ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Nuclear energy in the Slovak Republic

1. What is the Commission's view of the risk that in a neighbouring Associated country such as the Slovak Republic the difficult economic and political situation is such that an enormous increase in the financial burden involved in the reconstruction of Bohunice and the retrofitting of Mochovce could have a lasting effect on the citizens of that country?

2. To what extent are the Member States of the EU prepared to accept the losses of tax revenue if the Slovak Republic were to become insolvent if the financial burden of its nuclear policy were to become too great?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1996)

The Slovak Republic has pursued prudent fiscal, monetary and exchange policies. The general government deficit has shrunk from 7.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1993 to register a small surplus of 0.5% of GDP in 1995. The current account balance turned from a deficit of 5% of GDP in 1993 to a surplus in subsequent years. 1996 has witnessed a deterioration in the current account as imports of consumer and investment goods have increased considerably. However, the current account deficit is being amply financed by strong capital inflows and as a result official reserves remain at a comfortable level (representing more than 4 months imports in mid-September 1996). While there will continue to be pressure on the current account due to increasing imports of investment goods such as those for the Mochovce project, it would seem reasonable to expect that prudence in fiscal and monetary policies will continue with respect to Slovak government financing of investment in the energy field.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3516/96 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (4 December 1996)

Subject: Projects financed from Community funds - Spain

Can the Commission provide details of projects financed from Community funds (especially ERDF and the Cohesion Fund) within the Kingdom of Spain on the international Douro, Tagus and Guadiana rivers or their tributaries since January 1995, specifying the total amount, the percentage or amount of Community co-funding, the date and the Commission services' approval?

Would the Commission also provide the same information with regard to projects pending or under assessment (total amounts, total Community financial involvement and location)?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2340/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: BSE and gelatine production in the EU

1. Are there EU standards on the production of gelatine and tallow extraction and processing?

2. What are production conditions like in the individual Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)

1. The Commission is currently developing standards for the production of gelatine. The scientific veterinary committee was consulted by the Commission and gave its opinion on 19 July 1995. Two working groups on veterinary legislation, including experts from Member States, have met. The scientific veterinary committee is reviewing the information on gelatine production in relation to inactivation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Final proposals for legislation will be made when the report is received.

The standards for tallow extraction and processing for human consumption are laid down in Council Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems affecting intra - Community trade in meat products ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. )) (specifically Annex C Chapter II). Special standards for production of these products in the United Kingdom have been laid down in Commission Decision 96/239/EC on emergency measures to protect against BSE ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )) as amended by Decision 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )). These are designed to give additional safety in the light of the BSE situation in the United Kingdom.

2. The Commission does not have details of national legal production standards in Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3454/96 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Leonardo programme

Could the Commission indicate what action has been taken or is being planned in order to improve the operation of the Leonardo programme, namely to reduce the amount of 'red tape', to speed up the financial procedures, specifically payments for student placements, and to increase the ECU 200 placement allocation?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1997)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about reducing the administrative burden associated with the Leonardo programme, and has already introduced a number of improvements with this in mind.

As regards the improvement of financial procedures, particularly in connection with student grants, the Commission's policy is now to pay 65% of the total amount due for the placement programme on signature of the contract, followed by a second advance payment of 25% on presentation of the interim report. 90% of the grant is thus available to the promoter at the end of the first year of a placement programme which runs for two years.

Concerning the question of the organisational costs authorised in the context of the management of placement programmes (the present ceilings being ECU 200 per beneficiary and ECU 15 000 per promoter per year), the Commission is in the process of considering new administrative arrangements for the 1996-97 financial year which would make it possible to make a greater contribution to the organisational costs, with a view to improving the quality of placement and exchange programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3946/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (10 January 1997)

Subject: Andalusian development and economic diversification programme

Would the Commission please provide information about the Andalusian Development and Economic Diversification Programme and the details of European Union funding?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 1997)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: European Court of Justice judgment of 26 September 1996

The Commission will be aware of the case discussed by the European Court of Justice on 26 September 1996 in which the Vicenze (Italy) district magistrate's court sought a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directives 76/464/EEC ((OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23. )) and 83/513/EEC ((OJ L 291, 24.10.1983, p. 1. )) on pollution caused by cadmium discharged into the aquatic environment and their proper transposition in decree law 133/92.

Does the Commission not think that the judgment, albeit correct, can be used so as to encourage behaviour inappropriate to Community standards?

What will the Commission do to ensure that Directive 76/464, particularly Article 3, and Directive 83/513 are properly implemented under Italian legislation since decree law 133/92 does not require prior authorization for any discharge of cadmium into the aquatic environment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1996)

In the judgement referred to by the Honourable Member the Court of Justice stated that Article 3 of Directive 76/464/EEC must be interpreted as requiring all discharges of cadmium, regardless of the entry date arising from its establishment of origin, to be subject to prior authorization.

