ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Thermie 1993

Follow-up question on point 5 of the answer of 29 April 1996 to E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).

1. When will the Court of Auditors be verifying the 1993 Thermie operations?

2. Who is entitled to request an immediate audit?

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

The Commission is not in a position to answer the Honourable Member's question, since the matter is not within its field of competence but that of the Court of Auditors, which itself decides when it wishes to carry out audits.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Noise standards for non-road machinery

It is understood that standards have been set by the Commission for air pollution from bulldozers, excavators and other non-road machinery with respect to nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates.

This move is welcomed but, at the same time, does the Commission have any plans for the harmonization and setting of standards for noise emissions from such machinery?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)

There is already Community legislation concerning noise from compressors, welding and power generators, tower cranes, concrete hammers and picks, earth moving machines (hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, loaders, excavator-loaders, dozers) and lawn mowers. The relevant directives lay down permissible noise emission values and require the machines to be labelled with the guaranteed noise emission level.

The Commission is currently reviewing the existing noise limits for compressors, welding and power generators, tower cranes, concrete hammers and picks and lawn mowers and in this context it is considering a general framework for the noise emission of outdoor machinery.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2540/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: Fourth research and technological development (RTD) programme

The Commission proposes that the scientific and technical content of the specific programmes in three of the areas which it identifies as being a priority - namely, life sciences (vaccines and viral diseases), trains and railways systems of the future, and maritime systems - be adjusted with a view to focusing research measures on clearer targets and ensuring that the programmes are properly coordinated with one another.

However, in view of the criteria which have been established and of the new budgetary resources available, it makes no provision as yet for the allocation of additional budgetary resources to those areas.

Unfortunately, the Commission has not made use of the new financial opportunities provided by the first review of the fourth framework programme. Would it not agree, therefore, that, together with the budgetary authorities, it should give practical effect to the EU's stated intention to give priority to those policies likely to boost employment in the medium and long term and, furthermore, that it should look into the feasibility of specific research projects considered to be a priority being implemented under complementary programmes cofinanced by the Member States most directly affected?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)

The Commission's proposal for a financial supplement to the fourth research and technological development framework programme ((COM(96) 12. )), stated that a supplement of 745 MECU - taking account of the enlargement decisions - would indeed be justified on the basis of research needs. However, the proposed supplement of 700 MECU took account of the pressing demands of other policies on a constrained Community budget and the principles of sound financial management.

In practical terms, the present constraint on the feasible size of a financial supplement for the framework programmes remains the current financial perspective of the Community, and specifically the ceilings for expenditure for 1997 and 1998 under category 3 (internal policies). The Council has now made clear that it will not agree to a revision of the financial perspective, and the Commission, having examined the budgetary situation, has concluded that, without prejudice to the outcome of the 1997 budgetary procedure, a sum of at least 100 Mecu will be available up to the end of 1998. The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission, for its part, both in its proposals relating to the modifications of the financial perspective and in its proposal on the financial supplement to the 4th framework programme, has attached great importance to the need to support policies which will contribute, in the medium or long-term, to the creation of employment.

Under the fifth framework programme, the feasibility of complementary programmes will be examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3559/96 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1996)

Subject: Non-tariff barriers to trade

As the Commission is aware, Eurochambers (the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry) has just published a study in collaboration with the Commission on the non-tariff barriers to trade with third countries encountered by European undertakings. The study shows that one of the main obstacles consists of a lack of sufficient information on how to cope with the administrative regulations and customs procedures in force in those countries. To improve the situation, European undertakings are calling for 'one-stop shops' to be set up to provide information and help for European businesses wishing to export to third countries, and they are also calling for improved transparency and information regarding the rules and regulations in force in third countries.

Does the Commission intend to take any steps in this respect?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3429/96 by Mr Méndez de Vigo ((See page 82. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2733/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: European Guarantee Fund for the audiovisual sector

The creation of a European market in the audiovisual sector presupposes the creation of 'European works', which means works produced in the Community Member States, as defined in Article 6 of Directive 89/552/EEC ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.)). In June 1995, following the European conference on the audiovisual sector, the Commission realized the need for a financial instrument to reduce the risks of financing European films. This led to the establishment of a European Guarantee Fund whose purpose is to spread the financial risks in the audiovisual sector. The European Investment Fund (EIF), set up in June 1994, has demonstrated its readiness to administer a guarantee fund intended specifically for the audiovisual industry.

Will the Commission:

1. allocate additional resources to the fund in the Community budget, instead of transferring ECU 90 million from the appropriations intended for the MEDIA II Programme?

2. Tackle the problem of providing sufficient finance to meet the fund's ambitions? This is not so much a question of establishing whether or not the ECU 90 m is adequate but of considering whether the decision to make it available to television scriptwriters as well as the actual cinema industry carries the risk that limited resources will be spread too thinly.

