ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
No C 167/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 7. 82 
CORRIGENDA 
Corrigendum to the answer of Written Question No 1741/81 by Mrs Maij-Weggen to the Commission 
of the European Communities 
(Official Journal of the European Communities No C 111 of 3 May 1982) 
Page 15, answer to Written Question No 1741/81, first line: 
for: '... February 1981 
read: '... February 1982 ...'
No C 279/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 10. 85 
CORRIGENDA 
Corrigendum to the joint answer given by Mr Pfeiffer on behalf of the Commission to Written Questions 
No 2367/84 and No 30/85 
(Official Journal of the European Communities No C 255 of 7 October 1985) 
(85/C 279/25) 
Page 9, right-hand column, address in third indent: 
for: Tel. (02) 642 24 00 
read:N Tel. (02) 647 24 00
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/95 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (12 January 1996)

Subject: Community grants to associations, NGOs and other bodies

With regard to Article B3-101 (Youth for Europe), could the Commission give a complete list of associations or bodies which receive Community grants and the exact amount of these grants during the last financial year for which accounts have been closed?

Suplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3611/95 and E-3612/95 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (29 March 1996)

With regard to centralised actions, 473 projects involving 344 beneficiaries have received a total of ECU 6.7 million in grants. These projects related to youth initiatives (Action A.II.1), periods of voluntary service (Action A.II.2), European cooperation between training structures for youth workers (Action B.II), exchanges with non-member countries (Action D), information for young people (Action E.1), and multilateral activities by European youth organisations ((The list was forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament. )). ECU 264 321 has been allocated to 15 projects involving cooperation between youth structures in Member States1 and ECU 557 814 to the Eurodesk project, a transnational information network for young people.

With regard to decentralised actions, ECU 2.5 million was allocated to national agencies to cover their operating costs and for the supporting measures required for implementing the programme (launching the programme in the different Member States, thematic meetings, etc). The national agencies received ECU 12.4 million directly for intra-Community youth exchange activities (Action A.I) and for support and training for youth workers involved in exchanges (Action B.I); for these appropriations, they have until 31 May 1996 to finalise their reports to the Commission. The Commission does not yet have lists of projects supported by each Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3311/95 by Marie-France Stirbois (NI) to the Council (9 December 1995)

Subject: Situation of oyster farmers vis-à-vis EU legislation

Is it true that Community legislation on places where oysters may be kept and stored by oyster farmers stipulates that such premises must be 'masonry-built' and, therefore, that wooden constructions may not be used for such purposes?

Is it true that Community legislation stipulates that oyster farmers may transfer ownership of their work premises only to established oyster farmers?

Reply (20 May 1996)

On 15 July 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/492/EEC ((See OJ No L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 1. )) laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs.

The Directive, which has been in force since 1 January 1993, stipulates that oysters and other shellfish are to be placed on the market from dispatch centres approved by the competent authorities of the Member States.

For obvious reasons of public health the conditions for the approval of such centres, which are laid down in Chapter IV of the Annex to the Directive, stipulate in l(1)(a), that these centres of dispatch must have at least, on premises where shellfish are handled or stored, 'buildings or facilities of sound construction, designed and maintained adequately for the purpose of preventing contamination of live bivalve molluscs by any type of waste, dirty water, fumes, dirt or by the presence of rodents or other animals;'.

It is therefore clear that the provisions in the Directive require buildings or facilities which are of solid construction and easily cleaned, while leaving it to Member States to lay down the nature of the materials used for constructing dispatch centres, provided that the requirements of the Directive are met.

Furthermore, the conditions for the transfer of oyster-farmers' work premises are subject solely to national law and are not subject to any Community regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1817/95 by Tony Cunningham (PSE) to the Council (26 June 1995)

Subject: Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons: France

Is the Council aware of the problem of Member States' nationals imprisoned in France not being allowed to return to their country of origin under the provisions of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in cases where a customs fine has been imposed in addition to the prison sentence?

Joint Reply to Written Questions E-1817/95, E-1818/95 and E-3532/95 (10 October 1996)

1. The Council has not been called upon to comment on the application by the Member States in certain specific cases, including the one raised by the Honourable Member, of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which was concluded at the Council of Europe in 1983.

The Council therefore has no information enabling it to say to what extent Member States might or might not have refused the transfer of sentenced persons in certain particular circumstances.

2. The Council is, however, considering the possibility of examining and adjusting the instruments that exist with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including those concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3657/95 by Kyösti Toivonen (PPE) to the Commission (12 January 1996)

Subject: Excise duties on confectionery in the internal market

Is the Commission aware of the following problems associated with the high excise duties on confectionery which are still applied in Finland and Denmark?