As far as the possibility is concerned of a public authority in a Member State which has not transposed Article 3 as referred to above invoking that article against an individual person, the Court's judgment confirms the previous case law. Indeed, a Member State may not derive benefit from its own ignorance of Community law nor may any directive in itself and independently of the national transposition laws applied in order to implement this, determine or increase the penal responsibility of those who infringe the provisions of a directive which has not been transposed into national law. These are well established legal principles. It is to be stressed that an infringement procedure is in progress. It was brought by the Commission against Italy as a result of poor transposition of the directives in question with regard to, inter alia, the Article 3 referred to above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Bravani people

Is the Commission aware of the current plight of the Bravani people and of the abuse of their basic human rights?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1996)

The Commission is aware of the current plight of the Bravani minority in Somalia and the abuse of their human rights.

The Bravani are known as being essentially peaceable and commercial with a particularly high level of education. They appear to have suffered severely during the recent civil war. In 1991, General Aideed's forces chased out Siad Barre's supporters who had sought refuge in Brava (the tribal capital) and then ransacked the town in revenge. The Bravani people are currently facing great difficulties in Somalia, and in the South most have fled to the Swahili coastal communities along the Kenyan coast.

A paper produced by Amnesty International on the human rights situation in Somalia also underlines the plight of the Bravani people during the recent civil war in the country. Due to the fact that the majority of the Bravani appear to have left the country, the main concern currently seems to be about the forceful expropriation and exploitation of their land. Allegations regarding slave labour and inhuman working conditions of minority people including Bravani, on the banana plantations in Lower Shabelle are widespread, even if possibly somewhat exaggerated.

The Commission continues to follow closely the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: CFSP operational

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, said that the Presidency had submitted to the IGC a draft revision of Article J.11(2) which provided that, in future, CFSP operational expenditure would, as a general rule, be charged to the budget of the European Communities, except where military operations were involved or the Council decided otherwise.

Would the Presidency state what impact this reform would have on the powers which the Commission, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice have in these areas? Furthermore, under the proposed system, would the intergovernmental nature of such expenditure remain intact?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - Article 21 of Directive 90/220/EEC

1. How was the committee referred to in Article 21 of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. ))involved in laying down the criteria for simplified procedures pursuant to Decision 94/730/EC ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31. )), and with what result?

2. Has the committee referred to in Directive 90/220/EEC delivered an opinion on the contents of the Annex to Decision 94/730/EC?

3. If it has, by what majority did the committee adopt its opinion?

4. Does the committee's opinion agree with the contents of the Annex?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3036/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: 'Cheap' British labour on the Netherlands continental shelf

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands continental shelf is being flooded with British labour because wages and the level of social security provisions are lower in Britain than in the Netherlands?

2. Does the Commission consider it undesirable that there is competition as regards social aspects in the internal market?

3. Does it consider that this problem will disappear with the implementation of the directive on the availability of workers with a view to the performance of services?

4. Does it anticipate problems in the implementation of this directive in the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that this Member State voted against it? If so, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1996)

1. According to the information at the Commission's disposal, and taking all forms of employment into account, around 5 000 workers are employed in Netherlands offshore operations. However, the Commission has not received any information to suggest that a large number of workers from the United Kingdom are involved in such activities or that such workers are covered by social security provisions that are less favourable than those in force in the Netherlands.

2. As far as social security provisions are concerned, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, most recently amended by Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 (OJ L 335, 30.12.1995). )) is applicable in the case in point.

3. As far as the provisions of labour law are concerned, reference is made to the European Parliament and Council Directive, adopted on 16 December 1996, concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services ((OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1. )).

In general terms, this Directive states that a worker who is posted in connection with the transnational provision of services may not be deprived of a 'hard core' of labour law rights, especially in respect of the minimum wage, in force in the Member State in which the services are being provided. The Directive applies in particular to situations in which workers are posted to oil rigs or drilling platforms situated, for example, in waters under the jurisdiction of a Member State, such as the continental shelf.

4. The Directive applies without exception to all Member States, which have three years from the date of its adoption to introduce appropriate implementing measures. The Commission will ensure that the Directive is properly transposed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Slump in the European shipbuilding sector

According to leading figures in the European shipbuilding sector, such as Jean-Noel d'Acremont, chairman of the largest French shipyard, the EU's policy of trade liberalization without monitoring competitive practices has caused serious harm to the European shipbuilding sector. This is evidenced by recent shipyard closures in Belgium, Denmark and Germany and the serious problems affecting Greek shipyards.

The delay by the US Congress in ratifying the agreement within the framework of the OECD is yet another example of the disregard for Europe being shown by its competitors, which are continuing to subsidize their own shipyards, while Europe's are gradually closing.

