ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Trade relations with the United States

Despite the fact that tariffs on trade with the United States are being cut in compliance with the agreements reached during the Uruguay Round, European firms attempting to sell their products or invest on the American market are still encountering barriers. Provisions of a protectionist nature prevent European firms from building airport terminals, selling vehicle fleets or carrying out other forms of public contract. Textile and clothing manufacturers are also experiencing problems in exporting their products.

The Commission has given details of the agreement between the EU and the United States to study the advantages and disadvantage of reducing or abolishing the trade barriers still remaining between them.

Will the Commission say whether a timetable has been set for this study? Have consultations been held with European firms to ascertain their views and determine what barriers to trade with the United States they encounter?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1996)

The study to which the Honourable Member refers is part of the joint European Union and the United States action plan adopted at the European Union and the United States summit in Madrid between the European Union and the United States on 3 December 1995. The study is being carried out jointly by the Commission and the United States government in the context of the creation of the 'new transatlantic marketplace'. It examines ways of facilitating trade in goods and services and further reducing or eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers.

The two sides have agreed that they will report on progress and make recommendations for action to the next three summits. In the second half of 1997, they will conduct a review of the study to evaluate its results and make decisions about its continuation.

As part of the creation of the 'new transatlantic marketplace', the joint study takes into consideration the recommendations of the Transatlantic business dialogue (TABD). The 'overall conclusions' of the TABD conference in Seville on 10-11 November 1995, as well as the results of the follow-up to this conference, are an important input into the joint study, in particular with regard to the identification of existing barriers to trade with the United States. Exporting European companies have also contributed, directly or through Member States, to the most recent annual report by the Commission on United States barriers to trade and investment. This report, in turn, is an important source for the joint study.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1005/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: EU development programmes in Latin America

What proportion of the EU's development cooperation programmes in Latin America in number, by cost, and by percentage are specifically devoted to anti-poverty measures? Given the rising number of people living in absolute poverty in the region, what initiatives will the Commission take to improve the anti-poverty focus of its programmes? What arrangements does the Commission make to ensure consideration of anti-poverty issues in all its development cooperation programmes in the region?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

The Commission's action is rooted in Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 ((OJ L 52, 27.2.1992. )), according to which aid is aimed chiefly at the poorest sections of the population and the poorest countries. This imperative is reflected in the conclusions of the Madrid European Council, which stated that the Community would attach particular importance and priority to the fight against poverty and social exclusion by stressing the main thrust of the guidelines defined in its communication to the Council and Parliament dealing with the prospects for strengthening the partnership between the European Union and Latin America over the period 1996-2000 ((COM(95) 495 final. )). In fact, the fight against poverty and social exclusion is one of the partnership's main planks and the Commission would stress that this should continue, in financial terms, to be the top priority of development cooperation with Latin America.

The Commission can draw on a number of budget headings ((In 1995 these budget headings were B7-3010, B7-3020, B7-5076, B7-5041, B7-5040, B7-5080. )) to carry out anti-poverty schemes. In 1995 commitments from those headings easily topped ECU 300 million.

Anti-poverty measures form part of special cooperation programmes, chiefly targeted on health, education or housing. The Commission advocates an integrated approach militating in favour of sustainable development: this entails making the fight against poverty an underlying objective of virtually all its operations. It feels that economic development cannot be divorced from social progress and the fight against poverty and it is against that background that it will carry out the schemes planned as part of the support for economic reforms and enhanced international competitiveness. These include support for institutions and consolidation of the democratic process, on which equitable development hinges.

