ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B7-500 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2427/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Channel tunnel security

Is the Commission aware of the incident on 11 June 1997 when four Moldovan stowaways were discovered in a storage compartment on a Eurostar train at Ashford International station in my constituency?

Does the Commission share my extreme concern at this lapse of security, which proves yet again that security is lax on the French side?

Will the Commission now demand an immediate review of all aspects of Channel tunnel security, with the aim of preventing a disaster before one takes place?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (28 July 1997)

The Commission is as concerned as the Honourable Member over the security issues, and over the trafficking in human beings that is ongoing in Europe. It has serious consequences for the people involved, and all forces should be joined in combating this smuggling of human beings.

It is an important part of European co-operation to counteract smuggling in human beings. In this respect the Commission would like to underline the importance of the joint action adopted by the Council in February this year. This action commits the Member States to classify trafficking in human being as a criminal offence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1738/97 by Gisèle Moreau (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Economic and social implications of the ban on the use of asbestos

The European Community has introduced a policy of end-use control applicable to the marketing of products containing asbestos. Certain Member States - including France since 1 January 1997 - have decided to impose a total ban on the production, import and marketing of products containing asbestos. While this decision is justified in terms of safety and health at work and public health, it is being used as a pretext by companies such as Eternit to lay off workers and close down plant. In many cases the same companies had previously refused to carry out reconversions, disputing the risks associated with asbestos. What measures will the Commission take with a view to:

- achieving a total ban on the production, import and marketing of products containing asbestos,

- promoting research and production of alternative products which are totally risk-free in terms of safety and health at work and public health in general,

- encouraging the reconversion of industrial plant towards asbestos-fire products in order to avoid loss of jobs?

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

The Commission recalls that the Community has operated a policy of controlled use on the marketing of asbestos-containing products since the mid-1980's. Accordingly, all but one of the asbestos fibres are totally banned and fourteen categories of products containing the last remaining fibre, known as chrysotile, are also banned. Other product categories containing chrysotile fall outside the scope of Community harmonisation and should be allowed to circulate freely provided they are properly labelled and subject to Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission relaunched discussions on the asbestos question with Member State experts in 1996. Meetings were held on 26 July 1996 and 7 November 1996. A further meeting is planned during July 1997 to consider the first results of an independent study on asbestos and substitute fibres. The Commission intends to examine, as quickly as possible, all the most recent scientific, technical and economical analyses in order to review policy with regard to asbestos.

With regard to possible substitution products, the Commission is expected to adopt danger classifications in the framework of Directive 67/548/EEC on the classification packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ((OJ 196, 16.8.1967. )) in the near future for certain man-made mineral fibres. In addition, these and other fibres, notably cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol and aramid, are being examined in terms of their potential to substitute asbestos as part of the above-mentioned study.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0762/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B5-411 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1601/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: New fisheries agreements

Does the Commission have any plans to conclude fisheries agreements with South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique, Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, New Zealand and the overseas territories of the United Kingdom? What steps has it taken in relation to each of these countries?

What stage has been reached in the renegotiation of fisheries agreements with Cape Verde, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, the Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Poland, Russia and the United States?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1997)

The Council has given new negotiating instructions for concluding second-generation fisheries agreements with non-Community countries bordering the Baltic, and two rounds of consultations took place recently with Poland and one with the Russian Federation. The main stumbling block for a successful conclusion is the geographical scope of the agreement, as both countries seek access to Community waters in the North Atlantic, while the negotiating instructions limit the application of a future agreement to the Baltic Sea area only. Further consultations are foreseen.

There is presently no fisheries agreement with the United States. The Commission is investigating the possibility of such an agreement in the future.

The Council has given the Commission instructions to negotiate fisheries agreements with Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique but formal negotiations have not yet begun. There have, however, been contacts of a technical and exploratory nature with the authorities of these three countries.

The Commission would note that, with regard to South Africa, the Council has insisted on a close link between the negotiation of a fishing agreement and a trade agreement.

All the protocols to the fisheries agreements with Cape Verde, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, the Comoros Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, and Guinea-Bissau expire during 1997. The Commission intends to negotiate their renewal. An initial round of negotiations with Guinea-Bissau has already taken place and a second round is planned for the beginning of June. Negotiations with the other countries have not yet started but are expected to begin during the coming months before each protocol expires.

The Community has held two rounds of negotiations with Venezuela, most recently in June 1996, but no negotiations have taken place with Mexico, Peru, Chile, Colombia or Uruguay. However, the Commission has met the authorities of those countries for exploratory talks.

Following exploratory talks with New Zealand, the Commission has proposed negotiating instructions which are being discussed by the Council.

A negotiating mandate permitting the Commission to negotiate fishing agreements with the United Kingdom on behalf of some of its overseas territories is under discussion in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B7-5040 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1638/97 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Translation of international documents into the Community languages

Further to Commissioner Papoutsis' Answer No E-4112/96 ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 192. )) to my Written Question of 17 December 1996 on the European Energy Charter, I have the following additional questions for the Commission:

You state that the depositary government (Portugal) transmitted the text of the Treaty in all original languages (German, Italian, Russian and Spanish) and that after the signature of the Treaty the German language version had had to be improved.

1. How is it possible that the originally binding texts transmitted by the depositary government were published in the Official Journal of the European Communities in a version different from that published in Germany?

