ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/96 by Dominique Baudis (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Changes in regulations concerning beef and veal

A serious crisis is affecting the production of beef and veal, and swift, radical measures must be envisaged now to restore order to this sector in the European Union.

The Council of Ministers of Agriculture has requested urgent consideration of the three-fold proposal for Regulations (COM(96)0422) to amend:

1. Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 ((OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24. )) on the common organization of the market in beef and veal,

2. Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12. )) establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1872/94, and

3. Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1. )) on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures.

In view of the situation affecting the farming industry, cannot the Commission split this three-fold proposal so as to put forward, as soon as possible, solely the measures concerning the common organization of the market in beef and veal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1996)

In Luxembourg on 30 October 1996, the Council agreed to a compromise involving basically the beef sector, arable crops and agricultural structures pending the agreement of the Parliament.

Afterwards the Council meeting on 18 November 1996 agreed a medium-term reform, designed to balance the beef market as a result of the reduction in beef consumption due to consumers' concerns ((OJ No L 296, 21.11.1996. )).

Thus changes have been made in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 separately from the other Regulations mentioned in the question. Therefore, there has been a practical split between the beef proposal and the other two proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Asylum-seekers from former Yugoslavia

The German government plans to repatriate refugees from former Yugoslavia. The Netherlands government fears that many of them will attempt to enter the countries bordering Germany.

1. Have the Member States, which, in Article K.1 of the Treaty agreed to regard asylum policy as a matter of common interest, decided to pursue a common policy in this area, in accordance with UNHCR recommendations?

2. Are they prepared to agree not to return any refugees to Kosovo until Serbia has adopted an amnesty law, without which repatriated refugees have grounds for fearing Serbian reprisals?

Answer (13 February 1997)

It is true that asylum policy is regarded as a matter of common interest. However, the people to whom the Honourable Member refers are not, as a general rule, asylum-seekers or refugees within the meaning of the Geneva Convention.

Those displaced as a result of the crisis situation in former Yugoslavia have, until now, benefited from the temporary protection of their host States. Terminating such temporary protection and repatriating the people concerned is the responsibility of the individual States, which consult each other within the Council on the development of the situation and cooperate with the UNHCR with the aim of carrying out coordinated repatriation, having regard to the criteria laid down in the Dayton Agreement and the need to ensure safety and acceptable living conditions for each person concerned.

The Member States are perfectly aware of the situation in Kosovo and are in consultation with each other on the subject. However, the decision on whether or not to return people is the responsibility of each Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3491/96 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (29 November 1996)

Subject: Administration of EU school milk subsidy scheme

Approximately 60% of children in the UK have no access to milk under the EU school milk subsidy scheme as a large number of local authorities have opted out of the scheme altogether. In light of this, is the Commission in favour of intervention boards responsible for the administration of the school milk scheme, such as the Produkischap voor Zuivel in the Netherlands where the participation rate in the milk scheme is much higher?

If so, what action would the Commission propose to encourage Member States to use the intervention boards to administer the scheme?

Could the Commission also inform us of how many EU countries are currently operating the school milk schemes under the supervision of an intervention board?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 3392/93 ((OJ L 306, 11.12.1993 )) on detailed rules for the application of the school milk scheme offers a large degree of flexibility to Member States for administering the scheme. This approach, based on the principle of subsidiarity, is justified by the fact that educational and administrative structures may vary considerably between Member States. Therefore, it seems appropriate to allow national authorities to administer the scheme in such a way that the specific situation of the Member State can be taken into account. The Commission continues to advocate this approach and, consequently, has no intention to encourage Member States to opt for one or other specific administrative procedure.

Moreover, the Commission underlines that the participation rate in the school milk scheme ultimately depends on the decision of schools and pupils to take part in the scheme or not. In the case of the Netherlands, to which the Honourable Member refers, most of the schools do offer subsidised milk to their pupils. However, less than 20% of the Dutch pupils effectively take up the offer, which is a participation rate well below the Community average.

It seems that five Member States allow local authorities to pay the aid and administer the scheme in line with Article 8 of the Regulation, while most have entrusted the administration of the scheme to a national authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3238/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (28 November 1996)

Subject: The Commission's tax programme

The Commission's work programme for 1997 (COM(96)0507) states: 'In 1996 the Commission ... launched an in-depth examination of tax policies in Europe. Practical conclusions will be forthcoming in 1997. The Commission will speed up the drafting of guidelines for closer coordination of tax policy in Europe. One of the main aims will be to reverse the current trend towards imposing compulsory charges and levies on employment.'

