ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Increase in the dairy quota allocated to Spain

The various trade unions in the dairy sector in Galicia (Spain) find it incomprehensible that a country such as Spain which only produces 76% of the milk consumed there should be penalized.

It is for this reason in particular, and not only to avoid any penalty which the sector might incur in the event that the quota set is exceeded, that the sector would like to see an increase in the quota allocated to Spain.

It seems evident that there must be some justification which could shed light on the conundrum constituted for the dairy sector in Galicia (Spain) by the fact that Spain, which produces less milk than it consumes, should be penalized for producing too much.

Can the Commission explain the situation and say whether, in the light of the above, it considers that there should be a significant increase in the production quota allocated to Spain?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

Reference quantities for milk production were allocated to each Member State on the basis of historic reference production. This method enabled the Council to reach a compromise without having to take a position on other factors in the economy of the milk industry in each Member State, in particular the level of consumption.

The legislation states that the additional levy is due on production which exceeds the total guaranteed quantity. In the 1995/96 marketing year, eleven Member States, including Spain, exceeded that quantity.

At present, obligations arising from the GATT Agreement, the possible enlargement of the Community and the trend of world production have led the Commission to propose to the Council a policy of prudence as regards prices on the Community market and the control of quantities marketed. The Commission has also begun to consider the changes required to adapt milk policy to meet future needs.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2691/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (9 October 1996)

Subject: Terrorist attack against the Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has once again been the target of a terrorist attack by a fanatical Islamist organisation in Istanbul (29.9.1996).

This fresh terrorist attack has caused disquiet throughout the Christian World, a disquiet aggravated by the practically non-existant measures taken to protect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, despite the many respresentations made in this connection.

Will the Commission say:

1. What representations it intends to make to the Government in Ankara; and

2. Whether it intends to provide the Patriarchate with financial assistance to enable it to repair the damage?

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

The Commission notes that the official inquiry into the attack on the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul on 29 September 1996 has not yet concluded. The attack was claimed by IBDA-C, an Islamic terrorist group, but this has still to be confirmed by the inquiry.

There is no specific heading in the Community budget that would allow it to fund the repairs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2890/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Packaging

A recent life cycle analysis undertaken for the Danish Government came to the conclusion that aluminium beverage cans might be considered acceptable for use, whilst steel cans would not. However, an independent

study reached the opposite conclusion. In the light of this, does the Commission have any plans to re-examine the evidence which is being used to support the Danish ban on aluminium and steel beverage cans, and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Since 1 July 1996 Member States have to comply with the requirements set out in Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )).

The Commission is in the process of examining the national legislation communicated by the Member States. As regards Denmark, the Commission has not yet completed this process. However, the Commission is of the opinion that in principle, Directive 94/62/EC does not allow Member States to implement a total ban of certain kinds of packaging provided that they comply with the essential requirements laid down in Articles 9, 11 and Annex II to this Directive. Such requirements may in principle be met both by aluminium and steel beverage cans. Therefore the Commission does not consider that, as regards the legal implications of Directive 94/62/EC, the two materials should be treated differently.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2487/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: Monitoring the implementation of legislation

Can the Commission say what use has been made of Article 171 of the Treaty on sanctions for failure to comply with Community law?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1996)

So far, the Commission has not asked the Court of Justice to impose payment of a lump sum or a penalty payment on a Member State in the course of Article 171 infringement proceedings. The guidelines which the Commission intends to follow are set out in a Memorandum on applying Article 171, published in the Official Journal. ((OJ C 242, 21.8.1996. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3948/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (10 January 1997)

Subject: Global assessment report on the Leader I Programme in Andalucia

The sectors involved in the Leader I Programme in Andalucia have frequently complained in the media about 'obscurantism and sectoralism' in certain Leader I groups. A global assessment report should therefore be made available to the public and I should like to see the 'monitoring reports'. Can the Commission supply me with these documents?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 February 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-2460/96 by Gerard Collins (UPE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Airport development in Ireland

Can the Commission indicate the total amount of Regional Fund money it now expects to invest in the development of Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports during the lifetime of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework and the percentage of the total available being invested in each individual airport, furthermore can the Commission also indicate the total amount of Cohesion Fund money being made available to each airport over the same period?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1996)

In the context of the Community support framework for Ireland (1994-1999) 23.89 MECU from the European regional development fund (ERDF) have been earmarked for investment in state airports in Ireland.

This funding is included in the total ERDF support package of 888 MECU for transport infrastructure in Ireland. Substantial additional investment (in the order of 180 MECU), funded by Aer Rianta, will also take place during the period.

No indicative amounts for ERDF support per airport have been established. Individual projects are assessed and considered on their merits. To date, three such projects have been funded, as follows:

- Dublin: construction of a new taxiway and continued improvements to Pier A;

- Shannon: upgrading of the runway lighting system;

- Cork: purchase and fitting out of a new fire tender.

