ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2322/96 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL), Marjatta Stenius-Kaukonen (GUE/NGL), Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) and Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Late payment to trainees

While on a visit to the Autonomous Region of the Azores, Portugal, we attempted to obtain information about current or previous Community initiatives in order to gauge their impact. We accordingly travelled to the parish of Rabo de Peixe, on the island of São Miguel, since we knew that activities connected with the NOW and Horizon initiatives had been taking place there.

We were greatly impressed by some of the things we saw and found out and have commented or will comment on them on other occasions. Leaving that point aside, however, we were told that a portion of the grants due to trainees had not been paid. Evidence was even produced in the shape of a signed petition, dated May 1996, calling for the payment in question to be made.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? What can it do to rectify such unacceptable and inexplicable delays as quickly as is required by the circumstances of the persons concerned?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)

Requests for final payments in respect of the NOW and Horizon initiatives (1991-93) should have been forwarded by the Portuguese authorities to the Commission on 31 December 1995.

As regards the NOW initiative (1991-93), the request for final payment was submitted by the Portuguese authorities on 22 August 1996, but it is incomplete. In a letter sent on 17 September 1996, the Commission drew attention to the missing elements of the dossier.

With regard to the Horizon initiative (1991-93), an incomplete request for final payment was submitted on 30 July 1996. This request will not be admissible until all the elements of the dossier have been forwarded. In a letter sent on 11 September 1996, the Commission drew attention to the missing elements of the dossier.

Accordingly, the Commission is at present unable to pay to the Portuguese authorities the final balance in respect of these two initiatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2196/96 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Hospital waste

Is it true that no report has been submitted to the Commission on hospital waste since no reports pursuant to Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. )) have been received from the Member States?

Is the Commission aware of the risks of microbiological contamination through hospital waste, and what action does it intend to take to control this source of risk at Community level?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1996)

The Commission is not aware of an obligation to make a specific report on hospital waste. This type of waste is covered by Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. The Commission is drawing up, on the basis of Member States' reports, a consolidated report on the implementation of Directives 75/442/EEC (waste), 91/689/EEC (hazardous waste), 75/439/EEC (waste oils) and 86/278/EEC (sewage sludge), which will shortly be publicly available.

The Commission is aware of the risk of microbiological contamination by hospital waste and a special project group, including representatives from governments, the Commission, industry, environmental and consumer protection organizations, was created within the priority waste streams programme which studied the particular problems posed by hospital waste for several years.

On the basis of the results of this project group, which finalised its work in 1995, the Commission is currently examining the need to take action at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2187/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: UK Hum

Scientists have identified a phenomenon of a perceived low frequency sound known as the 'UK Hum' which is said to affect 6% of the UK population. 2% of the population of the USA is said to be affected by a similar phenomenon.

Is the Commission aware of any occurrences in other Member States of the European Union and, if so, does it have any information as to the geographical distribution?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

The Commission has no information about this perceived low frequency sound.

No research is currently in progress on this question at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Italy

The Court of Auditors' 1994 Annual Report states that irregularities were detected with regard to strict monitoring of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market in Italy, which possibly indicated that the Italian authorities were not carrying out sufficiently thorough quality controls.

In view of the Commission's reply to the Court of Auditors, that its inspectors would carry out a detailed investigation into this matter, what have been the results of these inspections, and what were the financial implications?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

In its 1994 Annual Report the Court of Auditors did indeed express doubts regarding the thoroughness of the quality controls carried out by Italian authorities.

The Court did not say that the financial compensation for the withdrawals should not have been paid but the Commission will take account of the Court's observations when carrying out checks on the withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Italy and will draw any financial implications necessary when settling the 1994 accounts.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2478/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (13 September 1996)

Subject: Trade in olive oil with Tunisia - restatement of Written Question No E-1737/96 following the Commission's reply of 16 July 1996

On 27 March 1996 the Commission replied to a first written question, which was tabled in February 1996 (No E-0470/96) ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 33. )). In June 1996, that question was restated and a number of specific points for discussion were put forward (Written Question No E-1737/96) ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p. 133. ))).

Given that the reply to that question can only be seen as extremely evasive and totally unacceptable, would the Commission not agree that it should:

- clarify its reply of 27 March 1996, given that the questions asked were transparently clear; and

- recommend that the relevant Tunisian authority confirm the effects of the Presidential Decree of 25 December 1995 and, thereby, the blocking of exports of olive oil?

It should be pointed out the above decree expires on 31 October 1996 and that the Commission's continuing failure to take a decision on the matter at a time when the Community's oil-producing capacity has fallen is causing consumer prices to rise, with direct implications for real inflation rates.

Would the Commission therefore make representations to the Tunisian authorities, and if necessary impose sanctions for breach of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement of 17 May 1995?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

Further to the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-1737/96, ((OJ C 297 of 8.10.1996. )) it should be pointed out that the Commission does not consider the Tunisian Presidential Decree of 25 December 1995 to be incompatible with the bilateral agreement between the Community and Tunisia in effect since 1978. This agreement is still applicable, and consequently, the Commission has no intention of asking the Tunisian authorities to annul the decree.

