ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/96 by Irene Crepaz (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: EU-Swiss transit negotiations

From the point of view of the people who live along the Brenner transit route, who are afflicted by transit traffic, there is an urgent need for the Swiss 28-tonne limit to be lifted.

1. What stage has now been reached in the negotiations between the European Union and Switzerland, in particular in the matter of lifting the 28-tonne limit on heavy-goods traffic as part of an EU agreement with Switzerland on inland transport?

2. What is the Commission's position on this issue? What steps will the Commission take in this matter in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

1. As the Honourable Member will know, in its decision of 14 March 1995, the Council authorized the Commission to negotiate an agreement between the Community and Switzerland on land and air transport.

As regards bilateral and triangular transport of goods by road, the Community seeks the progressive adoption by Switzerland, according to a clear timetable, of Community standards for weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles. In a first stage Switzerland should immediately grant access for Community vehicles operating under Community standards for weights and dimensions to the major Swiss production and consumption centres. Switzerland should also progressively ease its ban on night driving according to a negotiated timetable.

As regards transit goods traffic by road, the Transit agreement, which expires on 22 January 2005, confirms the weight limit of 28 tonnes on Swiss territory. The Community seeks to expand, according to a clear timetable, the range of transport operations exempted from the 28 tonne limit and from the ban on night driving. The Commission is currently negotiating to end the 28 tonne limit at the latest at the expiry of the Transit agreement, and preferably before that date, on the basis of a phased approach.

The Swiss federal council has proposed, in a future agreement on land transport, to adapt the weight limit progressively, so as to permit, as from 2005, the acceptance by Switzerland of Community weight limits. This would be subject to conditions related to taxation of road traffic across the Alps.

2. The Commission is aware of the diversion traffic on French and Austrian routes caused by the Swiss 28 tonne limit. For economic and ecological reasons, all forms of diversion traffic should be avoided to the extent possible. The Community is expressly seeking to include the avoidance of traffic diversion into neighbouring countries as one of the specific objectives of the future agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/96 by Umberto Bossi (ELDR) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Translations of documents relating to actions under the fourth RTD framework programme

In Official Journal C240 of 15 September 1995, the Commission published details of the fourth RTD framework programme for the period 1994 to 1998.

The background documentation, updated to take account of the new provisions, and the application forms were made available in French and in English after a short delay, although they did not appear in all the Community languages until several months later. Even today, in early May 1996, the documentation for the BIOMED II programme is available only in English.

On what basis does the Commission favour certain Community languages, to the detriment of others?

Does the Commission not consider that these delays disadvantage firms from states whose national language is not one of those given priority? Does it not consider, therefore, that this amounts to a tacit endorsement of unfair competition between the Member States?

How does the Commission intend to remedy these delays, which are due solely to a questionable policy on languages?

If translation problems are the only reason for the delay, as the various Directorates-General have often confirmed, how and when will the Commission remedy these shortcomings?

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

It was not possible, for exceptional technical reasons, to issue at the same time all languages of the information package of the Biomedical and health research programme. The Commission will furnish the infopacks to the scientific community in each Community language in due course, starting with German and French which are already in preparation.

For the third call of the Biomed programme, the Commission will dispose at the opening date of 17 September 1996 of information packages in all the Community languages.

The Commission tries to make optimum use of all the resources available to it and to enhance its technological facilities and rationalize its working methods so as to ensure that European citizens are provided with appropriate information in all the relevant languages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1133/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Safety and explosive atmospheres

The proposal for a Council Directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (COM(95) 310 ((OJ C 332, 09.12.1995, p. 10. ))) is based on Article 118a of the EC Treaty. It falls within the framework of the EU measures designed to establish the social dimension of the single market and may be regarded as a measure which supplements the directives regulating the free movement of goods, in particular Directive 94/9/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres.

With regard to the organization of work, workplaces and equipment which has already been used, does the Commission not agree that the three-year period laid down in Article 9(4) for complying with the minimum requirements should be extended to five years in order to facilitate the application of the directive to small and medium-sized businesses and cottage industries, in particular?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The Commission is well aware of the issue raised, in particular as this was debated at length during the 333rd plenary session of the Economic and social committee held on 28 and 29 February 1996.

The Committee did not favour extending the transitory period but called for positive actions to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to establish minimum Community health and safety standards. Therefore the Committee adopted a favorable opinion on the Commission's proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres. This opinion states under point 2.4.2 as follows: 'To help SMEs, particularly those in the craft sector, to meet the requirements of the directive, the Committee underlines the need for the Member States to provide SMEs with the necessary information and technical and administrative back-up to enable them to implement the provisions in question in full and without delay. In this context, it is important that the social partners in the SMEs take part in negotiations with a view to achieving full implementation of the directive. The social partners in the SMEs should actively support the bringing into effect of the SAFE programme which may make a concrete contribution towards the implementation of the provisions of the present directive'.