Finally, the Commission feels that operational conclusions must be drawn from the action programme spawned by the Copenhagen social summit of March 1995; it is supporting the debate and mobilization exercise being conducted by Latin American decision-makers under the auspices of the South American Peace Commission, which was assigned the task of formulating a social agenda for Latin America for the next century.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0755/96 by Kenneth Collins (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1996)

Subject: Level of protection afforded by Habitats Directive

Is the level of protection afforded to Special Protection Areas supporting species listed on Annex I of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the Conservation of Wild Birds equal to that afforded to Special Areas of Conservation supporting priority habitats and/or species listed on Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the Conservation of natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna? If so, does the procedure set down in Article 5 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC apply equally to Special Protection Areas supporting Annex I species of bird and Special Areas of Conservation supporting priority habitats and/or species?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)

The protection afforded to special protection areas (SPAs) supporting species listed in Annex I of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds is largely the same as the protection afforded to special areas of conservation (SACs) supporting priority habitats or species listed in Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. However, there are certain differences. Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC applies to SACs, but does not apply to SPAs, and Article 6(4), second paragraph of Directive 92/43/EEC does not apply to SPAs unless they host priority habitats or species (no bird species constitutes a priority species for this purpose).

The classification process for SPAs is different from the designation process for SACs. The former is governed by rules set out in Directive 79/409/EEC, while the latter is governed by rules set out in Directive 92/43/EEC. Article 5 of Directive 92/43/EEC exclusively relates to the designation process for SACs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0835/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Usury

Usury has reached alarming proportions in the last few years. The number of Italian families brought to ruin by loan-sharks rose from 80 000 in 1987 to 342 000 in 1993.

In 1993 loans totalled around LIT 3 900 billion, and interest - which ends up in the pockets of loan-sharks - now amounts to around LIT 3 500 annually as opposed to LIT 820 billion in 1987. The rate of interest varies from a monthly minimum of 4% to a maximum of 12,5%. The interest rate usually doubles if borrowers are unable to meet the repayment deadline.

Great attention must be paid to the spread of crime in the clandestine money market.

Can the Commission provide any statistics on usury in the Community? Can it set up an ad hoc monitoring unit to coordinate all anti-racketeering measures and keep a tight watch on the phenomenon?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

In connection with the discussions in Italy about usury, the Honourable Member is referred to the replies given by the Commission to Written Questions E-3652/95 (Mrs Graenitz) ((OJ C 112, 17.4.1996. )) and E-675/96 (Mr Tajani) ((OJ C 183 of 24.6.1996, p. 45. )), and to the following Oral Questions: H-599/95, put at Question Time during the September 1995 part-session ((Debates of the European Parliament (September 1995). )), and H-275/96, H-281/96 and H-282/96, put at Question Time during the April 1996 part-session ((Debates of the European Parliament (April 1996). )).

As usury is the 'black market' of the consumer credit sector, the Commission has no precise statistics and does not plan to set up a monitoring unit for this purpose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Trade in live calves

Can the Commission list all legislation governing the intra-Community trade of live calves of under 15 days of age?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)

The following legislation governs trade in live calves under the age of 15 days (as well as other bovine animals, except where indicated):

- Council Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine ((OJ 121, 29.7.1964 (consolidated version, OJ C 189, 20.8.1975).)). Article 8 however exempts calves under 15 days for breeding and production from its provisions, except for additional requirements which may be agreed under the provisions of Articles 9 or 10.

- Council Directive 90/425/EEC concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market ((OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.)). In particular, Article 11 provides for safeguard measures to be taken in the event of an outbreak of certain diseases.

- Commission Decision 94/474/EC ((OJ L 194, 29.7.1994.)), as last amended by Decision 95/287/EC ((OJ L 181, 1.8.1995.)), concerning certain protection measures relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and repealing Decisions 89/469/EEC and 90/200/EEC. This Decision is taken under the legal framework of Article 11 of Directive 90/425/EEC.

- Council Directive 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.)) on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC.

- Commission Decision 93/42/EEC ((OJ L 16, 25.1.1993.)) concerning additional guarantees relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis for bovines destined for Member States or regions of Member States free from the disease.

- Commission Decision 95/109/EC concerning additional guarantees relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis for bovines destined for certain parts of the territory of the Community ((OJ L 79, 7.4.1995.)).

