ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3259/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Calculation of the interim RPI

It is increasingly clear from the media that there are real difficulties in finding universally accepted statistical measurements.

The Commission evaluates the convergence of prices on the basis of the interim retail price index. How is this index calculated?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3259/96, E-3260/96, E-3261/96, E-3262/96, E-3263/96, E-3264/96, E-3265/96, E-3266/96, E-3267/96, E-3268/96, E-3269/96, E-3270/96, E-3271/96, E-3272/96, E-3273/96 and E-3274/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

Under Protocol No 6 on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of the EC Treaty 'Inflation shall be measured by means of the consumer price index on a comparable basis, taking into account national differences.' This requirement is currently met through a process of harmonization based on the national consumer price indices (CPIs).

According to Council Regulation No 2494/95 on harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs) ((OJ L 257, 27.10.1995. )), harmonization should be considered as a stepwise approach in two stages. Stage I established in February 1996 a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs). The IICPs are in fact the national CPIs with the coverage of goods and services adjusted to reduce non-comparability, particularly by excluding certain non-market services, such as health, education and owner occupied housing.

National CPIs can thus be seen as coincident with the corresponding IICPs regarding methods, concepts and definitions, apart from the coverage of goods and services. Numerically, the indices differ as a result of these differences in the coverage ((COM(96) 560. )). For most of the Member States, the differences in the inflation rates measured as a twelve month change, whether on an annual or monthly basis, are small, ranging from 0,0 to ±0,2 percentage points. For some Member States (Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) the differences are bigger, mainly because of housing costs, particularly where interest payments are used in the national CPIs.

Though not strictly comparable, IICPs provide for the time being the most comparable basis for the assessment of inflation convergence among Member States. The Commission will, however, assess inflation convergence during the period before the start of stage three of economic and monetary union, as required by the Treaty, on the basis of comparable HICPs. These will be launched with Stage II of the harmonization of CPIs in February 1997 and will be based on appropriately designed definitions, concepts and methods.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2768/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: reform of the third pillar

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, said that the Council Secretariat had submitted to the IGC a proposal setting out the specific areas which it felt should be transferred from the third to the first pillar of the Treaty.

Does the Presidency believe it realistic to expect that decisions on vitally important matters directly affecting national sovereignty, such as immigration rules, can be taken by a qualified majority under the first pillar? If it does not, is it prepared to put forward new procedures which will preserve unanimity?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3001/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Storage of radioactive waste in Bulgaria

It is reported that Bulgaria is unable to complete the construction of the special plant for the storage of radioactive waste from its nuclear reactors.

Although it has already received ECU 6m from the EU, it has been unable to find provide the Lk 86m necessary to complete this urgently needed plant.

In addition, Bulgaria's sixth nuclear reactor, with a capacity of 1000 MW, is due to come on stream on 12 November 1996, the nuclear fuel having already been received from Russia.

1. Will the Commission take measures, and what measures, to ensure the safety of the area around Bulgaria, since the unsuitable storage of radioactive waste in Bulgaria would constitute a danger for a number of countries including a Member State of the European Union, Greece.

2. What measures will it take to find out what has happened to the ECU 6m received by Bulgaria and when?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1997)

A grant of 6 MECU has been accorded to Bulgaria to design and build a low activity nuclear waste treatment facility. This grant is a part of the Phare cross border cooperation programme between Bulgaria and Greece.

The objectives of the project are to process the low level radioactive waste collected in intermediate storage on the Kozloduy nuclear power plant site and to condition the waste to its final form for disposal.

The need for this facility arises from the fact that the storage capacity in the Kozloduy nuclear power plant is nearly full. The Kozloduy nuclear plant with its six reactors is the only nuclear power plant in Bulgaria.

1. The Community, by financing this project, is contributing to the safety of the region by providing environmental protection and containment of radioactive material.

