ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1167/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Age limits for recruitment to European institutions

In its answer to Written Question E-394/92 ((OJ C 296, 24.10.1994, p. 3. )), the Commission stated that it would progressively remove age limits in its recruitment. Has it moved any closer to removing age limits completely? If not, when does it expect to do so?

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

Pursuant to Annex III of the Staff Regulations, the Commission, like the other institutions, applies age limits, generally up to 35 years of age, for the purposes of admission to its competitions for recruitment at basic grade. For a statement of the reasons why this policy is adhered to, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question No E-355/96 by Mr Cabezón Alonso and others. ((OJ C 137, 8.5.1996.))

In the case of middle management competitions, the Commission at present sets an age limit of 55, while for the LA competitions for translators into the two new official languages the age limit has been raised to 40. In line with the Commission's intention as stated in the answer to the written question to which the Honourable Member alludes, there are no longer any age limits for the selection of temporary staff to carry out specific, well-defined duties.

It should also be stressed that interinstitutional cooperation is to be stepped up in line with the conclusions of the tripartite dialogue group, which means that all aspects of recruitment policy, including age limits in notices of open competitions, will have to be examined and dealt with in the context of such cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0857/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Tinned petfood

1. Is the Commission aware that tinned food for dogs and cats is reported to contain meat contaminated by parasites and viruses?

2. Is it aware that a large number of dogs and cats kept as pets fall ill and die as a result of bad food?

3. Is it aware that petfood manufacturers are using industrial waste, damaged agricultural produce and abattoir waste from sick animals?

4. Does a legal basis exist for putting an end to this practice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler (6 May 1996)

The raw materials of animal origin from which the petfood is manufactured are obtained either from healthy slaughtered animals, the meat from which has been passed as fit for human consumption, or from low risk material, as defined by Council Directive 90/667/EEC ((OJ L 363, 27.12.1990, Directive as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. )), which does not present serious risks of spreading communicable diseases to animals or man. Furthermore, Council Directive 92/118/EEC ((OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, as last amended by Commission Decision 96/103/EC of 29.1.1996 - OJ L 24, 31.1.1996. )) lays down specific animal health requirements for petfood containing low risk materials. In particular the petfood in hermetically sealed containers must be subjected to heat treatment to a minimum Fc value of 3,0.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Network of European consultants

The network of European consultants set up by the Commission is designed to provide a link between job vacancies and demand, thus making it possible for the right to freedom of movement to be exercised.

There are eight cross-border coordinators, and various projects are being launched.

Can the Commission say which cross-border associations have appointed a European consultant and can it provide information on their composition?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (19 April 1996)

Crossborder EURES is a network of collaborative structures designed to meet the need for information and consultation on mobility specific to border regions. It brings together the public employment and vocational training services, trade unions, employers' organisations, local and regional authorities and institutions concerned with employment and vocational training in the border regions, as well as the Commission.

On 20 March 1996, 12 Eures structures were being subsidised by the Commission and were operating in the following Member States and border regions:

1) Hainault / Nord-Pas-de-Calais / West Flanders / Kent (HNFK)(Belgium, France, UK)

2) Scheldt / Kempen (IGA I)(Belgium, Netherlands)

3) Euregio Gronau (Enschede)(Germany, Netherlands)

4) Euregio Meuse / Rhine (IGA II)(Belgium, Germany, Netherlands)

5) European Development Pole (EDP)(Belgium, France, Luxembourg)

6) Lorraine / Saarland(Germany, France)

7) Provence / Alpes-Côte d'Azur / Liguria (Eurazur)(France, Italy)

8) Rhône-Alpes / Piedmont / Valle d'Aosta (Transalp)(France, Italy)

9) Schleswig - South Jutland(Denmark, Germany)

10) Carinthia / Friuli - Venezia Giulia (Euralp)(Italy, Austria)

11) Rhine-Waal / Rhein-Meuse (North)(Germany, Netherlands)

12) Bavaria / Voralberg - Tyrol - Salzburg-Upper Austria(Germany, Austria)

The Euroadvisers are the principal actors in the Crossborder Eures network. In each cross-border structure, the Euroadvisers work within their own organisations, which may be public employment services, organisations representing employees or employers, and regional organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/96 by Gastone Parigi (NI), Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Spalato Belleré (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council (18 March 1996)

Subject: Ethnic cleansing in the 1940s perpetrated against the Italian community living on the Adriatic coast

The horror felt by the civilized world at the crimes against humanity committed by the various armies in former Yugoslavia in the course of the ethnic war (which is not yet over) is focusing attention, after fifty years of shameful silence, on the tragedy of the 350 000 Dalmatians, Istrians and natives of Venezia-Giulia who were forcibly driven from the largely Italian-inhabited Adriatic coast between 1943 and 1946 and another 10 000 of their brother citizens who were barbarically tortured and buried alive in the karst pits of Slovenia, Croatia and Venezia-Giulia by their persecutors, Marshall Tito's Slav communists.