However, the new agreement concluded in 1995 between the Community and Tunisia provides for the adjustment of state monopolies of a commercial nature. There will be a five-year period for this to be effected, beginning when the agreement takes effect. The agreement will enter into force as soon as the parliamentary ratification process is concluded. The Commission will ensure that Tunisia complies with the new agreement.

The Commission believes that price increases in the olive oil sector can be put down to the decline in Community and international supply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: European Year against Racism

With the approach of 1997, the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia, what view does the Commission take of the secret, summary expulsion, which was condemned by NGOs and the Spanish Ombudsman, of 103 African illegal immigrants from Spain?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the question concerning the procedures for deporting illegal immigrants are the exclusive competence of the Member States.

However, since Article K.1 of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union defines policy regarding nationals of third countries as being a matter of common interest, the Council has adopted a number of texts governing cooperation in regard to the removal of persons illegally present on the territory of the Member States. Although these texts are not binding, they lay down common principles which the Member States are invited to adhere to in accordance with their respective domestic legal orders. These principles include the right of persons subject to deportation to appeal the decisions, as well as compliance with the international conventions on the protection of human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1950/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: BSE

1. After prohibiting exports for some three months, the Commission decided to relax the ban on gelatin, tallow and semen from British stocks.

(a) On what recent studies was this decision based?

(b) If there are no studies showing these products to be harmless, what was the basis for the revision within three months of a decision that was taken on scientific grounds?

2. Why was the decision to relax the export ban taken against the will of the Scientific Committee for Food?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1948/96 and E-1950/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

Commission Decision 96/239/EC on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)SSSS ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )) was taken as a safeguard measure in order to allow for re-evaluation of the situation. This Decision was based on the opinion of the scientific veterinary committee of 22 March 1996.

Commission Decision 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )) amending Decision 96/239/EC was based on a scientific assessment that gelatin and tallow produced in accordance with the rules laid down in the Annex to the Decision, and semen, were considered safe. One of the most important criteria in assessing the safety of the gelatin is the sourcing of the raw material. In this respect, therefore, all tissues which have been shown to contain infectivity or could be contaminated with the infective agent (skull, vertebral column, brain, spinal cord, eye, tonsil, thymus, intestines and spleen) are excluded. The skin and bones which may be used in gelatin manufacture are classified as low risk tissues.

An interim report by Inveresk research international limited, an independent research laboratory, on the validation of the clearance of scrapie from the manufacturing process of gelatin (IRI Project No 851180) was another element used in the risk-assessment of gelatin. The study was financed by the gelatine manufacturers of Europe, an organisation with members throughout Europe.

As a result of the final report by Inveresk research international limited, which was presented to the Commission after Decision 96/362/EC had been adopted, the Commission has asked its scientific advisers to re-assess the safety of gelatin. However, other scientific evidence supports the thesis that chemical and heat treatments used in gelatin manufacturing will contribute to the inactivation of any agent which could be present. Further research on the inactivation of the BSE and scrapie agents in gelatin manufacture are under consideration.

Decision 96/362/EC requires that the export of gelatin from the United Kingdom will not take place until the Commission has carried out inspections and found the production to be in accordance with the Decision. This will not be implemented until the scientific advice is clarified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2646/96 by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Participation in the Lingua programme

During a discussion on the White Paper on Teaching and Learning, the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media was informed that the Lingua programme is very successful and is used particularly by apprentices.

How many courses and seminars are being organized this year?

How many apprentices are taking part in the Lingua programme?

How many States are participating?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (30 October 1996)

The Lingua programme aims to improve the quality and the quantity of language-learning within the Community. It operates in all Member States and in the other three countries of the European economic area (EEA).

It promotes all the official languages of the Community (Danish, Spanish, German, Greek, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Finnish and Swedish), together with Irish, Letzeburgesch, Icelandic and Norwegian. A high priority is attached to supporting the teaching and learning of the less widely used and less widely taught languages of the Community.

The five actions within Lingua encourage teacher training institutions jointly to develop curricula, materials, and training schemes to improve the training of language teachers, to provide grants for language teachers to attend training courses abroad, to enable future language teachers to spend a period as a language teaching assistant in a school in another participating country, to encourage transnational cooperation in the development of instruments for language-teaching and to enable groups of young people at educational or training establishments in two Member States to work together over a period of time.

It is this latter action (E) which most affects apprentices and young people in vocational training, though courses and seminars are not a part of this action.

The joint educational project (JEP) is jointly designed and is always closely related to their education and training. Direct communication between the young people of the different groups is the primary focus of the project. In working together, the young people become more interested in learning and communicating in a language other than their own, and become more motivated to do so. In addition, at the end of the project, they have the benefit of a tangible piece of work which relates their learning to the experience of other European cultures.

