ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3406/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Controls on milk sold in cartons

The Spanish milk producers have called on the national agriculture and health ministries to introduce more effective controls on milk products which are sold in cartons at Ptas 80 or under, i.e. at less than the cost of production.

This request is based on the belief that this practice may involve economic fraud, since the milk is likely to be mixed with substances having no food value, even if there is no health risk.

Can the Commission state what Community control measures could be introduced in response to the request of the Spanish milk producers, and what position it would take and what concrete controls and measures it would implement should the suspected fraud be confirmed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

The Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. (It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: 'Hidden economy' and GDP

The media are increasingly reflecting the current difficulty of obtaining universally accepted statistics.

What proportion of GDP in Belgium is accounted for by the 'hidden economy'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3280/96, E-3298/96, E-3299/96, E-3300/96, E-3301/96, E-3302/96, E-3303/96, E-3304/96, E-3305/96, E-3306/96, E-3307/96, E-3308/96, E-3309/96, E-3310/96, E-3311/96, E-3312/96 and E-3313/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

It is not possible at this stage to accurately estimate the impact of the hidden economy on gross domestic product, since the methods used differ considerably from one Member State to the next and several Member States also make implicit corrections which are very difficult to assess.

It is intended that the work on the issue of exhaustiveness be completed by the end of 1998, and it should then be possible to compile the estimates requested with a certain degree of reliability and comparability between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Problems facing tomato producers in Basilicata

In Palazzo San Gervasio and the surrounding area, tomato crops covering approximately 600 hectares which are now ripe cannot be harvested because the processing industry is unwilling to accept them on the grounds that they are not covered by the quota.

The Community aid earmarked for tomatoes is allocated directly to the processing industry, which, with a view to achieving full capacity, draws up special preliminary contracts with producers' associations. Such associations, most of which have direct links with the canning industry, tend to conclude contracts over and above the quotas allocated. As a result, it is sometimes impossible to find a market outlet for entire crops, which is what has happened in the case in point.

There is obviously something wrong here. There is good reason to assume that either the relevant Community legislation has not been properly transposed into Italian law or the quotas - and, thereby, the aid provided by the Community - are aimed at industry rather than at producers.

Would the Commission carry out a check at Community level on the allocation of aid to the canning industry,

and can it guarantee that the aid itself will be allocated fairly in the light of the quotas theoretically allocated to producers by means of preliminary contracts?

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

The Community aid scheme for processed tomato products is laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 668/93. ((OJ L 72, 25.3.1993. )) Based on a quota scheme per undertaking and product, the Regulation does not apply to quantities produced over and above those laid down; these are directly negotiated between producers and processing undertakings, and do not qualify for Community aid.

It is up to the Member State to grant quotas to processing undertakings, verify their registers, check aid requests and then examine the undertakings themselves.

For its part, and where the availability of personnel permits, the Commission can carry out checks on the payment of Community aid and the allocation of quotas to processing undertakings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: Cull of cattle affected by BSE

Since bovine spongiform encephalopathy was discovered in 1986, how many head of beef cattle have been culled in the United Kingdom because of the disease? How much has been paid to stockbreeders in the United Kingdom in compensation for the compulsory cull of their cattle?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1996)

From the beginning of the epidemic until 6 September 1996 194 837 suspected bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were slaughtered in the United Kingdom and 164 796 of these suspected cases have been confirmed. From 1988 until 1995 the compensation to the farmers for suspect BSE cases amounts to £ 95.5 million (114 MECU) and the forecast for 1995/1996 expenditures amounts to £ 9.6 million (11.5 MECU). There is no Community contribution to the cost of this measure.

From May 1996 until 2 October 1996, in the over thirty months scheme whereby cattle over the age of 30 months are destroyed and not used for human consumption, there have been approximately 550 000 cattle culled and the total compensation paid or to be paid for these animals is approximately £ 250 million (300 MECU). An additional national premium is paid to pure beef farmers amounting to £ 32 million (38 MECU). The

Community financial contribution has been set at 70% of the standard compensation for the animals in the scheme through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 716/96 of 19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom ((OJ L 99, 20.4.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3307/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: 'Hidden economy' and GDP

The media are increasingly reflecting the current difficulty of obtaining universally accepted statistics.

What proportion of GDP in Ireland is accounted for by the 'hidden economy'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3280/96, E-3298/96, E-3299/96, E-3300/96, E-3301/96, E-3302/96, E-3303/96, E-3304/96, E-3305/96, E-3306/96, E-3307/96, E-3308/96, E-3309/96, E-3310/96, E-3311/96, E-3312/96 and E-3313/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

It is not possible at this stage to accurately estimate the impact of the hidden economy on gross domestic product, since the methods used differ considerably from one Member State to the next and several Member States also make implicit corrections which are very difficult to assess.

