ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1402/97 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Council (22 April 1997)

Subject: Signature of the association agreement with Lithuania

On 12 June 1995 a European Agreement was signed in order to establish an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lithuania, of the other. On 13 November 1995, certified copies thereof were sent to the parliaments of the EU Member States.

Fifteen months after the dispatch of the certified copies of the agreement there are still certain parliaments which have not ratified the association agreement.

In view of the importance of the agreement to Lithuania, does the Council not think that action of some kind should be taken in order to urge the Member State parliaments which have not so far done so to ratify the agreement without delay?

Answer (14 July 1997)

The Europe Association Agreement with Lithuania, like those with Estonia and Latvia, was signed on 12 June 1995. Since then ratification procedures have been initiated at national level. At this stage, on the basis of the notifications sent to the Council Secretariat, the depositary of the Agreement, ratification procedures have been completed in ten Member States.

As the Honourable Member will be well aware, each Parliament has its own procedures and practices. Matters proceed at different rates in the various Parliaments. The process of ratifying the Europe Agreements with the Baltic countries is taking much the same time as did the ratification of other agreements such as the Europe Agreements with the other Central and East European countries.

Nevertheless, the Council is doing its utmost to draw Member States' attention to the need to speed up ratification of the various outstanding agreements, including the Europe Agreements with the Baltic countries. It would also point out to the Honourable Member that this is an area where Members of the European Parliament could themselves exert a positive influence on their colleagues in the national Parliaments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Tigers in India

In view of continued poaching and the low number of tigers remaining, has the Commission had any discussions with the authorities in India with a view to helping enforcement procedures in Project Tiger reserves?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

In its recent communication to the Parliament and Council on an enhanced partnership between India and the Union the Commission indicated that it would give a high priority to encouraging sustainable development. In this light, the Commission therefore shares the Honourable Member's concern at the alarming reports that poachers kill a tiger every day in India.

The Commission is concentrating its dialogue with the Indian authorities on establishing a suitable framework for environmental protection of all species, not only of tigers, given the close inter-connection of the ecosphere.

Specifically the Commission is keen to see local populations mobilised to participate in the protection of their natural heritage. Without this local support, game wardens will always be insufficiently equipped to combat poachers. Hence the Commission has launched a mission to examine how it can actively support the development of joint management of forests (involving civil society and the relevant authorities). Although saving the tiger is not the immediate objective of this initiative, it is hoped that it will help to preserve the tiger and numerous other endangered species as well, and at the same time, provide all the other services and benefits of well managed forest to the people living nearby.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1974/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Continuation of mental health reform in Greece

The final report on the implementation of Regulation 815/84 ((OJ L 88, 31.3.1984, p. 1. )) (COM(95) 668 final) states that the measures taken under Regulation 815/84 will be continued with financing from the Structural Funds with a view to the 'full use of the training capacities created under Regulation 815/84 and the continuation of the reform effort in the mental health care system.'

Why, at the present time, is this broad field confined solely to measures concerning the employment of psychiatric patients? What measures are being taken on behalf of those psychiatric patients who are unable to venture on to the job market?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

The final report on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 815/84 on exceptional financial support in favour of Greece in the social field, stipulates that 'the Greek authorities are expected to ensure continuity of the reform and build upon the achievements of the Regulation through new forms of intervention, notably under the Community support framework 1994-1999 for Greece'. This implies that the scope of action is not the same as that of Regulation (EEC) No 815/84 and that the type of action to be financed is subject to the eligibility contraints imposed by the structural fund regulations and in particular Council Regulation (EEC) No 2084/93 as regards the European social fund ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )).

It is important to note however that the relevant operations are not limited only to employment. They also include measures designed to deal with the structural and operational problems leading to the socio-economic exclusion of the mentally ill. Although the aim is to promote integration into open employment, possibilities of enlarging the spectrum of employment opportunities through the development of cooperatives and other forms of social enterprises are also envisaged. Although this approach cannot be directly applied to people with severe disability, it could have some indirect benefits for them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1232/97 by Patrick Cox (ELDR) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Status of bicycle helmet legislation in the Union

Given the number of serious head injuries suffered by bicyclists each year throughout the Union, what is the current state of law among Member States (mandatory or voluntary) regarding the use of helmets and are there any Commission plans for legislation to that effect?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The communication for an Action Programme on Road Safety of 9 June 1993 ((COM(93) 246 final. )) does not include any Community action related to the use of helmets by cyclists.

The Commission has no detailed information on current legislation on this subject in Member States.

Finally, the Commission, for the moment, has no intention to legislate to this effect, because it is of the opinion that use of bicycles and conditions for their use should be left to the regulatory powers of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Information society

The Commission communications to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'The Information Society from Corfu to Dublin - The new emerging priorities' and 'The implications of the Information Society for European Union Policies - Preparing the next steps' (COM(96)0395 and CES 1401/96) take the view that an answer has to be found as soon as possible to the anxieties about the system of regulation required for full liberalization of telecommunications and focus in particular on the problems posed by convergence of telecommunications and the audio-visual sector, the security of data transmission, and protection of privacy.

