ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Article B4-320: LIFE (Financial Instrument for the Environment) - Projects on Community territory

Can the Commission give a breakdown, on an association-by-association and activity-by-activity basis, of the amount of the subsidies granted in respect of the 1995 financial year from the following article:

B4-320: LIFE (Financial Instrument for the Environment) - Projects on Community territory?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Item B3-4102: Helios II (integration of disabled persons)

Can the Commission give a breakdown, on an association-by-association and activity-by-activity basis, of the amount of the subsidies granted in respect of the 1995 financial year from the following item:

B3-4102: Helios II (integration of disabled persons)?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1380/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Council (18 June 1996)

Subject: Spanish fruit destroyed by French farmers

In the final days of May this year, groups of French farmers again attacked European lorries transporting Spanish fruit in transit for European Union countries. They also destroyed Spanish fruit already in French markets.

What action has the Council taken to prevent any recurrence of these extremely serious incidents?

Is it aware that in the last three years, 60 lorries have been attacked?

Is it aware that in 1995, the losses incurred amounted to PTA 6000 million?

Joint answer to Written Question E-1380/96 and E-2022/97 (25 September 1997)

The Council is aware of the acts of vandalism carried out by French farmers in April/May 1996 and May 1997 against lorries carrying fruit and vegetables from Spain to Member States of the European Union. Those acts are illegal under ordinary criminal law and are designed to impede the free movement of Community products which is one of the European Community's basic principles. They are therefore strongly condemned.

At its meeting on 29 and 30 April 1996 and 20 and 21 May 1997, the Council was informed, through a statement by the Spanish Minister for Agriculture, of those acts of vandalism, of the scale of the damage and of the Spanish Government's call for the French Government to take the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of such acts in future, punish those responsible for them and compensate the victims.

At those meetings, the French Minister for Agriculture unequivocally condemned such acts of vandalism, stating that he had asked his colleagues in the French Government to take firm measures within their spheres of responsibility for the purpose of making good the damage caused and to do their utmost to see that such practices were not repeated.

On behalf of his colleagues, the President of the Council expressed the Council's solidarity with Spain and stressed the overriding need for the French Government's intention of taking the necessary action to be followed up by effective measures in practice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1290/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Bosman ruling

The recent announcement by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association and the statement by a Commission official on the Bosman ruling as it applies to the football player John Collins of AS de Monaco, formerly of Glasgow Celtic Football Club, indicate that the Commission has been approached to rule on this issue.

Can this be confirmed?

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

The Commission can confirm that it has been approached about the issue concerning the applicability of the Bosman ruling to the transfer of a football player from a Member State to Monaco.

The Commission can only confirm that, as a matter of principle, Monaco is not part of the Community for the purpose of the free movement of workers.

However, given that AS Monaco plays regularly in the French national football league and that a number of the club's matches are played on a regular basis on French territory, such a transfer would retain a sufficiently close link with the Community. Therefore, the Commission considers that it is possible to confirm that the Bosman ruling is applicable to such a transfer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0934/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Guinea

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Guinea under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0444/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: GMO food labels

Does the Commission agree that an easily-identifiable symbol on food labels would be a sensible way of identifying genetically modified food and that this would be helpful for the millions of EU citizens who do not always have their reading spectacles available to read small print in ingredient lists on food labels?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1997)

Community rules for the labelling of foodstuffs which contain or consist of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or which have been produced from, but do not contain GMOs, are set out in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 258/97 of 27 January 1997 on novel foods and novel food ingredients ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )). Because of the nature of the information to be conveyed to the consumer, which may differ substantially depending on the product concerned, the regulation does not provide for any specific and uniform type of labelling.

Moreover, the Commission would point out that Article 11 (2) of Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )) requires that the compulsory labelling information on foodstuffs shall be easy to understand and marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible. The enforcement of this provision is, however, the responsibility of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0226/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Council (6 February 1997)

Subject: Top level mission to Nigeria by the Dutch Presidency

Can the Council confirm that the Dutch Presidency will shortly be sending a top level mission to Nigeria?

Is the Council aware that, despite the measures taken by the Union, there has been no improvement in recent months in respect of democracy or human rights in Nigeria?

Is the Council aware that the military regime in Nigeria is putting pressure on an increasing number of African countries by threatening that if they do not support Nigeria the latter will impose sanctions in terms of oil supplies and other economic cooperation projects?

Is the Council aware that in early February a number of Commonwealth Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in London to discuss further measures against Nigeria?

Is the Council aware that on a number of occasions the European Parliament has called for tougher measures against Nigeria, including an oil boycott?

What is the purpose of the Dutch Presidency's top level mission?

Answer (27 May 1997)

The Council is not aware of any proposal to send a high level mission to Nigeria at this time.

