ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council (24 April 1996)

Subject: Continuing detention of Fatos Nano and prosecution of opposition leaders in Albania

Despite the international clamour for his release, the leader of the Albanian Socialist Party is still being held in prison and new cases of the political extermination of dissidents are emerging. About a month ago charges were brought against Namik Dokle, the deputy chairman of the Socialist Party and chairman of its parliamentary group. Yesterday it was revealed that demands had been made for the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of Gramoz Routsi, the Secretary-General of the Socialist Party, who is in danger of being arrested; they have been charged with abuse of their office. It is likely that the above will be imprisoned immediately after 3 April when the parliamentary term expires prior to the holding of elections.

Since it is clear that these proceedings against leaders of the largest opposition group are intended to undermine it and intimidate the electorate,

1) will the Council say what measures it intends to take to obtain the immediate release of Fatos Nano and the dismissal of these fresh charges against opposition leaders?

2) Does the Council intend to send observers to ascertain whether the forthcoming elections are held in an unimpeachable and democratic manner?

Reply (7 August 1996)

The Council is of the opinion that all political parties in Albania should approach the elections mindful of their common interest in consolidating democracy and achieving national reconciliation. This attitude has also been expressed in EU declarations, and also in the joint US-EU declaration done in TIRANA on 17 May 1996.

The Council stands ready to assist in the efforts to ensure that the will of the Albanian people will be effectively expressed by the vote. In that regard, several Member States have announced their intention to send short- or long-term observers to ascertain that the elections will be carried out in a democratic manner.

In its contacts with the Albanian aauthorities, the Council does not hesitate to reiterate the importance it attaches to the respect and implementation of democracy and human rights. This was recently demonstrated at the political dialogue meetings with Albania at the level of Political Directors and at the ministerial level in January 1996. The Council encouraged Albania to continue along the path of reforms and consolidation of democracy making a specific reference to the need for full respect of human rights and fundamental democratic freedoms.

Finally, the Honourable Member will be aware that the President in office of the Council informed the European Parliament at its plenary session of 5 June 1996 on the electoral situation in Albania.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/96 by Simon Murphy (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1996)

Subject: Eye sight requirements for drivers of heavy goods vehicles

On what statistical evidence did the Commission base its decision to require drivers of heavy goods vehicles to have sight in both eyes?

Is the Commission able to provide conclusive evidence that drivers with sight in only one eye are a greater traffic hazard than those with sight in both eyes?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1996)

The eyesight requirements to which the Honourable Member refers are contained in Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences ((Directive 91/439/EEC - OJ 237, 24.8.1991. )) which lays down minimum standards of physical fitness, including sight, for driving a power-driven vehicle. As was the case for the previous directive of 1980 ((Directive 80/1263/EEC - OJ L 375, 31.12.1980. )), drivers of heavy goods vehicles and passenger vehicles are required to satisfy minimum levels of vision in both eyes.

The relevant standards were established on the basis of experience and objective advice from the medical experts of Member States' governments. The legislation was, of course, enacted by the usual procedure and therefore required consultation with Parliament and agreement by the Council.

The policy in the United Kingdom may be of particular interest to the Honourable Member in view of the change which is due to come into effect from July 1st 1996. Under present British arrangements, drivers of lorries and passenger vehicles are allowed to keep their licences if they meet the eyesight standards which were in force when they first obtained their licence, with the consequence that there are drivers who do not meet the standards set out in either the 1980 or 1991 directives. The British government's decision to withdraw these established arrangements and to require testing whenever a licence is renewed was announced in October 1995 and followed a 12 month consultation period. The government has stated that the change is being made for road safety reasons and the Commission concurs with that view.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1376/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Illegal slaughtering

What action has the Commission taken with regard to the illegal slaughter of thousands of sheep by unskilled slaughtermen, in breach of European regulations at wasteland sites around Paris and elsewhere in France on 28 April 1996?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-1214/96 by Mr Needle ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p.108. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/96 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Council (12 April 1996)

Subject: Dublin Convention determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the Community, adopted on 15 June 1990

For each Member State, will the Council give the progress of ratification procedures as at 1 March 1996 for the Dublin Convention determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the Community, adopted on 15 June 1990.

