ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Endorsement by the Community of the Franco-Spanish agreement on fishing for anchovies with mid-water trawl nets

The announcement by the seamen's union of the Basque coast in France (CFDT) to the effect that it rejects the recent Franco-Spanish agreement on anchovy quotas signed by the relevant French and Spanish ministers and that French fishermen will continue the fishing season after 20 March despite the explicit ban on fishing with mid-water trawl nets between 20 March and 1 June, has naturally led to a protest by the head of the equivalent Spanish fishermen's association, who has called on the governments in question to enforce the agreement.

Given the powers of the European Union as regards fisheries, what is the Commission's position regarding the endorsement of bilateral fisheries agreements between Member States and in what way could it support condemnation of the defiant posture adopted by the French fishermen's union referred to above, which is threatening to provoke a 'hot spring season' and not to comply with the above intergovernmental agreement?

Can the Commission also say whether it is prepared to subsidize the conversion of the French high-seas fleet, which is oversized and has exhausted its resources?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1996)

The agreement between France and Spain referred to by the Honourable Member was approved by the Council in 1991 and renewed the following year to the satisfaction of both parties.

It is up to the two Member States themselves to ensure compliance with this bilateral agreement, which is quite compatible with Community law. The Commission can only encourage them to take the necessary steps and will not be pushing for the terms of the agreement to be incorporated into Community law unless both sides so request.

Under the structural fisheries policy, the multiannual guidance programmes for fisheries fleets set targets for bringing catches into line with available stocks. Funding for this comes from the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG). However, these targets are of a general nature and do not affect the specific case of French trawlers fishing for anchovies in the Bay of Biscay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1199/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: The haven link road, Canvey, Essex

Does the Commission agree that lorry movements from the Oikos oil storage facility and the Charfleets industrial site cause both an environmental nuisance and a traffic hazard to residents in Canvey Island, Essex, in my constituency? Would the Commission consider meeting a financial contribution towards a link road via the proposed shipping development at West Canvey, and precisely which European funding programmes might be available for such a purpose?

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

The legal responsibility for assessing and reducing environmental nuisances rests with Member States. Environmental impact arising from use of existing infrastructures is outside the scope of present Community legislation and therefore the Commission is not in a position to take a view in this matter.

The link proposed does not appear to be part of the road network identified in the proposed trans-European networks (TENs) guidelines and in any event the application for Community assistance would require the support of the United Kingdom government, as specified in Article 129 EC Treaty.

Canvey Island is, as the Honourable Member will know, not currently an area eligible for European regional development fund (ERDF) assistance and consequently the type of project cited in the question would not be financed by the ERDF under the current programmes in the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/96 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Uncontrolled dumping in Fuente Alamo (Murcia, Spain)

The district of los Cànovas in the municipality of Fuente Alamo (Murcia) has been the site of uncontrolled dumping of plastic waste. An area of some 20 000 square metres has been filled with thousands of tonnes of plastic waste of various types, including common plastics, melamine, plastic containers, etc. all originating in different EU countries, mainly Germany and France.

This storage area does not meet even the lowest safety standards. Much of the waste contains large deposits of chlorine which, in the event of a fire, would do irreparable damage to human health and agriculture, through the release of dioxin and furans.

What representations will the Commission make to the Spanish authorities in order to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the environment and, in particular, with Directive 91/156/EEC on waste ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. ))?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

The Commission is not aware of the points raised by the Honourable Member.

However, since these facts may constitute an infringement of the provisions of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC), the Commission will write to the Spanish authorities for information.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of its enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/96 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Consequences of legislative procedures

In which instances has a Commission proposal finally not been adopted, because the Council failed to conclude its second reading within the three-month time limit provided for in Article 189(c)(f) of the EC Treaty?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1860/96 and E-1861/96 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)

Since the implementation of the Single European Act there have been only seven cases of rejection of a common position by the Parliament under the co-operation procedure.