2. With regard to the use of the Community contribution, technical specifications for equipment have been prepared for subsequent tendering and contracts can be envisaged in the context of an overall satisfactory progress of the project. Generally, all Phare projects are subject to monitoring and evaluation and the Court of auditors performs systematic missions in all the recipient countries to verify the correct use of the allocated funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2884/96 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Participation of outside experts on works councils

The EU directive on works councils stipulates that companies with a certain number of employees which are active in several EU countries must set up a works council. Representatives of the company and the trade unions are to meet in the works council.

Does the Commission consider that the trade unions are entitled to arrange for an outside expert, from their own trade union for instance, to take part in the council's work? Does the company have the right to deny the trade union the opportunity of having such an expert take part in the work?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

The purpose of Directive 94/45/EC ((Council Directive of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 254, 30.9.1994). )) is to improve the right to information and to consultation of employees in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings. Undertakings or groups of undertakings with more than 1 000 employees within the Member States and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States are covered by the Directive.

In such undertakings or groups of undertakings, negotiations are initiated by the central management, either on its own initiative or at the request of the employees, with a view to setting up a Works Council or an information and consultation procedure. The negotiations are conducted between the central management and the employees' representatives, who are elected or appointed in accordance with the specific national rules laid down by the Member States in which the undertaking or group of undertakings is active.

It is up to this special negotiating body to conclude, with the central management, an agreement covering such matters as the composition and modus operandi of the European Works Council or the arrangements for implementing an information and consultation procedure, including, where appropriate, the role and status of experts.

For the purpose of the negotiations, the special negotiating body may be assisted by experts of its choice. The Member States may limit the provision of funding to one expert only.

Since the Directive is not intended to impinge on industrial relations systems in the Member States, it does not address the possible role of employees' trade unions.

Where a voluntary agreement has been concluded prior to 22 September 1996, in accordance with the terms of Article 13 or, subsequently, on the basis of Article 6, the signatory parties enjoy wide discretion, particularly as regards the number, role and status of experts. If no agreement is reached within the undertaking concerned, the subsidiary requirements of the Annex to the Directive are applicable. In that event, the role and status of experts are determined by the national legislation applying to the European undertaking or group of undertakings in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Question No E-0878/96 on battery cages

Further to its answer to Written Question No E-0878/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 97. )), what steps are now being taken by the Commission or Member States, to organize inspections to ensure uniform application of Directive 88/166/EEC? ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83. ))

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1996)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member, as already pointed out in its reply to written question E-878/96 by Mr Provan ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996. )) and on several occasions to other Honourable Members, that the Commission is for the time being short of staff in the sector of veterinary inspection. Since the previous reply no improvement in this situation has occurred.

In these circumstances, the Commission has to use its scarce resources to address a limited range of priorities.

As indicated already, the Commission is ready to fulfil its obligations once the necessary budgetary funds for the employment of further veterinary inspectors are made available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4011/96 by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1997)

Subject: Jewish assets in Austria

Can the Commission bring any pressure to bear upon the Austrian Government, under the Accession Treaties or other international conventions, to enforce and speed up the release of Jewish financial assets frozen and seized before and during the Second World War?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (22 January 1997)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3024/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Involvement of NGOs in the MEDA programme

The adoption in July 1996 of the MEDA programme signalled the start of the first stage in the implementation of cooperation projects.

Could the Commission say whether or not it will be possible for non-governmental organizations, associations and non-profit-making enterprises to be involved in such projects on an equal footing with other interested parties?

Could the Commission also say whether or not appropriate instruments and areas of the cooperation programme will be specifically reserved for such bodies?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1996)

Article 1 paragraph 2 of the Regulation (EC) no 1488/96 on financial and technical measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro Mediterranean partnership ((OJ L 189, 30.7.1996. )) (Meda) includes non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the list of the beneficiaries of support measures undertaken in the framework of the Regulation.