- Council Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species ((OJ L 206, 12.8.1977.)).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1480/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Crete, Measure 3 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare Facilities'

Measure 3.3 of the regional operational programme for Crete provides for funding of secondary health care and welfare facilities in the region. The objective of the measure is to improve health services and hospital facilities (number of beds) in Crete.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 5 172 000 for 1994 and ECU 13 793 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1483/96, E-1484/96, E-1485/96 and E-1486/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Voluntary service for young Europeans

The Commission approved Mrs Cresson's report on a European voluntary service for European young people at the end of January this year. Can the Commission say how it is implementing the pilot project announced at that time for involving 2 500 young people in the service, specifying the steps taken to select them, where they are to be sent and what tasks will be assigned to them?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0888/96 and E-1065/96 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)

The Commission has now begun implementation of the pilot action for European voluntary service for young people, to be launched this year as a result of support from Parliament in particular.

The Commission has identified a series of networks which will accept around 50 young volunteers in innovative voluntary service activities in a number of clearly-defined areas (environmental protection, cultural activities and voluntary service, involvement of disadvantaged young people in transnational voluntary service measures). In addition, projects will be selected at the end of June 1996 from among those submitted by European voluntary service organisations. Finally, the Commission is in the process of introducing, in conjunction with the national agencies of the Youth for Europe programme, a decentralised project selection process, the results of which will be announced in autumn 1996.

The Commission has provided the general framework with regard to the activities likely to fall within the scope of this action in its working document 'Guidelines for a European voluntary service for young people' ((Doc. SEC (95) 2268. )), which has been sent to Parliament for information. The nature of the activities offered to volunteers will clearly depend in part on the offers taken up by the Commission. The Commission can endorse the Honourable Member's opinion on the value of including measures providing access to new technologies as part of the pilot action, provided that these projects fall within the general framework set out above.

The Commission has adopted the principle of providing access to European voluntary service for all young people interested in taking part, without discrimination of any kind. In monitoring and evaluating the scheme, the Commission will devote particular attention to participation by young people of both sexes, of different ages and from different Member States and social environments. In addition, positive measures will be developed in order to facilitate participation by disadvantaged young people.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Ionian Islands, Measure 2 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare'

Measure 3.2 of the regional operational programme for the Ionian Islands provides for funding of health and welfare facilities in the region comprising: improvement and expansion of hospitals and the construction of a new hospital in Corfu with a corresponding increase in the number of hospital beds; improvements to health centres and community clinics, improved facilities and the creation of new community clinics; supplying these hospitals and clinics with the necessary electronic and medical equipment.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 2 320 000 for 1994 and ECU 4 350 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

3. Can the Commission provide details of the progress made with this measure?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1483/96, E-1484/96, E-1485/96 and E-1486/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1016/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Selecting NOW projects in Italy

Selecting NOW projects is a matter for the national authorities and complaints about this selection have to be considered by the national courts. The organization 'Il Cenaclo' in Italy intends to lodge a complaint about the selection of NOW projects in that country. The organiser of the Italian project has also approached the Commission with a request to continue with the project now that it has started, even without any EU funding, together with its partner organizations in Belgium, Greece and Spain.

1. Can organizations not selected under the NOW programme act, or continue to act, as partners of organizations which have been selected?

2. Is the Commission able to monitor compliance with the criteria it has laid down for the selection procedure for NOW projects, and if so does it actually do so?

3. Can the Commission provide information about the time-scale and the way in which projects were selected in Italy?

4. Has the Commission received Il Cenacolo's complaint, and what action has it taken?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)

1. Any organisation is free to cooperate with organisations accepted for funding under the Employment - NOW Community initiative.

2. The selection of projects under the Employment Community initiative in Italy is the responsibility of the Italian authorities in accordance with the operational programme agreed between the Commission and Italy in December 1994. Under the terms of this operational programme, the Italian authorities will shortly present to the Commission a report on how the selection procedure is carried out in Italy. This will be carefully examined by the Commission.