These were:

- Protection of workers from exposure to benzene (on 12.10.1988)

- Sweeteners as additives in foodstuffs (on 13.5.1992)

- Energy consumption of domestic equipment (on 8.7.1992)

- Maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles (on 27.10.1993)

- Emissions from large combustion plants (on 14.12.1994)

- Incineration of hazardous waste (on 14.12.1994)

- Landfill of waste (on 22.5.1996)

In three cases (energy consumption of domestic equipment, emissions from large combustion plants, incineration of hazardous waste), unanimity existed in Council and the legislation was finally adopted. However, it should be noted that the only point of difference with Parliament on the energy consumption of domestic equipment dossier was comitology, a problem since resolved by the interinstitutional agreement on a modus vivendi.

In one case (maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles), the vote of rejection took place just before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union and was then interpreted as an 'intention to reject' under Article 189b 2(C). The issues subsequently were resolved in the conciliation procedure as the proposal now came under the co-decision procedure.

In the case of protection of workers from exposure to benzene, the legislation fell, but the key issue with regard to the information and consultation of workers was subsequently the subject of a separate proposal, which successfully passed all stages of the co-operation procedure.

After the rejection of the common position on sweeteners in food additives, the Commission decided to replace its proposal by a package of new proposals. The same approach is envisaged for the landfill of waste proposal which the Commission intends to replace with a new proposal as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1575/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Price of 'maatjes' herrings

At the beginning of the 'maatjes' herring season the producers stated that the price of this product had doubled since 1995 because of the restrictive fishing quota policy imposed by the European Union.

Could the Commission confirm this? Has the rise in fish prices occurred in all the countries of the Union, and for all species?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

Quotas form part of the policy for conserving and managing fish stocks. The maximum herring catch authorized by the Council for 1996 is well below that for 1995.

However, prices are dictated by factors other than availability and the quota level cannot be held solely to blame for the rise in maatje prices. Although the average price of fresh landed herring rose significantly in Denmark during the first few months of the year, the same cannot be said of other Member States.

Prices for most demersal fish seem to be on a long-term downward trend.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1096/96 by James Moorhouse (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)

Subject: Tape-recording of Council meetings

Further to the Council's answer (of 7 February 1996) to my Written Question E-2481/95 (of 13 September 1995) ((OJ C 79, 18.3.1996, p. 8.)), could the Council clearly clarify the following points either left unanswered in its reply or arising from it:

1. State specifically whether (as well as tape-recording meetings of the Council itself, COREPER and some working groups) it is the normal practice of the Council to tape-record meetings of the European Council (of Heads of State and Government)?

2. Clarify whether the access to recordings of the Council and its instances offered to 'General secretariats' in the plural (paragraph 3 of the Council's answer, as reproduced in OJ C 79/8) is a typographical error, or whether it indicates that the General Secretariat of the Commission, as well as the Council, in fact have access in certain circumstances?

3. Indicate, in very general terms, the average length of time (weeks, months or years) which elapses between the moment when 'the minutes of the relevant meetings have been drafted' and 'the recordings are systematically effaced' (by which presumably is meant erased)?

4. Indicate whether in granting access to tape-recordings whilst they exist, the General Secretariat of the Council allows them to be listened to by officials of national delegations, under supervision?

5. Indicate why it believes, subject to appropriate safeguards, it would not be in the public interest for such tape-recordings to be retained by the Council and deposited in an archive for historical access by researchers and the general public, after a period of say 30 or 40 years?

Reply (14 October 1996)

1. As pointed out in the Council's reply to the Honourable Member's Question No E-2481/95, the practice of recording Council meetings goes back to the beginnings of the ECSC. Recordings are made exclusively for the needs of the Secretariat and are technical working tools. In principle, they are made at every official meeting at which the General Secretariat of the Council is required to carry out its duties.

2. Access to the relevant tapes is confined to officials of the General Secretariat of the Council with responsibility in the matter; Commission officials do not have access to them.

3. The average length of time which elapses between the establishment of the minutes and the recordings being erased varies from 2 to 3 months for Council meetings and up to a year for COREPER meetings.

Recordings of meetings of all other committees and working parties are kept for 30 days after each meeting, following which they also are erased.

It should be pointed out that the Council has adapted its sound recording system by replacing tapes with digitized optical disks.

4. As indicated under point 2, only officials of the General Secretariat of the Council have authorized access to the recordings.

