ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Outcome-oriented aid in Latin America

Has the Commission developed precise indicators for outcome in relation to its aid towards the individual countries of Latin America and towards the region as a whole?

How far do evaluation studies demonstrate whether such indicators are being achieved, and does the Commission plan any initiative in relation to this?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The indicators used by the Community in order to define its regional and bilateral strategy towards Latin American countries are general macroeconomic, social and environmental indicators generated either by the countries themselves or by international organisations.

The basic methodology of the project cycle management, used by the Commission in project formulation for developing countries in Latin America and Asia financed projects, is the logical framework approach. This approach provides a basis for monitoring and evaluation by identifying indicators of success and means of quantification or assessment related to the objectives and activities of the project. Project specific indicators are based on the findings of a base-line study, which is systematically undertaken at the beginning of the implementation of the project. The achievements of the projects are deduced from general improvements in these indicators.

The Commission has carried out specific country based evaluations on the aid granted to Bolivia and Peru, of which the results are available upon request.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0975/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1996)

Subject: Ban on individual sponsorship contracts in Danish football

The Commission has informed me that it is not possible, without further investigation, to decide whether the contract in respect of personal advertising agreements which the Danish Ball Games Union has imposed on Danish international players is illegal.

When does the Commission envisage taking further steps towards carrying out such an investigation?

In view of the importance of the matter, I would ask that the investigation be carried out as a matter of urgency.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to his written question E-434/96. ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 40. )) The Commission stated clearly that it was only if it looked into the matter in full knowledge of the facts that it could provide a detailed answer to questions of this kind.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that investigations of cases under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty are governed by the procedural rules laid down in Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 - First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, ((OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204. )) as amended and supplemented by Regulation No 59, ((OJ 58, 10.7.1962, p. 1655. )) Regulation No 118/63/EEC ((OJ 162, 7.11.1963, p. 2696. )) and Regulation (EEC) No 2822/71. ((OJ L 285, 29.12.1971, p. 49. ))

Under that Regulation the Commission can take action either on the basis of notifications or applications for negative clearance (Articles 2 and 4) submitted by the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned, or on the basis of complaints lodged by Member States or by natural or legal persons who claim a legitimate interest (Article 3(2)). The Commission can also challenge infringements of Articles 85 and 86 on its own initiative (Article 3(1)). Own-initiative proceedings are initiated where there is sufficient evidence for presuming that an unlawful agreement exists or that there is abuse of a dominant market position.

Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty are directly applicable both by the national competition authorities of the Member States and by the national courts. As part of its policy of decentralizing the implementation of those provisions of the Treaty, the Commission does not in principle take action on matters which are essentially national.

Consequently, given that the situation referred to by the Honourable Member in his question concerns only one Member State, that there is no obvious presumption of an unlawful agreement or abuse of a dominant position, that the Commission has not received any complaints or notifications in the case, that interested parties can apply direct to the national authorities or courts for implementation of Articles 85(1) and 86 of the Treaty and that assessment of the situation by reference to national competition law alone may provide an answer, the Commission considers, on the basis of the information currently available to it, that there is no reason to open own-initiative proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1392/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (22 May 1996)

Subject: Reduced rates of VAT for certain cultural products

Bearing in mind that certain products such as videocassettes, CD-roms, etc., which contain productions of cultural works (films, plays, concerts, etc.) are subject to the standard rate of VAT, while other cultural products such as books, theatre tickets, etc., are subject to a reduced rate of VAT,

1. will the Commission soon amend Annex H to Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. )) so as to allow all cultural products to be taxed at the reduced rate of VAT?

2. will the European Commission create categories of goods ('cultural goods' for example) to which a single rate of VAT will apply?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

The Commission does not at present have any plans to amend Annex H to the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC), which lists the goods and services eligible for a reduced rate of VAT, so as to include all cultural products. Nor is there any plan to create a category of 'cultural goods' to which a single rate of VAT would be applicable.

It should be pointed out in this respect that, in order to guarantee the principle of tax neutrality in respect of the various means and carriers used to provide access to culture, identical provisions should be applied to goods and services of the same nature which are supplied on identical terms. However, unlike books or concert/cinema tickets, which are eligible for a reduced rate of VAT, the contents of CD-roms, video cassettes and sound carriers are not directly accessible since the consumer must first acquire specific equipment in order to be able to use them.

The Commission will in any case review all matters relevant to the scope of reduced rates of VAT in a biannual report. This will include a fresh analysis of the application of the reduced rate, taking into account all the policies concerned, including the cultural dimension, from the point of view of the proper functioning of the single market and the harmonization which is necessary for the transition to the definitive arrangements for taxing intra-Community trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1179/96 by James Provan (PPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Debt in the developing countries

Will the Commission give a clear indication of the action it is currently undertaking to help reduce the huge international debt problem faced by many developing countries.