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

1. The Community contribution will not be taken from the MEDIA II programme budget. It is part of the overall financial programme for the audiovisual sector for which the Commission has proposed total funding of ECU 400 million, including ECU 310 million to go to the MEDIA II programme (1996-2000).

2. To ensure the financial efficiency of the fund, a minimum of capital is required. Market analysis and professional consultations estimated this at a total of ECU 200 million, to be provided by the Commission and the public and private financial sectors. Taking into account the joint guarantee and insurance agreements which the fund may conclude with third parties, the total amount of guarantees granted in respect of European audiovisual productions may reach ECU 100 million by the year 2000.

Selected projects will be assessed by the financial institutions in consultation with experts from the European Investment Fund and the profession. The assessment will be made on the basis of the following criteria: financial credibility and the potential for release on the European and world markets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Quality wines produced in specified regions

With reference to the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions (COM(95)744 ((OJ C 74, 14.3.1966, p. 12. ))) and the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2332/92 on sparkling wines produced in the Community (COM(95)744 ((OJ C 74, 14.3.1966, p. 16. ))), whilst approving the Council proposal to establish a minimum period of time for fermentation, we would request, as a general rule, that in order to safeguard the consumer, quality wines p.s.r. or quality sparkling wines p.s.r. should contain exclusively viticultural products originating in the specific region whose name they bear and that, furthermore, with reference to the two proposals in question, the names should be included in a Commission list. The management committee should either decide to insert them in the list or decide that the transitional measures have expired.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Council has already adopted the proposals referred to in his written question.

On 26 June 1996 the Council adopted Regulations (EC) No 1426/96, 1427/96, 1428/96 and 1429/96 ((OJ L 184, 24.7.1996. )) laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions (quality wines psr), laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines, for sparkling wines produced in the Community, and laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling and aerated sparkling wines.

The Council has reasserted the Honourable Member's view that as a general rule, a quality wine psr or a quality sparkling wine psr should contain exclusively viticultural products originating in the specific region whose name they bear. It has therefore, exceptionally, extended a Member State's option to waive the general rule until 2003 - in very particular instances - provided that the legislation of the Member State so provided before 1 September 1995.

Given that the derogation covers specific cases only, the Council has required Member States to draw up a list of quality wines psr and quality sparkling wines psr involved, and send it to the Commission for publication in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Réunion region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Réunion 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-2724/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Guarantee fund for the audiovisual sector

In connection with the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a 'European Guarantee Fund to promote cinema and television production' (COM(95) 546) ((OJ C 41, 13.2.1996, p. 8. )), will the Commission clarify the type of producer which is to receive funding and say whether it intends to promote major productions which can compete on world markets against American products, or whether it will favour independent producers and screenwriters, which are the best representatives of European culture and have established their position on the world market in recent decades with masterpieces of unlimited value?

Will the Commission favour small and medium-sized production companies by assisting projects which to produce more films, so that any failures can be balanced by successes and the risks can be reduced?

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

In principle the European Investment Fund will be open to all types of productions provided they are likely to be commercially viable and have a potential for cross-border distribution (i.e. in at least two Member States).

As requested by the Council and Parliament, the Commission is examining a mechanism for consideration of projects with limited financial scope, which most often originate in Member States with a limited audiovisual capacity. This mechanism would make it possible for a certain portion of the Fund's finances to be earmarked for this type of project.

The Fund is clearly intended to support producers presenting catalogues containing several production projects as well as firms presenting individual projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3667/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Centre region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Centre 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-2632/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Protection against the dangers of radiation

With reference to the draft proposal for a Council Directive on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposures, replacing Directive 84/466/Euratom (COM(95) 0560).

The use of ionizing radiation has made it possible to make substantial progress in the medical field, not only in diagnosis, but also in treatment and prevention. Since the end of the last century, when the use of X-rays was introduced for diagnostic purposes, the increase in the number of radiological units and the many new uses of ionizing radiation have helped to ensure that for the citizens of the European Community medical exposures are the main source of exposure to artificial ionizing radiation.

Whilst I agree that the 1984 Directive should be revised as a matter of urgency and that the provisions of the draft directive would soon effectively limit any exposure of the population not justified for medical purposes, could the Commission nevertheless say how it comes about that the above-mentioned Directive, twelve years after its adoption, has not yet been fully applied in all the Member States, in particular as regards the inventory of radiological equipment envisaged in Article 3?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1996)

Council Directive 84/466/Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic measures for the radiation protection of persons undergoing medical examination or treatment ((OJ L 265, 5.10.1984. )) covers a wide range of matters (training of doctors, dentists and assistants, availability of qualified experts in radiophysics, technical standards, quality criteria and monitoring of installations). This has generally implied that the Member States had to amend or complete relevant national provisions adopted at various administrative levels, which modification and application involve the participation of several social sectors and administrative bodies.