The problem is particularly acute in southern Europe, and particularly in Greece.In view of this:

1. Will the Commission review its policy to date and inform its competitors that it intends to protect the interests of the Member States in every way possible?

2. What specific measures will it take to assist the declining Greek shipbuilding sector?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1996)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concerns about the delay in entry into force of the Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) agreement.

The Community will continue to encourage the United States to ratify the agreement, which represents the best prospect of achieving a normalisation of the shipbuilding market. However, in the absence of American ratification to date the Council has recently decided that the rules of the shipbuilding aid directive 94/73/EC amending Directive 90/684/EEC ((OJ L 351, 31.12.1994. )) should be further prolonged ad interim and until 31 December 1997 at the latest. The Council and the Commission have also agreed that if the OECD agreement has still not entered into force by 1 June 1997 the Commission will put forward appropriate proposals in order that the Council can decide on future policy before 31 December 1997. In any event the Council will review developments at its April 1997 meeting. This will include a broad discussion of future policy options based on a working paper to be produced by the Commission.

As regards the situation of Greek shipbuilding, it is the responsibility of the Greek authorities to adopt the measures they consider necessary to assist the sector within the Community legal framework. It is not the Commission's role to take or propose any specific measures concerning an industrial sector of any Member State but to ensure that any measures adopted are compatible with Community rules. In this respect the Commission is at present examining specific proposals from the Greek government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Thermie 1993

Follow-up question on point 2 of the answer of 29 April 1996 to Question E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).

According to point 2, a total of ECU 174 m was made available, including ECU 31.6 m for associated measures under Article 5, Annex V and ECU 4.3 m for implementation measures under Article 11 of Regulation 2008/90, giving a total of ECU 35.9 m for associated measures.

According to Annex V of Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1. )), an indicative amount of 10-15% of the total appropriation is estimated for associated measures, i.e. between ECU 17.4 and 26.1 m giving an overspend of between ECU 5.5 and 14.2 m above the indicative amount. There is no set indicative amount for implementation measures, so there may have been an overspend of up to ECU 18.5 m on associated measures.

1. How have these costs come about?

2. What is the legal basis for this overspend?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)

1. Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (Thermie programme) ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990. )) gives a percentage range of the total budget appropriation for associated measures for the full duration of the programme, and not for each year as the Honourable Member's question would seem to suggest.

The appropriations used each year have fluctuated depending on the needs in each financial year. Table 1.4.1 in the report on the application of the Thermie programme ((COM(95) 665 final. )) shows that ECU 106 million has been spent on associated measures over the duration of the programme out of total available appropriations of ECU 707 million, i.e. 15%.

2. The legal basis which allows the Commission to exceed these limits is Article 18(2) of the above Regulation, which stipulates that the indicative breakdown in the Regulation may be modified by decision of the Commission, once the committee has delivered a favourable opinion. The Commission has regularly informed and consulted the Member States on all aspects related to the application of the programme, in accordance with the procedures defined in Articles 9 and 10 of the Regulation. In view of the above overall results, it has not needed to make use of the possibility provided for in Article 18.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: utilization of the Community's powers in the trade field

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, said that the Presidency had submitted to the IGC a draft text conferring on the Community powers in the employment field and emphasizing the importance of the employment objective in European policies.

Before doing so, did the Presidency consider whether the Community always uses its existing powers to boost employment, particularly in connection with international trade negotiations?

Should it not take advantage of this opportunity to ensure that greater efforts are made on the employment front during such negotiations, by proposing that the IGC remove the ambiguities existing in Articles 113 and 228 with regard to the Commission's degree of autonomy in this area? Would it, furthermore, put forward proposals with a view to enhancing the transparency of preparatory negotiations on international trade agreements and ensuring that the Commission has no power to act on behalf of the Community, either de jure or de facto, before receiving the Council's formal approval?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2974/96 by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Customs union with Turkey

What legal possibilities exist for cancelling the agreement on customs union with Turkey, and how could such action be made possible?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 January 1997)

The provisions for the settlement of disputes between the parties are laid down in Articles 61 and 62 of Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union.

There are no provisions in Decision No 1/95 concerning its cancellation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3549/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (12 December 1996)

Subject: Western Sahara

In view of the present blockage in the process of decolonization of the Western Sahara, what initiatives does the Commission believe it could promote with a view to reaching a fair solution to this problem?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1997)

In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1084 of 27 November 1996, ((Doc. S/RES/1084(1996)-34106. )) over the next six months the international community is putting most of its effort and hopes for a peaceful settlement of the Western Sahara conflict into direct dialogue between the parties concerned.

With this in mind, the Commission is closely following the development of the situation in the Western Sahara and is prepared if necessary to facilitate any measure which could have a positive influence on the conflict in question.