The Commission considers this to be a realistic approach to this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/96 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: EU funding for human rights monitoring in Sudan

Would the European Union be prepared to give financial support to the United Nations, so as to allow the creation of a small human rights monitoring team in such locations in Sudan 'as would facilitate improved information flow and assessment'?

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

The Commission can confirm that - as has been the case for other countries - it would be prepared to examine a request from the United Nations High commissioner for human rights regarding the creation of human rights monitoring teams in locations in the Sudan to facilitate improved information flow and assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Trafficking in women

What moves is the Commission to take to protect women recruited to work in the EU from elsewhere in the world and find themselves subject to abuse and slavery and often forced to work in brothels?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)

Whereas the Commission has no right of initiative in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it is still actively engaged in the ongoing endeavours of the Union to find forms of cooperation to fight trafficking in women. The Commission is organising a conference on trafficking in women in June this year. The purpose of this conference is to provide a clearer picture of this worrying phenomenon and help to examine what initiatives might be launched in this field. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions n° E-2822/94 by Mr Rauti ((OJ C 88, 10.4.1995. )), E-775/95 by Mr Vallvé ((OJ C 209, 14.8.1995. )) and E-1572/95 by Mrs Pollack ((OJ C 277, 23.10.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1738/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Urban programme

On 15 February 1995 the Italian Government announced its approval of the list of 13 cities selected for aid under the Urban programme in Italy.

On 12 December 1995, in its reply to Written Question P-3181/95 ((OJ C 79, 18.3.1996, p. 57. )), the Commission undertook to approve the programme without delay so as to make the funds available as soon as possible.

The projects to renovate the urban areas in question are a matter of urgency, particularly those affecting Rome (i.e. improvements to the Tor Bella Monaca and Torre Angela areas), which is preparing for the Jubilee in the year 2000 and the possibility of the Olympic Games being held there in 2004.

It has now been one year four months since the Italian Government formally approved the list of cities to be taken into consideration for aid under the Urban initiative.

Given the above, why has the Commission not yet approved the projects submitted and when will the funds earmarked for Italy finally be made available?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1996)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the programme for Italy under the Community Urban Initiative was adopted on 30 April; the first commitments have already been made and the relevant funds made available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1558/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Social and working conditions in southern Mediterranean countries

In view of the fact that developing countries with certain southern Mediterranean countries which contributes to the stability of the region should be strengthened, and whereas cooperation relations should have a direct impact on improving the social and working conditions in those countries, is the Commission aware of the employment situation in the countries with which preferential agreements have recently been renewed, such as Morocco? Has the Commission considered the possibility of demanding improvements to social and working conditions as a requirement for the conclusion of such agreements? Has the Commission observed that the measures and the financial assistance have any positive effect on the social and employment conditions of workers in those countries?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

Since the institution of financial cooperation with the southern Mediterranean, the Commission has always paid special attention to aid and cooperation programmes that might improve the population's living conditions and encourage the creation of a social and economic policy framework to safeguard the rights of workers in these countries.

Furthermore, the Commission's communication of 8 March 1995 ((COM (95) 72 final. )) aimed at strengthening the EU's Mediterranean policy emphasize the need for closer cooperation in order to achieve greater socio-economic equilibrium, while the Barcelona declaration of 24 November 1995 established a basis for social, cultural and human partnership.

The new association agreement between the Community and Morocco provides specifically for the establishment of a dialogue between the two sides and for greater cooperation in the field of social policy, notably for the advancement of women and improvement of the health and social security systems. It also provides for measures to ensure non-discriminatory treatment of Moroccan workers in Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1733/96 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: ESF funding of job-creation projects in Portugal

According to Agence Europe, on 28 May 1996 the Commission approved ESF funding for 58 innovative job-creation projects in the fifteen Member States.

Can the Commission state how many of these projects concern Portugal and specify their nature?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)

Pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation on the European Social Fund (ESF) ((Regulation No 4255/88, as amended - OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), the Commission has approved three Portuguese projects:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/96 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Hotel development on ancient burial ground

The Government of French Polynesia has authorized the hotel company Rivnac, a subsidiary of the French group 'Lyonnaise des Eaux Dumez' to build a 350-room hotel on a land situated some 15 kms west of Papeetc on the island of Tahiti.

Does the Commission intend to look into the violation of the European Convention of Human Rights in relation to this site, which is an ancient burial ground, in particular Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention? The Metropolitan Legislation and particularly the Code of Communes in French Polynesia states that prior to any exhumation, the consent of families (descendants) must be sought.

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Commission is not in any way involved, through the development programmes funded by the European development fund in French Polynesia, in the development of the hotel site at Rivnac by Méridien sa, which is owned by Granada Group plc.

As far as the Commission can ascertain, the consent of the families concerned (the descendants) to exhumation has been obtained.