Just as the civilized world is calling for the Balkan criminals of the 1990s to be punished, so Italy is calling for the punishment of over 80 murderers from that time, who have already been identified by the Italian judiciary and are now living on state pensions on the other side of the Italian-Slovenian and Italian-Croatian border.

Can the Council, an ever-vigilant guardian of human rights, at least express its moral condemnation of this genocide perpetrated against the defenceless Italian population, which is tragically recorded in history as the first ethnic cleansing operation by armed bands of nations which now arrogantly aspire to join the European Community?

Reply (13 June 1996)

Although the events to which the Honourable Members refer have never been brought to the Council's attention, the Council obviously condemns any crime against humanity and genocide in particular.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0804/96 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: International vehicle registration

1. Does the Commission believe that the introduction of 'Euro' number plates makes an important contribution to integration within the European Union?

2. Does the Commission agree that the 1968 Vienna Convention should be amended or revised so that it is permissible for IVR symbols to be incorporated in the number plate and in a different form from that specified hitherto?

3. Will the Commission take action as soon as possible to ensure that IVR letters on 'Euro' number plates in the European Union are in line with the current provisions of the Vienna Convention and if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

1. The Commission considers that the European flag is an important symbol of membership of the Union and indicating the European flag on vehicle number plates makes a useful contribution to awareness of integration.

2. The so-called 'Euro-plate' was designed with experts from the Member States. The inclusion of the distinguishing sign of the Member State on a specific part of the plate (under the European flag), well separated from the registration number, is appropriate since it allows:

- no possibility of confusion with the registration number and

- certainty of having the information relating to the Member State of registration of the vehicle.

This is in line with the aims of Article 37 of the Vienna Convention of 1968 and has been implemented by several Member States (P, IRL, D) independently from the fact they are parties to the Convention.

3. Formally, however, Member States (mainly those which have not yet adopted the 'Euro-plate' model) could apply the Vienna Convention in requiring an additional distinguishing sign indicating the country of origin of foreign vehicles circulating on their territory. An amendment of the relevant provisions of the Convention would be necessary to avoid that situation. This would probably be a lengthy process to be initiated by one of the signatory states to the Vienna Convention.

The Commission is, meanwhile, re-examining the question of whether, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, an initiative would be justified at Community level to provide an appropriate legal base for the use within the Community of the 'Euro-plate' without the accompanying distinguishing sign.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0645/96 by Leonie van Bladel (PSE) to the Council (18 March 1996)

Subject: Recent statement by the Iranian Government concerning the fatwa against Rushdie

On 18 February 1996, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Velayati, said in an interview with 'Iran News' that, while the fatwa against Salman Rushdie could not be revoked, the Iranian Government would not take any steps to secure the carrying out of the death penalty in this case. This statement was made in response to the debate with the Council on 14 February 1996 in the European Parliament.

1. Was the Council already aware that Iran had adopted such a position?

2. Does the Council consider this position adequate to deter extremists?

3. What is the Council's view of this position, and how does it intend to respond to it?

4. How long does the Council intend to continue the critical dialogue with Iran, in view of the Iranian Government's position?

5. What will the next step be following the 'critical dialogue'?

6. Mr Velayati later said in Geneva that some progress had been made in the negotiations with the EU during the Spanish Presidency. Can the Council say what progress he had in mind?

Joint Reply (25 June 1996)

The Council is aware of the public statement to which the Honourable Member refers and others made by representatives of the Government of Iran concerning the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and has noted their contents. The European Union has repeatedly called on the Iranian authorities to join the EU's efforts to obtain a satisfactory solution in respect of Salman Rushdie. In April 1995 the EU asked Iran for written assurances of Mr Rushdie's safety. Iran has not yet delivered these assurances but discussions between the EU and Iran are continuing.