However, the list of proposed actions refers, as far as taxation is concerned, only to vehicle tax (34).

Is there a proposal to permit compensation for loss not only of subsequent but also of previous profits?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 January 1997)

The Commission's work programme for 1997 contains initiatives that the Commission is planning to take in the course of the year.

In 1984 the Commission had proposed a Directive on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to tax arrangements for the carry-over of losses of undertakings ((OJ C 253, 2.9.1984. )), which was amended in 1985 ((OJ C 170, 9.7.1985. )).

The proposal, which was not taken up by the Council, was withdrawn in 1996 since, as a measure designed to harmonize the tax base, it had implications only for the Member States' domestic tax systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) and Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: The introduction by the Italian Government of a tax for Europe

As part of its new budgetary measures, the Italian Government has decided to introduce a tax for Europe.

This heavy new tax, which the Prime Minister, Mr Prodi, has judged necessary to enable Italy to take part in the first stage of monetary union, has no equivalent in the other European countries.

The new tax will have an adverse impact on the Italian economy as will the whole of the budget, which is based on higher taxation rather than cuts in public spending and thus takes the opposite approach to that adopted by the other Member States with a view to meeting the Maastricht targets.

Has the Council in any way hinted at or proposed such a tax, or even imposed it on the Italian Government?

Answer (13 February 1997)

It is not for the Council to comment on the fiscal measures envisaged in Italy mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3933/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (10 January 1997)

Subject: EU funds to Lower Saxony since 1993

How much has been paid in Community resources and through which projects and Funds to Lower Saxony:

1. to promote employment and combat long-term unemployment:

(a) from the European Regional Development Fund,

(b) from the European Social Fund,

(c) from the EAGGF and other EU resources?

2. to promote research and development:

(a) in universities and colleges,

(b) in the private sector?

3. to promote relations and trade with Central and East European countries?

4. from the energy and environment programmes?

5. from the youth programmes?

6. from the education programmes?

7. for women's projects?

8. for cultural projects?

9. What is the EU's assessment of the success of the measures?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1906/96 by Erich Schreiner (NI) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Multiplicity of standards in the EU

The large number of different standards in Europe places a heavy burden on European undertakings. Invitations to tender, in particular, are often based on national technical standards.

1. What action is the Commission taking in this regard?

2. How are we to assess the distortions of competition which arise from this multiplicity of standards?

3. Will the Commission take steps to introduce Europe-wide harmonization of the various technical standards? If so, when can results be expected? If not, why not?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

Further to its answer ((OJ C 365, 4.12.1996.)), the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the results of the internal Commission study into the degree to which purchases covered by Directive 93/38/EEC (utilities directive) ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.)) are covered by European or international standards can be summarized as follows (the figures quoted reflect the situation in mid-1996):

- 66.2% of the products identified were estimated to be covered to a significant degree by either a European standard, a European standard under development or an international standard;

- the coverage of identified products by European standards under development is significantly higher than for fully adopted standards (25% against 18.3%);

- 40.4% of the European standards (adopted or under development) covering identified products were mandated by the Commission;

- most of the mandated European documents covering identified products were mandated in support of either the construction products Directive 89/106/EEC or public procurement Directive 93/37/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2627/96 by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission (2 October 1996)

Subject: Car manufacturers cutting commission on sales to non-EU countries

In April 1995 a German company ordered a vehicle from a car dealer with registered offices in Germany. The vehicle was delivered to the company in August 1995 and registered. Because of the difficult sales situation a considerable discount was allowed following consultation with the manufacturer. In November 1995 the vehicle was transferred to a branch of the company in Hungary and reregistered. Because of this change of location the manufacturer asked the dealer to repay a customer service commission of 3% of the German list price for the basic model of the vehicle.

Is this claim compatible with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 ((OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25. )) on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements?

If so, can the Commission explain why, even though the vehicle was sold to a German company and the firm in Hungary is a branch of a company with registered offices in the European Union?

Is the manufacturer's claim compatible with the Association Agreement between the European Union and Hungary?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

Further to the answer given on 18 October 1996, ((OJ C 11, 13.1.1997. )) the Commission is now able to inform the Honourable Member of the following.