Border checks have practically disappeared with EU membership, and the result has been a growing black market for illegally imported confectionery in these Member States. There is very little risk involved in evading the duty and the situation is a major concern for the legally operating confectionery importers, manufacturers and retailers.

In Finland, the implementation of the excise duty regime has created bureaucratic obstacles for the intra-Union trade in confectionery. The collection regime serves as an effective barrier to the trade, while various confectionery exporting companies are presently unable to export to other Member States on competitive terms due to fallacies in the collection system.

The harmonization of excise duties currently applies only to mineral fuels, alcohol and tobacco. There are, however, other excises such as the said confectionery taxes which create market distortions within the internal market.

Under current EU legislation, Member States are allowed to introduce and maintain such national excise duties provided that they do not give rise to border-crossing formalities. It has turned out, however, that it is very difficult to maintain an excise duty on confectionery without introducing some degree of border control.

Does the Commission agree that the present situation is not in compliance with the objectives of the internal market? If so, is the Commission going to use its powers under Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome to pursue necessary harmonization of legislation which would ensure the functioning of the internal market for confectionery?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

As the Honourable Member pointed out in his question, current EU legislation governing excise duties allows Member States to continue to apply national excise duties, even when set at a high level, other than those on mineral oils, alcohol, alcoholic beverages and manufactured tobacco. The legislature has endorsed this option provided that the introduction or maintenance of such national duties does not give rise to frontier-crossing formalities in trade between Member States.

In response to the Honourable Member's question, the Commission has undertaken an assessment of the relevant taxation and collection procedures applicable in Denmark and Finland. It would point out that, since the facts of the matter will be difficult to ascertain, the exercise will take some time. The Commission would hope to be in a position to provide an exhaustive answer by the end of the summer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0675/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of relations with the European Parliament, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of relations with the European Parliament were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of nuclear safety, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulation in the field of nuclear safety in 1994 originated with the Commission?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0374/95 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Commission (15 February 1995)

Subject: Compliance with directive on procedures for the award of public contracts

According to three experts, a member of the Netherlands Government, State Secretary T. van de Vondevoort, has violated the directive on procedures for the award of public service contracts by appointing two advisers without holding a public tendering procedure (NRC-Handelsblad, 2 December 1994).

Is this complaint well-founded? If not, why not? If so, on what date did the Commission give the Netherlands Government the opportunity to submit its observations pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)

The Commission has been informed that in September 1994, the secretary of state Mr Vondervoort appointed two advisers to a commission preparing the city-province (stadsprovincie) of Rotterdam. The services to be executed by these advisers related to the reorganisation process, necessary for the creation of this city-province, and were executed on the basis of a public service contract. Both advisers executed their tasks for a maximum period of one year and have in the meantime finalised their tasks. To one adviser, the sum of 41 125 Dutch Guilders has been paid, the equivalent of ECU 18 260, whereas to the other adviser, a sum of 61 507 Dutch Guilders has been paid, the equivalent of ECU 27 309.

Even though the Dutch authorities, at the time of the award of the contracts, considered these contracts two different public service contracts, the Commission is of the opinion that, since both contracts relate to one single reorganisation process and even consist of the same type of services, they constitute one single public service contract, divided into two different lots.

However, since the total value of this contract, ECU 45 569, is clearly below the threshold of ECU 200 000, defined by Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )), this Directive was not applicable and therefore the contract did not have to be awarded by a public tendering procedure.

On the basis of this information the Commission found that no infringement of Community law in the field of public procurement has been committed and did not pursue any action against the Netherlands government on the basis of Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of institutional questions and the Intergovernmental Conference, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of institutional questions and the Intergovernmental Conference were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/96 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Import quotas for ceramics from China

Imports from third countries of cheap ceramics which are copies of European designs pose a threat to European jobs and the European economy.

For example, Chinese copies of Villeroy & Boch plates have been launched on the European market at a fortieth of the original sales price.

What measures will be taken to counter this fraud? Will import quotas for Chinese ceramics be revised downwards if such actions are repeated?

What is the situation concerning the Commission's proposal to increase quotas for China by 10 per cent? Would such an increase not pose a direct threat to our ceramics industry and to jobs in the industry?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)

In its report to the Council on quantitative quotas applicable to certain products other than textiles originating in the People's Republic of China ((COM(95) 614 final, 6.12.1995 )), the Commission explicitly stated that counterfeiting by certain Chinese ceramic producers can aggravate the already disruptive effects of imports from China. As the Honourable Member points out, counterfeiting results in imports at substantially lower prices than those of Community goods.