The Council follows closely events in Nigeria and is aware that, despite the measures taken by the Union, the situation in respect of democracy or human rights in Nigeria continues to be unsatisfactory. It is in contact with the Commonwealth and closely follows the work of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. In this context, it is fully aware of that the European Parliament has called for tougher measures against Nigeria, including an oil boycott.

The Council has no information about the Hnourable Member's statement that the Nigerian military government is putting pressure on increasing number of African countries to support Nigeria, by threatening sanctions if they do not.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (24 January 1997)

Subject: Impact of transport policy on economic and social cohesion

The final version of the First Report on Cohesion (COM(96)0542) has omitted certain obvious remarks, namely the following:

Improvements in the transport network - whether as a result of liberalization or of the TENs - tend to be of more benefit to the centre of the system than to the periphery. Liberalization has, in certain sectors (such as air transport), exposed companies based in cohesion countries to competition from the more efficient companies of the central area. Liberalization also seems to raise the danger of erosion of social services, despite public service obligations. A policy of strict vigilance is therefore necessary and more could be done to take explicit account of cohesion objectives in the formulation of policies.

The final version claims that the opposite is true, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is surely obvious that the TENs cannot help to strengthen cohesion unless priority is given to facilitating access to peripheral areas. The difficulties caused by the liberalization of air transport in cohesion countries are evident.

Can the Commission explain this version of the facts which, as in other parts of the same report, tends to devalue the objectives of economic and social cohesion, in particular that of reducing development disparities between countries and between regions?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1997)

In its analysis of the transport sector in the first cohesion report, the Commission has attempted to give a balanced view with regard to the impact of policy in this area. The report demonstrates that transport liberalisation and Transeuropean transport networks (TETNs) yield important benefits for the development of networks in the Community as a whole.

The report also shows that appropriate accompanying policy measures have to be taken to guarantee the best positive cohesion effects of the TETNs. The report presents the results of research on passenger transport development within the TETNs. It clearly shows that the accessibility of the more peripheral and disadvantaged regions will be increased in absolute terms, even though many central urban areas may improve their accessibility relatively more than peripheral regions.

With regard to the liberalisation process, the report indicates the potential danger of the erosion of services which, while uneconomic, are important for regional or social reasons. The rôle of public service obligations within the regulatory framework is underlined. In this context, the situation of the 'cohesion' Member States with regard to transport liberalisation is specifically considered, and it is argued that for them public service obligations are of particular importance to guarantee levels of service.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/97 by Claudio Azzolini (UPE) and Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Council (30 January 1997)

Subject: Abolition of 'spadare' in Italy

On 25 April 1996, after extensive consultations with the trade unions and professional organizations, the Italian Government submitted a conversion plan aimed at abolishing 'spadare', the drift-nets used to catch swordfish. A range of financial incentives, funded by the FIFG, are to be provided under the scheme for fishermen and shipowners who hand in their nets by 31 January 1997 and agree to take early retirement or promise to switch to different fishing methods or change occupation.

Meeting within the Council on 19 and 20 December 1996, the Ministers for Fisheries merely declared their approval of the plan submitted by the Italian authorities. Adoption of the Council decision on the Community financial contribution to the scheme was postponed until the meting on 14 and 15 April 1997.

However, shipowners have to fit out and prepare their vessels for catching swordfish in March, and, if no final decision has been taken, fishing will thus start in the normal way, even though it might have to stop shortly afterwards, resulting in obvious economic damage to an already sorely tried group who have shown their willingness to change to other occupations.

Will the Council take special measures to deal with these difficulties, which will affect some 3 000 fishermen, virtually all of whom are based in Objective 1 regions?

Answer (16 May 1997)

1. On 17 December 1996, the Council received a proposal from the Commission for a specific measure to encourage Italian fishermen to diversify out of certain fishing activities. The purpose of the proposal is to provide financial support for the restructuring and conversion plan drawn up by the Italian Government to eliminate driftnet fishing in the Mediterranean.

2. The Council took note of this proposal at its meeting on 19 and 20 December 1996 and agreed to make every effort so that the proposed measure could be adopted at the earliest opportunity.

3. Since the proposal is based on Article 43 of the EC Treaty, the Council has consulted the European Parliament.

4. Council bodies began examining the proposal in January so that the Council can act on the proposal once the European Parliament has delivered its Opinion. To speed up adoption of the decision, the Council asked the European Parliament to apply the urgent procedure at its March part-session.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0848/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Article 10 of the ERDF - Portugal

Could the Commission provide a listing of the projects financed under Article 10 of the ERDF which are being carried out by Portuguese institutions under the current financial perspective, including details of the number of projects submitted, the number approved and the amount of funding provided?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0848/97 and E-0851/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

The list is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Regarding the number of projects submitted, the Honourable Member is referred to the reply to his question E-0849/97 ((See page 178. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/97 by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) to the Commission (4 March 1997)

Subject: Livestock reported to Eurostat for calculation of the early marketing premium

What categories and numbers of livestock are reported to Eurostat by the respective Member States of the European Union for calculation of the marketing weight in connection with the introduction of early marketing premiums?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The average reference weight for granting the early marketing premium for calves has been set on the basis of Eurostat's statistics on the slaughter of bovine animals.

