ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0550/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDN) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Import duties

Will the Commission propose that raw materials for the EU fishing industry can be imported duty-free in order to create equal conditions of competition between, for example, Danish and Norwegian shrimp producers?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)

The Commission proposal concerning 1996 tariff quotas for fishery products intended for processing ((COM(96) 119. )) includes a duty-free quota of 6 000 tonnes of chilled or frozen shrimps and prawns of the species Pandalus borealis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0532/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Monitoring of equal opportunity practice

Does the Commission not agree that a failure to analyse the gender, ethnic and disability status of its staff on a regular basis, makes it impossible to adequately monitor whether it is fulfilling equal opportunities in its employment practices? What steps will it take to rectify this problem?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1996)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its recruitment policy respects the staff regulations, which specify in article 27 that 'officials shall be selected without reference to race, creed or sex'. This article therefore clearly implies that considerations of ethnic status would also be contradictory to the Common European declaration against racism.

Nevertheless, some imbalances have appeared in the present staff structure. Therefore, the Commission has developed a policy for equal opportunities between men and women in its own services, which has already resulted in a higher representation of women both at the basic recruitment level (A8 and A7/A6) and in managerial positions. The Commission monitors closely the implementation of this policy and its statistical results every year.

In addition, the Commission is currently preparing a code of good practice concerning the disabled, which is intended to give them equal access to the European civil service and opportunities to develop their career in the Commission. The internal analysis of this document will be completed in the next weeks and a final draft will be submitted to the interservices group as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0817/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Evaluation of Project 1992

At the end of the 1980's Cecchini, in cooperation with the Commission departments, carried out an ex-ante evaluation of the costs and benefits of Project 1992.

Does the Commission intend to carry out an ex-post assessment now that more than three years have passed since the entry into force of the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

Under Resolution 1218/92 of the Council of 7 December 1992 ((OJ No C 334, 18.12.1992. )), the Commission is required 'to provide an overall analysis of the effectiveness of measures taken in creating the single market, taking particular account of promoting throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States. This analysis could, in addition, consider the impact of improving the competitiveness of European business in world markets'.

The Commission is currently conducting a major review covering the impact of single market measures on manufacturing and services sectors, on the development of infrastructures, on the dismantling of barriers, on trade, investment and competition. The aggregate impact on the Community economy as well as that of individual regions will also be assessed.

Work is well underway and it is expected that the Commission will communicate the results of this evaluation to the Council and the Parliament before the end of the current year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: ERASMUS

Are there any funding changes in the ERASMUS programme in the European Union and more specifically any increases or decreases in the funding allocation for the United Kingdom? In view of the continued increases in EU student numbers, what steps does the Commission intend to take not only to safeguard existing ERASMUS allocations but also ensure that they keep up with the student population?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

The Erasmus programme forms an integral part of the new Community programme Socrates, which was adopted by the Council and the Parliament on 14 March 1995 ((OJ L n° 87, 20.4.1995. )).

The Community budget agreed for the implementation of the Socrates programme, for the period 1995-1999, is 850 MECU. According to the terms of the decision establishing the programme, the budget for Chapter I - Erasmus, may not be less than 55% of the total budget for Socrates.

The budget distribution between the Member States of the part provided for student mobility grants (Chapter I - Action 2), is calculated according to parameters given in the decision itself. As far as the United Kingdom allocation is concerned in 1996, there is a slight decrease compared with 1995, due mainly to the new factor that has been introduced relating to distance.

Despite the importance of student mobility, and the constant increase of Community funding, the Community budget alone cannot fund total student demand for mobility. For this purpose, the Commission urges the Member State authorities and higher education institutions to try to secure complementary funding. Moreover, the status 'Erasmus student' is now independent of 'Erasmus grant holder', thus allowing students who can afford to fund their own mobility costs to participate in Erasmus without grants, and students who have special needs to have their grant increased.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0996/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Genuine participation by indigenous peoples in project ALA/93/55 in Guatemala

Why has the Commission set up its own local consultative mechanism for operation of this project with only two unrepresentative groups of indigenous people?