There are no specific instruments reserved for the promotion of NGOs in the Mediterranean partner countries and territories or to support initiatives from European NGOs in favour of the Mediterranean partners. However, NGOs may, in particular, participate in regional activities together with other interested parties in the Med Media and Med Campus programmes of decentralized cooperation, the Meda democracy programme and in the micro-actions facility. Furthermore, and more importantly, since the approval of the new Meda Regulation, NGOs may also participate in bilateral cooperation in the framework of indicative programmes agreed with the Mediterranean partners.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: the cost of monetary union

The Commission has published many accounts of the savings which monetary union will bring for both individuals and businesses. However, has it attempted to evaluate the overall costs which this reform might entail?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

The concept of overall costs is difficult to define.

However, the changeover to the euro will, it is quite clear, bring substantial savings and necessitate specific investments. These investments will have beneficial effects, notably in terms of business activity and job creation in, for example, the information technology sector.

A major investment effort will be required in particular of the banking sector and the distributive trades, although this would have been essential even without economic and monetary union: training of personnel, updating of software in preparation for the year 2000, etc.

A number of estimates have been made, but they are impossible to verify and do not capture the associated savings and advantages.

As distinct from investment, savings are recurrent. Simply taking into account transaction and exchange-rate costs, they amount to some ECU 30 billion a year in the Community as a whole.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3540/96 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1996)

Subject: 1995 fraud cases involving the United Kingdom

The Commission's annual report for 1995 'Protecting the Community's financial interests - The fight against fraud' refers to 3 fraud cases involving the United Kingdom. They are:

1. 3.7 Exports of rice from the United Kingdom to Sweden (page 61)

2. 3.12 Sugar quotas in the United Kingdom (page 63)

3. 3.14 Sales of milk outside the quotas in the United Kingdom (pages 63 and 64)

Will the Commission give the names of those companies or individuals involved in these 3 cases of fraud?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (10 January 1997)

The Commission can not disclose the identity of companies or individuals involved in fraud cases such as those selected by the Honourable Member from the Commission's 1995 annual report on the fight against fraud. Confidentiality rules cover not only the communications received from the Member States ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 of 19 May 1981 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 the law on customs or agricultural matters - OJ L 144, 2.6.1981. Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 238/72 - OJ L 67, 14.3.1991. )) but also the inquiries carried out by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3418/96 by Stanislaw Tillich (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Anti-competitive advertising by a public body

The firms of Sitour Werbe GmbH (based in Germany), Feratel Italia srl (based in Italy), Sitour France (based in France), Feratel Produktions. und Warenvertriebges.m.b.H. (based in Austria), Panorama Wetter und Reise TV GmbH (based in Austria) and Sitour Management GmbH (based in Austria) have entered a complaint to the Commission against the Republic of Austria alleging that inadmissible aid was paid by the Association 'Tirol Werbung', the Region of Tirol and the Chamber of Commerce to TIS Tourismus Informationssyteme GmbH.

These proceedings are pending before the DG for Competition under ref. no. DG IV - a/377772-23.10.1995. The complaint was brought on 12 September 1995.

What is the current state of the proceedings? Is a preliminary examination to be opened against the Republic of Austria, and when are the proceedings likely to be completed?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3418/96 and P-3425/96 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

Following this complaint, the Commission sent a request for information to Austria and received a reply on 22 January 1996. In order to be in a better position to investigate the possible aid character of the measures in question and their compatibility with the common market, the Commission is at present analysing studies concerning the financing of booking and reservation systems. The complainants will be informed as a matter of course of the result of the examination.

There is no formal complaint procedure in the state aid field and the Commission is in cases of non-notified aid not bound by a two-month period for the preliminary assessment. Third parties can however, on the basis of the direct effect of Article 93 paragraph 3, 3rd sentence EC Treaty, obtain legal protection before national courts against aid which is paid prior to the Commission's authorisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2859/96 by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Commission (18 October 1996)

Subject: EP resolution on the illicit trade in nuclear material

In the July 1996 part-session, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (A4-0066/96) on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, 'The illicit traffic in radioactive substances and nuclear materials'(COM(94)0383 - C4-0227/94) ((OJ C 211, 22.7.1996, p. 15. )).