5. As the recordings in question are used exclusively as internal technical tools for the Secretariat's work, depositing them in the Community's historical archives has not been envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1012/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)

The existence of BSE in the United Kingdom has been known for years, and the number of cases has increased considerably rather than decreased, as acknowledged by the UK authorities.

So far, the UK authorities have planned to slaughter only animals with manifest clinical symptoms of the disease and not all animals in infected herds, and have thus acknowledged that the appropriate veterinary police measures were not applied as rigorously and resolutely as they should have been.

Other Member States on the other hand have taken speedy, drastic and systematic action to stamp out other types of infections diseases, albeit not in animals. Regrettably, the UK veterinary services have not taken the veterinary police measures proposed in keeping with the seriousness of the situation, and are answerable to the Ministry of Agriculture rather than the Ministry of Health.

Will the Commission give careful consideration to the granting of EU financial aid either as a purely health measure (veterinary expenditure) or by way of intervention in the market (EAGGF expenditure) that could meet or at least compensate for inadequacies and disorganization in the application of planned and essential veterinary policy measures, and provide, whenever EU economic intervention is approved, for direct, rigorous and systematic checking of the use to which it is put in order to prevent any fraud involving such large sums in the health and market sectors by analogy with the conditions set for other Member States, including Italy, in similar circumstances?

Will the Commission also ensure that, at least during this period of serious crisis, veterinary services are answerable to the Ministry of Health and not the Ministry of Agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom is declining rapidly from its peak early in 1993. In 1995 there were about 40% fewer cases than in 1994 and this downward trend is continuing.

The United Kingdom government has applied a policy of slaughter and destruction of cattle affected or suspected of being affected by BSE, in order to remove their tissues from the human and animal food chains.

The Commission will take all the necessary measures to check that any Community financial assistance for BSE is correctly managed in accordance with the rules in force.

The organization of the civil services of the Member States is not a matter in which the Commission could or would intervene.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Practice of dental-oral medicine

Recent court cases have once again highlighted the problem affecting the practice of dental-oral medicine. Hundreds of properly qualified doctors recently chained themselves up outside the Chamber of Deputies in Rome in order to protest against their 'outlaw' status.

A confused and delicate legal situation - which now affects 3 500 Italian doctors - has arisen, not least on account of Community Directives 78/686/EEC ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1. )) and 78/687/EEC ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10. )), transposed in Italy in Law 409/185, and the subsequent ruling by the Court of Justice, handed down on 1 June 1985 after a series of appeals to the EEC, which 'quashed' the 1988 Italian Law No 471.

In the light of the foregoing, will the Commission not give a 'definitive' interpretation of the Community legislation governing the practice of this important specialized branch of medicine, thereby providing guidance for the various governments and, above all, helping to clarify the position in Italy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-0836/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 90. )) and E-1522/96 by Mrs Muscardini ((See page 52. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1387/96 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Protecting the Pego-Oliva marshes (Valencia - Spain)

The Pego-Oliva marshes are the second most important wetlands in the Valencian Community, comprising almost 1000 hectares of major importance as an example of a traditional Valencian geographical ecosystem, i.e. coastal marshlands, which have been gradually disappearing due to drying out and their conversion into agricultural land.

The marshes have been declared a natural park by the Valencian authorities. The area has moreover been classified as a special protection area for birdlife and a 'Ramsar Zone'.

These wetlands, vital to the survival of a large number of aquatic species and species of migratory bird, are threatened by the Mayor of Pego's plan to turn them into a 'municipal natural park', which will seriously reduce the level of protection which they currently enjoy. The Generalitat de Valencia's Environmental Secretariat (Consejería de Medio Ambiente) has initiated the administrative procedure for drawing up a Plan on the Planning of Natural Resources (PPNR), which would involve a ban on any development of this natural area.

Would the Commission be prepared to seek information from the national and Valencian authorities, and to examine, in conjunction with them, what measures should be adopted to protect these wetlands as an area of particular importance to the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Pego-Oliva marshes have been classified as a special protection area (SPA) under Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )) ('Birds' Directive). Action to preserve their natural wealth has, in addition, been receiving Community funding under LIFE-Nature since 1992.