In order to produce harmonised data, Council Directive 93/24/EEC of 1 June 1993 ((OJ L 149, 21 June 1993. )) clearly defines the characteristics of carcases.

In addition to data collected in abattoirs, the Members States have to carry out an assessment of slaughterings on the farm. This is generally a flat-rate figure, but does not significantly alter the average weight.

Given these factors, the final weights used to determine eligibility for the premium are the Eurostat data for 1995, with the exception of Germany and Denmark where changes have been made to bring the figures into line with the situation observed in the abattoirs. These changes are based on well-substantiated information provided by these Member States, in accordance with Article 41 of the Council Regulation on the common organization of the market in beef and veal ((Repl. (EEC) 805/68. Last amended by Council Regulation No 2222/96, OJ L 296, 21 November 1996. )).

The Commission is sending a table containing the information requested directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: EU employment conditions

Do workers from the Isle of Man, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino and the Channel Islands have any special conditions applying to their employment which do not apply to EU citizens?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1292/97, E-1293/97 and E-1294/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City are not part of the Community for the purpose of free movement of people. Consequently, citizens of these countries are not treated as Community nationals and hence do not enjoy the right of free movement conferred by Community law. Conversely, the EC Treaty free movement provisions do not apply to Community nationals in these countries, except in exceptional circumstances.

The position as regards the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is complex. The EC Treaty applies only 'to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for these islands set out in the United Kingdom Accession Treaty' (Article 227 5c).

Under Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom Accession Treaty, the Community rules on the free movement of workers are, in principle, not applicable on the territory of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. However, the authorities of those islands may not discriminate against natural and legal persons from the Member States. Concretely, this means that those authorities may, for example, require work permits of Community nationals provided that they do so in a way which does not discriminate according to the nationality of the person concerned.

As regards rights enjoyed by people from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, Protocol 3 expressly provides that they do not benefit from the Community provisions relating to free movement of people, but without prejudice to the rights which they enjoy in the United Kingdom under British domestic law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0274/97 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: EU imports of canned tuna from south-east Asia

EU imports of canned tuna from south-east Asia are increasing at an alarming rate and jeopardizing the development of the Community production sector. Can the Commission guarantee that these imports comply with the minimum quality and tuna content requirements and correspond to the correct tariff headings?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1997)

Thailand is by far the largest exporter of canned tuna to the Community. These exports are broken down as follows for the years 1992 to 1995:

>TABLE>

(*) Metric tonnes.

The exports to the Community from the other countries in the region (Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore) are marginal, accounting for only 398 tonnes in 1995.

The Honourable Member can see that imports of canned tuna from South East Asia have fallen in the period 1992-95.

As regards the imports from two important neighbouring countries, the Philippines and Indonesia, their aggregate total for loins of tuna and canned tuna is:

>TABLE>

The Honourable Member will note that there is no 'alarming' increase of imports in the period in question, and the available figures for 1996 do not lead one to conclude that this trend will reverse.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 of 9 June 1992 ((OJ L 163, 17. 6.1992. )) lays down common marketing standards for preserved tuna and bonito. The standards include provisions on trade descriptions appropriate to each commercial presentation and on the quantity of fish contained in a preparation with a view to keeping products that are of unsatisfactory commercial quality off the market and to facilitating trade relations based on fair competition.

The information available to the Commission indicates that the checks for which the Member States are responsible, and which are usually carried out by sampling, have not detected any fraud based on quality standards or the minimum tuna content.

The importer introducing the goods into the customs territory of the Community must make a declaration to the customs authorities of the relevant Member State that is sufficiently detailed to identify the goods. The customs authorities check that the customs headings used are the right ones and correspond to the goods declared and presented to them.

From 1 January 1995, with the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 3282/94 of 19 December 1994 extending into 1995 the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3833/90, (EEC) No 3835/90 and (EEC) No 3900/91 applying generalized tariff preferences in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries ((OJ L 348, 31.12.1994. )), cans of bonito (Sarda spp) have been excluded from the generalized system of preferences. The exclusion was decided upon as a result of the discovery of significant fraudulent imports of canned tuna (a product not covered by the generalized system of preferences) from certain beneficiary third countries which had been declared as canned bonito.