Total expenditure on these projects amounted to 3.1 MECU in 1994 and 6.8 MECU in 1995 (50% of which came from the ERDF).

There is no indicative a priori allocation of aid from the Cohesion fund to airport projects in Ireland. The aid granted depends firstly on requests for assistance for individual projects being submitted by the Irish government and secondly on the Commission's assessment of the economic merits of the proposals.

From April 1993 to date, one project has been assisted by the Cohesion fund. This was the expansion of the cargo terminal at Dublin airport, to which 3.3 MECU in assistance was granted in 1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Aid for the conversion of shipyards

Can the Commission confirm that the granting of state aid for the conversion of Spanish shipyards has not yet been approved, despite the amount of time which has elapsed since the application was submitted?

What has hindered the granting of this aid for the conversion of publicly owned shipyards in Spain?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

In November 1995 the Spanish authorities notified the Commission of plans to undertake a further restructuring of the Spanish public yards. These proposals included aids amounting to 180 000 million pesetas to be paid during the period 1995-1998 in accordance with the special derogation for Spain in the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) agreement respecting normal competitive conditions in commercial shipbuiding and repair. It is the Commission's duty to ensure that the proposed measures are compatible not only with the agreement but also with the seventh Council Directive on aid to shipbuilding (90/684/EEC ((OJ L 380, 31.12.1990. )), as amended by Directive 94/73/EC ((OJ L 351, 31.12.1994. ))).

Contrary to the Honourable Member's impression, the Commission has in fact already approved a substantial part of the proposed aid package. In December 1995 the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the payment of 89 104 million pesetas in the form of previously approved but unpaid loss compensation aid (capital plus interest) since this aid was in compliance with Article 5a of the shipbuilding aid Directive.

No decisions have yet been taken by the Commission on the remaining aids proposed (80 000 million pesetas social aids and 10 000 million pesetas investment aids). Together with past interest payments made on unpaid aid and proposed future tax credits to the yards, which could constitute additional aids, these elements are still under examination in order that the Commission can ensure that the nature and extent of the restructuring measures in the beneficiary yards render the aids compatible with the OECD agreement and the relevant provisions of the shipbuilding aid Directive. This requires particularly close attention given the difficult market situation and the fact that certain yards in other Member States facing similar problems to the Spanish yards have been forced to close.

The Commission's examination process was necessarily interrupted for some time by the change of government in Spain, but discussions have since resumed and are continuing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3089/96 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Illegal landings on Lampedusa

Sicily, and in particular the little island of Lampedusa, situated in the middle of the Mediterranean, have in the last few years become a bridgehead for illegal entry into Europe from the North African coast.

In the last two years alone, more than 8000 illegal immigrants, coming from the port of Sfax (Tunisia) have landed on Lampedusa and then generally travelled further inside Europe (France, Germany and Belgium).

These movements are due to the laxity of laws passed by the Italian authorities, who, following a vain attempt at identification, merely issue en expulsion order on the illegal immigrants which only becomes applicable after 15 days, thereby leaving them free to move around and to leave Sicily.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to stop this unfortunate and dangerous flow of immigrants, many of whom are the unsuspecting victims of unscrupulous organizations involved in the illegal immigration racket?

Answer (11 December 1996)

The Commission is aware of the importance of combating illegal immigration and dismantling the networks which organize and exploit it. Since the Treaty on the European Union came into force, the Member States have considered combating illegal immigration as a matter of common interest (Article K.1(3)(c)). For that reason several decisions on combating illegal immigration and explusion have been adopted. Although these instruments are not legally binding, they are a first attempt to produce a common Union response.

In order to combat illegal immigration, checks at the external borders of the Member States must be managed effectively. With regard to the crossing of the external borders of the Member States and the carrying out of checks at borders, the Commission presented a draft convention ((OJ C 11, 15.1.1994. )) to the Council in 1993, proposing common rules. Unfortunately, although several positions were adopted at European Councils (most recently at Florence in June 1996), the Council has not reached an agreement on the draft. Thus checks are carried out under national rules or international agreements in force between two or more Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/96 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Encouraging scientists' mobility through the Fourth Framework Programme for Research

Various bodies in Germany have asked me to explain the concept of scientists' mobility within the EU's Fourth Framework Programme for Research.

Can the Commission provide information without delay on the following questions:

1. How is the programme adopted and implemented in the Member States?

2. To which countries are scientists sent?

3. What criteria or qualifications are used to select scientists for the programme?

4. On which areas of science is the programme particularly focussed?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

1. The 'Training and mobility of researchers' programme has been welcomed by the Member States, and in particular by academics and scientists in Europe.

2. The scientists covered by the programme may go to any Member State other than their country of origin, or to any other country associated with the programme.

3. The basic criteria used to decide which projects will be supported by the programme, and also to select scientists, is scientific excellence.

