ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Cosmetic testing

In accordance with the Commission's obligations in Directives 93/35/EEC ((OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32. )) and 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )), and in view of its inability to provide a detailed analysis of the tests currently used in the EU, exactly what action, if any, does the Commission intend to take, and precisely when, to ensure that experimental methods which do not use live animals are developed and legally validated as satisfactory alternatives prior to 1998?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)

Council Directive 93/35/EEC, amending for the sixth time the cosmetics Directive, provides that Member States shall prohibit the marketing of cosmetic products containing 'ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals after 1 January 1998 in order to meet the requirements of the directive'. The directive also prescribes that 'the Commission shall present an annual report to the Parliament and the Council on progress in the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to those involving experiments on animals'.

On 16 December 1994, the Commission transmitted to the Parliament and to the Council its annual report for 1994. One of the conclusions is that one can reasonably hope that in vitro alternative methods providing a level of consumer protection equivalent to animal tests will be available in the near future in a number of specific fields. Moreover, the report shows that it will shortly be possible to have finished products tested exclusively in vitro thanks to the existing knowledge on the toxicity of ingredients.

The Commission is now preparing its 1995 report, which should shortly be adopted and transmitted to the Parliament and to the Council. This report will supply the details which the Commission has been able to collect from the Member States as well as information on the progress achieved until now and the future prospects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0225/96 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL), Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 February 1996)

Subject: Environmental impact of the Ronda de la Laguna (Lagoon ring-road) (Tenerife)

On 8 October 1995 the Commission replied to our written question (E-1886/95) ((OJ C 326, 6.12.1995, p. 10. )) on the environmental impact of the Ronda de la Laguna (Lagoon ring-road) (Tenerife), stating that it would ask the Spanish authorities to provide the necessary information.

Does the Commission not consider that, before irreparable damage is done, it should be established whether the authorities in the Canary Islands are correctly applying Community environmental rules?

Has the Commission received the information it requested?

Can the Commission state whether the project is receiving any type of financing from Community funds?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)

The Commission has made several requests to the Spanish authorities for information concerning the issues raised by the Honourable Members.

The Spanish authorities have only recently replied. However, the Commission does not consider this response sufficient and has requested additional information.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Members as soon as such information arrives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Publication of Commission material

Can the Commission give details as to the process followed when Commission material is published in terms of Print Companies throughout the European Union being given the opportunity to tender and participate.

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

Virtually all the printing work sub-contracted by the Publications Office is awarded on the basis of contracts for which, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Directives and the GATT, formal invitations to tender are always published in the Supplement to the Official Journal and the TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) data base.

Minor one-off contracts are sometimes awarded on the basis of a tendering procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation ((As last amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2335/95 of 18 September 1995, OJ L 240 of 7.10.1995. )) applicable to the General Budget of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference - citizens' rights

It is clear that if a real Citizens' Europe is to be developed, a clear listing of citizens' fundamental rights, incorporating protection against discrimination on all grounds, must be added to the Treaty.

What measures will the Commission be taking to persuade the Member States of the importance of such measures, and what obstacles does the Commission expect to face from Member States who oppose the inclusion of such a list?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)

The Commission has made clear in its opinion on the Intergovernmental conference that the conference should incorporate in the Treaty provisions banning discrimination of any kind and condemning racism and xenophobia.

The Commission will play an active role in the conference in presenting its view on citizens' rights in line with its opinion and expects to find considerable support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Baixio de Irecê irrigation project

There are plans to build a huge irrigation project, known as Baixio de Irecê, in the Irecê region of the federal state of Bahia, Brazil.

Work is currently under way on a small pilot project, even though Bahia state has not issued the environmental licence which is an absolute requirement before such measures can commence.

Is the Commission aware of this project and its funding?

Is the Commission itself involved in the funding of this project or the pilot project?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in cooperation schemes with Latin American countries.

It is also grateful for the details he sent on the Baixio de Irece irrigation project. However, the Commission has no involvement in this project and has no specific information on it.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to send any extra information on the project if he thinks this would be useful.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Use of budget appropriations for the programme of city projects against racism

Can the Commission provide information on the use of appropriations from the programme of city projects against racism (DG V, Unit for migration policy and promotion of free movement for workers) in 1994 and 1995, particularly as regards the payment of appropriations to organizations working in the Federal Republic of Germany?

Can the Commission also specify whether these organizations are non-profit-making associations, public bodies or commercial undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)

The Commission first wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the project 'Cities against racism' was launched in 1995. Hence there were no co-financed projects in 1994.

In 1995, out of a total of 30 projects throughout the Community, five were co-financed in Germany, three being managed by public agencies and two by non-profit-making associations. The Commission wishes to add that in this field it does not contribute to the funding of projects proposed by for-profit organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0535/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: European Social Funding

Would the Commission support a proposal to have ESF entitlements swapped between different managing agents, for example local authorities, TECs, Further Education Colleges and Voluntary Organizations within different regions, where one managing agent is unable to use its full entitlement in any particular year?