3. Timetable and procedures for project selection are a matter for the Italian authorities in the first instance. Once the report referred to above is available, the Commission will request the Italian authorities to make available a copy to the Honourable Member.

4. The Commission has received a complaint about the project submitted by the organisation 'Il Cenacolo'. Since the matters raised in the complaint are the responsibility of the Italian authorities, the Commission has referred the complaint to them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Calls for proposal under Article 10 of the ERDF

Could the Commission complete the following timetable for calls for proposal under Article 10?

>TABLE>

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1996)

The timetable for calls for proposals under Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund Regulation ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) is as follows:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0914/96 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Media II: Implications of reduced membership on assessment juries

The Commission has now asked Member States to submit lists of candidates for possible inclusion on the expert juries who will assess projects seeking funding under the new Media II programme. There are indications that these juries will frequently change during the course of the Media II programme and will consist of up to 8 members. This would mean that not all Member States would have a representative on such juries and that might have adverse implications for minority language productions.

What assurances can be given that projects from regions or states with a lesser-used language will not be put at a disadvantage? And how can producers in general be assured that these arrangements will not only work to the benefit of the larger projects from the stronger Member States?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (14 June 1996)

In accordance with the Council Decisions on Media II (95/563/EC and 95/564/EC ((OJ L 321, 30.12.1995. ))), the Commission may call on professional experts to help it select those who will receive assistance under the programme.

Thus the Commission has already had two meetings with committees of experts who were asked to analyse the applications received following the publication of the first call for proposals relating to promotional activities of European producers on the programmes market.

The experts who were consulted and selected by the Commission from lists put forward by the Member States perform this advisory task in a personal capacity in view of their experience in the sectors covered by the programme. Thus the composition of these committees varies depending on the type of dossier treated.

These committees have a purely advisory status. The final choice of beneficiary is the Commission's responsibility. In some cases, the Commission must obtain the opinion of the Media Committee (when the amount of support exceeds the thresholds set out in the decisions).

The Commission ensures that there is a good geographical balance in addition to the experts' competence. At the meetings organized so far, half the experts came from Member States or regions with a low audiovisual production capacity or a restricted geographic or language area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1178/96 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Sex tourism

'Sex tours' organized in the European Union for western paedophile visitors to South-East Asia has led to an increase in child prostitution there.

What measures does the European Commission plan to take to ban such sex tours and prosecute paedophiles at home for acts carried out abroad?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1996)

As the Commission has had occasion to point out, in particular in reply to Written Question No 2822/94 by Mr Rauti ((OJ C 88, 10.4.1995. )), police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is among the subjects of common interest which Member States discuss in the Council with a view to coordinating their action, but the Commission has no right of initiative in this respect.

Nevertheless, the Commission welcomes the measures taken by certain Member States to combat the phenomenon mentioned by the Honourable Member, and in particular the adoption of legislation to enable prosecutions of their own nationals under their own criminal law for actions in other countries ((Cf. the Commission's answer to Written Question E-1594/95 by Mr Alavanos - OJ C 270, 16.10.1995. )).

Within its competences and in response to the wishes of Parliament, the Commission has undertaken to study this question in greater detail. On this point, I would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-1392/95 by Mrs Klaß ((OJ C 213, 17. 8.1995. )).

The Commission is currently examining various measures which might meet Parliament's repeated calls to combat "sex tourism¨.

It should also be noted that the proposal for a Council decision on the first Multiannual Programme to Assist European Tourism, adopted by the Commission on 30 April 1996 ((COM(96)168 final. )), stresses that, while this programme is directed primarily at the competitiveness of European tourism, it is also necessary to tackle other wider questions, such as that of "sex tourism¨, which continue to besmirch the brand image of the tourism industry.

In this respect, and in view of the genuine concern of the international community at the persistence of "sex tourism¨ involving children, particular attention must be devoted to establishing and strengthening a code of conduct for tourism and self-regulatory mechanisms against such practices, as well as to supporting measures aimed at combating them.