ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2895/96 by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Council (4 November 1996)

Subject: Children's rights

How does the Presidency intend to ensure the speedy ratification of the Europol Convention by the Member States, so that any extra powers given to it to deal with the sexual exploitation of children or with paedophilia networks or missing children, can be carried out effectively and as they are intended?

What immediate measures does the Presidency intend to put in place so that action on these issues can begin as soon as the Europol Convention is ratified?

Answer (13 February 1997)

The Council attaches great importance to the speedy ratification of the Europol Convention, which would be another step to the aim of achieving an efficient cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs in Europe. The Member States have indicated their intention to ratify the Convention ultimately by the end of 1997 and the Council expects that this will take place, subject to constitutional requirements.

As the Council has indicated in previous answers to Members of the European Parliament, a number of actions have been taken already now to stop the sexual exploitation of children. These measures aim at improving police and judicial cooperation as well as dealing with training programmes. More specifically, the following measures have been agreed:

- An Irish Presidency proposal to extend the mandate of the Europol Drugs Unit to cover trafficking in human beings;

- A Belgian proposal aiming at establishing a programme of encouragement for exchange and training of persons responsible for dealing with trafficking in human beings;

- A Belgian/Presidency proposal concerning the creation of Directories of centres of excellence to combat all forms of crime within the mandate of the EDU with a concentration on, inter alia, trafficking in human beings. This proposal will further enhance international cooperation between operational police forces.

- A Belgian proposal concerning a common approach to the definition of sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings as well as measures of cooperaton between the Member States.

The Council attaches great importance to this question and will continue to do so. It recalls that the Commission recently made a communication relating to the use of Internet in this context and, no doubt, the Council will examine this question in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2514/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Subsidies for air transport

The EU Commission has published a Green Paper on 'Internalizing the external costs of transport in the European Union' (COM(95)0691 final).

1. What is the position of the Council of Ministers with regard to the fact that, in Germany alone, exemption from oil tax and support for aviation technology amounts to DM 3,5 billion in annual subsidies (German Bundestag, 13th electoral period, Circular 13/4108)?

2. What figures can the Council put on the amounts paid in the other Member States, listed for each individual EU Member State, in subsidies in the form of oil-tax exemption and support for aviation technology?

3. What figure can the Council put on the revenue accruing from the taxation of kerosine in the EU:

(a) on the basis of the current rates of oil tax, harmonized at EU level, and

(b) when the internalizing of the external costs of air transport are incorporated in the rates of the tax?

4. When does the Council intend to introduce measures to end tax exemption for kerosine?

Joint reply to Written Questions E-2508 and E-2514/96 (13 February 1997)

1. The Council would point out that the exemption for kerosene for use as a fuel for the purpose of air navigation othan then private pleasure flying is provided for in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/81/EEC, adopted on 19 October 1992, on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12. )).

No later than 31 December 1997, the Council will review this exemption, on the basis of a report by the Commission and taking account of the external costs entailed in such means of transport and the implications for the environment and will decide unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission, whether to abolish or modify that exemption.

2. The Council has no knowledge of the taxation of kerosene in Denmark and Sweden referred to in the Honourable Member's question. In any event, it is for the Commission to ensure correct implementation by the Member States of Community legislation, if it applies in the case in point.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Foie gras - goose cramming methods

With reference to the Commission's answers to Written Questions 1797/79 ((OJ C 160, 30.6.1980, p. 30. )) and 401/80 ((OJ C 198, 4.8.1980, p. 68. )), have any changes been made to these decisions on the cruel and unnecessary goose cramming method involved in the production of foie gras? Has the stance taken by the Commission been reviewed in the last 16 years given the growing public concern over animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1996)

Current Community legislation on the rearing of poultry does not deal with the issue of force-feeding for ducks and geese for the production of foie gras. This procedure is, therefore, still at present governed by national legislation.

However, the issue is now being examined within the Council of Europe work by the standing committee of the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. The Community is a contracting party to this convention and is taking an active part in the preparation of recommendations under the convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3624/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-1006: Promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages and cultures

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading:

B3-1006: Promotion and safeguard of regional and minority languages and cultures?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 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-3620/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-305: Sport in Europe

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading:

B3-305: Sport in Europe?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 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-2591/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council (16 October 1996)

Subject: Disabled

The disabled account for 10% of the population in the European Union, but the Maastricht Treaty makes no specific reference to disability and the forms of social, cultural, occupational, and economic discrimination arising from it. Bearing in mind that the Intergovernmental Conference to revise the Treaties is now in progress, will the Council ensure that:

1. the Maastricht Treaty harmonizes economic and financial matters in the narrow sense by laying down a provision aimed first and foremost at upgrading social policies, especially for more vulnerable groups, the necessary basis for which already exists in Article 2 of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the Treaty;

2. the Treaty is amended with a view to guaranteeing equal opportunities by means of specific references to the disabled in the relevant legislation, especially as regards to the right to care, work, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society;

3. the Agreement on social policy is incorporated into the body of the Treaty in order to enhance the credibility of the European institutions and create an appropriate social climate for European integration and economic development?

