ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/96 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Visit by the Commissioner for Regional Policy to Portugal

The Commissioner for Regional Policy is apparently to visit Portugal in the near future.

Will the Commissioner be visiting the site planned for the construction of a new dam (Alqueva)?

Is the Commission considering financing the construction of this dam from the Cohesion or Structural Funds?

If it is considering making money from the Cohesion Fund available, can it indicate the environmental significance of the project?

If it is considering making money from the Structural Fund available, can it indicate under which objective the funding will fall?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 May 1996)

During his recent trip to Portugal, the Commissioner for Regional Policy did in fact visit the Alqueva site in Alentejo on 25 March.

The Alqueva dam project is contained in the Community support framework (CSF) for Portugal for the period 1994-99, where reference is made to possible co-financing from the European Regional Development Fund (ECU 117 million), the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (ECU 70 million) and, if relevant, the Cohesion Fund.

The Portuguese authorities submitted an application for the co-financing of this project from the Cohesion Fund to the Commission on 5 September 1995 together with a package of information on its status as a 'major project' to be co-financed under the CSF programme to promote the regional development potential, the environmental impact study and the opinion of the Portuguese authorities with responsibility for the environment.

In view of the importance of this project to Portugal, and to the region of Alentejo in particular, the Commission has already stated its support in principle for the project to the Portuguese authorities on 18 December 1995.

However, the Commission's final decision will be subject to the independent environmental assessment of the project and to guarantees of sufficient water supplies, in terms of quality and of quantity, to ensure the project's economic viability.

The Commission has launched studies on these two factors in partnership with the Portuguese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0909/96 by Noël Mamère (ARE) to the Commission (11 April 1996)

Subject: Implementation by France of Directive 79/409/EEC

Does the Commission consider that France has properly implemented Council Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )) on the conservation of wild birds and, if not, what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)

The Commission considers that France, like other Member States, is failing to implement all the provisions of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds properly and effectively.

It has failed to designate enough special protection areas in accordance with Article 4 of the Directive, and several infringement proceedings are under way for failure to designate, or insufficient designation of, certain areas of Community interest.

The Commission trying hard, through the infringement proceedings and through its contacts with the French authorities, to get things moving in the right direction. It is taking the same approach with the other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Access to the groundhandling market

In most Community airports, the exercise of groundhandling activities, i.e. activities which take place in the air transport sector, are reserved for national carriers or the airport itself. This is contrary to the principle of free competition on which the liberalization of air transport is based.

Having closely examined the many articles of the Directive on access to the groundhandling market, and while welcoming the efforts made to provide rapid and effective services at European airports, in particular for passengers and goods, I would ask the Commission whether it would agree that the following measures should be taken:

1. to examine the scope of the aforementioned provisions in the context of a careful study of working procedures at airports;

2. to require air transport companies and other service suppliers to unbundle the various activities, in terms of accounts and management,

3. to provide a more detailed definition of the composition and activities of the Users' Committee.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)

The common position of 25 March 1996 on the Commission's proposal ((OJ C 142, 8.6.1995. )) for a Council directive on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports establishes a threshold of 2 million passenger movements or 50 000 tonnes of freight for the full liberalisation of third-party handling at Community airports. This threshold corresponds to the average number of passenger movements or freight throughput which would make it economically viable for at least two handlers to supply services at a given airport. The scope of the proposed directive and the special measures concerning certain services on the air-side take account of the conclusions of studies which relate in particular to constraints of capacity, space, safety and security on the ramp.

The Commission supports the Council in its decision to extend the obligation of separation of accounts to all suppliers of groundhandling activities.

The users' committee will be composed of all the carriers or representative associations of all the carriers, exercising their air transport activity at the airport concerned. In the common position, the committee has no decision making role but only a consultative function. The draft directive does not require the creation of a new committee if such a committee already exists at the airport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (V) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Extension of the right of conscientious objection

Mrs Elva Agosta, an officer in the Viadana, Modena, police force, was brought before the local disciplinary committee at the end of February 1996 for insubordination, having refused to regularly carry the gun given to her for night duty. The matter was also referred to the magistrate's court on the grounds that her failure to obey her superiors constituted an offence. Mrs Agosta does not have a gun licence and has publicly said that she does not feel confident enough to use the gun she might at times be required to carry. When she signed the employment contract she was also not aware that she could be exempted from armed service duties if she declared that she was a conscientious objector to the use of weapons.

Does the Commission not think that the right of conscientious objection should apply at all times and not just at the time of entry into service?

