ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (27 March 1996)

Subject: National control bodies in the Member States

Further to my Written Question E-0319/96, can the Commission state whether, in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, it considers the coexistence of national and regional levels of control over EAGGF expenditure to be compatible with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of Community checks on EAGGF expenditure?

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-0733/96 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Expenditure on fisheries agreements

What has been the level of European Union expenditure on fisheries agreements with third countries in 1994, 1995 and 1996?

In the Commission's opinion, how many additional jobs have been secured thereby in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)

The Commission is forwarding direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament a table showing the expenditure on fisheries agreements (commitments and payments).

The Community's agreements, by maintaining or expanding fishing possibilities for the Community fleet in third country waters, seek to protect the level of direct employment on fishing vessels and indirect employment in onshore processing facilities and related industries.

Some 20 000 people are directly employed on fishing vessels operating under the fisheries agreements between the Community and third countries. The agreement with Morocco accounts, by itself for over 8 000 fishermen directly employed on vessels.

It can be conservatively calculated that a further 25 000 people are employed in the fishing industry ((Employment in the processing industry is not included )) and the ancillary services resulting from these agreements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/96 by Raul Rosado Fernandes (UPE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: The implications for competition of the system of tax deduction applied by a Member State of the European Union

The tax deduction system applied in Spain gives the right to a tax credit, which constitutes a permanent reduction in tax and not simply a temporary benefit. The eligible investments include the following categories of expenditure:

1. New conversions into immovable property for purposes of business development,

2. Setting up of foreign branches or subsidiaries and acquisition of shares in foreign companies directly linked to the export of goods and services,

3. Market research expenditure with a view to launching products or opening export markets.

Categories 2 and 3 cover operations carried out both inside and outside the European Union.

Does the Commission consider that these arrangements - which could result in direct public aid from the Spanish State for the acquisition of shares in a country of the European Union - are compatible with the rules devolving from the Treaties establishing the EEC and the ECSC and later secondary legislation?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

Further to its answer dated 1 April 1996, ((OJ C 183, 24.6.1996, p. 13. )) the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the measures referred to by him were notified to it by the Spanish Government on Spain's accession. It has never raised any objections to their implementation.

Similar measures exist in most member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Commission is planning to draw up an inventory of measures introduced in Member States with a view to promoting investment abroad and is looking into the criteria to be applied in examining the compatibility of such measures with the common market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/96 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Cost and validity of passports in the European Union

1. What is the cost, in the 15 Member States of the European Union, of buying passports and identity cards valid in other Member States?

2. Are there any obvious differences in cost between the Member States?

3. If so, what can the Commission do to keep these price differences to a minimum?

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

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Pollution from destruction of fruit and vegetables

In answer to my questions E-3458/95 and 3459/95 ((OJ C 112, 17.4.1996, p. 34. )), the Commission has chosen to hide behind the veil of subsidiarity. However, if the Court of Auditors was able to pinpoint regions of the EU in which pollution to surface and underground waters has occurred as the result of years of destruction of surplus fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market under the CAP, the Commission must also know where these areas are and I repeat my demand for a list of these regions.

Answer given by Mr Fischer on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it has never planned enquiries in order to list regions in which water has been polluted as a result of destruction of fruit and vegetables and that a list of such regions, even if based on the Court of Auditors' discoveries, could not appropriately be provided by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1137/96 by Carl Lang (NI) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Supplementary social security schemes

On 26 March 1996 the Court of Justice of the European Communities gave a ruling on the scope of Council Directive 92/49/EEC (non-life insurance) ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1. )) in which it expressly stated that the Directive did not apply to statutory social security schemes. However, as formulated, the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling left out an important field of social security: supplementary schemes.

One of the questions which is central to this issue appears to be the definition in Community law of the concept of a statutory social security scheme: does it include compulsory supplementary schemes? Does it include supplementary schemes covered by a collective agreement (as in the case of France, for example)?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)

In the framework of various legal instruments adopted by the Council in the domain of social protection (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.71; consolidated version, OJ C 325, 10.12.92 )) and 574/72 ((OJ L 74, 27.3.72; consolidated version, OJ C 325, 10.12.92 )) - social security of migrant workers, Directives 79/7/EEC ((OJ L 6, 10.1.79 )) - equal treatment for men and women, statutory schemes and 86/378/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.8.96. )) - equal treatment for men and women, supplementary or occupational schemes) and in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice, a Community principle has been developed whereby a statutory social security scheme is taken basically to mean any social security scheme directly provided for and regulated by law that satisfies the principle of solidarity and is mandatory for general categories of workers or professionals in a Member State. This notion excludes any element of concertation within the firm or occupational sector in question.