It is intended that the work on the issue of exhaustiveness be completed by the end of 1998, and it should then be possible to compile the estimates requested with a certain degree of reliability and comparability between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/96 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council (27 August 1996)

Subject: Conclusions of the Council of 18 June 1996 on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

In its conclusions of 18 June 1996 the Council made the recommendation that the epidemiological monitoring of CJD (Creutzfeld-Jakob disease) should be extended to all Member States using the procedures already applied in five Member States.

Does this wording mean that Creutzfeld Jakob disease has been made a notifiable disease in all Member States of the European Union?

If not, what steps does the Council intend to take to introduce such a procedure?

Answer (13 February 1997)

In the conclusions on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) cited by the Honourable Member, the Council made a number of recommendations concerning suggested measures to eliminate the actual or potential risks connected with such diseases, including the extension to all Member States of epidemiological surveillance of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (CJD) using the same methods as had been applied in five of them.

Those recommendations do not, as such, have any binding effect but are the expression of a political will directed towards the Commission and the Member States in particular. The Honourable Member's first question has therefore to be answered in the negative at this point.

As regards the second question, the Council would point out that the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, based on Article 129 of the EC Treaty, setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of transmissible diseases within the European Community provides for the communication of information on a range of transmissible diseases, including those transmitted by unconventional agents, of which CJD is one. That proposal, on which Parliament recently delivered its Opinion, is currently under discussion within the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2580/96 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission (24 September 1996)

Subject: Cuts in humanitarian aid to the Transcaucasian countries

Parliament's Delegation for relations with Transcaucasus visited the three countries in question in June-July 1996. The delegation met with NGOs financed by ECHO and was informed of their activities. The cuts in ECHO allocations in 1996 will cause serious problems in the continuity of some of their programmes, e.g. infant food distribution, heating of schools and meal-service for the elderly will be endangered.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the problems caused by the drastic cuts in the humanitarian aid to the Transcaucasian states will not jeopardize the survival of the poorest strata of these transitional societies?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The Commission contribution to the Transcaucasus has been reduced from 80 MECU in 1995 to 26 MECU in 1996. Nearly 18 MECU was allocated in December 1995 in order to finance on-going operations in 1996. If this is taken into consideration, available funds were reduced by 30% only (from 62 MECU in 1995 to 44 MECU in 1996).

In view of the reduction in funds the Commission has taken several measures to ensure on-going assistance to the poorest strata of the transitional societies. Detailed assessments have been carried out in order better to identify the most needy and to fine-tune criteria for targeting beneficiaries. Programmes not specifically targeting the most needy households, such as distribution of small amounts of food to all infants, and country-wide support to schools have been phased out or re-tailored. The latter was carried out in view of expanding support from institutional donors and rapidly increasing structural assistance. Also, partners have been urged to increase cost-effectiveness by pooling purchases, distributing food from bulk, increasing local purchases and replacing expatriate by national staff, which is possible and appropriate in a post-emergency situation emerging in the Transcaucasus.

Due to these measures, assistance to the most vulnerable could be assured and strengthened despite the cuts. Assistance (food, medical care and winter relief supplies) to the elderly without support, has increased from 4 MECU in 1995 to 7 MECU in 1996. However, it is equally true that funding of several on-going programmes will be interrupted at the end of the year. Partners are aware and are seeking alternative funding.

This change in strategy, which could be classified as the transformation of a demand-driven strategy into a pro-active strategy, taking into account the post-emergency situation, which already started in 1995, has been discussed extensively with all partners, authorities and other donors. The new strategy makes it possible to prepare the gradual phasing out of humanitarian aid programmes and would have entailed, in any case, the end of support to several of the programmes which non governmental organisations apparently mentioned during the visit of Parliament's delegation in June-July 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/96 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (14 October 1996)

Subject: Commission Decisions 96/239/EC, 96/362/EC and 96/449/EC

In its Decisions 96/239/EC ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996, p. 47. )), 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996, p. 17. )) and 96/449/EC ((OJ L 184, 24.7.1996, p. 43. )) the Commission permits the export of gelatin obtained from British cattle provided that compliance with certain strict procedures is ensured.

1. How many firms in the United Kingdom have so far claimed they are able to satisfy the strict conditions relating to the treatment of gelatin obtained from cattle?

2. Who monitors compliance with these requirements at the firms concerned?

3. What is the outcome of this monitoring, and where can the findings be read?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1996)

1. None.

2. Any establishment wishing to produce gelatin from cattle slaughtered in the United Kingdom for dispatch to other Member States or to third countries, may only be authorized to do so if it is operating under official veterinary control and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 96/239/EC as amended by Commission Decision 96/362/EC. Moreover, before gelatin may be dispatched from such an establishment, the Commission must carry out an inspection to verify the application of the provisions of the Decision. The date on which dispatch may commence will then be set by the Commission after consultation of the Member States within the standing veterinary committee.

3. As no establishment has requested authorization, no such monitoring has been carried out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3482/96 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Implementation of DAC guidelines

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has adopted seven sets of guidelines on development and the environment.

