ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2680/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of equality in the Aula-Dei Carthusian monastery in Zaragoza

The Aula-Dei Carthusian monastery in Zaragoza is classed as a 'property of cultural interest', both because it possesses paintings by Francisco de Goya and on account of its architecture. The Law on the National Historic Heritage lays down that properties of cultural interest should be properly accessible to local people.

The Carthusian monastery (Cartuja) is a religious house run by Carthusian monks, and women and girls are expressly banned from entering it, although this infringes the personal rights of women and, in all probability, their constitutional rights and their rights under Spain's present legal system.

Given that monastic life is not infringed by outside visits, women should have access to the premises like other visitors.

1. Does the Commission possess the legislative wherewithal to reconcile the conflicting claims of the need to respect divine service and the rights associated with the equal treatment of men and women?

2. Does the Commission's work include any draft legislation which could help resolve problems of this kind in future?

3. Does the Commission not believe that in this case, equal treatment should take precedence over other principles?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

The Honourable Members have drawn the Commission's attention to the fact that women and girls are banned from entering the Aula-Dei Carthusian Monastery in Zaragoza, where precious works of art are on display. This constitutes an infringement of the principle of equality because women do not have the same opportunity as men to admire these works of art.

While the Commission acknowledges the importance of the problem raised by the Honourable Members, it cannot take action because it does not have the power to intervene in matters of religion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3105/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: VAT levied on women's sanitary protection products

Concern has been expressed that VAT should be levied on such items which are essential for millions of women in the EU. Does the Commission consider that there is an overwhelming case for these products to be zero rated?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-2434/97 from Mr Wynn ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 76. )) and E-2624/97 from Mrs Oddy ((See page 31. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Refusal of ISM Safety Management Certificates

How many vessels have been refused ISM Safety Management Certificates by category in each Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2804/97 and E-2805/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

The Commission assumes that the Honourable Member is referring to the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 3051/95 on the safety management of roll-on roll-off passenger ferries ((OJ L 320, 30.12.1995. )).

Member States had the possibility of derogating from the requirement to impose international standards method (ISM) obligations on ferries and companies operating exclusively in sheltered waters until 1 July 1997. The Commission regrets that it does not at present have sufficient information to be able to provide a full answer to the question but will ask the Member States for up-dated information and communicate with the Honourable Member when it is available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/97 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Resider I and II programmes in Lombardy

The Resider I and II Community programmes support the strategies for the industrial reconversion of declining iron and steel-producing areas and redundant steel works, mainly by encouraging the setting up of SMEs with a view to boosting employment in the areas concerned; this would seem to be the case in some areas of the Lombardy Region, such as the commune of Sesto San Giovanni, Brescia and various communes in the province of Bergamo and Brescia. In the area of Sebino- Valle Camonica, however, Resider funds have been used to create infrastructures which do not comply with the spirit or the letter of the programme, such as the multi-purpose conference centre in Darfo Boario Terme, the ice skating rink in Ponte di Legno and an indoor swimming pool in Lovere. Obviously, these projects have not led to the redeployment of workers shed by the iron and steel industry. On 25 October 1996, meanwhile, the Regional Council of the Lombardy Region approved the call for applications for Resider II (1994-1997) funds, which are liable to be allocated for projects that have nothing to do with the industrial reconversion of iron and steel-making areas.

1. Does the Commission intend to carry out any checks to ascertain the real use to which Resider I and II funds have been put in the Lombardy Region? If so, what form will they take, and when will they be conducted?

2. Does the Commission not consider that it is necessary to assess the impact on employment of the investments made and make the payment of any further Community contributions conditional on the drawing up of a proper plan for the promotion of socially useful work and the redeployment of redundant iron and steel workers?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission monitors the implementation of the Resider programmes through the monitoring committees set up for that purpose under the structural funds regulations. It also carries out on-the-spot checks on operations in accordance with those regulations.

As far as the Resider programmes in Italy are concerned, the projects mentioned by the Honourable Member fall within the terms of the operational programmes approved by the Commission following an ex-ante appraisal. These programmes respect the guidelines adopted by the Commission for this Community initiative, which aims to encourage the economic reconversion of areas affected by the declining steel industry, notably through the promotion of new economic activities and the improvement of the environment.

