ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: Criminalization of homosexuality

When Romania's accession to the Council of Europe was being negotiated three years ago, Romania was required to decriminalize homosexuality. It is now in the process of reintroducing a law criminalizing sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex and banning homosexual welfare/rights organizations.

It is totally unacceptable for people to be imprisoned because of their sexual orientation, as Parliament has made clear on several occasions, for example in the Roth report which it adopted in February 1994.

What action will the Council take in this case, and will the association agreement with Romania be affected by that country's violation of human rights?

Answer (13 February 1997)

Further to the Association Committee meeting on 10 October 1996 at which the Honourable Member's Question was discussed, it emerged that the Romanian Parliament had apparently amended its earlier legislation on the subject and adopted legislation which makes homosexual acts between adults a criminal offence only when they are committed in public or cause a scandal.

The Council notes that this question falls mainly within the field of competence of the Council of Europe. Romania has been a member of the Council of Europe since October 1993. On becoming a member, Romania entered into certain commitments regarding respect for human rights. Compliance with these commitments is monitored, inter alia, by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe within the framework of Order No 508. Romania ratified the European Convention on Human Rights on 20 June 1994 and compliance with the commitments deriving therefrom is monitored by the bodies of the European Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3638/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Item B3-4310: Health protection, hygiene and safety at work, including subsidy to the International Labour Office

Can the Commission give a breakdown, on an association-by-association and activity-by-activity basis, of the amount of the subsidies granted in respect of the 1995 financial year from the following item:

B3-4310: Health protection, hygiene and safety at work, including subsidy to the International Labour Office?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4104: Measures for the elderly and families

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading:

B3-4104: Measures for the elderly and families?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina

1. In which Member States were former residents of Mostar who fled abroad able to cast their votes this summer in the city's local elections?

2. Why was it not decided, pursuant to Title V of the Treaty, that refugees from Mostar in all EU Member States could exercise their right to vote?

3. Has it been decided, pursuant to Title V, that refugees from Bosnia staying in the EU will be able, in all Member States, to vote in the elections scheduled for 14 September?

4. Has every Member State actually granted this right to the refugees staying on their territories?

Answer (13 February 1997)

On the basis of an agreement by all parties of Mostar, which was signed on 25 May 1996 following negotiations between the EU Administrator of Mostar, the Office of the High Representative and the parties, former residents of Mostar were able to cast their votes for the local elections in Germany, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland, countries were the large majority of refugees from Mostar werec temporarily staying at the time of the local elections. The EU also gave financial assistance for the transportation by bus of voters living abroad and wishing to vote in Mostar.

The preparations for and conduct of the national and regional elections of 14 September 1996 were monitored by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE has coordinated the organisation of a possiblity to vote in countries where more than 5 000 Bosnian nationals are temporarily living, basing its decisions on numbers provided by the UNHCR. Therefore, within the European Union, Bosnian citizens had the possiblity to cast their ballot in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom. For Bosnian nationals living in other countries, the OSCE, in agreement with the Provisional Elections Commission and through its Refugee Elections Steering Group, offered assistance upon request.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: ILO programme to combat child labour in Latin America

According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), child labour in Latin America involves the exploitation of between 20 and 25 milion minors aged under thirteen. To combat this abuse, the ILO has created a programme funded to the sum of US$ 12,5 million, called the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC).

IPEC is intended to support programmes which will be self-sustainable when they no longer receive external funding and are coordinated with the various national programmes for ending child labour, in the context of development policy.

Can the Commission state whether the EU as such is participating in the ILO's IPEC programme, and, if so, whether it believes that it should it should propose a significant degree of EU involvement?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

The most recent report on child labour by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), entitled 'Child Labour: targeting the intolerable', points out that there is a high level of child labour in many regions, including Latin America.

The International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) currently has 20 participating countries involved in action programmes, with 12 donor countries, including several Member States.

Within the framework of bilateral cooperation, the Commission has decided to participate in the IPEC programme in Pakistan. It is at present making arrangements with the ILO for joint financing of a pilot project aimed at eliminating child labour in that country, which is scheduled to start in 1997.