Regulation (EC) 3286/94 ((OJ L 349, 31.12.1994. )) on barriers to trade and Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 ((OJ L 341, 30.12.1994. )) laying down customs measures against counterfeit and pirated goods enable the Commission to combat counterfeiting effectively, not only in the Community but also on external markets.

Since the ceramic and porcelain tableware sector remains a sensitive sector of Community industry, the Commission has proposed to the Council only a moderate increase of 10% in the level of quotas. This increase, which takes account of past experience of quotas, allows a certain balance to be preserved between adequate protection of Community industry and a normal trade flow with the People's Republic of China, reflecting the different interests at stake.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0657/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (8 March 1996)

Subject: Mr Emerson's case and TACIS funding

Given the concerns surrounding the Michael Emerson case, could the Commission:

1. Give a full breakdown of TACIS projects funded over the last five years, and an assessment of whether the money was well spent;

2. Investigate whether Mr Emerson or any of his business contacts benefited directly or indirectly from EU-funded projects;

3. Review whether EU money is being diverted for improper use;

4. Confirm whether criminal or other investigations are continuing into the activities of Mr Emerson during his period as EU Ambassador in Moscow;

5. Introduce immediate monitoring of EU TACIS funding to Russia, both before and after project completion?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (19 April 1996)

The Commission will regularly continue to provide the Parliament with the information agreed earlier (Tacis financial performance). An updated list of all projects (about 300) can be made available to the Honourable Member by the Commission.

The Commission did not consider it appropriate that Mr Emerson, while being an official in the Commission, undertook certain outside contacts in the perspective of his future career after resignation from the Commission service. The Commission has no evidence of corruption. It has no evidence that Mr Emerson abused his position to obtain advantages for himself or for his business contacts.

A Tacis monitoring system has been in place since 1993, and was reinforced in 1995. A description of the system is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The administrative and financial management of the Tacis programme (tenders, contracts, payments) is centralized in Brussels. There has so far been no decentralization of management responsibility by the Moscow delegation except for the small-scale 'Bistro' programme for which, however, strict administrative and financial procedures apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: Foie gras from ducks

It has been reported that one Member State is endeavouring to introduce at European level the 'protection of geographical indications' designation for foie gras from ducks.

Given that this may restrict freedom of competition as regards the production and marketing of duck products and given the answer of 8.11.1995 to a previous question I had tabled (2679/95) ((OJ C 109, 15.4.1996, p. 6.)) stating that the working party is examining the subject of restricting production of foie gras to male ducks, will the Commission say:

1. Has any other Member State requested the introduction of the above designation?

2. Has the working party come to any conclusions?

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

As regards the first part of the question, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's joint answer to written questions E-121/96 by Mr Kaklamanis and E-153/96 by Mr Hatzidakis. ((OJ C of 5.6. 1996, p. 43. ))

As regards the second part, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the working party set up at the meeting of the Management Committee for poultrymeat and eggs on 16 January 1996 to examine the scientific work on quality criteria for foie gras, does not yet have at its disposal all the information needed to be able to answer the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0705/96 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Imports of beer from third countries

Beer may not be imported into Italy from third countries unless an officially approved Italian body has issued a certificate confirming that the goods have been produced in the country of origin. Such a certificate is not required by the other Member States.

As a result, some types of beer have first to pass in transit through another Member State in order to be freely imported into Italy without a certificate.

1. Does the Commission not believe that the technical restrictions imposed in Italy are contrary to Directive 92/83/EEC? ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21. ))

2. Does it not also believe that such practices place Italian beer importers at a severe disadvantage?

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

The Honourable Member is probably referring to the certificate of conformity required by Italy for imports of beer from other countries, on the basis of Article 19 of Law No 1354 of 16 August 1962, as amended by Article 7 of Law No 329 of 14 July 1974.

The Commission considers that the imposition of the obligation to produce a certificate of this kind, with the aim of ensuring that imported beer has the characteristics laid down by Italy's legislation, is not contrary to Directive 92/83/EEC, which simply harmonizes the structure of some of the Member States' excise duties.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to Article 58(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code ((OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992. )). This provides for the option of applying certain restrictions, which come under the heading of national or Community legislation. In this particular case the restrictions are national ones. The Commission is nevertheless of the opinion that the Italian authorities should re-examine the advisability of maintaining them, in the light of the principles governing the operation of the internal market.