Is the Commission aware of any such arrangement in any of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 March 1996)

The objective 3 monitoring committee decides on the annual financial allocations by priority and measure contained in the single programming document (SPD) between the different sectors. When there are in-year underspends, the monitoring committee can authorise recycling of available funds at regional level where the regional co-ordinating groups have made such a recommendation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/96 by Kenneth Coates (PSE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: Environmental protection - the cumulative effect of opencast coalmining

How can the requirement of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40 )) concerning the 'cumulative' effect of developments subject to environmental impact assessments be enforced?

What research and other information does the Commission have on this matter, with respect to the cumulative effect on the local environment of several separate opencast coalmining sites in a particular locality?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1996)

Directive 85/337/EEC requires environmental assessments to be carried out in relation to projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location (Article 2). It is necessary to consider each project in relation to the environmental conditions in the particular area in which it is proposed to be located. Existing environmental conditions, including those arising from similar projects in the locality, should therefore be taken into account when considering whether a project falls within the scope of the Directive. If a project does fall within the scope of the Directive, the Directive requires the assessment, in the light of each individual case, of the direct and indirect effects of the project including cumulative effects (Article 3 and Annex III). Where it has been determined that the Directive applies, in accordance with this analysis, it can be enforced through the mechanisms provided by the Member State in its implementation legislation.

The Commission does not have at present any relevant research on the cumulative effect of several opencast coalmining sites. Nevertheless the Commission acknowledges the need to improve the coverage of indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as impact interactions in the environment impact assessments undertaken in the Member States and is considering launching a study in this area. Furthermore, the Commission is currently considering a proposal for a directive on strategic environmental asssessment which, according to the present draft, will cover plans and programmes in the extraction sector. A number of case studies are being prepared in relation to this proposal which will address, inter alia, the issue of cumulative impact assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Council (12 February 1996)

Subject: Representation office in Brussels

The major newspapers have all carried reports of the opening of a small representation office in Brussels with a staff of four. This has led some Italian public prosecutor's offices to open a penal investigation into whether this constitutes a crime against the integrity, independence or unity of the State, which is punishable by life imprisonment under the Italian Penal Code.

Is the Council aware of this worrying affair?

Does it intend to take measures and, if so, of what kind, to ascertain whether or not such investigations are warranted, given that the general public (and I also share this view) considers them to be a somewhat sinister and basically anti-European development, in total opposition to the spirit of the Maastricht Treaty?

How does the Council intend to respond to the requests made in this connection by several MEPs during the debate on the presentation of the Italian Presidency's programme of work during the European Parliament's plenary sitting of Wednesday 17 January 1996 in Strasbourg?

What steps does the Council intend to take to put an end to such overtly political and intimidatory tactics designed to discourage private initiatives and repudiate the idea of building a united Europe, even though this was the stated intention of the states which signed the Maastricht Treaty?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0244/96, E-0258/96, E-0309/96 and E-0584/96 (3 June 1996)

The Council has not been informed of the subject referred to by the Honourable Members nor indeed of the opening of information offices for other regions. This question does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0742/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: National aids in the pig sector

The history of illegal aids in the pig sector and unfair support to producers in some EU Member States is well-known. Stabiporc in France, monetary aid per sow in the Republic of Ireland, green DM rebates in Germany, 'slaughter' aid in Germany, Holland, Belgium, preferential loan schemes to young farmers have all created a tremendous imbalance in the pig sector within the EU. Although many of the 'aids' available to pig farmers in other Member States are considered legal, to the small pig farmer in the UK, the is seems unfair.

How does the Commission oversee (control?) what is going on in this sector and what does it intend to do to redress these imbalances which are slowly squeezing the UK pig industry out of the market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

Commission powers to control state aid in the pig sector are based on Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2759/75 ((OJ No L 282, 1.11.1975. )). This stipulates that Articles 92 to 94 of the EC Treaty apply to the pig sector. Article 93(3) requires Member States to inform the Commission in sufficient time of any plans to grant or alter aid and requires the Commission to initiate the procedure provided in Article 92 paragraph 2 if it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the common market.

As regards the Stabiporc aid, the Commission has taken decisions requiring amounts granted which are incompatible with Community provisions to be recovered, with interest. Concerning the slaughter of pigs, Commission policy is to allow the grant of compensatory payments where a slaughter policy is applied to control disease. Commission policy also allows state aid to help young farmers along lines set under Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2328/91 ((OJ No L 218, 6.8.1991. )). The green DM rebates in Germany were accepted in accordance with various Council regulations and decisions. The Commission is not however aware of a monetary aid per sow in Ireland, and invites the Honourable Member to provide evidence that such an aid exists or indeed ever existed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/96 by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996

In 'Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996' a notice published in OJ C 19 of 23 January 1996.

The Commission listed all the eligibility requirements for such aid and set 31 January 1996 as the deadline for subsidy requests.

How could applications forms be completed and sent to the Commission in such a short time (from 23 to 31 January)?