It is not in any event for the Commission to deliver an opinion on the possible violation of the European Convention on human rights referred to by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, in order for a petition to be declared admissible by the European Commission on Human Rights all the possible remedies must first have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Specified Bovine Offal

Incidences of BSE are known to occur in other Member States in addition to the United Kingdom. Why is the Commission, then, not asking the other EU Member States to implement the same regulations on the removal of Specified Bovine Offal which the UK is responsibly following? If the UK is required to do this in the name of consumer confidence and protection, then surely every Member State should follow suit?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

The Commission has initiated a scientific evaluation of the situation as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in all Member States. Based on this evaluation a risk assessment will be done by the scientific veterinary committee, and suitable measures will be decided in the standing veterinary committee in order to provide adequate protection measures for all European consumers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Cost of beef storage

How much was paid between 1990 and 1995 in processing aid for beef, broken down by year and Member State? For which forms of processing (animal fodder, canning, etc.) was aid granted? To what extent were beef producers involved in the payment of processing aid?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1550/96, E-1551/96, E-1552/96 and E-1553/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat. The answers to written questions E-1550/96, E-1551/96 and E-1553/96 are taken from the financial report of the EAGGF - guarantee section, submitted each year to the budgetary authority.

The answer to written question E-1552/96 is simply that there is no aid for processing under the common organization of the beef and veal market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1462/96 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Protection of geographical designation of origin for agricultural products

I am grateful to the Commission for answering my Written Question E-0769/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 76.)). Unfortunately, part of the question was not answered, and I therefore repeat it here:

1. Is the Commission prepared to enter Gouda and Edam on the list of products with a protected designation of origin, if so requested by the Member State in question?

I should also like to put the following supplementary question:

2. Can the Commission explain the answer it gave to the abovementioned question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

The Commission did not receive an official application to register the designations 'Gouda' and 'Edam' under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 until 7 June. ((OJ L 208, 24.7.1992. )) These applications are therefore still being examined.

Bear in mind, however, that all registration applications received by the Commission since 26 January 1994 fall under the procedure laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation. A designation cannot be registered just because the Commission feels like it. The Articles provide for a public procedure in which applications can be opposed. Only at the end of this procedure can a designation be registered.

The Commission wishes to stress that designations that have become generic within the meaning of Article 3 of the Regulation may not be registered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1187/96 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Diseases passed from animal products to human beings

Could the Commission please identify the amount of public funding, in ecus, which is devoted by individual Member States to research into how diseases pass to humans through the consumption of animal products?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

The Commission considers that an essential prerequisite for progress in the field of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and Creuzfeld-Jacob disease (CJD) is an early and efficient transfer of knowledge between Member States and the Commission.

In this context, and at the initiative of the Commission, a meeting was held to discuss national and Community research activities in this field and to establish a mechanism for reinforcing coordination and cooperation with the Member States, as well as to get a view of the efforts and resources in the Member States.

Since 1992 the Community itself, using some of the best European research expertise, has already spent about 4 MECU on BSE research in the context of the third and fourth framework programmes on research and development.

Indeed, during the third framework programme, three research projects were supported covering subjects such as the epidermiological surveillance of CJD and the establishment of harmonized criteria for the neuropathological diagnosis of the disease. This was further strengthened within the fourth framework programme by the selection of three additional projects. The most important uses animal models to address the issue of interspecies transmission and to assess the efficacy of the species barrier limiting the transmission of BSE to humans.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/96 by Jean-Pierre Bazin (UPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Bankruptcy of Bremer-Vulkan

In a recent interview in the German magazine Der Spiegel Mr Karel Van Miert, the Commissioner responsible for competition policy, said that the Commission had now appointed a new consultant to conduct a full investigation into Bremer-Vulkan.

The same weekly reveals that Bremer-Vulkan has received DM 975 million from the coffers of the East German conglomerate Schiffskommerz, in addition to aid from the Treuhand fund.

Can the Commission, with the aid of its new consultant, confirm or repudiate these revelations, and tell us whether it was aware of this additional subsidy?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

The article in 'Der Spiegel' of 29 April 1996 to which the Honourable Member refers, is neither based on investigations initiated by the Commission, nor on sources from the Commission.

Contrary to the impression created by the article, the payments from 'Schiffscommerz' to the various shipyards in East Germany are perhaps little known, but the information was not kept confidential, or even secret. All bidders at the privatization were aware of the accounts receivable which are the base of these payments, from the balance sheets of the yards. The Commission was informed by the German government of the existence of these claims at the time of notification of the privatization programme, and they were considered in the evaluation of the restructuring programmes. Subsequently, the Commission gave information about the developments in these claims and the relevant contracts in the multilateral meetings with the Member States.

The Commission would recall that before German unification the yards did not accept export orders themselves, but all these contracts were directed through the central export agency 'Außenhandelsbetrieb Schiffscommerz'. The yards had no influence on the commercial terms which were in general very unfavourable for them.

At the time of privatization all yards had therefore substantial accounts receivable against 'Schiffscommerz' from completed and pending contracts. These claims against 'Schiffscommerz' were adapted to the deutsche Mark price level following the general rules of ¶ 32 DM-Bilanzgesetz. This conversion is to be regarded as a general measure in the context of the unification of Germany. It therefore does not constitute aid in the sense of Article 92 of the EC Treaty.