ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1529/96 by Yvan Blot (NI) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Single currency names

1. The Commission would appear recently to have adopted the term 'cent' as the designation for one hundredth of a euro. Can the Commission confirm the reports to this effect which appeared in the French press?

2. If those reports were accurate, is the Commission aware of the confusion that the term will cause in French when correctly pronounced? (What would the phrase 'il y a cent cents dans un euro' mean?)

Is it also aware that, in order to avoid such confusion, the term would have to be pronounced in the English manner, which would create confusion with the hundredth part of a dollar? Should not the name 'cent' be changed to 'centieuro', which has the merit of being clear?

I would point out that Germany used a similar argument in its successful bid to have the name 'ecu' changed to 'euro', namely that the German pronunciation of the term 'ecu' created confusion between the currency unit itself and the German word for 'cow'.

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

The question of what the hundredth part of a euro should be called was discussed by the Ministers for Economic and Financial Affairs at Verona on 13 April. They came down in favour of the 'cent'.

Like the name of the single currency, that of its subdivision must be short and simple and easy to pronounce.

In view of the above, the Council will definitively adopt the name of the subdivision on the basis of the proposal for a Regulation on the legal framework for the use of the euro that will be placed before it by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1991/96 by Winifred Ewing (ARE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Financial support to the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh

Has the Commission given aid or financial support to the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh?

If so, will the Commission investigate the circumstances under which the Bank makes loans to Bangladeshi women which effectively interfere in their lives, such as a compulsion to use family planning?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has not given any aid or financial support to the Grameen Bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1184/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: The Commission's translation services

Huge delays occur in distributing the documentation and forms relating to Community programmes which are usually translated into all the Union languages.

According to those responsible for the Community programmes, these delays are the result of inefficiency on the part of the translation services.

There is a strong tendency to issue documentation in English only thus giving British citizens, companies and associations an advantage.

The failure to supply documentation within reasonable time limits and the rigid deadline set for submitting applications make it impossible for all those interested in taking part in all the Member States to do so.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to improve the organization of its translation services with a view to ensuring that Union citizens have equal access to information?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1996)

The Commission makes the best possible use of the resources available to it to ensure that all official languages enjoy equal status in the legislative or other work of the Community.

However, translation of information files and forms into all languages can be delayed when resources must be allocated to other texts, in particular, legislative texts which have a direct legal impact on the citizen. In this case, documents are distributed initially in the only language available, that is to say, the original language which, for operational reasons, is often English.

The Commission is fully aware of the situation and is constantly endeavouring to improve its technological resources and to rationalize its working methods in order to provide the citizen, as best it can, with information in all official languages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1094/96 by Konstadinos Klironomos (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Environmental and economic disaster in the Linoperamata area of Heraklion, Crete

The coastal area of 'Linoperamata' near Heraklion, Crete, designated an area of exceptional natural beauty, is a very important cultural site and tourist resort with dozens of hotel complexes providing accommodation for thousands of visitors. It is, however, under direct threat of irreparable environmental and economic damage from illegal storage facilities for liquid fuel, liquid gas and cement and a huge electricity generating plant belonging to the Greek Electricity Board (DEH).

Ignoring decisions taken completely to the contrary by the Regional Council of Crete and the Heraklion Provincial Council as well as the protests of thousands of local residents and representative organizations in the wider region, the Greek Environment Ministry has authorized the expansion of the storage facilities for liquid fuel with the obvious risk of a major ecological and environmental disaster, which would destroy the quality of life of the local population and the economy of this essentially urban area and of Heraklion itself.

Will the Commission take measures to ban further use of the area for such dangerous activities as those referred to above and will it intercede to ask the Greek Development and Environment Ministries not to renew the operating licences for these installations, not to grant authorization to expand and, furthermore, to order their immediate removal?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

The Commission is not aware of the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member.

From the description given, it seems that the responsibility lies entirely with the Greek authorities granting the authorizations foreseen by Greek law.