In the last years, the Commission has started infringement proceedings against several Member States, seeking a more complete implementation of the Directive. Some cases have been brought before the Court of justice and further proceedings could be instituted in the future on the basis of their outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Eligibility for Phare and Tacis programmes

In recent years a large number of NGOs, associations and non-profit making bodies have complained that they are finding it increasingly difficult to take part in the various schemes under the Phare and Tacis programmes, particularly in the area of contracts.

Do these complaints reflect the true situation?

Can the Commission indicate what percentage of participants in the Phare and Tacis programmes such bodies represent?

Will the Commission take steps to make it easier for all interested parties to participate in these programmes?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)

Phare and Tacis tenders are in general open to every kind of organisation. In order to ensure that only the economically most advantageous offer is finally selected, however, the contracting authority applies criteria designed to guarantee that each company selected has the qualifications, experience and independence required by the project.

Most Phare and Tacis programmes focus on industrial development, policy advice and privatisation projects in partner countries, so non-governmental organisations usually do not meet these criteria.

On the other hand several Phare and Tacis programmes are designed for the participation of non-governmental organisations, such as the Phare and Tacis democracy programme, the Phare and Tacis lien programme and the Phare partnership and cooperation programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3199/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Cullera: level of financing of pilot urban projects

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published a call for the submission of pilot urban projects, in the context of the innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF. Of the projects submitted, 91 were from Spain.

One of the projects submitted concerns urban renewal in the municipality of Cullera (Valencia).

What level of funding does the Commission have in mind for the pilot urban projects provided for in Article 10 of the ERDF? What proportion of this funding could be allocated to the Cullera project?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3198/96, E-3199/96, E-3200/96, E-3201/96, E-3203/96, E-3204/96, E-3205/96, E-3206/96, E-3207/96, E-3208/96, E-3209/96, E-3210/96, E-3211/96, E-3212/96, E-3213/96, E-3214/96 and E-3215/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

The Commission received over 500 applications in response to its call for proposals; of these, 97 were from Spain. The available budget of ECU 60 million will enable the Commission to part-finance some 25 projects throughout the Union.

With regard to the selection procedure, the call for proposals states that: 'a team of independent international experts will assist the Commission services to identify the most innovative ideas in order to select those proposals which correspond most closely to the criteria set. The final number of proposals to be part-financed will be decided by the Commission, taking into consideration overall availability of funds, themes of proposals and distribution of appropriate projects within the territory of the Union.'

Since this procedure is now under way, it is not at present possible to assess the chances of a town being selected or the amount of Community part-finance which it might receive. Equally, no other estimate concerning a Member State or region can be made.

With regard to the number and name of projects which could concern municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia other than those expressly referred to in these Written Questions, the Commission cannot derogate from the principle of confidentiality which applies to this stage of the procedure, particularly since proposals for measures involving more than one local authority may be accepted if that cooperation increases the value added.

The time required for the thorough consideration and careful selection of the exceptionally large number of applications received means that the Commission will not be able to take a decision before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3211/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Orihuela: level of financing of pilot urban projects

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published a call for the submission of pilot urban projects, in the context of the innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF. Of the projects submitted, 91 were from Spain.

One of the projects submitted concerns urban renewal in the municipality of Orihuela (Valencia).

What level of funding does the Commission have in mind for the pilot urban projects provided for in Article 10 of the ERDF? What proportion of this funding could be allocated to the Orihuela project?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3198/96, E-3199/96, E-3200/96, E-3201/96, E-3203/96, E-3204/96, E-3205/96, E-3206/96, E-3207/96, E-3208/96, E-3209/96, E-3210/96, E-3211/96, E-3212/96, E-3213/96, E-3214/96 and E-3215/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

The Commission received over 500 applications in response to its call for proposals; of these, 97 were from Spain. The available budget of ECU 60 million will enable the Commission to part-finance some 25 projects throughout the Union.

With regard to the selection procedure, the call for proposals states that: 'a team of independent international experts will assist the Commission services to identify the most innovative ideas in order to select those proposals which correspond most closely to the criteria set. The final number of proposals to be part-financed will be decided by the Commission, taking into consideration overall availability of funds, themes of proposals and distribution of appropriate projects within the territory of the Union.'

Since this procedure is now under way, it is not at present possible to assess the chances of a town being selected or the amount of Community part-finance which it might receive. Equally, no other estimate concerning a Member State or region can be made.

With regard to the number and name of projects which could concern municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia other than those expressly referred to in these Written Questions, the Commission cannot derogate from the principle of confidentiality which applies to this stage of the procedure, particularly since proposals for measures involving more than one local authority may be accepted if that cooperation increases the value added.

The time required for the thorough consideration and careful selection of the exceptionally large number of applications received means that the Commission will not be able to take a decision before the end of the year.