Latest figures available show that in the school year 1995/1996, over 1 800 joint educational projects took place under Lingua action E. These involved some 40 000 pupils and some 4 000 teachers from schools and vocational training establishments in the 15 Member States and the 3 EEA countries. The vocational and technical education sector is given priority in this action, and over 50% of participants come from this sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/96 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Appearance of Italian fishing vessels under flags of convenience

EU Regulation 345/92 ((OJ L 42, 18.2.1992, p. 15. )) unambiguously outlaws the use of driftnets longer than 2.5 km. The UN's Resolution 46/215 has similarly established a moratorium (theoretically in force since 31 December 1992) on the use of driftnets longer than 2.5 km.

Parliament has on various occasions condemned the systematic breach of these resolutions, in particular by Italian fishing vessels. In reply to question 2087/95 ((OJ C 300, 13.11.1995, p. 44. )), the Commission stated that 648 Italian vessels were detected last year fishing illegally in the Mediterranean.

In recent weeks Italian fishing vessels have been observed engaging in illegal activities under the flags of third countries (Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, etc) and subsequently unloading their catches in Italian ports, thus making a mockery of Community law.

Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this situation? If so, does it intend to take any action?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, it cannot confirm the statement by the Honourable Member regarding Italian vessels registered in third countries such as Albania, Croatia and Cyprus using driftnets exceeding 2.5 km and landing their catches in Italy.

The Commission will do its utmost to ensure that all Member States involved in the driftnet fishery enforce current Community legislation both with respect to vessels flying their own flag and those of third countries when fishing inside Community waters. To this end, the Commission chartered a vessel which operated as an inspection platform for national and Commission inspectors in the Mediterranean during the period 16 May-28 June 1996. Inspections carried out during that time revealed non-compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 345/92. The Commission has received no reports of sightings of third country vessels using driftnets in the areas patrolled by the vessel (waters off the Balearic Islands, Ionian and Aegean Seas, the waters off Sicily and Sardinia and the Tyrrhenian Sea).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1961/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Legislation on the implantation of human genes into animals

Can the Commission list any legislation in place to control the sale of animals that have been implanted with human genes for the purposes of medical research?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

There is no specific legislation in place to control the sale of animals that have been implanted with human genes for the purposes of medical research.

Council Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117 of 8 May 1990, p. 15. )) on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms contains provisions for the marketing of products containing or consisting of GMOs which are intended for release into the environment. The animals to which the honourable MEP refers, are restricted to contained use but are not covered by Directive 90/219/EEC ((OJ L 117 of 8 May 1990, p. 1. )) on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms since this Directive applies only to micro-organisms.

All animals used for experimental purposes including those used for the purposes of medical research are covered by the Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358 of 18 December 1986, p. 1. )) on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: European Commission delegations in South America

Can the Commission indicate the size and location of its delegation in the countries of South America at present?

What is the total cost of these delegations?

Does the Commission plan any changes in its delegations to this region?

What reports are available to the European Parliament concerning the work of these delegations?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the table below setting out the information he requested.

>TABLE>

This year the overall budget for running these delegations is ECU 7.5 million, excluding officials' salaries.

The Commission is not currently planning any changes in its delegations in the region.

It has no specific report on the work of these delegations in South America, but a report on the work of the Commission's external delegations ((COM(95) 68 final. )) in general was sent to Parliament in May last year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: The letting of holiday homes in Tenerife

Is the Commission aware of new legislation in Tenerife that will prevent foreign owners from letting their properties to holiday workers?

Is this not discriminatory and therefore illegal?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2174/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: The primate trade

Would the Commission explain what action it plans to take to prevent the cruel practice of certain European airlines which import monkeys into Europe for experimentation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2174/96 and E-2243/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The importation of primates and their transport into the Community by airlines is a legal activity. There are current needs for primates, judged by the appropriate authorities to be essential, which cannot be met by the supply and use of animals already available in the Community.

If the transport of these animals by air were banned, while their importation into the Community were still permitted, the result would be greatly increased suffering, as animals would be flown to third countries then imported into the Community by land or sea. This would result in much longer journeys for them and more suffering. Indeed, this is already happening, as many airlines have yielded to pressure and have stopped transporting primates.

It is not possible to deal in a piecemeal way with the undoubted difficulties inherent in the use of primates as laboratory animals. The Commission is therefore developing a comprehensive strategy which would:

a. require a much stronger justification for the use of primates in laboratories, as a way of reducing the numbers required,

b. improve communication with regard to the availability of animals already in Member States, as a way of reducing the need to import them from outside,

c. encourage, where possible, the provision of purpose-bred animals within the Community, to meet genuine needs.

This strategy should be combined with a determination by all concerned to seek a progressive reduction in the need for primates to be used as laboratory animals, the ultimate goal being the elimination of any such need.

These matters will be considered at a conference to be organised by the Commission in early 1997, at which the Community policy of 50% reduction in the use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes by the year 2000 will be discussed.