Does the Commission accept that there is a need to ensure participation from all 22 linguistic Mayan groups in Guatemala, and will it immediately set up such a structure in cooperation with the Organisation of Maya Peoples' Organisations in Guatemala (COPMAGUA)?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1996)

The Commission is surprised by the Honourable Member's information that the consultative mechanism in connection with the implementation of the project in Guatemala involves only two 'unrepresentative groups of indigenous people'.

This project was prepared and implemented on the basis of an extensive consultation process, in which all indigenous people in the region were free to participate. In this context, in Central America as a whole 135 indigenous people's organisations representing 55 ethnic groups have been or are already involved in participation.

In the specific case of Guatemala, participation of the 22 linguistic Mayan groups in the country is assured by the fact that the Guatemala Academy of Mayan Languages, which represents all linguistic groups in the country, is collaborating in the project.

It is important to point out that the structure of the project was conceived in such a way as to ensure that all Central American indigenous groups would be able to participate in it. This is why there is no need for any change to allow participation by the Organisation of Maya Peoples' Organisations in Guatemala. However, certain divergencies within the indigenous groups themselves may result in a decision on their part to abstain from active involvement in the activities of the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Imports of saffron from Iran

The appearance on the EU markets of saffron from Iran has had highly unfavourable effects on Spanish producers in this area.

In the Spanish region of Castile-La Mancha, 20 000 people are employed in saffron production.

Iranian saffron is of inferior quality, and is placed on the EU market at prices which destroy any possibility of competition on an equal basis.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?

What measures has it adopted, or what measures does it intend to adopt, to protect this EU product?

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

Saffron is imported into the Community at a rate of 10% duty. The common organisation of the market in saffron and other spices, is covered by Council Regulation (EEC) 827/68 ((OJ L 151, 30.6.1968, most recently amended by Council Regulation (EC) 3290/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994). )).

In 1994, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, imports of saffron from Iran amounted to 30 tonnes (worth 7.4 MECU) which was 55% of the total volume of saffron imported into the Community and represents approximately a doubling of the level of recent years. In the same year Spanish exports of saffron (including intra-Community trade) were 45 tonnes (worth 14.1 MECU).

In the absence of reliable production and price data for saffron, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effect of Iranian imports. The Commission will be pleased to examine any more detailed information on these imports and any detrimental effects on Community markets and production.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Rules governing SMUs

The Commission is reported to have set the number of employees that must be employed by an undertaking if it is to qualify as a SMU, a move which has been attacked by Greek entrepreneurs in this sector.

- What criteria did it use for this purpose?

- What rules apply in the EU Member States?

- What action does the Commission intend to take to address the problems which SMUs in Greece face as a result of the adoption of this measure?

Answer given by Mr. Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)

On 3 April 1996, the Commission adopted a recommendation ((OJ Nr. L 107, 30.4.1996. )) addressed to the Member States, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

This recommendation provides a comprehensive framework for all the measures taken by the Member States, the EIB and the EIF to the benefit of SMEs. It also applies to Commission programmes and Community legislation on SMEs.

The definition contained within the recommendation is based on the combined criteria of the number of employees, turnover, balance sheet total and independence. In fact, this definition takes over a number of features of the Community framework for state aid to SMEs ((OJ C 213, 19.8.1992 (currently being revised). )) which Member States are already obliged to comply with in their relevant financial mechanisms. Setting the thresholds for turnover and balance sheet total, the Commission relied upon various surveys carried out by Eurostat ((Enterprises in Europe - Third Report. )), and on an internal Commission database containing the harmonised annual accounts of thousands of enterprises in the Community.