In Latin America, the Commission did not participate in the International Labour Office's Piete programme, but it supports the implementation of numerous projects for the protection of children, targeting in particular street urchins in big cities, with funding amounting to some ECU 3 million for the first half of 1996 alone.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/96 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Promotion of industrial development in Ireland

The Community support framework for grants from the EU Structural Funds to Ireland for the period 1994-1999 was set at ECU 5,62 billion. Some of this money is used to attract international high-technology firms to the country in the form of ten-year tax breaks or direct financial aid to firms that employ local people. The Industrial Development Agency says that the government gives several thousand ecus for every new job created in Ireland.

Does the Commission not consider that competition is being distorted by the fact that Ireland can give foreign firms opening up there a subsidy of several thousand ecus for every job they create?

Does it intend to change the special rules which enable some countries to levy corporation tax on foreign firms in particular sectors at between 0% and 10%?

Will it explain how the form of direct subsidies referred to above is consistent with the principles governing the Structural Funds?

Will it also state to what extent Ireland uses EU resources in order to provide direct operating subsidies to firms?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

All Member States offer assistance to foreign companies considering establishing themselves in the Member State concerned. This assistance takes various forms, such as tax relief or direct aid.

The Commission considers foreign direct investment to be important for the development of the Irish economy and the creation of jobs in Ireland. Part of the aid scheme operated by the Industrial development agency is therefore supported, under the operational programme for industrial development, from the resources of the European regional development fund and the European social fund. A large number of projects is supported annually. All the aid schemes supported by the structural funds comply with Community competition rules.

The tax incentives which are provided are not part of the structural funds. These incentives apply on an erga omnes basis and are thus not focused on specific industrial sectors. As a consequence they are not considered to be state aids in the sense of Articles 92-94 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (10 January 1997)

Subject: Baza-Huéscar (Granada) irrigation scheme

The Negratin Dam and the Jabalcón Canal were build in the Baza-Huéscar region (Granada) in order to create 23 000 hectares of irrigated land. However, the irrigation networks have not been completed, and only 1 000 hectares are being irrigated.

Can the Commission state what Community funds were assigned to the Negratin Dam, and if there is at present any approved European Union investment in the schemes for irrigation networks and other complementary installations?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1997)

Further to the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member on 31 January 1997, it should be pointed out that no Community funding was provided for the construction of the Negratín Dam.

Moreover, the Community did not part-fund irrigation projects or other ancillary facilities in the Baza-Huéscar area (Granada).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2260/96 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Council (27 August 1996)

Subject: The problem of illegal immigrants

Over the last five months the number of illegal immigrants coming from Asian countries via Turkey who have been arrested on their arrival in Greece or afterwards, has been five times higher than during the corresponding period in 1995. Although this is a serious problem which is a matter of concern in all European countries, Turkey has rejected the repeated requests by the Greek authorities for cooperation in oppressing it.

Will the Council say:

1. Does it intend to provide Greece with financial assistance so that controls can be stepped up on its eastern borders which, being maritime borders, are difficult to control?

2. Given that the majority of illegal immigrants enter Greece from Turkey and are smuggled in by Turks under inhuman conditions, does it intend to exert pressure on the Turkish authorities to clamp down on illegal immigration and the trade in human beings in cooperation with the relevant Greek authorities?

Answer (16 May 1997)

Rules governing the crossing of external borders are regarded as a matter of common interest under article K.1 of the TEU. Common rules for the controls of external borders are set out in the draft convention of the Crossing of External Borders which has not yet been signed. Immigration controls are a matter under national competence. The Council has, however, adopted a number of measures to strengthen cooperation under Title VI of the TEU with regard to combating all forms of illegal immigration into the European Union.

Thus on 30 November 1994 the Council approved a recommendation ((OJ C 274, 19.9.1996, p. 20. )) concerning a specimen bilateral readmission agreement between a Member State and a third country and, on 24 July 1995, a recommendation ((OJ C 272, 19.9.1996, p. 25. )) on the guiding principles to be followed in drawing up protocols on the implementation of readmission agreements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3634/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4300: Public health, health promotion, information on health, health education and public health training

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading B3-4300: Public health, health promotion, information on health, health education and public health training?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

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-3618/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Financing of certain associations from the Community budget

Can the Commission provide full details of the amounts granted, under the 1995 budget (taking all relevant budget headings together) to the following French trade-union organisation:

- Confédération Générale des Cadres (CGC)

at national level and to its branches in the regions and departments?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

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-3636/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4302: Health aspects of drug abuse

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading B3-4302: Health aspects of drug abuse?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

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-3622/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4002: Meetings of workers' organizations in the Community

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures for each activity, trade-union, association and works council subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading B3-4002: Meetings of workers' organizations in the Community?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

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-0949/97 by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission (13 March 1997)

Subject: Arrests and blacklisting in Belarus

The Belarussian Social Democratic Youth Organization (BSDY Maladaya Hramada) was amongst the organizers of a human rights demonstration that took place on 10 December 1996. Eight of its members were arrested and the next day cautioned in court. It was subsequently made clear at the university that the young people involved would not be allowed to pass their university exams on account of their political views.

