ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1773/97 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: EU funds channelled to Rhineland-Pfalz since 1994

Via which projects and from which funds and in what amounts have Community funds been channelled to Rhineland-Pfalz:

1. To promote employment and combat long-term unemployment?

(a) from the European Regional Development Fund?

(b) from the European Social Fund?

(c) from the EAGGF and other EU resources?

2. To promote research and development?

(a) in the fields of universities and other institutes of higher education?

(b) in the field of private industry?

3. To promote relations and trade with countries of eastern and central Europe?

4. From the programmes in the energy and environmental fields?

5. From programmes in the youth field?

6. From the programmes in the educational field?

7. For women's projects?

8. For cultural projects?

9. How does the EU evaluate the success of such measures?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/97 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Energy - power stations

Can the Commission provide a list of power stations, both existing and planned, in the European Union, indicating, by generating unit, the energy source used, current generating capacity and the capacity planned to be available five and ten years hence?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

The Member States send the Commission confidential data on power stations and on investment projects in the electricity sector.

The Honourable Member will find information on a series of investment projects in the Unipede-Eurelectric report 'Programmes and prospects for the European electricity sector'. The Commission is sending the report directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Information on existing power stations is available in specialist publications and in databases governed by commercial contracts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/97 by Antoine-François Bernardini (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Fares on the Thalys

A problem has arisen with regard to the Thalys rail service between Paris and Brussels.

Large families have not been able to obtain special reductions on Thalys since the service started on 2 June 1996. They are therefore forced to purchase tickets which offer far less flexibility and are more expensive. For instance, the 'mini' fare is available for only 80 seats for which tickets are put on sale 60 days in advance, and the 'loisir' fare represents a 36% increase in the fare for a family with three children.

Is it to be concluded that the EEIG responsible for operating the Thalys service is exempt from public service obligations?

Does the above situation not constitute blatant discrimination and a barrier to the free movement of persons?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The Commission has been informed that, on the Thalys service between Paris and Bruxelles, discounts for large families are not available now. It understands the difficulties that this may cause passengers but it has to recall that such discounts, and policy on fares in general, are not a matter of Community legal competence but the responsibility of the railways themselves and of the national authorities that supervise them.

As for public services, it is the responsibility of the Member State to decide on the nature and extent of public services, while respecting Community rules, particularly on compensation for public service obligations in transport. Finally, on the basis of the information available, the Commission does not consider this a case of discrimination or an obstacle to free circulation in violation of Community principles and rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/97 by Dominique Baudis (PPE) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Joint European aircraft certification authority

What steps have been taken in response to the European Parliament's request concerning a proposal to establish a European joint aviation authority for worldwide harmonization and implementation of aviation regulations, aircraft safety standards and certification (Doc A3-0426/92) ((OJ C 72, 15.3.1993, p. 173. ))?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The Commission has, on several occasions, stressed the need for a European aviation safety authority, to establish common high safety requirements and to ensure their effective and uniform application throughout Europe, as well as their promotion world-wide.

On 10 December 1996, the Commission adopted a recommendation for a Council decision to authorise the Commission pursuant to negotiating directives to negotiate, on behalf of the Community, with European third countries, the international convention which it considers necessary to create such an authority.

Discussions on this basis continue in the Council and the Commission is hopeful that it will soon obtain the authorisation which would allow it to proceed.

The Commission intention has been discussed in Parliament's committee on transport and tourism during its debates on the Commission's communication 'A Community aviation safety improvement strategy ((SEC(96) 1083 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1516/97 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Export refunds on the transport of animals

1. What export refunds are currently paid for live and slaughtered cattle?

2. Under what conditions may deductions be made from these refunds, and what do they then amount to?

3. Is the export refund for slaughtered cattle calculated on the basis of weight before slaughter or weight after the removal of all offal?

4. There are various calculations of the killing-out percentage (54%, 58%, etc.). Which percentage does the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1997)

1. Export refunds for beef and live animals are fixed at least every three months and published in the Official journal. Present amounts of the export refunds for beef were fixed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 685/97 of 17 April 1997 ((OJ L 101, 18.4.1997. )).

2. In the beef sector, the Commission applies a differentiated refund system. The refund varies according to the destination and the product exported. The level of the refund corresponds to the amount needed to export to the world market. Adjustments are made on the basis of relevant parameters, such as fluctuations in world market prices and the US$ rate. Another factor is the level of demand for export licences experienced at any given level of refunds. The Commission, while careful to ensure that exports can take place, must also ensure that the quantity and financial ceilings on such exports arising out of the World trade organisation agreement are fully respected.

3. The refund is fixed for beef either on a bone-in basis such as carcase, half carcase, and quarters, or on a boneless basis. The definition of the products eligible for export refunds is set out in the export refund legislation. All carcases produced for commercial purposes within the Community must comply with the specification laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 ((OJ L 121, 29.7.1964. )).