4. The 'Training and mobility of researchers' programme covers all the exact and natural sciences, economic and management sciences and humanities and social sciences which can contribute to the realization of Community objectives in the fields of research, technological development and demonstration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Planning techniques in the electricity and gas distribution sectors

The aim of the proposal for a Council Directive to introduce rational planning techniques in the electricity and gas distribution sectors (doc. COM(95)369 ((OJ C 1, 4.1.1996, p. 6. ))) is to increase energy efficiency in the gas and electricity distribution sectors by introducing rational planning techniques which will assess the possibility of investment in the fields of energy supply and reduction in energy demand. The aim is also to help to achieve the Community objective of stabilizing CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

We consider it necessary to go beyond the Community objective of stabilizing CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. It is also important to improve energy efficiency for the end consumer by using planning techniques. Integrated resource planning was introduced in the United States to control the management of demand. Does the Commission not consider that it would be appropriate to apply integrated resource planning in the EU too?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

The Commission's draft directive to introduce rational planning techniques in the electricity and gas distribution sectors is indeed a measure intended to contribute to the Community's CO2 objective for the year 2000. The measure will also create a culture within the utility distribution sector whereby demand side management (energy efficiency services) will be offered to customers on the same basis as energy supply. Although the title of the measure does not specifically mention integrated resource planning, there is no doubt that compliance with the draft directive would involve the application of the integrated resource planning concept throughout the Community. This would have long-term positive effects for the environment (beyond 2000) and energy policy in general and would act as the perfect complementary action to the Community's proposals for an internal energy market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3654/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Limousin region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Limousin region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 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-2823/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales

The Commission has decided that all existing duty-free shops will be abolished in June 1999. Over 100 000 jobs will consequently be lost, and European consumers will be denied the full privileges granted to consumers from third countries.

Will the Commission reconsider the plan to close the duty-free shops and determine what plan might be drawn up to safeguard employment and protect the interests of European consumers?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (13 December 1996)

The rules providing for the abolition of duty-free sales in intra-Community trade on 30 June 1999 stem from two Directives adopted by the Council in the VAT and excise duties field as part of the single market programme, namely Directive 91/680/EEC supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers ((OJ L 376, 31.12.1991. )) and Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products. ((OJ L 76, 23.3.1992. ))

As the decision to abolish duty-free sales was taken by the Council in 1991, the business interests concerned and the Member States had plenty of time in which to prepare gradually for the new situation.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions Nos E-2573/96 by Mr Amadeo and E-2690/96 by Mr Barros Moura on the same topic. ((See page 31. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3656/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Nord-Pas-de-Calais regions

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 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-2789/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) and Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: The introduction by the Italian Government of a tax for Europe

As part of its new budgetary measures, the Italian Government has decided to introduce a tax for Europe.

This heavy new tax, which the Prime Minister, Mr Prodi, has judged necessary to enable Italy to take part in the first stage of monetary union, has no equivalent in the other European countries.

The new tax will have an adverse impact on the Italian economy as will the whole of the budget, which is based on higher taxation rather than cuts in public spending and thus takes the opposite approach to that adopted by the other Member States with a view to meeting the Maastricht targets.

Has the Commission in any way hinted at or proposed such a tax, or even imposed it on the Italian Government?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1996)

The Commission has recently indicated the need for Italy to make additional progress in the area of fiscal consolidation. It has not, however, introduced any specific proposal or requested any particular intervention. Therefore, it is quite impossible that the decision to introduce a 'tax for Europe' could have been suggested or even less imposed by the Commission.

The Commission would in addition recall that it has always sought in the broad guideline of economic policy to reduce expenditure rather than to increase taxation, to improve Member States' budgetary situations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/96 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: The haulage company 'Transervice'

The haulage company 'Transervice' has carried out haulage operations for the Commission in Luxembourg.

In May and June 1996 'Transervice' failed to pay its employees' wages. Since it does not hold a licence to engage in trade or the haulage licence required by Luxembourg law, it could not be brought before the industrial tribunal. It would seem that this company is continuing to operate routinely in Germany.

In placing orders with private firms is the Commission not required to check whether those firms comply with industrial legislation and national procedures?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1996)

The Commission has had removals undertaken by Transervice, a company established in Luxembourg, under a contract to provide services signed on 22 December 1993.

This company was registered by the Luxembourg district court as a haulage and removals firm on 29 July 1988 under the reference 'Sektion B, Nummer 28465'. It was set up before a Luxembourg notary in Mersch ('Gesellschaftsgründung vom 21 Juli 1988, Nummer 3252') and registered on 26 July 1988. The Luxembourg Minister for the Middle Classes issued it a licence No 58614 on 22 March 1989, which was renewed on 22 February 1991 under the Number 58614A following a change of management.

When the Commission receives tenders, it systematically eliminates bidders whose legal situation is unsatisfactory in that they have not paid social security contributions or direct and indirect taxes, have been guilty of serious professional negligence or might be prosecuted and convicted for violation of business ethics.

It should also be noted that the Commission has no business or other relations with the company established in Germany.