The Commission has been alerted to the attitude of the Pego municipal authorities. Certain work, presumed illegal, of an agricultural nature was recently carried out in the area. The Commission immediately approached the Spanish authorities for information and reminded them that, the marshes being a classified SPA, any plan or project likely to affect them must first be assessed (Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC on habitats ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. ))). The Commission also indicated its intention to suspend LIFE funding if the Spanish authorities failed to provide a satisfactory response.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1347/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various bodies

Can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs and bodies receiving Community subsidies under budget heading B7-211 (Emergency food aid for developing countries and others hit by disasters or serious crises)? Can it state the exact total of these subsidies at the close of the last financial year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1346/96, E-1347/96 and E-1348/96 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

The budget headings referred to by the Honourable Member concern humanitarian aid, which is aid for the victims of natural or man-made disasters, such as wars or other conflicts. Such aid goes directly to the victims, on an impartial basis and irrespective of ethnic origin and religious or political beliefs, and is generally channelled through the Commission's 'traditional' partner organizations.

Some 170 international and non-governmental organizations, including a number of United Nations institutions and Red Cross, are working with the Commission under the framework partnership contract which provides them with an appropriate framework to carry out humanitarian operations.

A table of appropriations allocated under budget headings B7-210, B7-211 and B7-217 to NGOs, international organizations and other partners that have carried out operations financed by the Commission, together with a full list of the humanitarian organizations that have signed the framework partnership contract with the Community will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1662/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Sugar production quotas

Spain currently has a sugar production quota of 1 m tonnes.

Consumption is an estimated 1 150 000 tonnes.

Could the Commission possibly review the Spanish quota with a view to raising it by 50 000 tonnes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The production quotas applicable to sugar and isoglucose in Spain were established during the course of the accession negotiations in 1985 and have undergone regular reviews since then alongside those applicable in the other producing regions of the Community.

The latest review was completed in April 1995 with the decision to roll-over the production quotas for a further six marketing years until 30 June 2001. Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 ((OJ L 110, 17.5.1995. )) lays down that the quota system to apply after that date will be determined before 1 January 2001.

Consumption has never been a criterion for calculating production quotas in the sugar sector. Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, and the United Kingdom are deficit Member States insofar as sugar is concerned, in addition to Spain. For all these deficit Member States, higher derived guaranteed prices are fixed for the purpose of encouraging trade-flows of sugar from surplus Member States.

The Commission does not consider it possible to revise the production quota for sugar for Spain in these circumstances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2150/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 August 1996)

Subject: Code of Practice on the employment of disabled persons

What progress is being made in agreeing the Code of Practice, to ensure equal opportunities in the employment within the European institutions for people with disabilities? What separate action is being taken in this respect by both DGIX and DGV? How is the European Parliament involved in the drawing up of the draft Code? What is the timetable for its expected agreement?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

A draft of a code of good practice on the employment of disabled people within the Commission and other institutions has been circulated to directorates general and staff representatives for their comments. It will subsequently be discussed with the other institutions before being adopted by the Commission. As announced in the Communication of the Commission on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities ((COM(96) 406. )), it is intended to adopt the code by the end of 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Sheep and goat premiums for 1995

The Evvia Stockbreeders Association claims that farmers and producers have not yet received their sheep and goat premiums for 1995.

1. When were the sums in question approved?

2. When were they disbursed?

3. Should farmers have received them by now?

4. If there have been delays, will it be possible to pay the appropriate interest?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1996)

The definitive amount of the Community premium for ewes and she-goats referred to by the Honourable Member was set by the Commission for the 1995 marketing year on 2 February this year at ECU 24.281 per ewe producing heavy lambs and ECU 19.857 per she-goat and per ewe producing light lambs. In accordance with the rules, Greece must pay this premium by 15 October.

The Commission would point out that at the end of June 1995 it offered Member States the option of making two advance payments of ECU 7 814 per ewe (heavy lambs) and ECU 6.251 per she-goat and ewe (light lambs). Since payment of these advances is optional, the decision has to be taken by the Member States' authorities, although a uniform rule must apply throughout a single Member State's territory.

According to the information available to the Commission, between February and April this year Greece started to pay advances on the premium for an amount of ECU 69.6 million and part of the balance, for an amount of ECU 46.8 million.