Under the terms of the recommendation, an SME is currently defined as employing fewer than 250 people and having a turnover not exceeding ECU 40 million or a balance sheet total not exceeding ECU 27 million. A small enterprise is defined as one which employs fewer than 50 people, and which has a turnover of no more than ECU 7 million or a balance sheet total of no more than ECU 5 million. Furthermore, no company may qualify as an SME or small enterprise if 25% or more of its capital is held by a company, or jointly by a group of companies, which are not themselves SMEs or small enterprises, as the case may be. Additionally, micro-enterprises are defined as employing fewer than 10 people.

In view of the fact that this is a recommendation, Member States are free, in certain cases, to set lower thresholds in order to give sharper focus to some of their policies. In Greece, SMEs have been defined up until now as businesses employing fewer than 100 people; this Member State will therefore be able, if it so wishes, to keep this threshold in its programmes of action for SMEs.

Consequently, the new rules adopted by the Commission to define SMEs, which aim to increase the efficiency, coherence and visibility of measures benefiting this type of enterprise, should not constitute a source of difficulty for Greek SMEs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0353/96 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Substantial increase by Austria in Brenner motorway tolls

Is the Commission aware that, without providing any explanation but with the aim of restricting transit traffic by road, Austria has made a substantial increase with immediate effect in the tolls for the Brenner Pass? Is the Commission also aware that even environmentally friendly vehicles will have to pay a night rate which is four times higher than the rate on 1 July 1995?

Is the Commission aware of the enormous cost increase that this decision will mean for road transport firms? Is the Commission also aware that this decision may therefore possibly constitute a major, and hence unacceptable, obstacle to trade between the Member States of the European Union?

A number of organizations of transport firms are afraid that this will set a precedent for other Alpine countries which will now, no doubt, be faced with a considerable increase in freight transport on their own motorways. Does the Commission feel there are grounds for these fears, and is it prepared to take the action needed to prevent such additional problems?

Is the Commission prepared to exert pressure on the Austrian government to prevent, if possible, or reduce this increase?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 March 1996)

The Commission is aware of the Austrian Government's decisions regarding tolls in the Brenner Pass. It has already drawn the Austrian authorities' attention to probable difficulties with regard to incompatibility with Community law. The Commission is currently examining the Austrian decisions to see whether they comply with current legal provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Anonymous bank transactions in Belgium

Council Directive 91/308/EEC ((OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77. )) of 10 June 1991, on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, states that in the Member States credit institutions shall 'require identification of their customers by means of supporting evidence'.

In Belgium any amount of bank bonds may be bought anonymously for cash.

Is this still possible in 1996?

If so, is it permissible under this directive?

If it is not, how long has the Commission known that the directive has been infringed?

What has the Commission done to ensure that the directive is complied with?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0660/96, E-0661/96, E-0662/96 and E-0663/96 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

Article 3(1) of Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering requires Member States to oblige their credit and financial institutions to demand identification when a customer opens an account. Article 3(2) extends the identification requirement to other non-account holding customers when the proposed business involves an amount of ECU 15 000 or more in a single or series of linked transactions. As a result the Directive does not require the identification of casual customers transacting business of less than ECU 15 000, unless there is already a suspicion of money laundering (Article 3(6)).

The above mentioned provisions of the Directive have been implemented in national law by the Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member. The threshold is fixed in France at FF 50 000, in Italy at Lit 20 million, in Belgium at ECU 10 000, and in Germany at DM 20 000. The Commission has no evidence that these thresholds are not being respected.

Full details of the Member States' implementing legislation is to be found in the Commission report on the application of the money laundering Directive ((COM(95) 54 final, 3.3.1995. )), which is under consideration by Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0342/96 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: ESF application deadlines

Will the Commission consider giving longer application deadlines and greater publicity to the ESF bidding process, to allow quality bids to be presented?

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

As a result of the reform of the Structural Funds in 1993, the programming of Structural Fund operations is drawn up in partnership between the Commission and the Member States, within the Community Support Frameworks and operational programmes.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to choose projects which fit into this context. This applies, among other things, to the procedures for submitting projects and to information and publicity relating to them, under the terms of Article 32 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )).