There have been several cases of politically motivated arrests of opposition leaders, e.g. the chairman of the Belarussian Social Democratic Party (Narodnaya Hramada), who was arrested for organizing mass demonstrations. He was sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment, during which he went on hunger strike, only to be released on the orders of the Prosecutor General following a deterioration in his health.

Does the Commission maintain contact and engage in dialogue with the political opposition in Belarus? Has it taken action against the President of Belarus and the way in which he persecutes the opposition?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

The Commission closely follows the Belarusian situation and specifically all forms of violations of human rights.

The Commission does not have any regular contacts with the opposition in Belarus. The Commission believes that the current political situation in Belarus seriously impairs the prospects for the necessary democratic and economic reform. Based on the political and economic events over the last six months, the Community has reviewed its policies towards Belarus.

More globally, the Union is gravely concerned about the political situation in Belarus, which seriously impairs the prospects for the necessary democratic and economic reform. For this reason, the Union has sent a fact finding mission to Belarus and adopted a new approach on the basis of its results. This position adopted by the Council on 24 February 1997 is between the stick and the carrot: no conclusion of the interim agreement, no ratification of the partnership and cooperation agreement, no joint committee, no support for Council of Europe memberschip, no public recognition of the new constitution and Parliament, but, continued bilateral dialogue and provision of assistance with experts in constitutional matters, freedom of media and economic reform.

The Community is open to establish a framework of dialogue with Belarus to review progress in democratic reform and offer assistance in this direction in close consultation and cooperation with the Organisation for security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0502/97 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Humanitarian aid to Cuba

Can the Commission explain why it has halved humanitarian aid to Cuba?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1997)

Since 1993, the Commission has been doing what it can to assist the most vulnerable sections of the Cuban population such as children, pregnant women, the chronically ill and the elderly. A substantial effort has been made, with ECU 45.46 million being allocated for medical and food aid from 1993 to 1996.

The cut in the budget from ECU 15 to ECU 8 million for the third overall plan is warranted not only in the light of the relative improvement in the Cuban economy (the External Trade Ministry has forecast an increase in GDP of more than 5% in 1997) but also for other reasons. On the one hand, humanitarian schemes conducted hitherto have helped halt the deterioration in the population's state of health. On the other, in view of tight budgets and the increasing number, duration and gravity of major humanitarian crises, the Commission has to review continually the targeting of humanitarian aid in order to cover the most urgent needs of those affected.

It should also be stressed that the third overall plan was drawn up on the basis of an evaluation mission carried out by three external specialists (doctors) which was instrumental in defining the current needs of the most vulnerable people in Cuba.

Furthermore, the Commission is aware of the exceptional needs resulting from hurricane Lily and has made ECU 600 000 available to help the victims.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0494/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Community KONVER initiative

Can the Commission supply detailed information on the implementation of the Community KONVER initiative since its commencement in the fifteen Member States, with the budget details, execution and names of projects broken down by Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0493/97, E-0494/97, E-0495/97 and E-0496/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

Under the terms of the guidelines on the Community Initiatives for industrial conversion adopted by the Commission in 1994, Member States were asked to forward draft operational programmes (OPs) to the Commission. 45 OPs were forwarded under Konver, 28 under Resider, 30 under Rechar and 13 under Retex. The Commission approved these operational programmes; their implementation, according to the principle of subsidiarity, is the responsibility of the Member States or regions which choose the projects to be financed on the basis of the OPs.

The tables being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament contain full details of the amounts allocated to each Retex, Rechar, Resider and Konver OP for the period 1994-97, and on the budget implementation of those Community Initiatives up to 1996. The initial allocations are expressed in 1994 prices for the Community of Twelve and in 1995 prices for the new Member States.