How many projects were submitted?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)

Publication of the text concerning the award of financial aid to projects devoted to consumer protection for 1996 has in fact been delayed. This is why - although the Commission has already received a large number (300) of subsidy requests - it has decided to postpone the deadline to 31 May 1996 so as not to penalise any particular organisation. The new communication to this effect will shortly be published.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0294/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 February 1996)

Subject: Privatisation of the Setenave shipyards in Setúbal, Portugal

A further step is apparently being taken in the complex process of privatising Portugal's naval shipyards.

Following the transfer to the Mello Group of the Lisnave shipyards and the creation of a consortium consisting of Lisnave, Soponata and Norwegian investors to exploit the resources of Setenave, the privatisation of these shipyards would seem to be complete. This has taken place by private treaty, without the required international public tendering procedure, and involves the disappearance of Solisnor, which is being directly transferred to Lisnave, thereby consolidating the dominance of the Mello Group in the area of naval construction and repairs in Portugal, as well as the merger of the Mitrena works with those at Margueira.

The workers in this sector and their trade union and company organizations are the first and principal victims of this type of 'monopoly repossession' and rumours are circulating among them that the Commission recently promoted a meeting in Brussels attended by representatives of the Portuguese Government and the Mello Group. Was such a meeting held, what was its purpose, what took place during the meeting and what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (4 March 1996)

The programme for the restructuring of the Portuguese shipbuilding and ship repair industry involves the transfer of ship repair activities from Mitrena to Margueira. This transfer, which is still in progress, requires aid from the Portuguese Government to help fund the social programme and the investment necessary to convert the ship repair facilities at Margueira. This aid was approved by the Commission in June 1995.

The final part of the restructuring programme involves privatizing the plant at Mitrena through purchase by a private company. Since the present operator on the site, by concession, is Solisnor, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lisnave, the Portuguese Government has decided to opt for a sale by private contract under Article 6 of Portuguese Law No 11/90 on the programme for the privatization of companies nationalized since 25 April 1974.

Application of this law was approved by the Commission in July 1993, with the proviso that if the Portuguese Government made use of the procedure for sale by private contract it had to notify the Commission in advance of the conditions of sale, in accordance with Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty.

In compliance with this decision, the Portuguese Government notified the Commission of the conditions for the sale of the Margueira plant to Lisnave. Bilateral contacts have already taken place between the Commission and the Portuguese Government, and further contacts will be required to clear up certain points. The Mello Group is not involved in these bilateral meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: European works councils

On 22 September 1996 the deadline for transposing into national law Council Directive 94/45/EC ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64. )) of 22 September 1994, on works councils in Community-scale undertakings, will expire.

What progress has been made with such transposition in the various EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)

In Norway ((Covered by Directive 94/45/EC under the terms of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. )) and Belgium, the social partners at national level have entered into agreements on the procedures for transposing Directive 94/45/EC. In connection with these agreements, transference acts covering points not dealt with by the social partners are still needed. In Italy, Portugal and Iceland1, the social partners are in the process of negotiating agreements on transposition of the Directive.

In Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway, bills have already been tabled in the national parliaments, or will be in the coming weeks.

In Greece, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein1, bills are currently being drafted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0359/96 by Frode Kristoffersen (PPE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Norwegian use of fishery regulations

Two Danish trawlers registered in Esbjerg, Denmark, the E 149 Sonja Grønbjerg and the E 349 Cattleya, were arrested on 1 February 1996 by a Norwegian fisheries protection vessel with reference to the Norwegian Department of Fisheries regulation of 27 December 1995.

Danish fishery organizations were not informed of the Norwegian regulation; is it in line with agreements concluded between Norway and the EU, and is the new 40 mile limit within which herring fishing is banned (between 58.16 and 62 degrees) as from 20 January 1996 in keeping with the EEA agreement? What has the Commission so far done, and what does it intend to do, to ensure that Norway's fishing policy, and its regulations, are in keeping with the agreements in force?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1996)

Following the belated transmission to the Commission of a new Norwegian regulation imposing a ban on herring fishing in an area between 62° N and 52°16' N inside 40 nautical miles for the period 20 January to 30 April 1996, the Commission requested formal consultations with Norway on the application of the restriction.

These consultations were held on 2 March 1996. Agreement was reached to improve the means of transmitting, in a timely and accurate way, regulations that apply inside the waters of either party. As to the substantive questions at issue, Norway was in a position to put forward conservation grounds which appeared to be relevant in the given context. Normally, Norway should inform the Community about such an important measure during the annual consultation on the fisheries arrangement in order to allow an exchange of views on its justification.

It should be recalled that under the terms of the fisheries agreement of 1980 between the Community and Norway each is entitled to establish such measures as it deems to be required for conservation purposes within its waters and, in doing so, shall take into account the need not to jeopardize the possibilities for fishing allowed to fishing vessels of the other party.

The Commission is giving close consideration to all matters relating to the fisheries agreement between the Community and Norway. It will continue to react promptly with a view to ensuring that any regulatory measures Norway may adopt within its waters are consistent with the relevant provisions of the fisheries agreement.