Will the Commission, as a matter of priority, seek to expand and finance the universal service and extend it to cover information society networks?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The Commission has already indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member's earlier questions (E-0159/97 and E-0160/97) ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997. )) that 'universal service is a key element in the steps taken by both the Community and by the Member States to open the markets in the European Union to full and effective competition. The measures taken at a European level seek to ensure that there is a common concept of universal service throughout the Community which guarantees users a defined level of service at an affordable price, as well as rules concerning how that service can be financed in a competitive environment'.

The Commission agrees with the linkage between a defined concept of universal service within the Community and the broader take up of information society services, in that affordable access to a defined level of service is a pre-requisite to the wider take up of on-line services, such as the Internet. In this context, the Commission recognised in its communication of March 1996 ((Communication of 13 March 1996 on Universal Service for telecommunications in the perspective of a fully liberalised environment. COM(96) 73. )) that universal service is a dynamic and evolving concept. It is committed to reviewing at regular intervals, and for the first time before the end of the year, the scope, level, affordability and quality of universal service within the Community, in particular in order to assess the need, if any, for the further development of the concept.

Pending the results of that assessment, the Commission believes that universal service is presently adequately defined. Any evolution must balance the need to ensure that citizens are not excluded from full participation in society and, on the other hand, that the costs associated with the provision of universal service do not deter competition, so as to prevent users from benefiting from lower prices, more choice and better quality services, which competition is already delivering.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/97 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Mutual recognition of generic products

The European Generic Medicines Association (EGA) has told the European Commission that it is concerned about the current work being carried out with a view to harmonizing the procedures for registering generic products, with the procedure for mutual recognition being due to come into force in January 1998. According to the EGA, in practice, and unless a rapid solution is found, harmonization is impossible owing to the fact that the therapeutic uses and the authorized doses for certain products are not the same in all the Member States, which means that the access of products to various national markets is restricted.

What does the Commission think of the issue raised by the European Generic Medicines Association and what guidelines does it propose on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Honourable Member raises a question relating to the operation of the mutual recognition procedure whereby access to a single market for medicinal products is facilitated by co-ordination of national procedures.

In order to benefit from this co-ordination, identical dossiers must be submitted in each of the Member States in which the medicinal product is to be commercialised. Member States then have a period of 90 days to recognise the first marketing authorisation, or in cases where a Member State considers to be a risk to public health, the matter can be referred for arbitration to the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products in London. The Commission, in accordance with a committee procedure, will adopt a decision binding upon the Member States concerned.

This procedure is applicable from 1st January 1995 and marketing authorisations granted prior to that date were not co-ordinated. Therefore it is possible that therapeutic uses and doses may be different for these products, but ex-post co-ordination is also possible.

However, access to the market for generic medicinal product is not hindered by this lack of harmony, since a generic product may avail of the co-ordination procedure (if the necessary conditions are met) or may apply nationally as was previously the case.

In order to explain the procedures and the options available, the Commission is preparing a revised version of 'The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union, volume 2A: notice to applicants'.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 911/97 by Willi ROTHLEY to the Commission. EU aid to Rhineland Palatinate in 1996 (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)



Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0029



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0911/97 by Willi Rothley (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997) Subject: EU aid to Rhineland Palatinate in 1996 What were the amounts of appropriations from the European Union allocated to Rhineland Palatinate in 1996 under the mechanisms listed below? 1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); 2. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - Guidance Section; 3. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - Guarantee Section; 4. European Social Fund (ESF); 5. European Community research programmes; 6. European Community environment programmes; 7. Other European Community programmes. Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 July 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 P-1570/97 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: The impact of the new COM on Community-produced fruit and vegetables

The recently-set-up operational funds for producers' organizations will enable those organizations to co-finance, through the EAGGF, activities which were previously financed mainly from their own resources (such as infrastructure, fixed administrative costs, advertising, etc.). The operational funds will give the producers' organizations additional resources to develop new activities involving imports from third countries. The Commission regulation on recognition of producers' organizations means that up to 50% of the products sold on the market by those organizations can be non-Community products.

Does the Commission not believe that this new system creates a paradoxical situation, given that the aim of the common agricultural policy is to protect national production and ensure self-sufficiency for the European Union?

Does it not agree that producers' organizations in receipt of subsidies should not be involved in importing products, so as to avoid a situation whereby imports from third countries are subsidized indirectly by EAGGF funds, which is contrary to the guiding principles of the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

It is true that Community legislation on the recognition of producer organizations in the fruit and vegetable sector and the implementation of the operational programmes enables these organizations to carry out activities other than the marketing and the processing of their own production, including the marketing of products from other Member States or imported from non-member countries.