The Commission could only intervene in case of violation of Community environment law, but no information to this effect is given by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0865/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Compensation for loss of the rice market as a result of enlargement

The Commission is considering ways of guaranteeing access to Community markets for rice from third countries on the basis of their exports to the three new Member States during the reference period at zero or reduced tariff rates.

Since these concessions could seriously disadvantage Community importers, could the Commission answer the following questions?

Is it intending to grant these import quotas on a permanent basis? Is it intending to submit this measure to the EU Council of Ministers for its approval?

What action is it intending to take to ensure that the beneficiary countries are not able under any circumstances to impose unfair prices on Community importers above public market levels in any of the exporter countries which are traditionally allocated part of the quota?

Does the Commission think that the rice quota should be allocated on the basis of a system similar to that used in the COM in bananas, i.e. by granting import licences to companies which have sold a certain quantity of Community rice to the final distribution network?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 May 1996)

The Commission entered into negotiations in the framework of Article XXIV.6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (compensation for the accession of the three new Member States), concluding agreements in the rice sector with the United States, Australia and Thailand. These agreements, approved by the Council in Regulation 3093/95 of 22 December 1995 ((OJ L 334, 30.12.1995. )), introduced from 1 January 1996:

- an annual import quota of 63 000 tonnes of wholly milled or semi-milled rice at zero duty and,

- a quota of 20 000 tonnes of husked rice at a fixed rate of duty of ECU 88 per tonne.

Furthermore, in the framework of negotiations with Thailand for the suspension of consultations under Article XXIII of the GATT, it was agreed to open an annual quota of 80 000 tonnes of broken rice with a reduction of ECU 28 per tonne in import duty. The Council Regulation approving this agreement has not yet been published.

The Commission has prepared a draft regulation for the management of these quotas which has been submitted to a group of experts from the management committee for an initial exchange of views. This regulation, while taking account of traditional suppliers, will spread the quotas throughout the year to avoid jeopardizing sales of Community rice. It does not provide for the granting of import licences to be made conditional upon the purchase of a certain quantity of Community rice. Such action, or any condition relating to entry price, would have been considered by the international partners as detrimental to the concessions obtained and approved by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/96 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: EU's observer status on the International Commissions on the Meuse and Scheldt

The work of the various sea and river committees requires constant coordination within the EU. It is therefore very important that the EU should play an active role.

Can the Commission confirm that it has not yet taken any decision on the observer status for the EU on the International Commissions on the Meuse and Scheldt?

If no such decision has yet been taken, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)

The Commission has already given a positive reply to the President of the International Commission for the Protection of the Meuse regarding its participation as an observer. It is also in contact with the secretariat of the International Commission for the Protection of the Scheldt and is ready to reply positively to an invitation to take part as an observer in the International Commission's work.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1740/96 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Trade with South Africa

The European Commission has repeatedly stated that, in its view, 'substantially all trade' under the new WTO rules for Free-Trade Areas should be interpreted as 90% of all trade.

With regard to the negotiations on a FTA with South Africa, could the Commission clarify how it intends to determine that 90% of all trade? Could the Commission provide the details on which its calculation is based, such as reference years and other relevant data?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

The Commission has not expressed a view as to what precise percentage of trade coverage would meet the World trade organisation requirement that a free trade agreement (FTA) lead to the removal of duties on 'substantially all trade'. As the Commission pointed out in its communication SEC(95) 332, General agreement in tariffs and trade working parties have never been able to reach clear conclusions on these question. In October 1995 the Commission recalled that 'the Community cannot unilaterally identify any fixed percentage of trade with the well known requirement of Article XXIV that an FTA should cover substantially all trade'.