Reply (2 August 1996)

Of the twelve Member States which have signed the Dublin Convention, ten have completed their ratification procedures and sent their instruments to the depositary (the Government of Ireland) on the following dates:

>TABLE>

In Ireland and the Netherlands ratification procedures are under way and should be completed shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/96 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Council (2 April 1996)

Subject: Repatriation of a Serb deserter living in Spain

Milorad Bosiokovic, a Serb deserter, has been living in Spain since the beginning of the war in the Balkans. He is currently being detained in an internment centre pending imminent expulsion to his country, where he would run a serious risk of being murdered.

Does the Council, as part of the Intergovernmental Conference on the reform of the Treaties which is to open on 29 March in Turin, plan to hold a discussion with a view to ensuring that situations such as the above do not occur in the Europe of rights and freedoms which results from the reform and that the European Union becomes an area in which refuge and asylum are guaranteed in cases of war and political persecution in third countries, thereby complying with European Parliament resolution B3-1440/93 ((OJ C 315, 22.11.1993, p. 221. )) of 28 October 1993?

Reply (18 July 1996)

The Council notes that the case to which the Honourable Member refers is a matter for the internal legislation of the Member State concerned and the international commitments which it has entered into.

Furthermore, the Council is not as such involved in the discussions being held between the Member States within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference on the reform of the Treaties.

However, the Council would point out that the Treaty on European Union already specifies that asylum policy is a matter of common interest (Article K.1) which must be "dealt with in compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and the Convention relating to the status of refugees of 28 July 1951" (Article K.2).

Since the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, the Council has in particular adopted (on 4 March 1996) a common position on the harmonized application of the definition of the term "refugee" in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention ((OJ L 63, 13.03.1996, p.2. )), point 10 of which deals with "conscientious objection, absence without leave and desertion".

The Council has also on numerous occasions reitereated its adherence to the common humanitarian tradition of its Member States and its desire to afford appropriate protection to refugees who are in need of it.

With regard to the former Yugoslavia, the Member States are concerting their views on the conditions for repatriation of displaced persons/refugees from that region living on their territories, taking account of the role entrusted in the matter to the HCR by the international community and n accordance with the terms of the Dayton Agreement which stipulate that a prerequisite for the repatriation of such persons is the re-establishment of peace and the implementation of amnesty and human rights measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1595/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Racist border controls

A group from East Birmingham College were recently subject to border controls and searches in France which were clearly targeted at black students and of an obvious racist nature.

What action will the Commission take to ensure that no country carries out border controls of a racist nature?

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

Community law provides for citizens of the Union to enter Member States' territory by simply producing a valid identity card or passport. The Commission does not have sufficient details on the incident mentioned by the Honourable Member and would therefore ask the Honourable Member to provide further information.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the prime responsibility for ensuring that border controls are carried out without racial discrimination lies with the Member States themselves.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1900/96 by Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: EU aid to Italian breeders in connection with the 'mad cow' crisis

Is the Commission aware that:

- the Italian beef and veal sector accounts for 20% of the Community's overall output, with a total of 2 200 000 animals, and that the north of Italy accounts for 90% of such production;

- while the recent political solution to the long-standing 'mad cow' problem is undoubtedly useful in that it strengthens the European dimension for the Member States as a whole, it makes no provision for adequate aid for Italian farmers, who are among those hardest hit by the crisis;

- the compensation of ECU 39 million (approximately Lit 74 billion) which the Commissioner responsible for agriculture proposed should be paid to Italian farmers is disproportionately low, given that almost 50% of animals have remained unsold since the outbreak of the epidemic.

Given the above, would not the Commission agree that it should allocate additional financial aid to Italy, so as to prevent the farmers affected from seeing the political agreement on 'mad cows' as grounds for industrial action, and that it should provide such aid without delay?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1669/96 and P-1900/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-1509/96 by Mr Musumeci ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996, p.104. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1219/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (10 May 1996)

Subject: Suspension of Cohesion Fund support for water supply projects in eight towns in Greece

DG XVI of the Commission of the European Communities has sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the Greek Ministry of the National Economy calling for the suspension of funding under the Cohesion Fund for water supply projects in eight Greek towns (Chalkida, Ptolemaïda, Giannitsa, Veroia, Trikala, Florina, Argos and Tripoli) 'in the interests of the approval of major and very large-scale projects'.

