ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Subsidizing of national airlines

1. Can the Council of Ministers state why subsidies have been granted to national airlines (Air France and Iberia)?

2. Is there any possibility of these airlines receiving further subsidies?

3. How will the Council deal with applications for subsidies from other EU airlines?

4. What are the objective criteria for assessing additional applications for subsidies from other airlines?

5. Will the Council take steps to prevent further subsidies being paid to airlines? If so, what form will these measures take? If not, why are no suitable measures being taken?

Answer (17 January 1997)

Responsibility for authorizing State aids, as laid down in Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, lies mainly with the Commission. The full procedure and criteria as far as concerns State aids in the field of aviation is presented in the Commission guidelines on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA agreemetn to State aids in the aviation sector ((OJ C 350, of 10 December 1994, p. 5. )).

The Council has not been informed of any initiative from the Commission to change the legislation and the procedures applicable to State aids in the aviation sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Pollution of an area of sea by the installations of the Motor Oil company

On 9 August 1996 a large quantity of mazut leaked from the installations of the Motor Oil company in Sousaki, Corinth. The leak occurred while an oil-tanker was being loaded inside the companies installations and caused an oil slick stretching from Isthmia to Aegina.

Bearing in mind that:

- accidents and leaks of petroleum and chemicals from oil-tankers and on-shore installations are an almost constant danger in this region;

- oil slicks cause irreparable damage to marine ecosystems, especially in closed seas;

- this particular leak caused the regions's tourism-related occupations to lose income because holiday-makers left at the height of the tourist season;

- Directive 82/501/EEC ((OJ L 230, 5.8.1982, p. 1. )) (Seveso Directive) has been infringed, and

- there is a pilot programme on the dispersal of oil-slicks by micro-organisms; the programme is funded by the Commission's DG XI and will be conducted in the polluted waters and on the shores of the Saronic Gulf,

does the Commission consider that Greece has complied with all the provisions of the Seveso Directive and with any provisions which have so far supplemented or amended the Directive? Had any checks been carried out on the applications of the above-mentioned Directive by the company in question? Will the Commission intercede more energetically with the competent Greek authorities to expedite and strengthen hazard prevention measures in regions where dangerous installations are located?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 January 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-3087/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Effects of the disappearance of the Antwerp Pool of sailors

Is the Commission aware of the possible social and employment implications for Spanish sailors working on Belgian or Luxembourg-registered ships if the Antwerp Pool of sailors is abolished?

What steps can the Commission take to avoid the unfortunate situation which could result from its abolition?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 January 1997)

The Commission has not been informed of any move to abolish the Antwerp Pool of sailors. Responsibility for dealing with associated problems lies entirely with the Belgian authorities and the social partners involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2708/96 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (9 October 1996)

Subject: Light rail system in Dublin

Earlier this year spokespeople for Commissioner Wulf Mathies were quoted in Irish newspapers on the exclusion of Dublin's northside from the first phase of the Luas light rail project, which is being co-financed by the EU. The spokespeople said that the Commissioner had requested that the Irish authorities conduct a socioeconomic study to assess whether the need for the light rail is as acute on the northside of the city as it is on the southside and to ascertain if it is justifiable to exclude the northside from the project's first phase.

Can the Commission give details of whatever contacts it has had with the Irish authorities on this matter? Have the Irish authorities conducted or agreed to conduct any socioeconomic evaluation such as that suggested by the Commission? What reasons have the Irish authorities given the Commission for the exclusion of the northside from the project's first phase?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

The Commission has maintained close contact with the Irish authorities ever since this project was announced. It is represented on a steering group which has been created to oversee the project. One of the first tasks of the steering group has been to undertake a full socio-economic cost-benefit analysis of the three routes currently under consideration.

This study was undertaken jointly by the Commission and the Irish authorities and carried out by an independent external consultancy firm. Work commenced in June 1996 and a final report was prepared during October. Following the production of this report an agreement was reached with the Irish authorities to go ahead with the southern and western routes as the first phase of LRT for Dublin as these were deemed to be the best solutions both from a technical and transport economic point of view. However, it was also agreed to construct the northern route as soon as possible and at the latest immediately after the completion of the other two routes. This agreement will bring forward the construction of the northern route by at least two years.