The complementary negotiating directives eventually adopted by the Council in March 1996 do not therefore contain any target percentage for the coverage of the proposed FTA with South Africa. In its negotiations with South Africa, the Commission will aim for the greatest possible liberalization of mutual trade, while taking due account of sensitive interests and products. 'Choosing an ambitious target' in the case of South Africa, the Commission said (October 1995), is 'justified by the present level of tariff barriers and the need to reach significant mutual improvement in market access'.

Since the products to be included or excluded from the FTA will be defined through negotiations, evaluation of WTO conformity of the FTA will only be possible once the negotiations have been completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1459/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Presence of the USA in Africa

Before beginning a recent tour of five sub-Saharan countries the US Trade Secretary said that the era of Europe's economic domination and commercial hegemony in Africa was over and that Africa was of interest to the USA.

This statement brings to a close a long period during which, for decades, the USA ignored the problems of African countries. Now, however, the end of apartheid in South Africa and the progressive democratization of other countries on the continent have started to persuade Americans that Africa is still viable.

In view of Europe's traditional presence in Africa, does the Commission think that the EU should to a certain extent alter its strategy in Africa in the light of the abovementioned statements by the US Trade Secretary? Will the new American attitude mean complementarity or competition regarding the support programme and the kind of involvement which the European Community has always had with regard to Africa?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

The renewed American commercial interest in Africa, to which the Honourable Member refers, comes at a time when the United States is re-examining its position and restructuring its presence in the African continent in terms of development assistance. Although the Commission does not suggest any link, it would regret any reduction of American assistance to the African continent, where still so much needs to be done.

The increased commercial interest by the United States should, at the same time, be regarded positively. It implies that the largest trading nation in the world recognises business possibilities in Africa. This gives credit to those donors (in particular European) that have been active in Africa to assist countries establish viable economies in which private business can thrive. The United States' attitude also underpins the European policy towards Africa which has always been based on the pillars of aid and trade.

Europe has been Africa's most significant trading partner. The new American interest will therefore certainly mean competition for European firms active in Africa. Whereas competition in itself is a good thing, it has to take place on a level playing field. An active involvement by the United States government in this competition may require an appropriate European response. The Commission, therefore, follows the United States' government activities closely, although the activities to which the Honourable Member refers do not warrant, at this stage, a specific response, nor a change of the Community's Africa policy.

The Commission takes this opportunity to underline the need for a better place for Africa in the world trade arena and will continue to work towards a policy of sustainable development in that continent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Extension of planning permission for landfill waste tipping at Aveley.

Given that British Secretary of State John Gummer ruled in 1992 that the accumulated environmental impact of further tipping at Aveley, Essex was unacceptable, and has now agreed such an extension under the British planning system without a public inquiry, which European directives could the Commission identify which local residents might use to challenge the decision - both on the basis of lack of public consultation and unacceptable environmental impact?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1068/96, E-1069/96 and E-1070/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

1. Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) requires an environmental impact assessment to be carried out before development consent is granted for certain types of projects. Landfills for toxic and dangerous waste are listed in Annex I of Directive 85/337/EEC. This means that an assessment is always required before development consent is given for such landfills. Landfills for other types of waste are listed in Annex II. This means that an assessment is required if the Member State considers that the landfill is likely to have a significant environmental effect.

Where an assessment is required under Directive 85/337/EEC the public concerned and relevant environmental authorities must be consulted. It is for Member States to determine the manner in which the public is to be consulted, whether by written submissions or by public inquiry. The final development consent decision is a matter for the decision-taking authority. In reaching that decision, however, it must take account of the results of the assessment.

2. As the common position (EC) No 4/96 adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council directive on the landfill of waste ((OJ C 59, 28.2.1996. )) was rejected by the Parliament on 22 May 1996, no specific directive currently exists.

However, Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )), says that 'Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

- without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals,

- without causing a nuisance through noise or odours,

- without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Member States shall also take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste.'
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1320/96 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: GDP per capita patterns in Extremadura

Recent reports indicate that seven European regions have a per capita GDP one and a half times the European Union average, while in six regions, per capita GDP is less that half the average.