With regard to the Community initiatives, the application deadlines are set by the Member States themselves. Given the transnational nature of the projects funded, the Commission collaborates with the European Social Fund (ESF) authorities in the Member States in order to ensure a common deadline which allows sufficient time for the preparation of high-quality projects. The next call for proposals under Adapt and Employment will be in 1997, and the Commission has created, with the ESF authorities in the Member States, a special working group to examine the arrangements for that call for proposals. This working group is giving special attention to the issue of adequate time for the preparation of applications.

Concerning Article 6 * innovative measures * of the ESF Regulation, application deadlines are considered to allow for an adequate submission of project proposals. Greater publicity could be given to the selection process. The general implementation process of Article 6 is currently under review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/96 by Olli Rehn (ELDR) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Ban on the marketing of a sports drink on public health grounds

If the internal market is to prove effective, products must be freely marketable throughout the Union.

However, the Finnish Foodstuffs Office has refused to grant an import and marketing licence for a sports drink which is produced and which has been approved for sale in Germany (Gubi/Emersio Oy case), firstly on public health grounds and, secondly, on the grounds that there is no Union legislation governing such products.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent the Member State authorities from ignoring, on public health grounds, the principle that products must be freely marketable (Cassis de Dijon principle), without providing credible evidence of the risks to public health?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1996)

In response to complaints received recently, the Commission is conducting a detailed investigation into the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

It has various legal instruments at its disposal to ensure that Member States do not invoke protection of public health without due reason. The first of these instruments is preventative and is based on the procedure established by Directive 83/189/EEC ((OJ No L 109, 26.4.1983. )) whereby Member Sates notify the Commission of their draft technical rules.

In order better to identify measures detrimental to the free movement of goods as soon as they are adopted and to provide solutions as quickly as possible, European Parliament and Council Decision No 3052/95/EC of 13 December 1995 ((OJ No L 321, 30.12.1995. )) establishes a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community.

Lastly, if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations, it can initiate infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Unreasonable Behaviour at Work Act

Bullying in the workplace is an issue which is coming increasingly to the public's attention. Education establishments are singled out by researchers as particularly prone to workplace bullying. In Britain, 150,000 teachers and lecturers have taken early retirement in the past 10 years with stress-related illnesses; this is three times as many as those who have retired because of age.

Sweden is the only European country with effective law on this issue. The law is called 'The Unreasonable Behaviour at Work Act'.

Is the Commission planning to take any action to introduce effective law at a European level which would protect people in the work place against bullying, preventing early retirement due to stress-related illnesses?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)

The Commission's actions in its Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work for the period 1996-2000 ((COM(95) 282 final. )) include risk assessment for particular health and safety issues, including violence and stress at the workplace, to which the problem of bullying at work is linked. The assessment will include in due course an evaluation of whether or not action is required at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0244/96 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Council (12 February 1996)

Subject: The opening of a penal investigation by the public prosecutor's offices of Bolzano and Trento into the opening of a representation office in Brussels

1. Is the Council aware that a penal investigation has been opened by the public prosecutor's offices of Bolzano and Trento in connection with the opening of a representation office staffed by four people in Brussels, which may constitute an act against the integrity, independence or unity of the State, which is punishable by life imprisonment under the Italian Penal Code?

2. What steps does the Council intend to take to ascertain whether the inquiries under way are being conducted properly and transparently?

3. Does the Council intend to reply to the requests for action made by some German-speaking MEPs during the debate in plenary sitting following the presentation of the Italian Presidency's six-month programme and, if so, how does it intend to reply?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0244/96, E-0258/96, E-0309/96 and E-0584/96 (3 June 1996)

The Council has not been informed of the subject referred to by the Honourable Members nor indeed of the opening of information offices for other regions. This question does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Council.