ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3261/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: 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. Does this index coincide with or diverge from the retail price index used by Austria?

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 P-3533/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 December 1996)

Subject: Relocation of Grundig Indústria de Portugal's Audio Products Factory in Braga (Portugal)

Recent information confirms that Grundig Indústria de Portugal - Audio Products Factory intends to sell its factory in Braga and relocate its audio/hi-fi production to Hungary. This will endanger some 700 employees, who may possibly be collectively dismissed.

In the 1989 to 1992 period alone, the multinational received aid amounting to almost 1 billion escudos (ECU 5 million), 75% of which was Community co-funding, and that the construction of the building Grundig is now seeking to sell was financed with such funds. It should also be stressed that even so, Grundig created only 34 jobs instead of the 59 which it had promised, despite the fact that at the same time, it cut the workforce considerably.

It is assumed that Grundig Indústria de Portugal will subsequently have proceeded to submit new applications for Community funding via the PEDIP II of the industrial subprogramme of the Second Community Support Framework.

Can the Commission tell me whether it is attempting to take any steps with regard to this attempt to relocate or not, particularly with regard to the sale of buildings funded under PEDIP I, so as to force Grundig to repay the Community and Portuguese national funding it received?

Have there been fresh Grundig applications for Community funding since 1994? If so, what was the Commission intend to do?

If the audio/hi-fi production is relocated to Hungary, does the Commission believe that Grundig will be able to obtain Community funding again there?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies 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-3186/96 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Competitions for A - Grades in the European Commission

Will the Commission list, for the whole of 1995 and the first 6 months of 1996 if possible:

1. The number of competitions for A Grades

2. The number of actual posts and reserve list posts for each competition

3. The number of applicants for each competition

4. A breakdown by country of origin of the applications for each competition.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1996)

1. 60.

2. - 4. These are shown in tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat general. Most of these competitions concerned specific head of unit or adviser posts, reserved for nationals of one of the three new Member States, under Council Regulation (EC) No 626/95. Other category A general competitions were also organised to establish a reserve of citizens from Austria, Finland and Sweden. No category A general competitions were organised for citizens from all the Member States during this period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2653/96 by Jacques Donnay (UPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Technical inspection of cargo ships

Any improvement in the safety of goods transport by sea is dependent upon technical checks on vessels in every port.

However, it seems that these checks are not carried out with equal rigour at all the Union's ports.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that there is effective inspection in all the Member States of the Union and to prevent distortions of competition arising as a result of differing inspection practices?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1996)

In June 1995 the Council adopted Council Directive 95/21/EC ((OJ L 157, 7.7.1995. )) concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions, the so-called port state control Directive. Member States had to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement this Directive not later than 30 June 1996 and subsequently inform the Commission.

The objective of the Directive is to establish common criteria for control of ships by the port state and to harmonise procedures for inspection and detention with the purpose of increasing compliance with international and Community legislation on maritime safety, on protection of the marine environment and on living and working conditions on board ships of all flags.

The Commission will of course closely monitor the application of the Directive in order that it is effectively and uniformly enforced by all Member States and if the Honourable Member has specific proof relating to the matters referred to in his question he should make it available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: 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. Does this index coincide with or diverge from the retail price index used by Italy?

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-2892/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Control of hormones in meat

Is the Commission satisfied that the residue sampling programme undertaken by third countries who are on the list of countries allowed to export fresh meat to the Union provides adequate safeguards to protect the health of European consumers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1996)

The checks carried out to verify the guarantees which non-member countries can offer with regard to residue sampling in fresh meat exported to the Community are of three types.

Since 1989 each non-member country has drawn up a plan for checks based on laboratory analyses which is submitted to the Member States for their views. This plan is compared with the results of the analyses for the year in question and alterations are requested if necessary.

On-the-spot inspections are carried out to ensure that the plan and, where positive results are detected, the measures taken by the national authorities are being implemented. The Commission may take, and, in fact, has already taken, measures against non-member countries where certain shortcomings have been detected.

In addition, the Member States check the quality of imported meat and undertake laboratory analyses as part of the physical checks carried out at frontiers. For several years, no Member State has reported to the Commission cases of positive tests or anomalies detected during these checks.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3437/96 by Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Commission (27 November 1996)

Subject: Officials seconded wrongfully and/or in excessive numbers to the Commission's Staff Committee

In the context of the social dialogue established with the trade unions representing officials, the Commission grants special treatment to those elected to the Staff Committee. In particular some of them are seconded to the Staff Committee and/or its local sections.

Can the Commission say how many officials are currently seconded to the Staff Committee and/or how many to each of its local sections?

Can the Commission also say how many officials, having come to the end of their term of office in the Staff Committee and/or its local sections, are waiting to take up new duties in one of the Commission's departments, and for how long they have been waiting? Can it say why they are not reintegrated despite the fact that every budgetary year the Commission mentions the need for new posts?

Can it say why it has allowed the promotion to managerial level of officials wrongfully seconded (in that they are no longer members of the Staff Committee) for long periods?

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

In order to facilitate the operation of the arrangements for staff representation and the performance of their duties by staff representatives, the Commission seconds a certain number of officials to the local sections of the Staff Committee and to the Central Staff Committee. The number of officials seconded depends on the place of employment and the number of officials and servants represented.

The following are seconded:

- to the Central Committee: the chairman (1), the vice-chairmen (6), the secretary (1) and the representatives of staff serving outside the Community (2);

- to the Brussels local section: the chairman (1), the vice-chairmen (3) and the secretary (1);

- to the Luxembourg local section: the chairman (1), the vice-chairman (1) and the secretary (1);

- to the Ispra local section: the chairman (1) and the vice-chairman (1) on a half-time basis and the secretary (1) on a full-time basis.