Given that work on these essential projects is fully under way - such as in Chalkida - and the suspension of funding would greatly damage the interests of those concerned, will the Commission say:

1. Why is it recommending the suspension of these projects;

2. What specific projects does it intend to fund with the resources which will be 'saved' in this way?

3. How does it propose funding the above projects so that they can be completed?

4. Have the Greek authorities agreed to suspend funding?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1996)

In accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 of 30 March 1993 establishing a cohesion financial instrument, ((OJ L 79, 1.4.1993. )) in October 1993 the Commission approved technically and financially discrete stages of water supply projects in the districts of Halkida, Ptolemaïs, Yiannitsa, Veroia, Trikkala, Florina, Argos and Tripolis. The works in question were completed in October 1995.

Subsequently, in July 1994 and November 1995, the Greek authorities submitted other technically and financially independent stages of water supply projects in the those same districts, under Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund. ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) Those projects, costing between ECU 1.4 million (for Halkida) and ECU 3 million (for Ptolemaïs), were not adopted, and in December 1995 the Commission informed the Greek authorities accordingly.

The Cohesion Fund has not received an application from the Greek authorities for these projects as a group of related projects pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Cohesion Fund Regulation. If such an application were presented, the Commission could reconsider the cases in question.

The Cohesion Fund receives a large number of projects. The Commission evaluates them in accordance with the criteria and provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 and approves projects for part-financing on the basis of the availability of funds and the balance to be maintained between its two areas of involvement. The Commission would point out that Greece has received all the funds earmarked for it in respect of 1993-95, with the environment and transport receiving contributions of 60% and 40% respectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1362/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-5080 (North-South cooperation schemes in the context of the campaign against drug abuse), can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs or other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies, together with the exact amount of such subsidies during the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

The Honourable Member will find below a list of the non-governmental organizations which carried out projects financed from heading B7-5080 in 1995:

Fide XII (ECU 95 727) Enda Bolivia (ECU 437 453) Comide (ECU 139 800) Centro de orientation juvenil vigilo herrero (ECU 235 000) Centro de desarrollo juvenil y de familia (ECU 477 950) Associazione di cooperazione rurale in Africa e America Latine (ECU 211 600) Centro amigos (ECU 241 961) Cruz blanca Panamena (ECU 152 700) Diben/prever (ECU 85 000) Fundacion de ayuda contra la drogadiccion (ECU 237 756) Orphaees refugees and aid international (ECU 302 559) Sahara (ECU 200 023) Comité catholique contre la faim (ECU 128 722) Lifesaving and lifegiving society (ECU 87 790) Oxfam (ECU 90 335) Fongoada (ECU 95 395) Comunita incontro (ECU 293 524) Blue cross Denmark (ECU 52 900)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1237/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Vets

The differences between the provisions in force regarding the prescription of veterinary medicinal products in the various Member States give rise to:

1. considerable trafficking of such products;

2. residues which interest the consumer in particular and are not subject to any controls.

In the same way, differences in provisions continuing training means that, in some Member States, there are courses which are not recognized throughout the Community.

Does the Commission not consider that it would be useful to harmonize both the prescription requirement for veterinary medicinal products, and the provisions on continuing training?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

The Commission has no knowledge of any trafficking in veterinary medicinal products caused by differences regarding the prescription of veterinary medicinal products. It will gather the necessary information and consult Member States regarding the possibility of introducing harmonized Community provisions for the prescription requirement for veterinary medicinal products.

The Commission does not envisage the need to harmonize continuing training for veterinary surgeons; indeed, in the majority of Member States, this is considered to be more of an ethical obligation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Projects funded by the Cohesion Fund in the Canary Islands

According to an information note issued in April 1996 by DG XVI, the Commission has recently approved the financing of a series of projects in Spain by the Cohesion Fund.

Will the Commission give details of the projects to be funded and say how much aid is to be given to the Canary Islands?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

In 1995, the Commission granted ECU 4.21 million in Cohesion Fund aid to the Canary Islands for reafforestation and measures to combat erosion.