In the resolution, the European Parliament called on the Commission to, among other things, provide information on the accuracy of the Federal Republic's claim that it had informed the Euratom Safeguards as early as 27 July 1994 about an imminent nuclear smuggling operation, or to say whether Euratom was correct in stating that it was not informed until 10 August 1994, the day on which 400g of plutonium were seized at Munich airport.

The European Parliament also called for a full explanation about whether Euratom or the government of the Federal Republic countenanced the placing at risk of sizable population groups in Munich on 10 August 1994 when unauthorized persons were allowed to handle at least 400g of plutonium and considerable quantities of lithium 6 in an attaché case.

When is the Commission going to comply with that request and submit a comprehensive report to Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

The Commission is examining carefully all the issues contained in Resolution A4-0066/96 of 4 July 1996 ((OJ C 211, 22.7.1996. )) and is preparing a comprehensive follow-up.

Regarding the particular topics addressed in the present question, reference can be made to the reply given by the Commission to Written Questions E-1958/96 by Mrs Breyer and P-2182/96 by Mr Schulz ((OJ C 60, 26.2.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3013/96 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Reform of the OCM in olive oil

Olive growing is particularly important in certain areas of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands and the Region of Valencia. Olive oil is gaining in appreciation as a basic component of the Mediterranean diet. In view of the fact that the proposal for the modification of the OCM in olive oil provides for the elimination of the intervention price and of aid to production and consumption, is the Commission aware that this will act as a disincentive to production, hinder improvements in the quality of the product and fail to guarantee a suitable income for olive growers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-2946/96 by Mr Papayannakis and E-2684/96 and E-2685/96 by Mr Valverde Lopez ((See page 22. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2634/96 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: List of SMUs that have participated in EU research programmes

Reference has often been made, by Commission officials and in the Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee (IRDAC), to a list of small and medium-sized undertakings (SMUs) that have participated in EU research programmes.

Has this list been published?

Could you please send me a copy?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)

There is no single, comprehensive list as mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question. However, information on small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) that have taken part in the Community research programmes have been published in the project synopsis for the various programmes and can always be accessed on line from the CORDIS data base (http:\\www.cordis.lu).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2327/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: The system of compensation for beef and veal

In its circular No 18 of 16 July 1996 AIMA (Italian authority for agricultural market intervention) laid down the rules for implementing the system of compensation which amounts to Lit 125 billion, combining Community and national funding, allocated to beef and veal producers for animals slaughtered between 1 May 1996 and 15 August 1996.

Does the Commission consider the terms of this circular to be compatible with European guidelines?

In particular, does the Commission consider the Italian decision to distribute additional compensation for animals weighing more than 470 kg, i.e. more than the 400-410 kg envisaged by the Union, to be legitimate?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 September 1996 ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996. )), the Commission is now in a position to provide the following information.

Firstly, it should be stressed that, according to information made available to the Commission, Italy has opted for the aid allocation method allowing the Member States maximum flexibility, with the proviso, however, that the aid is allocated objectively, avoiding overcompensating producers and any distortion of competition. In this connection, the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-1509/96 from Mr Musumeci ((OJ L 175, 13.7.1996. )).

As for the compatibility of the compensation specified in AIMA Circular No 18 of 16 July 1996, and in particular Italy's decision to pay an additional premium on animals exceeding the weight limit laid down for intervention, with the Council's provisions on the aid provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 providing for additional payments to be made in 1996 with the premiums referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal ((OJ L 175, 13.7.1996. )), the Commission considers that, on the basis of the information in its possession and without going into economic details which are currently beyond its capacity to analyse, the abovementioned decision calls for no remarks. The Commission can hardly oppose the Italian authorities' decision to compensate certain producers who, in their view, have been unable to sell their livestock at the optimum point of growth as a result of serious market disturbance and have accordingly had to keep them, with the attendant inevitable increase in weight and substantial loss of income.