The objective of the European Union's policy on Iran is to bring about an improvement in Iranian behaviour. The basis of the EU's own relations with Iran is and remains the Critical Dialogue stemming from the Conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992. The Critical Dialogue reflects concern about Iranian behaviour and 'calls for improvement in a number of areas, particularly human rights, the death sentence pronounced by a fatwa of Ayatollah Khomaini against the author Salmon Rushdie, which is contrary to international law, and terrorism'. It aso provides an opportunity to raise Iran's arms procurement policies and its approach to the Middle East Peace Process. During the regular and tough sessions of the Critical Dialogue that have taken place since 1993, the European Union has repeatedly made it clear that improvement in these areas will be important in determining the extent to which closer relations and confidence can develop.

Through the Critical Dialogue and other initiatives, such as EU pressure for tough resolutions and statements on Iran at the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights, the European Union has succeeded in raising international awareness of Iran's behaviour. Although Iran has not yet responded positively to such action, the EU hopes that sustained pressure from it and the international community will lead to the improved behaviour sought.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0051/96 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (25 January 1996)

Subject: Display screen equipment

How many workers are estimated to use display screen equipment in each Member State respectively?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 March 1996)

The Commission estimates that, overall, about half of the working population in the Community uses VDU equipment for work purposes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0301/96 by Maren Günther (PPE) to the Commission (7 February 1996)

Subject: Commissioner Bonino's reference on 30 January 1996 to a ECU 3,5 million contract for Burundi which could not be executed

At the joint meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and Committee on Development and Cooperation and the European members of the ACP-EU Joint Assembly on 30 January 1996 Commissioner Bonino mentioned the release of ECU 3,5 million in late 1995 for a single contract for Burundi, which could not, however, be executed.

Who is the other party to the contract, what is the substance of the contract, and why could it not be executed?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1996)

On 21 November 1995, the Commission adopted an ECU 70 million financing proposal for humanitarian aid for the people of Rwanda and Burundi in the Great Lakes region. It included ECU 3,5 million for humanitarian aid programmes for displaced, dispersed and repatriated people within Burundi.

The worsening situation in Burundi and the dangerous conditions have regularly hindered the forwarding of relief and the implementation of humanitarian programmes.

In mid-December last year a number of coordinated attacks against the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Association Against Hunger, the Movimiento por la paz, el desarme y la libertad and Oxfam in the province of Gitega led to the suspension of operations for a few weeks.

In these circumstances, the non-governmental organizations have not presented any new programmes to the Commission for financing.

Only Médecins du monde (France) has received further financing for three months from 1 January for its emergency medical programme at the Prince Régent Hospital in Bujumbura. There have been no specific problems affecting this programme, which is proceeding as scheduled.

The funds earmarked in the decision of 21 November 1995 will be allocated to the partners in the light of humanitarian requirements and the accessibility of the victims and the areas in need of aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/96 by Frode Kristoffersen (PPE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 92/29/EEC on minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels

Council Directive 92/29/EEC ((OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p.19. )) of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels requires that very extensive medical supplies to be carried at all times. The latter are highly expensive and in fact can only be properly used by persons with medical training. These onerous requirements also apply to commercial fishermen at sea for relatively short periods and within restricted geographical areas from which they may be evacuated by rescue helicopter in the event of serious accident. They include the Danish fishing fleet, which mainly operates in the North Sea and the Baltic and is therefore never going to use any of the many expensive and highly specialized medicines described in the annexes to the Directive, such as uterotonics for use after childbirth. The provisions of the directive are therefore regarded not only by the fishermen affected but also by the general public as an example of the excessive bureaucracy and perfectionism which has recently brought the EU institutions into disrepute.

Will the Commission therefore review Directive 92/29/EEC with a view to adapting it, as it so obviously needs, to the real world, and can the Commission quote examples of fisherwomen who have been obliged to give birth at the workplace?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

Evacuation by helicopter, which is inevitably very costly, is not always possible owing to the weather. Vessels must therefore have medical supplies on board. The Commission drew up its proposal on the basis of recommendations made by medical staff of services providing radio assistance to vessels at sea. Neither this proposal nor the amended proposal included uterotonics. Antihaemorrhagics were required only for vessels sailing more than 100 nautical miles from the nearest port.