In 1996 the Commission has to date approved ECU 11.38 million in aid from the Fund for a waste processing project.

The Commission would point out that Cohesion Fund resources are not allocated by region. There is accordingly no precise sum earmarked for financing projects in the Canary Islands. The amount accorded varies according to the cost of the project specified in the financing request made by the Member State. The rate of assistance is determined by Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a Cohesion Fund. ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Environmental protection under Tacis programme

Why does the environment component of the Tacis programme which assists economic reform in the new independent states, not include wildlife protection? Might it be extended to do so in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

The environmental component of the Tacis programme is implemented both by way of free standing environmental projects (e.g. the Black Sea environment programme, the regional environmental facility, the Aral Sea water resources management programme) and as an integral part of projects in other sectors (e.g. energy, agriculture). To date, there have been no Tacis projects specifically in the field of wildlife protection.

All Tacis projects are both requested and approved by beneficiary authorities in the New independent states (NIS). Thus, the absence of Tacis projects related to wildlife protection would indicate that this issue has not yet been identified as a priority by the beneficiary authorities themselves.

However, if such action was requested by the NIS authorities it could be considered for inclusion into the Tacis country or inter-state (multi country) programmes where compatible with the multiannual priorities agreed between the Commission and the partner governments of the NIS.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/96 by James Nicholson (PPE) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Fluoride in drinking water supplies

Will the Commission list:

1. those Member States of the European Union which add fluoride to water supplies, and

2. those Member States which have banned the treatment of water with fluoride.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 June 1996)

The standards for the quality of water intended for human consumption are laid down in Council Directive 80/778/EEC ((OJ L 229, 30.8.1980. )). In 1995, the Commission published a proposal for the revision of this directive ((OJ C 131, 30.5.1995. )). In both these documents the maximum permitted (parametric) value of fluoride in drinking water is set at 1.5 mg/l. This is consistent with the value adopted by the World health organisation in their 'Guidelines for drinking water quality', published in 1993.

Each Member State must transpose the drinking water directive into national legislation and inform the Commission accordingly. This includes the national parametric values adopted for fluoride.

However, there is no obligation for Member States to inform the Commission whether they add fluoride to water supplies or not. The Commission is therefore not in a position to provide an exhaustive list of the Member States that undertake this practice ((However, the Commission is aware that in Spain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, fluoride is added to some water supplies in controlled amounts, for oral health reasons. )).

Similarly, the Commission is not in a position to list which Member States have banned the addition of fluoride to drinking water, as there is no obligation for Member States to report such information to the Commission either.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1440/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: 'Stop violence against women'

Is the Commission aware that in June 1995, 150 women from developing countries and Europe met in Madrid to develop strategies to stop violence against women?

What steps will the Commission take to implement the declaration in the European Union?

Can the Commission specify what sponsorship the campaign organized by Solidar 'stop violence against women' focusing on violence against women in the home, at work and in war has attracted?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission is aware of the fact that in June 1995 150 women from European and developing countries took part in a conference on strategies to stop violence against women. The Commission gave its support to the event.

The Madrid declaration on violence appeals to international organisations and governments to include in their policies measures to combat various forms of violence.

The Commission is keen to ensure respect for all the human rights of women (see Beijing platform). In its fourth medium-term Community action programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996*2000) ((OJ L 335, 30.12.1995. )), the Commission has undertaken to work towards a binding instrument on sexual harassment at work.

The Commission also calls on the Member States to make provision for the regular exchange of information on action to promote the dignity of all women and men living in the Community, particularly in priority domains where the dignity of women and men can be adversely affected by abuses linked to illegal employment, cross-border traffic in human beings, or other forms of exploitation or abuse.

In the resolution adopted on 5 October 1995 on the image of women and men portrayed in advertising in the media, the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States called on the Member States and competent bodies to 'support and/or promote fora for discussion, consultation, monitoring * where appropriate within a framework of voluntary self-regulation * and follow-up with regard to material which is discriminatory on grounds of sex and is conveyed by advertising and the media'.

The information campaign to which the Commission is giving financial support (co-financing amounting to ECU 200 000) will help alert public opinion to the phenomenon of violence against women.