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The debt position of a number of developing countries, particularly among the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, has been closely monitored by the Commission for several years. This problem, which comes under the direct responsibility not of the Community but of the individual Member States, nevertheless has major implications for the ACP countries' development prospects and, therefore, also affects the Community. It is a highly sensitive issue on the ACP side, as emerged during the work relating to the mid-term review of Lomé IV, which was completed at the end of 1995. On that occasion, the Community confirmed above all its determination to contribute in a practical and constructive manner towards reducing the ACP countries' debt, particularly in the context of the concerted strategy being formulated within the appropriate international forums (G-7, Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Development Committee of the World Bank, Paris Club, London Club).

It should be noted in this connection that, following the impetus provided last year by the G-7 Halifax Summit and by the annual meetings of the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF and World Bank identified among the highly-indebted low-income countries a small number which are confronted with an unbearable or potentially critical situation. They consider that under certain conditions, particularly the pursuit of a strict macroeconomic policy, these countries should be eligible for preferential treatment on the debt-reduction front, on the debt-reduction front, not only as regards bilateral official and private loans but also as regards loans from multilateral institutions.

The Commission is monitoring this initiative closely, but it is too soon to express an opinion on the potential implications for the Community, which will have to be analysed in detail in due course. In any event, the Community is a relatively minor creditor in relation to the overall debt of these countries, chiefly because most of the aid it provides, particularly under the Lomé Convention, is already in the form of grants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Baby milk

What information was passed by the British Government to the European Commission under the terms of the rapid exchange of information on foodstuffs Directive on 30 May 1996 on the subject of phthalates found in baby milk?

Is the Commission satisfied that all relevant information on brand names of baby milk products has been passed to them, and when will that information be made available to the public?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1593/96 and E-1778/96 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

Following reports in the British media, on 28 May 1996 the Commission, of its own initiative, requested the United Kingdom contact point in the Community rapid alert system to provide information about the levels of phthalates found in infant formulae and the methods of analysis used. The United Kingdom contact point responded to that request on 29 May 1996. All the information provided to the Commission has been made available to the public by the United Kingdom authorities. The information concerns a number of baby foods on the British market, some of which are produced in the other Member States.

The other Member States were also asked to provide any available information about levels of phthalates in infant formulae and baby foods.

The information provided by the United Kingdom, and information provided by certain other Member States, was evaluated by the scientific committee for food at its meeting of 5-6 June 1996. The committee concluded that the levels of phthalates found were not a cause of public health concern. The Commission will transmit the opinion of the committee directly to the Honourable Members and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The opinion of the scientific committee for food was based on the information provided by Member States on the levels of phthalates found in infant formulae and baby foods. The Commission did not undertake any additional scientific tests or studies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Directive 94/31/EEC on hazardous waste

In its reply of 10 October 1995 to my Written Question E-2415/95 ((OJ C 9, 15.1.1996, p.41. )) the Commission stated that only 5 Member States (Belgium (Wallonia and Brussels regions), Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria) had met the requirement of Directive 94/31/EEC ((OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p.28. )) to inform the Commission by 27 June of the national measures they had taken to comply with its terms. The Commission also stated that it was initiating infringement proceedings against those Member States which had not complied.

Have these proceedings had any effect? Which Member States are still ignoring the terms of the directive? Why does the Commission not give adverse publicity to such infringements on such an important subject?

Answer given by Ms Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

The infringement proceedings announced in the reply to abovementioned written question from the Honourable Member have been initiated. To this end, letters of notice were sent to those Member States which failed to notify the national measures taken to transpose Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, as amended by Directive 94/31/EC, within the time limit set by the Directive.

The countries concerned are Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Since these letters of notice were sent, the Commission has received notification of France's national measures, which partly transpose the Directive.

As a general rule, the Commission publicizes infringement proceedings initiated for failure to notify measures implementing directives. These proceedings were mentioned in the EU Bulletin of October 1995 (point 1.8.1) and will also be referred to in the 13th annual report on the application of Community law, shortly to be sent to Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1567/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Publications receiving financial support from the European Commission

The European Centre for Research and Action on Racism and Anti-Semitism (CERA) recently published, with the support of the Commission and the patronage of the President of the European Parliament, a study on European political movements entitled 'Les Extrémismes de l'Atlantique à l'Oural'.

Can the Commission state exactly how much it contributed, how many copies were published and how much each report drawn up by the experts on the CERA scientific council actually costs?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)

The European Centre for Research and Action on Racism and Antisemitism (CERA) has received a subsidy of FF 160 000 (ECU 24 496) for the publication mentioned by the Honourable Member, of which 2 000 copies were printed.