The reason that one route will have to be excluded from this first phase of LRT is set out in the Transport operational programme ((Operational Programme for Transport 1994-1999, p. 47/8 (ISBN - 7076 0462 1/1994). )), agreed between the Commission and the Irish authorities in July 1994, as follows: 'The core LRT system would cost approximately 371 MECU. This system cannot be fully constructed within the 247 MECU proposed for LRT under this programme. A longer time frame than that of this Programme (1994-1999) will be needed to physically complete the core LRT network. Detailed work is urgently in hands to determine the optimum combination of LRT links, which could be constructed over the 1994-1999 period'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2774/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: external representation of the Union

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, indicated that the Presidency had submitted to the IGC a proposal which would make it compulsory for the Member States to adopt a common stance within the international organizations on all matters connected with external economic relations, even those for which the Community does not have exclusive responsibility.

It should be remembered that many people were shocked to find that, during the dispute between Canada and the Member States over fishing rights, the European Union, represented by the Commission, had only one vote within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization - exactly the same number as Cuba - despite the fact that several Member States have long-standing rights in this region, which could have been brought to bear collectively. Despite claims that coordination is thus improved, this situation in fact actually undermines the Union's structural and organizational strength and is repeated within many other international forums.

What steps does the Presidency intend to take to ensure that the above proposal does not make this situation even worse?

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-2669/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: BSE

The European Commission has not provided an adequate justification for its decision to lift the ban on exports of semen from the United Kingdom, and we consider that it would be useful to ensure stricter monitoring of the situation in that country.

Will the Commission continue to apply for a long time to come special rules with regard to British cattle and beef products, and tighten up the conditions to be met before the embargo is lifted; would it also introduce effective systems for the registration and identification of animals, and ensure that a labelling system to identify the origin of British beef products for an indefinite period?

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

The decision to remove bovine semen from the scope of Commission Decision 96/239/EC on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ((OJ L 139, 12. 6.1996. )) was taken on the advice of the scientific veterinary committee. That committee reviewed the evidence from both experimental investigations and epidemiological studies and concluded that bovine semen does not pose a risk to animal health.

The Commission will continue to keep the situation under review and will act in accordance with the scientific advice. Several inspections have already taken place in the United Kingdom and will continue. Furthermore the British authorities are obliged to send two-weekly reports about the situation of BSE, on the implementation of measures and control results, keeping the Commission and Member States informed. These reports have also been made available to Parliament's temporary committee of inquiry on BSE.

Council Directive 92/102/EEC ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992. )) laid down Community rules for the identification and registration of animals. Experience has shown that these rules have not been satisfactorily implemented. Accordingly, the Commission has recently adopted proposals ((COM(96) 460 final. )) for two Council regulations, one establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals, and the other regarding the labelling of beef and beef products.

The aim of these proposals is to facilitate the rapid identification and tracing of individual bovine animals, and to regulate certain claims made on labelled beef and beef products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Auvergne region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Auvergne region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 1997)

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-3669/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Haute-Normandie region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Haute-Normandie region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 1997)

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-3649/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Lorraine region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Lorraine region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 1997)

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-3109/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Sparkling and dessert wines

There are no Europe-wide rules on the above types of wine.

Will the Commission issue:

1. a Regulation to govern production and marketing of sparkling and dessert wines, stipulating that 'mushroom stoppers' must be used for sparkling wines and wines with a registered designation of origin and geographical ascription;

2. a Directive on dessert wines, including raisin wines and vinsanto, providing for a Community label to specify, and guarantee that they conform to, their geographical description?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

1. The Commission would point out that:

(a) There are Community rules permitting the production and marketing of dessert wines (Regulation (EEC) No 4252/88 ((OJ L 373, 31.12.1988. ))).

(b) As yet, there are no Community rules for sparkling wines and their production and marketing within the Community are governed by the national legislation of the producer Member States. Although this situation is not perfect, it has not created any serious problems for the movement of products within the Community.

As regards straw wines or vinsanto, the measures to which you refer may be adopted by the Member States under the Regulation on designations of origin. It should be recalled that with the 1988 price package, the Commission presented a proposal ((COM(88) 120 final. )) to the Council, inter alia, to include in Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 ((OJ L 84, 27.3.1987. )) provisions on wine made from overripened grapes. The proposal was not adopted because of differences between the Member States over the specific characteristics of such wines.

2. The Commission is of the opinion that the adoption by the Council of the reform of the wine sector will permit these questions to be dealt with more effectively at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Animals in zoos

The Commission has issued a proposal for a Council Recommendation relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (COM(95) 619) to replace its proposal of 31 July 1991 laying down minimum standards for the keeping of animals in zoos, which it has withdrawn for the purposes of applying the principle of subsidiarity.