4. The Commission may fix different rates of export refund for live weight and slaughter weight at the same time. However, the ratio between live weight and slaughter weight rates of refund is not necessarily constant. It may change periodically, when one or both of the rates of refund are changed. Such changes reflect altered market conditions, the variety of products involved, the different destinations and the different refund rates between male and female animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2237/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Food aid for North Korea

On 23 May 1997 the Commission announced a ECU 46.3 million food aid package for North Korea.

The head of the Commission's delegation in Korea was quoted in a report by Yonhap, the South Korean news agency, as saying that many problems had been encountered in the distribution of a previous consignment of EU aid there earlier this year.

Can the Commission give details of the problems encountered? Are there any reports of any aid being siphoned off by the North Korean military? Has the Commission published and/or will it publish a report about those problems?

What measures will it be taking to ensure that its latest aid package will be properly distributed?

How many EU officials will be involved in monitoring the distribution of the aid?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1997)

The Commission clearly indicated at a press conference in Seoul on 24 May 1997 that there was no evidence of past Community food aid to North Korea being improperly used. The report cited by the Honourable Member, issued by Yonhap news agency on 24 May 1997, quotes the Commission as reporting that 'seeds of grain provided early this year had been distributed properly'.

The Commission has received no reports indicating that Community food aid has been diverted to groups other than the civilian population for which it was intended. This view is shared by the United Nation's world food programme (WFP) which has a presence in North Korea checking distribution of its food aid.

The package announced on 23 May 1997 consists of approximately 155 000 tonnes of food aid products, with a value of around 46.3 MECU. It also includes a team of independent experts who will work closely with WFP in North Korea to ensure that the significant quantities of Community food aid are properly distributed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1373/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Council (18 April 1997)

Subject: EU-Turkey cooperation agreement: tuna preserved in oil

European economic operators and, frequently, producers of tuna preserved in oil have been complaining about the marketing of such preserves on the Community market since, they claim, these products enjoy customs tariff exemptions different from those laid down for third countries.

Those concerned say that they benefit from these exemptions although they do not comply with legislation on the origin of the raw material - tuna - which is considered to be a preserve of Turkish origin.

What agreements are there between the EU and Turkey concerning the marketing of tuna preserved in oil?

Does the Council consider that the current methods of determining origin used by Turkey for the raw material used in this product are correct? If not, what can be done to improve them?

Answer (6 August 1997)

Imports into the Community of canned tuna from Turkey are eligible for the preferential treatment granted to fishery products under Decision 1/80 by the EC-Turkey Association Council. However, such products are subject to the rules of origin for agricultural products, including fishery products, as laid down in Decisions 4/72 and 1/75 by the Association Council.

Following a number of complaints the Commission sent a mission to Turkey in June 1996. It reported that tuna from third countries was to be found in cans of tuna exported from Turkey. Customs duties on canned tuna from Turkey were therefore reintroduced.

Since then, the Joint Committee of the Customs Union has considered this matter on several occasions. At Turkey's request the Commission confirmed that Decisions 4/72 and 1/75 did authorize bilateral comulation of origin between the Community and Turkey.

In response to concern within the Community, Turkey has recently adopted administrative measures aimed at guaranteeing the origin of canned tuna, but these have yet to be jointly examined by the Commission and the Turkish side. The Council will await the results of this examination before stating its position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: AIDS controversy

Many questions have been raised about AIDS by a scientific controversy involving more than 700 specialists from 23 countries including the greatest living retrovirologist, Peter Duesberg.

Extensive documentation has recently been published in Italy by the well-known sexologist Luigi De Marchi and the specialist in infectious diseases Fabio Franchi ('AIDS - La grande truffa' (the big fraud), SEAM, Rome, 1997). The publications highlight unjustified alarmism and numerous conflicting opinions of most Italian and international health authorities on the subject of AIDS.

The controversy questions the validity of major crucial aspects of the presentation and treatment of AIDS from discovery of the virus to definition of the illness, epidemiological prognoses, the uselessness of tests, the harmfulness of treatments and the search for an 'impossible' vaccine.

1. Is the Commission aware of these publications and the theories they expound?

2. If so, will it inform the European Parliament and other bodies of the importance of the documentation and the claims?

3. Does it not consider it advisable to appoint a multidisciplinary committee of inquiry (not confined to virologists and infectious disease specialists) to shed light on the numerous inconsistencies concerning this plague of the second millennium?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the publication mentioned and is collecting the information necessary to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member. It will let him know the results of its inquiries as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Importation of animals without health documents from Belgium into Sicily

Since 4 March 1997, magistrates in Caltanisetta have been investigating a case of trade in dangerous substances and violation of health and hygiene rules in connection with the clandestine import of some 125 cattle and pigs from Belgium (from a shipment of 500 animals), without the necessary health documents. Twelve persons are involved in the investigation and twelve farms have been placed under distraint.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What steps will it take and what measures will it require states to adopt in order to comply with Community rules in this area and prevent any recurrence of such incidents?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The case raised by the Honourable Member falls under Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC ((Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224, 18.8.1990), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC (OJ L 62, 15.3.1993). )) and also perhaps under Council Directive 89/608/EEC of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters ((OJ L 351, 2.12.1989. )).