This enables the producer organizations to maintain a market presence outside the period for marketing their own production, if that corresponds to their marketing plan and the wishes of their customers. However, Article 4(2)(b) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 411/97 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational programmes, operational funds and Community financial assistance ((OJ L 62, 4.3.1997. )) prohibits any direct or indirect financing of imported products. It is for the Member States to ensure compliance with this provision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2039/97 by Bernhard Rapkay (PSE) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: EU funding channelled to the Eastern Ruhr area (the cities of Dortmund and Hamm, and Unna district)

What volume of European Union funding, earmarked for which measures, was channelled into the Eastern Ruhr area in 1995 and 1996 from the following:

1. the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),

2. the European Social Fund (ESF),

3. EU research programmes,

4. EU education programmes,

5. EU youth programmes,

6. EU programmes in the environmental field,

7. EU programmes in the energy field,

8. other EU programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (3 July 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-1951/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Recommendation on homeworking

Given the Commission's renewed commitment to bring forward a Recommendation on Homeworking in early 1997 ((Social Europe - progress report on the implementation of the medium-term social action programme, supplement 4/96, p. 42. )) that would encourage Member States to implement the recently agreed ILO Convention on Homeworking and give protection to thousands of homeworkers across the EU, how far has the Commission succeeded in developing such a proposal, do barriers exist within the Commission to such a proposal and when is the Commission likely to adopt such a proposal given that it is now the second quarter of 1997?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Commission has committed itself, in its progress report on the implementation of the medium-term social action programme (1995-97) ((Social Europe 4/96, p. 42. )), to presenting a recommendation on homeworking.

The Commission is currently considering the most appropriate initiative in the light of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No 177 and the accompanying Recommendation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1338/97 by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Non-discrimination rule

It has recently been reported in the press that the Commission intends to abolish the non-discrimination rule which currently applies to cash-card payment systems. The purpose of this rule is to prevent shopkeepers who accept payment by cash card from passing on the commission which they pay to their bank to their customers and thus to avoid discrimination between various means of payment. With respect to withdrawals from cash dispensers, its purpose is to prevent the bank supplying the cash from charging commission from card holders withdrawing cash from their dispensers.

Is taxation of payment by cash card, which the Commission intends to promote even though cash payment does not permit shopkeepers to make any charges, not likely to lead consumers to use cash instead of cash cards?

Does the abolition of the non-discrimination rule not therefore pose the risk of a decline in electronic means of payment?

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that the development of electronic means of payment is not hindered?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1338/97, E-1339/97, E-1340/97, E-1341/97, E-1342/97, E-1343/97 and E-1344/97 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission is unable at this juncture to reply in detail to the questions put by the Honourable Member. It is currently examining in the light of Community competition law a number of card payment systems notified under Article 4 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 ((OJ C 13, 21.2.1962. )). They include, for example, national systems such as the 'CB' system in France as well as international systems such as those operated by Visa International and Europay Interntional. Some of these systems have a so-called non-discrimination rule to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is assessing the validity of that rule in the light of the Community rules on competition and has entered into discussions with the parties concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/97 by Kirsten Jensen (PSE) and John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Swine fever

On Monday, 12 May 1997, Dutch newspapers carried reports on the deplorable conditions in which pigs suffering from swine fever are kept. Pigs had fallen through a hatchway in their sty into their own excrement, in which they drowned. A photographer had his camera taken off him by the police.

Does the Commission believe that sick animals should be treated decently?

Will it take the initiative and submit a Green Paper on animal welfare in the EU?

Does it intend to investigate why the public is not allowed to find out about such conditions and why the Dutch photographer was not allowed to publish his pictures?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)

The only Community legislation currently in force concerning the welfare of pigs on farms is provided by Council Directive 91/630/EEC, of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )). The Annex to the Directive (Chapter I, point 6) requires that all pigs reared in groups or in stalls must be inspected by the owner or the person responsible for the animals at least once a day. Any pig which appears to be ill or injured must be treated appropriately without delay. It should be possible, wherever necessary, to isolate sick or injured pigs in adequate accommodation with dry, comfortable bedding. Veterinary advice must be obtained as soon as possible for pigs which are not responding to the stock-keeper's care.

In relation to future developments with regard to the welfare of pigs, the Commission would draw attention to Article 6 of Directive 91/630/EEC which requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the scientific veterinary committee on the welfare aspects of intensive pig rearing systems. It is anticipated that the scientific veterinary committee will complete its report by the end of July this year.

The question of access by press photographers to private premises is governed by the law of the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/97 by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Non-discrimination rule

Would abolition of the non-discrimination rule not result in consumers paying by card being required to bear the cost of banking services which benefit shopkeepers, particularly the guarantee of payment and more rapid receipt of payment offered by the electronic processing of cash-card operations?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1338/97, E-1339/97, E-1340/97, E-1341/97, E-1342/97, E-1343/97 and E-1344/97 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission is unable at this juncture to reply in detail to the questions put by the Honourable Member. It is currently examining in the light of Community competition law a number of card payment systems notified under Article 4 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 ((OJ C 13, 21.2.1962. )). They include, for example, national systems such as the 'CB' system in France as well as international systems such as those operated by Visa International and Europay Interntional. Some of these systems have a so-called non-discrimination rule to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is assessing the validity of that rule in the light of the Community rules on competition and has entered into discussions with the parties concerned.