It has examined the matter closely and has been in contact with the companies concerned. The dealer has now given the Commission to understand that it will not be pursuing the matter further.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4012: Measures to achieve equality between men and women

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 B3-4012: Measures to achieve equality between men and women?

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-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?

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-3614/96 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 du Travail (CGT)

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-3625/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-1010 Youth for Europe

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 B3-1010: Youth for Europe?

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-0125/97 by Sylviane Ainardi (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies allocated to the Midi-Pyrénées region in 1994 and 1995

What were the figures for the Community appropriations allocated to the Midi-Pyrénées region under the following headings:

- ERDF

- EAGGF - Guidance

- ESF

- research programmes

- programmes in the energy sector

- programmes concerning the environment

- other programmes concerning human resources, education, training and youth?

Can the Commission state who were the beneficiaries of these appropriations?

Joint supplementary answer to Written Questions E-0122/97, E-0123/97, E-0124/97, E-0125/97 and E-0126/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/97 by René-Emile Piquet (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies allocated to the Nord-Pas de Calais region in 1994 and 1995

What were the figures for the Community appropriations allocated to the Nord-Pas de Calais region under the following headings:

- ERDF

- EAGGF - Guidance

- ESF

- research programmes

- programmes in the energy sector

- programmes concerning the environment

- other programmes concerning human resources, education, training and youth?

Can the Commission state who were the beneficiaries of these appropriations?

Joint supplementary answer to Written Questions E-0122/97, E-0123/97, E-0124/97, E-0125/97 and E-0126/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (29 April 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-0951/97 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (7 March 1997)

Subject: Mutual recognition of certificates of proficiency in the field of agriculture

In 1994 the Land of Schleswig-Holstein and the Kingdom of Denmark signed a joint declaration on cross-border cooperation in the field of agricultural training. The declaration makes explicit provision for the mutual recognition of diplomas. Under the relevant legislation in Schleswig-Holstein, this includes certificates of proficiency in the area of plant protection. Accordingly, Danish farmers with a Danish certificate may use plant protection products in Schleswig-Holstein. However, Denmark does not recognize German diplomas as certificates of proficiency in the area of plant protection in local cross-border traffic. This situation poses serious problems for Schleswig-Holstein farmers who own or have a lease on land in Denmark.

How does the Commission view this situation?

Can the Commission say whether this case affects EC law and, if so, on what legal basis?

If not, what possibilities does the Commission see for removing such barriers to cross-border activities and guaranteeing the right to the free exercise of a profession in the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

The Commission is unaware of any specific problems involving Danish and German farmers, including those in the Land of Schleswig-Holstein.

It would remind the Honourable Member that two specific directives, Council Directives 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. )) and 92/51/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )), have introduced a general system for the recognition of professional education and training diplomas. The directives are not designed to harmonize the scope of activity of different professions. What is more, the conditions for taking up and pursuing a particular activity are a matter for the Member States.

Given the general wording of the Honourable Member's question, it is not possible to determine what the exact problem is as regards the position of German farmers in Schleswig-Holstein wishing to carry on their activities in Denmark and whether any problem of Community law is at issue here. There would not seem to be any problem relating to freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services since the German farmers in question doubtless own land in Denmark. As mentioned above, the condition for pursuing a particular activity may differ between Member States and, in all likelihood, the problem relates to those conditions, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Member States.

Lastly, the question refers to a joint declaration, and this will have to be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Member States that signed it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 February 1997)

Subject: Production refunds for olive oil used in processed fish products in the EU

The Commission is currently contemplating a reform of the olive oil sector which would involve taking into account the use of olive oil in processed fish products.

What sort of measures are being considered, or are likely to be considered, to compensate those in the processed fish industry who use olive oil, by bringing the price of EU olive oil down to the world price?

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

The current common organization of the market in olive oil provides for a production refund on olive oil used in the manufacture of certain preserves (Article 20a of Council Regulation 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats ((OJ 172, 30.9.1966. ))).

The amount of the production refund is based on the difference between the price on the world market and the price on the Community market.

On 12 February 1997 the Commission presented a paper to the Council and to Parliament on the olives and olive oil sectors (covering their economic, cultural, regional, social and environmental aspects ((COM(97) 57. ))), the current common organization of the markets, the need for reform and the solutions proposed. None of the various options presented suggested changing the current arrangements on the production refund. That does not preclude possible adjustments to these arrangements in the draft amendment of the common organization of the market which is to be presented for the 1998/99 marketing year.