In accordance with Article 9 of Directive 90/425/EEC, the authorities of the Member State of destination (in this case Italy) are to contact the authorities of the Member State of despatch (in this case Belgium) immediately. The latter are to take all measures required and inform the authorities of the Member State of destination of the type of checks carried out, the decisions taken and their reasons for taking them. Where the authorities of the Member State of destination fear that the measures taken are not sufficient, they are to seek ways and means of remedying the situation in conjunction with the authorities of the Member State of despatch, if necessary by conducting an on-the-spot inspection. Where there are recurrences of such instances, the authorities of the Member State of destination are to notify the Commission and the authorities of the other Member States. It will then be for the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of the Member State of destination, to take a number of measures as provided for in Article 9 of Directive 90/425/EEC (e.g. an inspection visit).

To date the Italian authorities have not referred the matter to the Commission. The latter will, if necessary and in due time, take the requisite measures pursuant to the abovementioned legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1632/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: American ban on investing in Burma

Can the Commission confirm that the American President has signed a law banning American businesses from investing in Burma because of the adverse situation regarding democracy and human rights in that country?

How can the Commission prevent businesses in the US making their investments via European firms and European Member States?

Would it not be appropriate, in the wake of the Union's lifting of the preferential system for Burma, for the Commission to submit a proposal as soon as possible for an end to investments on the part of the Union so that, together with the US, maximum pressure can be put on Burma?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

On 22 April 1997, the United States (US) President announced his decision to impose a ban on new US investment in Burma, invoking the so-called Cohen-Feinstein amendment to the Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997.

The new sanctions prohibit US persons from new investment in Burma. The details, including the definition of US persons and new investment, have been specified in an executive order published on 20 May 1997. The Commission is at present examining in depth the executive order to further analyse the potential impact of this decision.

The withdrawal of privileges under the generalized scheme of privileges (GSP), on the other hand, is in no way linked to the sanctions imposed by the Community in its common position on Burma adopted on 28 October 1996 and prolonged for a second six -month period on 29 April 1997. The withdrawal of GSP privileges is exclusively based on the provisions of the Council Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 and 1256/96 ((OJ L 348, 31.12.1994. OJ L 160, 29.6.1996. )), Articles 9-12 and clearly not related to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).

The Commission is participating actively in CFSP work. The Commission is, however, not in a position to anticipate future developments with regard to the possible imposition of further sanctions on Burma, in particular since Member States are engaged in a discussion on the usefulness of economic sanctions to achieve political objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1863/97 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Council (27 May 1997)

Subject: Plan for Italian fishermen to diversify out of certain fishing activities

On 29 April 1997, the Council of the Union adopted, on the basis of the Commission proposal (COM(96) 682) ((OJ C 59, 26.2.1997, p. 21. )) and having regard to the opinion delivered by the European Parliament on 24 April 1997, a specific measure to encourage Italian fishermen to diversify out of certain fishing activities known as spadare (drift-net fishing). In approving the proposal with the amendments adopted, Parliament asked to be reconsulted if the Council made substantial changes to the Commission proposal. The text which was adopted and published in the interinstitutional edition No 96/0308 (CNS) of 28 February 1997 departs significantly and substantially from that proposed by the Commission on which Parliament delivered its opinion: it adds a tenth recital and a second part to Article 5, banning the accumulation and granting of aids deemed unjustified.

Does the Council not consider that these additions:

- are a flagrant breach of Article 43 of the Treaty since they ignore the authority of the Commission and Parliament?

- Undermine the legitimacy of Parliament which delivered its own opinion on a proposal substantially different from that adopted by the Council?

- Clearly conflict with the multi-fund management of Community resources since they deny the legitimate use of the funds intended in particular for Objective 1 regions?

- Call into question the entire diversification measure since they concern the economic part of the plan and actually hinder diversification into other fishing activities which can be financed from Community funds?

Does the Council not also consider that it should reconsult Parliament on the additions or, if necessary, agree to apply the conciliation procedure?

Answer (6 August 1997)

On the basis of a proposal from the Commission, and having received and studied the Opinion delivered by the European Parliament, on 29 April 1997 the Council effectively adopted a specific measure to encourage Italian fishermen to diversify out of certain fishing activities.

The Council considers that the changes made, further to its proceedings, to the text of the Commission proposal do not depart significantly and substantially from that proposal.

The Council therefore considered that reconsultation of Parliament was not necessary. Furthermore, the Commission did not go along with the amendments suggested by Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B3-2002 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.