2. Was the final text that was recognized by the depositary government in the summer of 1995 republished in an Official Journal and was attention drawn to the correction so as to make it clear that the former texts are no longer legally binding?

3. Does the Commission consider that the depositing of ratification instruments by the Community and its Member States in differing language versions of international treaties is a matter of no importance?

4. Do similar problems exist in other Member States? This question has still not been answered by the Commission.

5. How is it possible, to quote the Commission, that 'the Community language versions ... will be equally applicable' if the language versions do not agree?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

1. The text of the energy charter treaty signed on 17 December 1994 in Lisbon was published in the Official journal ((OJ L 380, 31.12.1994. )). In 1995 the German version was linguistically improved in order to comply with the linguistic usage of the different German speaking countries. These modifications are stylistic only and do not concern the substance of the treaty. The final German version of the treaty, which is at the basis of the German ratification procedure, was published in Germany in 1996.

2. The linguistically improved German version has up to now not been published again in the Official journal.

3. The conclusion of the energy charter treaty by the Communities will be based on the present authentic language versions. Republication in the Official journal of the full text, including modifictions, of the energy charter treaty and related acts, is under consideration.

4. The Commission is not aware that the same problem has come up in other official languages of the Communities.

5. The Commission takes the view that the present authentic language versions are consistent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/97 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Illegal trafficking in cultural artefacts

For a number of years, one of the methods of combating the illegal trafficking in cultural artefacts has been the practice of marking them in some way.

Much work and a number of reports have already been completed on the subject of this procedure.

Has the Commission any intention of carrying out a study into the matter with a view to determining the reliability of this practice?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union provides that cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs takes place within the Council. There are two aspects to the fight against the unlawful trade in cultural goods: the completion of the single market and the fight against theft and receiving.

As part of the completion of the single market, a Regulation and a Directive have been adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission. These texts relate to the export of cultural goods and the return of national treasures ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods - OJ L 395, 31.12.1992 Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State - OJ L 74, 27.3.1993 )). Measures to combat theft and receiving are a matter for intergovernmental cooperation under Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission does not see any obstacle to the marking of cultural goods but it is for the Member States to adopt such measures.

Such procedures would make it possible to clearly identify goods for which an export licence was sought or national treasures the return of which was desired. However, it is the Member States which issue licences or classify cultural goods as national treasures; Member States are therefore responsible for drafting and adopting provisions in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Situation of GIP (Grundig Industries Portugal) in Brazil

With reference to the Commission reply (P-3533/96 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 8. ))) of 25 March 1997, one issue has still to be clarified.

Has the Commission now concluded the analysis it undertook in conjunction with the Portuguese authorities in order to determine the legality of Grundig's plans to sell a building which was constructed with the aid of funding from the PEDIP I programme?

If this sale were deemed to be illegal, would Grundig be required to pay back the subsidies it received for the purposes of constructing the building?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1876/97, P-2207/97 and E-2223/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 July 1997)

Concerning a possible intention of Bosch to establish itself in Braga, the Portuguese authorities have informed the Commission that meetings had been organised with Bosch on a possible investment in Portugal in the area of electronic products in the automobile industry. Such a project has however not been officialised and there are no negotiations at present.

The Commission would point out that the present legislative and regulatory framework of the structural funds only applies to existing Member States. In addition, the Phare programmes developed in Hungary do not aid direct investment to industry.

Relating to the supplementary question on the sale of buildings, the Commission's enquiries of the Portuguese authorities after its reply to the Honourable Member's written question P-3533/96 indicate that as yet there is no confirmation of any possible sale by Grundig of buildings which had benefited from assistance in the framework of PEDIP I. It is recalled, that as indicated in the reply to written question P-3533/96 Grundig has fulfilled its contractual obligations to the Portuguese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2210/97 by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Human rights in Croatia

Is the Commission aware of reports from 'Women's Aid for Peace' (a humanitarian organization working with all ethnic groups in former Yugoslavia) that Croat returnees to the Lika area are being deliberately denied their human rights? In particular, is it aware that the returnees are often refused access to their former homes and employment? Is the Commission further aware that the Croatian police also show little diligence in pursuing the perpetrators of crimes against Serbs?

What steps is the Commission taking to monitor human rights violations in Croatia? What are the results of this monitoring and what pressures is the Commission putting on the Croatian authorities to stamp out such abuses?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (14 July 1997)

The Commission is aware that Croatian Serb returnees are frequently exposed to harassment and a high level of insecurity in Croatia and unable to move into their former homes. While procedures have been set up to facilitate the return of Croatian Serb displaced persons from other parts of Croatia to their place of origin, implementation appears to be deficient in many cases. The return of Croatian Serb refugees to Croatia often meets with deliberate obstacles created by the Croatian authorities.

The Commission has not the means to monitor systematically violations of human rights in Croatia. The Community's monitoring mission, led by the respective Presidencies of the Community, as well as the Organization on security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations' special rapporteurs for human rights observe the situation. They regularly report on their findings concerning the respect of human and minority rights in this country, and the Commission receives these reports. The Community in general, and the Commission in particular, continuously press the Croatian authorities to respect internationally agreed standards of human and minority rights and to comply with their international obligations. In the framework of the regional approach, the development of relations between the Community and Croatia will crucially depend on the latter's respect of human and minority rights and the creation of real opportunities for refugees to return to their places of origin.