The information available to the Commission on the Resider I programme in Lombardy indicates that more than 600 jobs have been created in the areas covered by the programme, which indicates that the strategy is bearing fruit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/97 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Seizures of Spanish fishing vessels and contravention of the fisheries agreement between Morocco and Spain

Since 1995 Spanish fishing vessels in Moroccan fishing grounds have been seized on 17 occassions by the Moroccan authorities.

It would appear, as the Spanish consul in Agadir (Morocco) has publicly stated, that the Moroccan authorities never notify the Commission of the seizure of the vessels within the 48-hour deadline laid down in the fisheries agreement concluded between the European Union and Morocco.

Moreover, the sanction proceedings subsequently instigated against the Spanish shipowners apparently fail to provide the guarantees required in any contentious procedure, in that no reliable proof is provided of the infringement committed, there is no notification of the vessels' cargos, etc.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

Is the Commission notified by the Moroccan Government of the seizure of Spanish vessels working in Moroccan fishing grounds, in accordance with the fisheries agreement between Morocco and the EU? Has it received any such notifications and, if so, how often?

What steps does the Commission intend to take if it proves to be true that the agreement is being contravened?

Does the Commission know whether the sanction proceedings instigated in respect of the vessels seized fulfil the minimum requirements for ensuring transparency and veracity?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

Since the new fisheries Agreement between the Community and Morocco came into force, the Moroccan authorities have normally informed the Commission Delegation in Rabat of the boarding of vessels within 48 hours, as provided for in Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement.

When a fishing vessel is boarded, Chapter VIII(3) of the Annex gives the owner the choice of paying a fine determined within a bracket laid down by Moroccan legislation or contesting the alleged infringement before a judicial body.

The Commission has always been informed, through the Delegation in Rabat, when the Moroccan authorities have boarded Community vessels.

The Commission has spared no effort in requiring the Moroccan authorities to comply with all the provisions of the Agreement concerning the boarding of Community vessels authorised to fish in Morocco's fishing zone so that Community owners can exercise their rights.

However, because of the boardings which have taken place recently, the Commission has requested a meeting of the Joint Committee under the Fisheries Agreement to look at ways of improving the procedures as regards boarding in order to ensure the greatest possible transparency and maximum information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2605/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Statements by a Member of the Commission on the British beef market

Speaking to the media on 2 July 1997, Commissioner Emma Bonino stated that British beef had been illegally exported to some EU Member States.

On 3 July 1997 the Commission declared that no such illegal British beef had been distributed on the Spanish market.

Who will shoulder responsibility in the Commission for having caused the serious risk of a collapse in the meat markets of several European Union Member States?

Who will shoulder responsibility in the Commission for having caused alarm among consumers as a result of statements that were later rectified or toned down?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2576/97, E-2577/97, E-2578/97, E-2603/97, E-2604/97 and E-2605/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

On 2 July 1997, the Commission notified the discovery of a fraud involving British meat illegally shipped to other Member States and to third countries.

True to its policy of transparency, and in compliance with the undertakings given to Parliament, the Commission has kept Parliament and the Member States abreast of all developments in this affair.

Initially, a Spanish firm, with the same name as a firm established in Guinea Bissau, was wrongly accused.

Subsequently, however, another Spanish firm was identified as having received 200 tonnes of meat from one of the offending Belgian firms. The Spanish authorities were informed by the Commission and are currently investigating the matter.

The Commission is aware that certain information may have repercussions on the meat market, but it gives priority to informing consumers as required by the principle of transparency.

However, the event referred to by the Honourable Members of Parliament has not influenced the market, since, according to the information provided [on a weekly basis] to the Commission by the Member States, wholesale meat prices have not been affected by the disclosures concerning the illegal exports of meat from the United Kingdom in July.

The Commission continues to believe that it is its duty to keep Parliament and the Member States - and, if necessary, consumers - fully abreast of affairs of this kind. This approach has also been widely approved by the Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Family rail passes for European railways

In France and Germany you can obtain what is known as a family rail pass, and it is recognized by both countries.