On the other hand, an occupational scheme designed to supplement benefits provided under a mandatory statutory social security scheme does not itself constitute a statutory social security scheme, irrespective of whether it results from a collective agreement or a statutory measure.

In principle, the general social security scheme in France corresponds to the statutory scheme under Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0877/96 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: Separate labelling of Mechanically Recovered Meat

The UK Government submitted a paper to the European Standing Committee on Foodstuffs in October 1994 which proposed that Mechanically Recovered Meat should be considered sufficiently different to justify separate labelling. This was agreed by a majority of Member States but the Commission has yet to make known its opinion.

Will the Commission now state its position on the separate listing of MRM on label ingredients?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

Following the meeting of the standing committee for foodstuffs of October 1994, the Commission has convened meetings of experts on food labelling from the Member States to consider the labelling of mechanically recovered meat (MRM). There is agreement in principle that the presence of MRM should be specifically indicated on the labelling.

Discussions are continuing between the Commission and the Member States on the most appropriate means of achieving this result.

The Commission will ensure that the Honourable Member is informed of the outcome of these discussions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) and Carlo Ripa di Meana (V) to the Council (29 February 1996)

Subject: Rights and freedoms of homosexuals in Italy

On 8 February 1994 Parliament adopted resolution A3-0028/94 ((OJ C 61, 28.2.1994, p. 40 )), with a view, among other things, to ending the unequal treatment meted out to homosexuals under laws and administrative regulations relating to social security and the rights of adoption, inheritance, and abode. The resolution marks an important step forward in asserting the human rights and individual freedoms of homosexuals.

In April 1995 Verona City Council adopted a motion rejecting the substance of the EP resolution and instructing the local authority to refrain from taking any decisions that might be deemed to afford equal recognition to the rights of homosexual couples and those of natural families consisting of a man and a woman.

This motion, the only example of an 'anti-gay law' to be found in Italy, is still in force.

1. What steps has the Council taken so far to implement the above-mentioned EP resolution (A3-0028/94)?

2. Does it know of other cases in which local or regional authorities in the EU have taken decisions blatantly at odds with or posing a challenge to the EP resolution?

3. Does the Council think it possible and wise to intervene in cases such as the one described above?

4. Does it believe that it should launch or promote information campaigns, not least in the light of the facts set out in this question?

Reply 1C>(16 July 1996)

The Honourable Members are referred to the reply given to Written Question No 2353/95 by Luciano Vecchi ((OJ C 122, 25.4.1996, p.2 )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/96 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Definitive VAT system in the European Community

Is it anticipated that the exact wording of paragraphs 4(b) and 5 of Article 15 of the Sixth Directive of 17 May 1977 will be incorporated in the definitive legislation on VAT?

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

Under Article 15(4) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended), ((OJ L 384, 30.12.1992. )) the Commission must submit proposals as soon as possible to establish Community fiscal rules specifying the scope of and practical arrangements for implementing the exemption for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels.

It is currently working on the future definitive VAT system, and this entails a thorough and systematic review of all the various VAT mechanisms. By the summer it intends to present a document spelling out the main features of the arrangements it wishes to introduce, together with its work programme for the transition to the definitive system.

The Commission therefore feels that it would be inappropriate and premature to comment on the establishment of Community fiscal rules on the scope of and practical arrangements for implementing a specific exemption. Under these circumstances, and until the common rules are in force, the Member States retain the right to limit the scope of the exemption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/96 by José Torres Couto (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: European Social Fund Delays in payments/Compensation

At a public hearing on the ESF organized by the Committee on Social Affairs, a Member of the Commission, Mrs Papandreou, speaking some months before the end of her term of office, revealed that lengthy delays in the transfer of funds from Brussels to the Member States had occurred in 1988 and 1989 on account of a tiresome and protracted fault in the computer system (see transcript of the hearing)!

How long was the system out of action? Can the Commission indicate as accurately as possible how long ESF grants to Portugal were held up?

What compensatory measures has the Commission laid down to protect the legitimate rights of project organizers against all the resulting harm?

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

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, in respect of European Social Fund (ESF) grants to Portugal for 1988 and 1989, the decisions were taken and advance payments made on the following dates:

>TABLE>

This shows that there were no delays in ESF payments to Portugal for the years concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1127/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Extension of the Jean Monnet Centre

In its answer to Written Question E-0415/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 36)) by the honourable Member Mr Marco Cellai, the Commission does not reply in full to Point 1 which asks whether it is true that an option has been requested for the plot of land earmarked for the expansion of the Jean Monnet Building.

In answer to Point 3, the Commission states that the expenditure on the specifications and on the supervision of the construction of the Hochtief building is still necessary.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. why are large sums of money being spent to examine the specifications when we know that the Hochtief building is to include a vast hypermarket on the ground floor?