What is the per capita GDP of the Spanish region of Extremadura, and how has its relative position in the league table changed over the last ten years?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

In 1993, the last year for which data are available, the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Extremadura, measured in purchasing power standards (PPS) and expressed as a percentage of the Community average (EUR15) was 55. This region was therefore not one of those whose per capita GDP was less than half the Community average (Açores, Alentejo, Madeira and Centro in Portugal; Ipeiros and Voreio Aigaio in Greece).

Since 1983, the per capita GDP in Extremadura has developed as follows:

>TABLE>

The Commission would like to point out, however, that the development over time of the ranking of European regions according to this indicator is not exhaustive for two main reasons. Firstly, information relating to the four French overseas departments, where the per capita GDP in PPS is similar to that of Extremadura, is not available every year. Secondly, since 1991, the data have taken into account the new German Länder which, up until that point, had all had a per capita GDP in PPS lower than that of Extremadura.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Elections in Albania

According to international news agencies and observers from the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Albanian elections of 26 May 1996 were marred by an unprecedented degree of electoral fraud and the intimidation of Mr Berisha's opponents by means of beatings, shootings and detention of opposition party leaders.

What steps will the Commission take in response to the actions by the Berisha regime which, having whittled down and violated the rights of the Greek minority in Albania, is now disregarding and riding roughshod over the rights of the remainder of the Albanian population?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

The Commission cannot but express concern about what occurred at these elections.

In the light of the final report by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which confirmed numerous irregularities, the Commission considers that the partial rerun of the elections in 17 constituencies on 16 June 1996 was certainly a step in the right direction, although it was still not enough to restore confidence in democracy in Albania. It is also a matter for regret that the informal joint approach by the European Union and the United States aimed at postponing the partial rerun was not successful. Having taken note of the resolutions adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament on this subject, the Commission appeals to the Albanian Government to take the necessary steps to implement the OSCE's recommendations in future elections.

The Commission calls on all parties concerned in Albania to maintain a dialogue on this basis. Where contractual relations between the Community and Albania are concerned it is clear that compliance with democratic standards is an essential factor. But, under the present circumstances, the Commission considers that the situation should be examined more closely before any decisions on these relations are taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1614/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Development aid in Latin America

What is the Commission's response to the OECD's DAC report on EU aid, in relation to its comments in particular concerning Latin America?

Could the Commission indicate which recommendations it agrees with and which it rejects?

Where it is in agreement, can the Commission indicate how it is seeking to implement changes?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

The Commission provided both oral and written contributions to the work of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) which drafted the report on development aid administered by the Community. The final draft was scrutinized at a joint OECD/Commission/Member State meeting in Paris on 19 September last year.

The Commission is thus wholly familiar with the report's conclusions and welcomes the DAC's comments on cooperation with Latin America, which apply to the whole range of Community operations, EIB loans as well as Commission-administered grants.

The DAC recommendations set out in the summary and conclusions which call for particular attention from the Commission relate mainly to staffing, coordination with Member States, evaluation of operations and the drafting of country strategy papers.

The experts on the DAC noted that the Commission did not have the staff to undertake social projects, participatory development operations, programmes for women, and population, health, education and environmental projects. The Commission does in fact have specialist staff in most of these fields, though admittedly too limited to handle the workload.

The Commission considers the DAC's comments on coordination with the Member States most pertinent and wholly in line with the guidelines set out in its communication COM(94) 495 final entitled 'The EU and Latin America: the present situation and prospects for closer partnership 1996-2000' ((COM(95) 495 final. )).

Some country strategy papers for South American countries are already available, and the set should soon be complete. Papers analysing the situation of women in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay are also available.

The Commission endorses the DAC's views on evaluation and the importance both of taking the results into account when planning future operations and disseminating them to a wider public. It will endeavour to do so and to internalize the relevant parts of the DAC report.