1. Would it not be desirable to introduce a family rail pass throughout the European Union, valid in all Member States, to make rail travel more attractive and support the family?

2. Will the Commission be taking an initiative in this direction? If not, why not? If so, how?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

Whilst recognising the clear advantages for families and for patronage of rail of family rail passes, the Commission considers that tariff schemes and reductions are matters for the railway undertakings themselves, in line with their management independence.

In addition, given the principle of subsidiarity, it is for Member States to decide how far they would like to support tariff reductions on public transport.

Consequently, the Commission has no plans to bring forward a specific initiative regarding a Community-wide family pass.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/97 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Demonstrators in Papua New Guinea

1. a) Is the Commission aware that criminal proceedings are currently under way in Papua New Guinea (PNG) against Jonathan O'ata, John Kawowo, Powes Parkop and John Napu who had played a leading role in March 1997 in organizing demonstrations against the deployment of mercenaries by the PNG authorities in Bougainville?

1. b) If so, is it monitoring these proceedings?

2. Does the Commission agree with Amnesty International that if these men are found guilty and imprisoned they should be regarded as political prisoners and that this would damage the relatively open political climate in Papua New Guinea?

3. What opportunities does the Commission see in its contacts with the PNG authorities for calling for proceedings which respect human rights and political freedoms?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

The Commission has followed closely the issue of the accusations against Jonathan O'ata, John Kawowo, Powes Parkop and John Napu.

After the elections in June, a new government was formed on 29 July 1997 and it immediately became clear that this new government sought a national reconciliation on issues related to the Sandline mercenaries crisis.

However, the four above named appeared in court on 29 August 1997 on charges of unlawful assembly. The prosecution appeared not to have their case ready and requested the magistrate to adjourn it, without proposing a date. This was not accepted by the defence and in the end the charges were dropped. The case is therefore to be considered closed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2071/97 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Community environmental grant

Under budget heading B4-306, subsidies are granted for environmental protection. A list of organizations which have received such subsidies was published in OJ C 148 of 16 May 1997.

What project was submitted by the 'European Golf Association'?

Can the Commission supply more information about this organization? Can it supply a copy of the organization's bye-laws and a recent list of the members of its committee?

To what extent has the Commission verified that the funds have been spent correctly?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answers given to questions H-503/96 ((Debates of the Parliament of 19.6.1996, Official Journal Annex No 4-484, pages 222-223. )) and H-605/96 ((Debates of the Parliament of 17.7.1996, Official Journal Annex No 4-486, page 224. )) from Mr De Coene for an account of the project submitted by the European golf association.

A copy of the European golf association constitution and a list of committee members is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission has kept in regular touch with progress on the project, which will culminate with the launching, at the end of September 1997, of the 'Committed to Green' campaign on the occasion of the Ryder Cup golf competition between Europe and the United States.

Upon completion of the project, the project operator is required to submit a final report on the work done, final accounts showing all appropriate expenditure, and a final financial balance. This information will be checked by the Commission to ensure that the work has been done properly, and that the total expenditure involved has been correctly reflected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Accidents and road safety in Greece

According to Eurostat data (Weekly Europe No 1011), Greece has the highest road accident mortality rate in the European Union - 47.5% higher than the EU average. According to Commission information, the direct cost of road accidents in the Union is estimated at ECU 15 billion annually, the economic loss amounts to a further ECU 30 billion, the 'cost' in terms grief and suffering is another ECU 100 million, etc.

Will the Commission say:

(a) whether it has similar cost assessments for Greece;

(b) whether it has information for assessing the main causes of fatal accidents in Greece; and

(c) what steps (direct or indirect) the EU can take to help address this problem?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

In 1994, 2 050 people were killed and 29 722 injured in road accidents in Greece. This is equivalent to some 987 killed per million passenger cars registered. The corresponding figure for the Community is 298 fatalities per million passenger cars registered. The Commission does not have precise estimates of the costs of road accidents in Greece. However, the MECU 1 per fatality estimate used in the Commission's 1997 document, would suggest that the hard economic costs of road accidents in Greece amounted to some MECU 2.000 in 1994.