2. Do the Commission's specifications provide for the presence in the same building of extensive private commercial premises and offices for 800 officials?

3. Is it necessary to spend money on checking this point in the specifications?

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

The Commission has confirmed that it is interested in one day having a building on the nearest possible site to the existing building. But no project relating to the extension of the Jean Monnet building has been approved, and no option has been formally requested.

With regard to necessary expenditure, the main aim of analysing the specifications and monitoring the construction of the Hochtief building is to enable the Commission to ensure that the necessary conditions for housing its staff are met.

The Commission wants to assure itself that the shopping areas and the areas it occupies are totally separate and that the closeness of those areas will not be prejudicial to the safety and working conditions of officials. The same precautions are taken when city-centre buildings adjoin premises of third parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0623/96 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (6 March 1996)

Subject: Incorporation of environmental considerations in the Commission's work programme

The recently adopted environmental action programme (COM(95) 674/4, of 19 January 1996) stresses the need for integrating environmental considerations into other policies (agriculture, transport, energy, industry and tourism), and examines the possibility of making environmental assessments part of the basis on which decisions are taken. These ideas are not however reflected in the Commission's programme of work for 1996 or the priority areas set out therein.

Was there an environmental assessment of the priorities and their implications when the individual areas in the Commission's work programme were being decided, and if so on what basis?

How does the Commission explain the inconsistency between the revised fifth environmental action programme and the 1996 work programme in respect of the need to incorporate environmental considerations into Community policy?

Does the Commission intend to introduce environmental assessment of, for example, future action programmes and legislation, along the lines of the present impact analyses for small and medium-sized undertakings?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1996)

Operational measures adopted by the Commission in June 1993 to seek to ensure the integration of environmental considerations into the Commission's actions already include the requirement to assess the impact on the environment of measures to be included in the work programme of the Commission. In adopting its proposal for a decision by the Parliament and the Council on the review of the fifth Community environment action programme 'Towards sustainability ((COM(95) 647 final )) the Commission reiterated its commitment to the integration of environment and sustainable development in new and existing policy and action, and to pursue practical steps to this end, in line with the measures adopted in June 1993.

Measures which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment are identified in the Commission's work programme. The selection of these items takes place within the framework of the preparation of the work programme. The assessments are intended to form an integral part of the strategic decision-making process within the Commission and do not require a separate procedure or separate document. The explanatory memorandum accompanying a particular proposal should describe the impact on the environment and the environmental costs and benefits.

The Commission will shortly publish its 1996 work programme together with a technical annex in the Official Journal and in a special edition of the Bulletin. In the annex the items likely to have a significant impact on the environment will be indicated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1151/96 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: European Social Fund - United Kingdom

Following on from the answer received to Oral Question H-0231/96, ((Debates of the European Parliament (April 1996). )) will the Commission please answer the original question asked: That is, what steps will the Commission take to improve the timing of ESF payments in the UK and what actions will the Commission take, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that European funds are passed timeously to training organizations so that Member States do not get away with allowing these funds to accrue interest in national exchequer accounts?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The reply to the Honourable Member's oral question H-231/96, described the payments system for the release of European social fund (ESF) monies to each Member State.

Apart from the very first advance paid on the approval of each programme, the release of further ESF funds requires the Member State to submit requests for payment based on accurate, auditable data in relation to actual expenditure already incurred by beneficiaries in accordance with the priorities and the financial plan of the programme. The speed with which funds can be drawn down depends, therefore, both on the capacity of project sponsors to use the funds that they have already received as intended and to submit the necessary claims quickly, and on the ability of the Member State to process these expenditure claims promptly.

Responsibility for managing this process rests primarily with the Member States. However, the Commission took the initiative recently to organise a seminar for the United Kingdom implementing authorities, including representatives from the Scottish office, to clarify ESF financial procedures. As a result, the United Kingdom authorities are expected to be able to submit the necessary requests, properly substantiated, to allow the Commission to make outstanding 1994 final claim and 1996 first advance payments by the end of July.

As previously explained, responsibility for making ESF payments to individual beneficiaries also lies with the Member State authorities. They are required, under Article 21 of the Coordination Regulation (EEC) n° 2082/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993 )) governing structural funds payments, to ensure that beneficiaries receive the monies due to them within three months of receipt by the Member State. The United Kingdom authorities have generally met this deadline. The Commission has recently reminded the Scottish Office of its obligations in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1262/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Athletes as employees

As a result of the EU Treaties athletes are increasingly regarded as employees.

Has the Commission therefore considered whether the status of employee might conflict with current regulations on doping, which can prevent athletes from exercising their profession?

Has the Commission considered clarifying the current regulations?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

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