It is deplorable that the Commission has followed the majority line of the Council in withdrawing its proposal for a directive and proposing a recommendation instead. This contradicts the EEC's position in 1991 and flies in the face of the position Parliament adopted at the beginning of 1995 when it called explicitly for the directive to be adopted.

A recommendation is not likely to achieve concrete results and there is a danger that conditions in some European zoos will deteriorate further, with the result that the animals will suffer and the public will be at risk. This can only strengthen the section of public opinion which is already calling for all zoos to be closed.

Will the Commission therefore resubmit to the Council its proposal for a directive on the keeping of wild animals in zoos?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1996)

As indicated in its communication to the Council of 12 December 1995 ((COM(95) 619 final. )), the Commission decided to withdraw its 1991 proposal for a directive on minimum standards for the keeping of animals in zoos in view of the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

The Commission, however, agrees with the Honourable Member that the overall situation in zoos in the Community can only be improved if Member States adopt legislation on the subject which is why it has proposed a Council recommendation on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Proposed introduction of a 'bit tax'

In an interview in the Italian newspaper 'L'Unita' of 28 October 1996, Professor Luc Soete, chairman of the group of experts on the information society appointed by the Commission, relaunched his proposal for a 'bit tax', i.e a tax on the bits used for computer communications, particularly on the Internet.

Is the Commission aware of this proposal?

Does it intend to endorse it, and in what way?

If so, does it agree that it would be useful to arrange an opportunity for public discussion with Parliament on a matter with such sensitive implications for liberty and democracy?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

The question of a 'bit tax' is mentioned in the first interim report of January 1996 of the high level expert group on the social and societal aspects of the information society called 'Building the European information society for us all'. The Commission is also aware of the document 'The bit and tax: the case for further research' which was sent out on 12 August 1996 by the chairman of the group for further comments and reactions.

The Commission is currently analysing the issue, considering the advantages and disadvantages of such a tax.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3092/96 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (6 November 1996)

Subject: Support for crop growers

The Portuguese Government has submitted a plan to regionalize subsidies for crops as part of the reform of the CAP.

The Commission has not approved the plan. Can it give me details of its reasons for not doing so, and of the requirements to be met in terms of Community guidelines before the plan can be approved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

The drawing up of plans for the regionalization of compensatory payments for arable crops is a matter for the Member States. The Commission does not have to give formal approval to the plans but has to ensure that they are drawn up on the basis of objective criteria which are appropriate for the Member State concerned and that, on the basis of the information available, they respect the historic average yield.

In May 1996 Portugal presented a new regionalization plan which did not permit the Commission to verify compliance with the historic average yield. At the Commission's request, in September 1996 Portugal submitted a new regionalization plan and information on the basis of which the Commission raised no objections to application of the plan to the 1997 harvest. The Commission informed Portugal accordingly by letter dated 31 October 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Gandía: deadline for projects under Article 10 of the ERDF

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published a call for the submission of pilot urban projects, in the context of the innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF. Of the projects submitted, 91 were from Spain.

One of the projects submitted concerns urban renewal in the municipality of Gandía (Valencia).

When does the Commission intend to decide whether the Gandía project is eligible for EU funding under Article 10 of the ERDF?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3198/96, E-3199/96, E-3200/96, E-3201/96, E-3203/96, E-3204/96, E-3205/96, E-3206/96, E-3207/96, E-3208/96, E-3209/96, E-3210/96, E-3211/96, E-3212/96, E-3213/96, E-3214/96 and E-3215/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

The Commission received over 500 applications in response to its call for proposals; of these, 97 were from Spain. The available budget of ECU 60 million will enable the Commission to part-finance some 25 projects throughout the Union.

With regard to the selection procedure, the call for proposals states that: 'a team of independent international experts will assist the Commission services to identify the most innovative ideas in order to select those proposals which correspond most closely to the criteria set. The final number of proposals to be part-financed will be decided by the Commission, taking into consideration overall availability of funds, themes of proposals and distribution of appropriate projects within the territory of the Union.'

Since this procedure is now under way, it is not at present possible to assess the chances of a town being selected or the amount of Community part-finance which it might receive. Equally, no other estimate concerning a Member State or region can be made.

With regard to the number and name of projects which could concern municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia other than those expressly referred to in these Written Questions, the Commission cannot derogate from the principle of confidentiality which applies to this stage of the procedure, particularly since proposals for measures involving more than one local authority may be accepted if that cooperation increases the value added.

The time required for the thorough consideration and careful selection of the exceptionally large number of applications received means that the Commission will not be able to take a decision before the end of the year.