Answer (13 February 1997)

The Council attaches the greatest importance to the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

The Council cannot however comment on the discussions under way in the Intergovernmental Conference, in which it is not a participant.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3627/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Item B3-2001: Measures to encourage cultural initiatives in connection with European influence

Can the Commission give a breakdown, on an association-by-association and activity-by-activity basis, of the amount of the subsidies granted in respect of the 1995 financial year from the following item:

B3-2001: Measures to encourage cultural initiatives in connection with European influence?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 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-3616/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Financing of certain associations from the Community budget

Can the Commission provide full details of the amounts granted, under the 1995 budget (taking all relevant budget headings together) to the following French trade-union organisation:

- Confédération Francaise Démocratique des Travailleurs (CFDT)

at national level and to its branches in the regions and departments?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 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-3495/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: New customs duties which Turkey intends to levy on imports

The Customs Union Agreement signed by Turkey on 6 March 1995 provides, inter alia, that the contracting parties may not impose customs tariffs or taxes on trade between them and are obliged to implement new customs tariffs in their relations with third countries.

On 22 July 1996, the Central Bank of Turkey decided to impose a new tax of 6% on foreign currency loans contracted in Turkey. In reply to question H-660/96 ((European Parliament debates (September 1996). )) the Council indicated that this new tax was a form of indirect taxation on imports since it was also imposed on credit transactions for the funding of imports, which would have required prior consultation with the Turkish authorities.

Hence, this decision by Turkey to impose new taxes runs counter to the commitments it entered into with regard to the European Union concerning implementation of the Customs Union.

In the report adopted by the Commission on 9 October 1996 on the progress of relations between the EU and Turkey since the entry into force of the Customs Union, no reference is made to this new tax imposed by the Turkish Government.

Why did the Commission avoid any reference to this in its report and what steps does it intend to take in response to this indirect increase in duties in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 January 1997)

In its answer to the Honourable Member's Oral Question No H-0661/96 on the same subject, the Commission stated that it was still examining the conformity of the 6% tax on foreign currency loans adopted in Turkey last July with the provisions on indirect taxation in the Customs Union Decision No 1/95 of the European Community-Turkey Association Council on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union.

Firstly, the Commission would point out that the loans subject to the tax at issue can be used in a wide variety of activities not limited to funding imports. It is not, therefore, a fiscal measure equivalent to a customs duty.

Furthermore, Article 50 of the Decision on the Customs Union regarding aspects of indirect taxation provides, in particular, that taxation on imported products must not exceed that on similar domestic products. In the case in point, it appears that the same tax rate is imposed in Turkey on loans in national currency. It follows that the tax in question is not of a discriminatory nature proscribed by Article 50.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3151/96 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Women in developing countries

What projects in favour of women has the Commission funded to date in the developing countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3149/96, E-3150/96 and E-3151/96 given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1997)

The Council Resolution of 20 December 1995 on integrating gender issues in development cooperation, translates into the field of development cooperation the political commitments undertaken in the Beijing Conference. Actions the Commission is currently undertaking, to fulfill these commitments include:

- training and sensitization of staff in gender issues;

- providing technical guidance and expertise on the integration of gender issues to cover the financial and technical cooperation of the Commission at the level of projects, programmes, policies and strategies;

- influencing the internal procedures of the Commission in order to ensure the integration of gender issues at all stages of project and programme design, implementation and evaluation. This, in particular, involves monitoring of and guidance regarding the use of the so called gender impact assessment form, which is compulsory for all projects presented to the committees for developing countries and for Latin America, Asia and Mediterranean non member countries.

As requested by the Council Resolution, and after consultations with the gender and development experts from the Community and Member States, the Commmission is in the process of drafting precise proposals for common criteria and indicators for reporting on the implementation of the Resolution (Article 17). Budget line B7-611 (previously B7-5051 - current annual budget MECU 3) aims to provide a catalytic role within the Commission and to contribute to the larger use of mainstream funds for gender-sensitive development cooperation.

The Council will review the progress made by the Community and the Member States in the second half of 1997.

The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat general details of the projects that have been so far financed by the Commission for women in developing countries.