Does it not think that there should be proper rules on conscientious objection, which should also apply to cases such as the above?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

As it has already had occasion to point out, in answers to written and oral questions and during Parliament's debate on the report by Mr Bandrés Molet and Ms Bindi in January 1994, ((OJ C 44, 14.2.1994. )) the issue of conscientious objection is a matter for the Member States; it is not for the Commission to interfere in an issue which it has no specific competence to deal with.

Respect for human rights is essentially a matter for the Member States individually, and they must exercise that competence in accordance with their international and regional commitments, particularly the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This is clearly stated in the Common Provisions of the Treaty on European Union, and Article F(2) in particular.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1087/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: European collective agreements

Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the EU Treaty lays down that European collective agreements shall be implemented either in accordance with national procedures and practices (those of management and labour or of the Member States) or, in matters covered by Article 2, at the joint request of the parties, 'by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission'.

With regard to the framework agreement on parental leave, the Council has adopted a directive whose intention (Article 2(1)) is not to make the agreement binding in all the Member States but to oblige the Member States to achieve the result by adopting internal arrangements for applying collective agreements (conventional collective agreements or state agreements) within a given time limit.

This being the case, in what does the notional and practical autonomy of the second part of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the EU Treaty consist in relation to the first part of that paragraph?

Why was this measure not given the form of a decision, which, under Article 189 of the EU Treaty, is 'binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed'?

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

There are two procedures for implementing agreements at Community level, either according to the social partners' internal procedures and practices or by a Council act on a proposal from the Commission and at the joint request of the signatory parties.

The second procedure for implementing agreements between the social partners at Community level is likely to create obligations for the Member States, particularly concerning the mandatory direct application of these agreements or the need to draw up transposition provisions. In view of the wide range of provisions applicable to collective conventions at national level, this implementation procedure should enable agreements to be applied in a more uniform fashion.

The term 'decision' within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy is a generic one referring to binding legislative acts under Article 189 of the EC Treaty. It is up to the Commission to propose to the Council which of the three binding instruments under the aforementioned article (regulation, directive or decision) would be the most appropriate. In this particular case, considering the nature (outline agreement) and the content of the social partners' text, it is clear that this outline agreement is destined to be applied indirectly by way of measures to be transposed, by the Member States or the social partners, into the Member States' national law. Consequently in this case the most appropriate instrument is a Council directive. Furthermore, in accordance with the commitments it has entered into, the Commission considers that the text of the agreement should not form part of the act, but be annexed to it.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0896/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 April 1996)

Subject: AIDS screening for sperm banks

Following allegations made by a woman who took legal action because she claims she was infected by the HIV virus which leads to AIDS after artificial insemination by a sperm donor, it has emerged that:

- there are no established rules for microbiological laboratories/sperm banks aimed at screening for, and preventing the spread of, the HIV virus and AIDS;

- potential recipients of sperm by artificial insemination are obliged to sign a personal statement of consent which reads: 'We also accept and understand that the use of sperm from a donor may entail the transmission of venereal diseases such as gonorrhoea, syphilis, herpes, hepatitis, AIDS, etc. The laboratory which provides our doctor with sperm has, of course, assured us that donors are examined, as is only natural, for all the above diseases. We accept the assurances given by the laboratory...'

Will the Commission say:

1. Do Community or international AIDS prevention rules exist which these microbiological laboratories/sperm banks and artificial insemination centres should respect?

2. Does the Commission intend to take additional measures as part of the 'Europe against AIDS' programme?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1996)

Article 129 of the EC Treaty provides that Community action in the field of public health is to be directed towards the prevention of diseases, in particular the major health scourges, by promoting research into their causes and their transmission, as well as health information and education.

However, the same Article expressly excludes any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. There is therefore no Community provision aimed at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in micro-biology laboratories, sperm banks or IVF centres.

The programme of Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases, adopted on 29 March 1996 by the Parliament and the Council ((OJ L 95 of 16.4.1996. )), provides for support for measures aimed at preventing the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases. Projects supported must be in line with the programme's objectives and have Community added value.

Within the framework of research on biomedical ethics, which is one of the areas covered by the programme of research in the field of biomedicine and health, two European conferences have been held on sperm donation, one in Paris in November 1993 and the other in Brussels in April 1995, to compare the legislation and codes of practice of the individual Member States. Following these meetings, the participants, all professionals working in the field of sperm bank management, agreed to draw up a European code of practice on the donation of gametes, which will of course cover the health aspects. The code is an initiative of the professionals working in the field and not a Community regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/96 by Leonie van Bladel (PSE) to the Council (18 March 1996)

Subject: Critical dialogue with Iran

For some years, the Council has been pursuing a critical dialogue with the Iranian Government, inter alia concerning the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

1. What makes a dialogue a critical dialogue?

2. Is the Council satisfied with the results of the current critical dialogue?

3. What are those results?

4. Does the Council consider a critical dialogue to be a valuable foreign-policy instrument; if so, why?

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-0770/96 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) and Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (1 April 1996)

Subject: Application of Directive 90/675/EEC: problems involved in the transhipment of veterinary goods with subsequent transport by air or sea

1. Is the Commission aware of the specific problems arising from application of Directive 90/675/EEC ((OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1. )) in the case of transhipment of veterinary goods with subsequent transport by air or sea?