Information relating to further road accident figures for Greece and to the economic consequences of road accidents is available in the communication 'Promoting road safety in the Community' ((COM(97) 131. )). In that communication, a number of proposals for action that would contribute to the reduction of the number of road accidents are listed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/97 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Farm inspections

Commission representatives carry out inspections on farms where, together with the national authorities, they check whether the areas in receipt of EU agricultural support have been correctly notified.

The behaviour of these inspectors prompts, however, a number of questions. Is it right for inspectors to descend on a farm on the farmer's 50th birthday as has, for example, happened in Finland? It is also claimed that inspectors have banned press photographers from taking pictures of them.

Do the normal rules of politeness and courtesy apply to farm inspectors or are they displaying the features of a totalitarian state when carrying out their work?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1997)

In the absence of more precise details, it is not possible to reply specifically to the points raised. However, the general issues raised can be addressed.

Commission representatives inspect farms in conjunction with the national control authorities in order to observe and evaluate national control procedures. Farms to be visited by the Commission are often selected at random and normally inspections would be curtailed only in the event of unforeseen circumstances likely to cause particular hardship to the farmer or his animals. Likewise, inspections should be carried out as announced but some flexibility (i.e. postponement by a day or two) may be permissible if the farmer justifiably claims that the timing of the inspection is inconvenient.

As regards the manner in which on-farm inspections and audits of Member State expenditure is conducted, the Commission expects its officials to show courtesy at all times to all parties, whilst maintaining a clear view of audit objectives. Generally, given that their findings must be communicated firstly to superiors but also to protect the rights of individuals involved in claiming agricultural subsidies, Commission officials are under instructions not to attract undue press attention in the course of their audits.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3308/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Need for a European School in The Hague

Is the Commission aware that staff of the European Patents Office in Rijswijk have no access to a European School facility, whereas the Patents Head Office in Munich does?

Does the Commission consider it important for the children of staff of the European Patents Office in Rijswijk, of the European Space Organization in Noordwijk and of Europol to have their own European School in (or near) The Hague?

If so does the Commission intend to approach the national authorities that should be responsible for providing such a facility?

If not, why not?

Can the Commission also state whether other European cities (in particular Dublin, Alicante and Copenhagen), to which agencies were allocated in 1992, can expect to be provided with their own European Schools?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1997)

Under the Protocol on the Setting-up of European Schools, signed on 13 April 1962, establishments bearing the name 'European School' may be set up on the territory of the Contracting Parties for the education and instruction together of children of the staff of the European Communities.

A supplementary Protocol was signed on 15 September 1975 providing that a European School can be set up in Munich for the children of staff of the European Patent Office to be educated together. This school was set up in 1977. The Protocol made no provision for setting up a European School in Rijswijk.

The Commission considers that it is not its business to take an initiative regarding the establishment of new European Schools to meet the needs of non-Community bodies. On the other hand, in the case of the decentralised Community agencies, such as those in Dublin, Alicante and Copenhagen referred to by the Honourable Member in the written question, the Commission could support the request for setting up a European School if it were shown that it was necessary for the proper operation of the agencies, and if the relevant criteria (potential school population, provision of premises by the host Member State, budget situation) were met.

In any event, the decision to establish a new European School must be taken unanimously by the Board of Governors, an intergovernmental body consisting of the Ministers of each contracting party whose responsibilities include national education and/or external cultural relations. The Commission is a member of the Board.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Organic farming practices

Will the President-in-Office make a statement on the current round of negotiations on the regulation for European organic livestock standards?

Does the President-in-Office recognize that at present the proposed regulations are causing great concern for many organic farmers who are undertaking a conversion to organic farming practices and those wishing to convert?

Answer (17 November 1997)

On 29 July 1996 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a Regualtion (COM(96) 366) supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/21 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production.

The Council consulted the European Parliament on the subject on 12 September 1996, and the latter delivered its Opinion in plenary session on 14 May 1997.

In order to continue its proceedings, the Council is awaiting the amended Commission proposal, following the European Parliament's Opinion.

The Council is well aware of the importance of the proposal and intends, through this Regulation, to answer the expectations of farmers involved in the development of organic farming in the area of livestock production.