The costs incurred were FF 12 150 for the scientific reports, FF 67 038 for translations and FF 50 000 for coordination and editing.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1169/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Storming of the JRC's high-flux reactor in Petten

On 26 April 1996 Greenpeace staged a protest at the JRC in Petten (Netherlands) to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Campaigners were able to climb to the top of the roof of the high flux reactor in no time at all.

1. Is the Commission not surprised that the protesters were so easily able to force access to this sensitive installation?

2. What is wrong with security at the reactor?

3. What plans does the Commission have for improving security at the Petten site?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)

1. Early in the morning of Friday 26 April 1996, a group of about 14 demonstrators from Greenpeace gained unauthorized access to the Joint research centre (JRC) Petten site and climbed to a high level walkway on the outside of the high flux reactor (HFR) containment building. They unfurled a publicity banner, protesting against the Tchernobyl reactor accident. The action ended peacefully later the same morning and the demonstrators were escorted from the site by the Dutch police.

There were also peaceful demonstrations near other nuclear installations in the Netherlands.

The Commission regrets that this demonstration to mark the tenth anniversary of Tchernobyl chose the site of a research reactor the activities of which are strictly related to research and to the production of radio-isotopes for hospitals and other medical centres in the Community. The Commission considers that this type of demonstration can only lead to confusion in public opinion.

2. The security measures surrounding the reactor worked in accordance with established procedures set down and agreed with the Dutch authorities. These security measures are directed against all possible incidents concerning unauthorized interference with plant processes, materials and equipment. The internal JRC Petten security measures are fully in agreement with the measures to be taken by the police in case of alarm, and the response by the guards and police are dependent on the nature and gravity of the incident. The HFR guards and Dutch police reacted in accordance with these established procedures.

At no time were any of the demonstrators or the staff at Petten under any risk of radiation or contamination and at no time was the reactor under threat. The demonstrators did not attempt to break into any of the more security restricted areas of the reactor. Throughout the incident the reactor and its radio-isotope production facilities continued normal uninterrupted operation.

3. The Commission is reviewing the incident and security measures with the Dutch authorities. If necessary, relevant decisions will be jointly taken but, as the Honourable Member is aware, such decisions have to be kept strictly confidential.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/96 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Questionnaire to the Central and East European countries in preparation for EU accession

1. How did the Commission involve the European Parliament and its committees in the preparation of the questionnaires on EU accession sent recently to the Central and East European countries?

2. When did or when will it send these questionnaires to the European Parliament?

3. How will the European Parliament and its committees be involved in the evaluation of these questionnaires?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Commission's opinion on an application for membership of the Union under Article O of the Treaty on European Union is an in-depth analysis of the situation of an applicant country, with a view to preparing a decision on whether to open negotiations for accession. An opinion has to review all areas of the 'acquis communautaire' which forms the basis for all applications for membership. Traditionally, a questionnaire is drawn up by the Commission for each country containing questions of a technical nature designed to ensure that there is a common basis on which the Commission can make its evaluation.

The questionnaires were transmitted to the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe on 26 April 1996. Copies were sent to the Parliament at that time and copies are available on application to the Commission by the Honourable Members who require them.

Commissioner Van den Broek has explained the arrangements for the preparation of the opinions during the April part-session of Parliament and at subsequent meetings of the joint parliamentary committees.

While the evaluation of the results of the questionnaires remains the responsibility of the Commission, close contact will be maintained with the relevant Parliament committees and joint parliamentary committees during the process, so that the concerns of the Honourable Member can be addressed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1069/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Extension of planning permission for landfill waste tipping at Aveley, Thurrock

When does the Commission expect its directive on landfill waste to be put before Parliament? Can the Commission comment on whether tighter rules for management of landfill waste sites could be used retrospectively to challenge the extension of landfill waste tipping at Aveley, Essex, on the basis of the toxicity of waste tipped, closeness to residential homes, and traffic and other nuisance for local residents?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1068/96, E-1069/96 and E-1070/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

1. Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) requires an environmental impact assessment to be carried out before development consent is granted for certain types of projects. Landfills for toxic and dangerous waste are listed in Annex I of Directive 85/337/EEC. This means that an assessment is always required before development consent is given for such landfills. Landfills for other types of waste are listed in Annex II. This means that an assessment is required if the Member State considers that the landfill is likely to have a significant environmental effect.

Where an assessment is required under Directive 85/337/EEC the public concerned and relevant environmental authorities must be consulted. It is for Member States to determine the manner in which the public is to be consulted, whether by written submissions or by public inquiry. The final development consent decision is a matter for the decision-taking authority. In reaching that decision, however, it must take account of the results of the assessment.

2. As the common position (EC) No 4/96 adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council directive on the landfill of waste ((OJ C 59, 28.2.1996. )) was rejected by the Parliament on 22 May 1996, no specific directive currently exists.

However, Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )), says that 'Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

- without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals,

- without causing a nuisance through noise or odours,

- without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Member States shall also take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste.'