All officials whose mandates as chairman, vice-chairman or secretary of a local section of the Staff Committee or the Central Staff Committee have ended have been reassigned to their Directorates-General of origin.

The Commission would stress that staff representatives are promoted on the basis of the same criteria as those applicable to all staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2680/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Current situation regarding Belgium's failure to comply with the directive on water intended for human consumption

Serious shortcomings have been noted in Belgium's implementation of Directive 80/778/EEC ((OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11. )) relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. What is the current situation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2680/96, E-2681/96 and E-2682/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

It is not possible to report on the current situation regarding the implementation of Directive 80/778/EEC until the Commission receives and checks national reports on the implementation of the drinking water Directive for the three year period 1993-1995. The report on the implementation of the Directive is expected to be published in 1997.

However, with respect to infringements, it should be noted that there has been one infringement procedure against each of Belgium Germany and the United Kingdom concerning the Directive which reached the Court of Justice as identified in the table included in the draft report by Mr Collin on behalf of the environment committee of Parliament on the proposed revision of the drinking water Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2752/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Sierra Leone

How much aid does the EU give Sierra Leone and can the Commission provide a breakdown of what the aid is used for and who it is channelled through (i.e. NGOs or government)?

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

Community aid to Sierra Leone is granted essentially through the provisions of the Lomé Convention. Grants under the 7th European development fund (1990-1995) amounted to 77 MECU. In addition, Sierra Leone benefitted during the same period from the structural adjustment facility (12 MECU), Stabex transfers (some 11 MECU) for loss of earnings in the coffee and cocoa sectors, humanitarian aid (16.4 MECU since 1993) and food aid (World food programme regional operations).

With the exception of humanitarian aid and food aid, the majority of grant assistance is channelled through government. Under the 7th European development fund, the main projects funded have concerned infrastructure (road and electricity rehabilitation), rural development (agriculture, water supply, sanitation and microprojects) and technical assistance. Aid has also been provided to support the holding of elections in February and March 1996.

Due to the insecurity within Sierra Leone in recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on the role and activities of non governmental organizations (NGOs). Through Community humanitarian aid funds (over

6 MECU in 1996 alone), assistance has been provided to NGOs for medicine, food, shelter and sanitation to assist them in relieving the suffering of thousands of displaced communities. NGOs will continue to play an important role in Sierra Leone as aid is focussed less on emergency relief and more on resettlement, rehabilitation and development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: monitoring application of the subsidiarity principle

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 within the IGC there was substantial opposition to the creation of new bodies or institutions designed to enable the national parliaments to play a collective role, particularly in connection with monitoring application of the subsidiarity principle.

Given the above, should not the Presidency propose that the role of the national parliaments be strengthened, with each being given a right of veto over questions of subsidiarity? Such a reform would appear logical in that it is the people of each country that is in the best position to judge exactly what powers it intended to delegate to the Community when it ratified the Treaty.

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-2410/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: BSE - the alternative theory associated with organophosphorus concentrate insecticides

1. Considering that recently reported experimental work in the United States has conclusively failed to induce BSE in cattle exposed to material from scrapie-afflicted sheep, both through routes of ingestion and intra-cerebral infusion, what detailed scientific evidence can be forwarded to substantiate the claim that the rogue prion responsible for inducing BSE has originated in the nervous system of sheep, rather than having arisen as a result of induced mutation of the native bovine prion protein, as outlined in the alternative BSE theory associated with organophosphorus concentrate insecticides?

2. How is it possible to distinguish that the rogue prion responsible for induction of BSE is of ovine origin, as has been suggested, and that it could not be a mutant form of the indigenous bovine prion protein?

3. Considering that organophosphorus chemicals have been documented as being both potentially teratogenic (embryo-deformative) and mutagenic, and that prion-related conditions are known to arise through forces of mutation, what research has been undertaken into the theory that organophosphorus concentrate-induced mutation is the root cause of BSE?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1996)

1. & 2. The origin of bovine spongiforme encephalopathy (BSE) remains unclear. Scientific advice to the Commission is that there is at present no firm evidence to indicate whether it derived from scrapie in sheep or originated in cattle. Available data cannot disprove either of these hypotheses. If it originated in cattle, there is no evidence to implicate any particular factor involved in its appearance.

3. When BSE was first recognised, an intensive epidemiological study was undertaken to determine the factors associated with its transmission. The use of agricultural chemicals, including organophosphate compounds, was among the factors examined. However, no significant association has been found between exposure to these compounds and the development of BSE. The disease occurred in animals which had not been exposed to organophosphates and did not occur in the great majority of animals which had been exposed, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

The spatial and temporal distribution of BSE suggests an extended common source epidemic. This is unlikely to have been caused by a single mutation, which has a single point of origin from which it spreads slowly.

In addition, the Commission would refer to its answer to Written Question P-1454/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996. )) by Mr Skinner on organochlorides and organophosphates and their impact on agricultural workers and the public health of consumers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (10 October 1996)

Subject: Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities

The Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities was opened for signature on 1 February 1995, having been elaborated under the auspices of the Council of Europe. To date it has been signed by some 32 countries, but it has not yet entered into force as only four states have ratified the Convention. Twelve EU Member States have signed the Convention, though none have ratified it.

Will the Council state why no EU Member State has yet ratified the Convention? Does it agree that the entry into force of this Convention is desirable, in order to reinforce protection of vulnerable minorities in many European States? Will it state whether the Member States intend to ratify the Convention in the foreseeable future?

Answer (17 January 1997)

As the Honourable Member states, the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities was drawn up under the auspices of the Council of Europe. For its part, the Council has not been apprised of the situation regarding Member States ratification of the Convention, nor of their intentions in the matter.