657/96 and E-1712/96 (19 November 1996)

1. The Council deplores the mortal wounding in the buffer zone of Stelios Panayis Kallis, a member of the Greek Cypriot National Guard, as well as the disproportionate use of force by the security forces in the north of Cyprus in response to unauthorized entry into the buffer zone.

2. The Council attaches the greatest importance to respect for human life and is resolute in condemning violence in whatever context.

3. The recent events have again highlighted the urgent need to intensify efforts to promote a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus, under the aegis of the United Nations. The European Union reiterates its full support for the work of the Secretary-General and his special representative in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Poseima-fisheries programme

In accordance with Section 14.9 of the Poseima programme, on 30 July 1992 the Commission adopted a measure for the fisheries sectors in the Azores and Madeira with a duration of two years (1992 and 1993) and an allocation of ECU 8.04 million in addition to the CSF appropriations. ECU 2.5 million of these appropriations, equally divided between the two autonomous regions, were earmarked for structural investments, while the remainder was to be used to maintain fishing activities and the tuna-processing industry. The Poseima-fisheries measure was extended at least until the end of 1994.

Can the Commission say whether it was extended again for 1995 and 1996? Were the appropriations used for these extensions (in 1994 and, possibly, 1995 and 1996) also in addition to the CSF in force?

Can the Commission say why it did not initially and still does not consider it necessary to support fishing for and processing of small pelagic and demersal species, which play an important role in the two autonomous regions, in line with, for example, the fisheries measures introduced under the Poseican (Canary Islands) programme?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The support scheme for marketing fishery products from the Azores and Madeira under the Poseima programme was approved by the Council on 2 October 1995 when it adopted Regulation (EC) No 2337/95, which extended the system introduced in 1992 until 31 December 1997. ((OJ L 236, 5.10.1995. ))

The scheme is financed from the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and is therefore additional to the Community support framework.

As regards the other species to which the Honourable Members refer, I would point out that the scheme is intended to compensate for the additional costs incurred in marketing certain products outside the regions concerned; it has yet to be shown that such additional marketing costs apply to other species.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2069/96 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Tagus bridge

It is now undeniable that there were serious violations of the environmental provisions of the funding Decision on the Tagus bridge.

It is also known that the most important requirement of the EIA, the preparation of a land use plan for the area affected by the bridge, has still not been completed and its preparation may not even have started. However, the EIA required this plan to be ready in the first half of 1995.

The lack of such a plan is allowing wild land speculation caused by the new accessibilities generated by the bridge, which will have irreversible effects in the region.

Will the Commission continue its payments until the plan is ready and approved?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)

Discussions between the Commission and the Portuguese government have identified satisfactory basis for dealing with the land use problems concerning the new Tagus bridge:

- the possible problems linked to urban developments that may have an impact on the special protection area should be solved according the indications of the approved environmental impact assessment;

- the Portuguese government confirms that the provisions of the laws referred to in Article 5/3 of the funding decision have been and will be properly applied, in particular with regard to the zone 'non aedificandi' referred to in point 8 of annex 1 of the funding decision and the control of land use on the south bank of the Tagus;

- the Portuguese government will inform the Commission of the way in which future land use plans for the part of the Lisbon area including Alcochete covered by the environmental provisions of the funding decision, take account of the zone 'non aedificandi' and the land use control on the south bank of the Tagus in full respect of Community legislation;

- the Portuguese government will continue to inform the Commission of any problem which might be detected as regards the provisions of the laws referred to in Article 5/3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2039/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: 1985 White Paper

Can the Commission indicate which Member States have not yet transposed into national law the measures included in the 1985 White Paper and can it provide details?

According to the Commission, what are the most important consequences of this omission?

Does the Commission intend to take steps against these Member States and if so, what?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)

Delays have occurred in all Member States as regards notification of national measures implementing the directives referred to in the White Paper 'Completing the internal market'. ((COM(85) 310 final. )) The Commission has still not been notified of 7.4% of the national measures needed in order to transpose the directives already in force. Further details are given in a table sent to the Honourable Member direct and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The main effect of the delays in transposing the White Paper directives and - more generally - all the internal market directives has been to create legal uncertainty for businesses and private individuals, thereby preventing them from enjoying the full benefits of the internal market.

As a matter of course, and particularly by means of bilateral contact with Member States, the Commission ensures that directives are quickly and correctly incorporated into national law, instituting infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in respect of any Member State that has failed to notify national implementing measures by the deadline stipulated in the directive concerned. Its monitoring work recently received fresh impetus from the Florence European Council, whose conclusions expressly called upon Member States to transpose quickly directives relating to the internal market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/96 by Irene Crepaz (PSE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Recruitment to EU Institutions

1. For what reason do European Institution recruitment procedures continue to be subject to upper age-limits? Is this compatible with the non-discrimination principle? Is consideration being given within the Commission to abolishing these upper age-limits?

2. In many Member States, a compulsory recruitment scheme operates in favour of the disabled (e.g. Austria: law on the recruitment of disabled persons). Does anything comparable apply to the EU Institutions? If not, why not?

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

1. Under Annex III to the Staff Regulations, the age limit set for participation in recruitment competitions is maintained. Experience shows that these age limits ensure a better balance in the participation in competitions not only in geographical terms but also in terms of the men/women ratio.

With regard to disabled persons, the Commission recalls that the notice of competition makes provision for an extension of the age limit by three years in the case of persons who suffer from a physical handicap certified by a competent body recognizing the state of the disabled person.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to written questions 355/96 ((OJ C 137, 8.5.1996. )) and 1167/96. ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996. ))

2. In order to be appointed to the Commission, as to the other European institutions, every candidate must have successfully passed a recruitment competition and be entered on a reserve list.

As required by the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities, the Commission, like the other European institutions, implements a recruitment policy based on the principle of equal opportunity, irrespective of race, creed or sex. Accordingly, the Staff Regulations make no provisions for quotas.

Moreover, the Commission does its utmost to facilitate the participation of disabled persons in its competitions. The aim is to ensure that disabled persons can compete under the same conditions as the other candidates.

In addition the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to written questions 1847 ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996. )) and 724/96, ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996. )) recalling in particular that a draft code of good practice is being analysed at present by several Commission departments. The draft has already been submitted to the staff representatives. When these internal procedures have been completed, this draft code of good practice will be submitted to the other institutions with a view to adopting a definitive common text.