The Commission points out that the Directive also applies to merchant vessels, which are more likely to have women on board. This is why the Council wanted to take account of problems which might affect women. Uterotonics are prescribed only where there are female crew members on board. The Commission did not express any reservations about this point, as the cost-benefit analysis of its proposal shows the cost of maintaining medical supplies to be very small, compared with that of diverting a vessel or interrupting fishing to evacuate a crew member who cannot be treated on board. The disproportion justifies the requirement for less expensive medicines which are less commonly used, but are shown by medical assistance service statistics to be useful. The uterotonic recommended by several Member States in France costs around ECU 2.2 in injectable form and less than ECU 4 in the form taken orally. Under these circumstances there are no grounds for a review of the directive in respect of medical supplies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0949/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDN) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Mad cow disease

Will the Commission follow up the Council's decision on mad cow disease with similar programmes to combat rabies, paratuberculosis, swine fever, Dutch elm disease and other diseases that spread because of the free movement of plants and animals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)

A fund financed by the Community has been in place for many years, to control and eradicate important animal diseases such as rabies, classical swine fever, and foot and mouth disease, and has benefited the Member States where these diseases have occurred.

In respect of the control and eradication of organisms harmful to plants or plant products, the Commission presented in 1989 a proposal for financial contributions of the Community ((OJ C 31, 9.2.1990. amendment to the proposal, OJ C 205, 6.8.1991. )).

This proposal has not yet been adopted by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/96 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Crossborder cooperation with Andorra

The Interreg II regulation lays down guidelines for operational programmes for frontier development, crossborder cooperation and the energy network.

Interreg II also provides for cooperation concerning the Union's internal and external frontiers.

As Andorra is not a member of the EU, while the NUTS III areas bordering on that country are Ariège in France and Lleida (Lérida) in Spain, does the Commission consider that those border areas could be eligible to benefit from the Interreg II programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)

The list of eligible border regions attached to the guidelines for the Interreg II operational programmes ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )) includes the province of Lerida in Spain and the department of Ariège in France. Both border the other Member State and Andorra.

The allocation of Interreg II funding for each frontier region has been worked out using objective rules which take no account of the number of countries bordering the relevant areas. Although the Commission has made no special mention of trans-border cooperation with non-member Andorra, it has no objection in principle to the operational programme for regions in the Spanish and French Pyrenees including measures for that country, which is surrounded by programme areas. It is up to the Spanish and French authorities to include such measures in the programmes should they so wish.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0822/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Pilot programme to establish links between business and institutes of higher and technical education

In 1993, 23 'careers offices' were set up in Greece to implement the pilot project to establish links between business and institutes of higher and technical education. The cost of the programme reached Dr 3.2 billion, including Dr 2.4 billion from the European Social Fund under the first Community Support Framework. Many of the offices have been found to be operating below full capacity or to have closed before 31 December 1995, which is also the date on which the programme ended.

What is the Commission's assessment of the programmes's implementation? Were the results in line with expectations? Were all the allocated appropriations used up? And will it continue to fund similar programmes under the second CFP?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

The Commission supported the establishment of the 23 'careers offices' as part of the measure 'Links between universities and firms' in the operational programme (OP) 'Competitiveness of firms' under the first Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece. The measure was aimed at universities (AEI) and technological institutes of tertiary education (TEI) and included: the establishment of 'careers offices'; case studies; placements for students; research work for students on the problems of firms; an exchange of experience between AEIs/TEIs and firms; and common educational programmes for students and workers.

DR 3 200 million (approximately ECU 10.7 million) have been spent on all the measures referred to above, 2 400 million (ECU 8 million) of which is the Community contribution (European Social Fund (ESF)). For the 'careers offices', in particular, DR 518.3 million (ECU 1.73 million) have been spent, 388.7 million (ECU 1.3 million) of which was the Community contribution (CSF). Of the 23 offices established, 13 related to AEIs (universities) and 10 to TEIs (technological institutes). According to data submitted to the Ministry of Labour, more than 100% of the appropriations have been used.

There has been no evaluation of the measure or of the specific 'careers offices' action. However, the national authorities intend to carry out a global assessment of ESF operations during the period of the first CSF.

In the new OP 'Education and initial training' under the 1994-1999 CSF for Greece, Action 3.4 is intended to support liaison offices between tertiary education and firms (Action 3.4a); placements for students (Action 3.4b); and supplementary education and training programmes (Action 3.4c). These are, for all practical purposes, a development of similar actions in the first CSF. The initial funding allocated to this measure is ECU 46.7 million (approximately DR 14 000 million); the Community contribution is 75%.