2. If so, is the Commission prepared to take account, in the forthcoming review of this Directive, of these unnecessary and serious obstacles to movements in ports, the considerable delays which this may involve, the risk of serious loss of value of perishable veterinary products and hence the additional costs involved in carrying out veterinary checks in the port of transhipment?

3. In the light of the foregoing, is the Commission prepared to amend the Directive so that the physical check, the identity check and the documentary check can be carried out in the port of destination in the case of transhipment with subsequent transport by air or sea?

4. If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)

1-3. The Commission is aware that in the case of transshipment by sea or air, the industry is reluctant to make the original veterinary health certificate available to the veterinary authorities of the border inspection post of arrival.

The rules concerning transshipment in sea and air transport are laid down in Article 8(4) of Directive 90/675/EEC. This allows the physical check to be carried out in the port or airport of destination provided that the products are transported by sea or air.

The Commission has recently prolonged the so-called 'transitional measures' (Decision 96/105/EEC ((OJ L 24, 31.1.1996. ))) which facilitate the transition to the new system of checks. This Decision lays down that in the case of transshipment in an airport or seaport, the identity and physical checks shall be carried out in the border inspection post of destination.

The Commission is preparing an amendment to Directive 90/675/EEC to include, in the case of transshipment, that the documentary and physical check shall in principle be carried out in the border inspection post of destination. The authority may carry out a documentary check in the border inspection post of entry on the basis of the original certificate or document or an authenticated copy.

4. This formulation is needed in order to give the possibility to carry out a documentary check at entry for veterinary reasons. However, it is not necessary to have the original certificate or document available at the border inspection post of entry. An authenticated copy is sufficient.

It is the intention of the Commission to ensure that inspection requirements do not impinge on transshipment operations to a greater extent than is necessary to safeguard animal and public health in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: National inspection institutions in the Member States

Can the Council provide me with a comparative study of the current situation of the national audit bodies of the 15 Member States, stating their powers and areas of activity, particularly in those countries where they co-exist with regional audit bodies?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0319/96 and E-0728/96 (16 July 1996)

It is for each Member State, within the framework of its own institutional organization, to fulfil its control obligations and to determine whether the coexistence of national and regional levels of control has a positive or a negative impact on the effectiveness of checks.

Under Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council ((OJ L 94, 28.4.1970 )), on the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, responsibility for checking EAGGF expenditure lies with the Member States. Article 9 of the same Regulation deals with the relations between Member States and the Commission in this matter.

In connection with the Honourable Member's question, it may be noted that in recent years the Council has adopted a number of Regulations which have reinforced the control of EAGGF expenditure.

Regulation No 386/90 ((OJ L 42, 16.2.1990. )) introduced a minimum physical check on exports (refunds); Regulation No 595/91 ((OJ L 67, 14.3.1991. )) provided for Community funding to reinforce checks; Regulation No 3508/92 ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992. )) established an integrated administration and control system necessitated by the expanded number of recipients of premiums and aids following the reform of the CAP; Regulation No 165/94 ((OJ L 24, 29.1.1994. )) provides funding for remote sensing, which is used for checks on setaside declarations. Lastly, Regulation No 1469/95 ((OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. )) laid down procedures for dealing with fraud and suspected fraud against a number of Member States.

On a broader level, the Council reformed the account clearance procedures by means of Regulation No 1287/95 ((OJ L 125, 8.6.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0907/96 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (ELDR) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: New Tagus bridge financed from the Cohesion Fund

According to reports in the European Voice (7-13 March 1996) the Commission has written to the Portuguese authorities threatening to halt the Cohesion Fund financing for the new Tagus bridge. The letter apparently contains no deadline by which the Portuguese authorities must reply.

Is it to be understood that this letter should not be considered an inquiry, as referred to in Article 10 and the provisions of annex VI of the Commission decision on project 94/10/65/005 and also not as an examination as referred to in Article H of the implementing provisions of Council Regulation 1164/94 ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p.1. )) of 16 May 1994 setting up the Cohesion Fund?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0904/96, E-0905/96, E-0906/96, E-0907/96 and E-0908/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1996)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Members and will inform them of the outcome as soon as possible.