The Commission does not restrict itself to funding specific actions for women, as experience suggests that such actions can only have a limited impact in the long term. Most activities in favour of women, accordingly, are financed under the main budget lines for development cooperation, in the form of integrated projects addressing both women and men, but with specific attention to the needs of women. In addition, a number of large-scale positive action programmes specifically for women are also funded on these mainstream budget lines. Furthermore, budget lines exist also for non-governmental organisation (NGO) actions and for specific concerns, such as environment, or in respect of specific countries or regions. Such budget lines also finance actions in favour of women, either in the form of integrated projects, or positive actions in favour of women, or a combination of both.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2854/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (23 October 1996)

Subject: Nuclear industry in the Slovak Republic

1. What independent organization is monitoring the extension to, and retrofitting of, the Mochovce nuclear power station on the edge of the Danube plain where there have been a series of defects in the fabric of the building and the Soviet technology dating from the 1970s which have certainly not improved in the fourteen years since the building work began (the plant components have not been serviced)?

2. What is the Council's view of the environmental programmes caused by the fact that the cooling water required for the plant has to be pumped up at considerable cost from a distance of 10 km in order to guarantee the proper functioning of the power station?

Joint reply to Written Questions E-2846/96, E-2848/96, E-2850/96, E-2852/96 and E-2854/96 (13 February 1997)

1. The Council attaches the greatest importance to the protection of the environment against the dangers of ionizing radiation. Article 80, concerning nuclear safety, of the Europe Agreement establishing the Association with the Slovak Republic stipulates that the aim of the cooperation is to provide for a safer use of nuclear energy. This aspect of cooperation covers several of the areas to which the Honourable Member refers and includes the exchange of information and experience and research and development activities.

2. The Honourable Member might also note that at the last Association Council meeting with the Slovak Republic the Community side stressed the importance of energy and, in particular, nuclear safety, for Slovakia and its role in the country's preparation for accession. The Community is strongly committed to a high level of safety in nuclear power stations and to close cooperation to achieve this. The Community stresses the need to ensure that Slovak nuclear power stations that do not conform to internationally recognized safety guidelines are shut down as soon as possible.

3. It should also be noted that the Slovak republic has acceded to the IAEA Convention (Vienna) on nuclear safety principles and has thereby subscribed to the safety requirements laid down by that Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3444/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Recruitment of women chauffeurs by the institutions

Further to my Written Question E-3171/95 ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996, p. 39. )), what specific measures, such as the targeting of information described in the Commission's answer has the Commission taken to encourage the recruitment of women at all levels and for all available posts, particularly in view of the present recruitment of staff from the new Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1997)

As stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3171/95 ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996. )) the Commission will endeavour to recruit women to occupations which, for no valid reason, are traditionally a male preserve.

For that purpose, it will target information specifically on the female population so as to encourage women to take part in the competitions held periodically by the institutions to recruit drivers.

Moreover, thought will be given to developing relevant training measures to encourage applications for such posts from women already working in the institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2337/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (27 August 1996)

Subject: BSE in Great Britain

1. What inspection measures have been adopted in Great Britain to ensure that no infected material enters production in Great Britain or the other EU states?

2. What are the production figures for beef in Great Britain?

3. What are the export and import figures for beef for Great Britain?

4. What quantities of beef has Great Britain exported during the last ten years and to which countries?

5. To what extent have rendering plants in Great Britain been brought into line with EU standards?

6. How are sheep infected with scrapie disposed of in the rendering plants?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2337/96 and E-2339/96 (20 May 1997)

1. The Council has been informed, as has the European Parliament ((PE 218.976. )), that the United Kingdom banned the use of animal meal for the feeding of ruminants within its own territory on 18 July 1988 and the use of specified bovine offals (SBOs) in the animal meat industry there on 25 September 1990, measures subsequently tightened up on 2 November 1994.

2. Commission Decision 96/362/EC of 11 June 1996 amended Decision 96/239/EC on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996, p. 17 and 18. )). Accordingly, this Decision now specifies the method of production for gelatine and tallow, liable to enter the food/animal feed chains or destined for use in cosmetic, medical or pharmaceutical products, obtained from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom, which must be followed to enable such products to be exported from the United Kingdom.

3. It is for the Commission to ensure that Community rules are applied and enforced by the national authorities.

The Commission would therefore be better placed to explain the steps taken by the United Kingdom to ensure that the inspection measures introduced by the United Kingdom are in fact enforced.

The Commission could also provide the Honourable Member with technical data on beef and sheepmeat production in the United Kingdom, on trade flows from or to the United Kingdom and on the disposal of animals infected with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.