As the Commission is a full member of the DAC, are these guidelines legally binding? If not, to what extent and in what way does the Commission apply the DAC guidelines in its development projects and programmes?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has actually adopted nine sets of guidelines on aid and the environment. These guidelines are not legally binding on the members of the DAC but are, nonetheless, recommendations that DAC members have pledged to integrate into their own strategic and practical guidelines in environmental and development aid matters.

The OECD's guidelines are essentially aimed at helping the policy makers and officials, both in the donor organizations and in the developing countries, to draw up regional and international environmental strategies, programmes and projects. In this connection, the Commission has distributed all the OECD/DAC guidelines to the geographical and technical units in charge of implementing Community development cooperation measures, and the delegations of the Commission.

As regards environmental impact analysis, the Commission's specific policies are based on the OECD's guidelines and reflect their recommendations, not only regarding impact analysis, but also on issues relating to national strategies for the environment and the involuntary displacement and resettlement of local people.

In designing and implementing development projects to which it contributes, the Commission regularly uses the thematic guidelines covering chemical products management, combatting parasites, reducing the impact of natural disasters, protecting marine and coastal environments, and using wetlands.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3925/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (10 January 1997)

Subject: Infringement of freedom of establishment (Article 58 et seq. of the Treaty of Rome)

In a circular from the Ministry of the Interior No. 559/c 22103, 12015 of 2 July 1996 entitled 'Out-of-court procedures for the recovery of loans: legislation applicable', the Chief of Police classified as public business agencies or offices all firms which, whatever their structure, are willing to act as go-betweens in taking up or dealing with the business of third parties, including commission agents and intermediaries.

Their inclusion, laid down in an administrative order and not formalized by a State Law means that Royal Decree 733/1931 applies to loan recovery agencies. The Decree provides that action can be taken only in the territory of the province which issues the authorization.

This implies an obvious restriction on the freedom of establishment referred to in Article 58 et seq. of the Treaty on European Union.

Can the Commission ascertain whether the Italian State is infringing freedom of establishment?

If there is an infringement, does the Commission intend to exercise its right of censure/duty vis-à-vis the Italian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 February 1997)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts in order to obtain all available information on the matter described. It will not hesitate to initiate the procedure provided in Article 169 of the EC Treaty, should this prove necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3452/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Roma/gypsies

Is the Commission still intending to produce a White Paper on the Roma people?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

Gypsies, particularly in central and eastern Europe, are the subject of a study recently launched by the Commission.

The findings of the study will dictate whether or not the issue should be looked at in more detail and made the subject of a communication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3135/96 by Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: The human rights situation in Bulgaria

Is the Commission aware of the alarming deterioration in respect for human rights in Bulgaria?

How will it respond to this situation, which constitutes an obstacle to Bulgaria's future integration in the European Union, as the conditions laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 requiring applicant countries to achieve 'stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and protection of minorities' are not being fulfilled?

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

The constitution enshrines Bulgaria's status as a parliamentary democracy, guarantees the rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens, defines the powers of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches and includes a constitutional court. Recently presidential elections were held and Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe observers praised the exemplary professionalism with which the polls were organised.

As regards the issue of human rights in general, Bulgaria has ratified most international and regional conventions concerning human rights and minorities and its record has improved significantly over the last five years. However, recent non governmental organisation reports indicate a deterioration, in particular the ill treatment of detainees.

The severe economic crisis in Bulgaria is having a strong impact on the socio-economic situation and in particular on the unemployed, retired and other disadvantaged groups in society, including certain minority groups.

As a result of the continuing difficult economic situation, there are indications of growing socio-economic divisions between the ethnic Bulgarians, the ethnic Turks, the Pomak and the Roma population. The Commission takes advantage of appropriate occasions to draw human rights problems to the attention of the Bulgarian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3392/96 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Budgetary discipline - monthly EAGGF Guarantee Section advances

In its decision of 31 October 1994 on budgetary discipline (94/729/EC ((OJ L 293, 12.11.1994, p. 14. ))), the Council ruled that the Commission may reduce or provisionally suspend the monthly EAGGF Guarantee section advances in the event of non-compliance with Community rules and clear misuse of Community funds.

Could the Commission list the occasions on which it has had recourse to that procedure since then?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 January 1997)

Article 13 of Council Decision 94/729/EC of 31 October 1994 on budgetary discipline stipulates that in cases where the Commission finds manifest non-compliance with the rules and a clear misuse of Community funds, it may reduce or provisionally suspend the monthly advances to Member States.

The Commission has used these powers several times, the first occasion being when deciding on the monthly advances to be paid to the Member States at the beginning of December 1994. Advances were reduced for several Member States because the Commission had noted non-compliance with payment deadlines ((Deadlines by which Community aid should be paid by the Member States to beneficiaries. )) and ceilings fixed by the rules. Most of the reductions in advances decided by the Commission during the 1995 and 1996 financial years also resulted from non-compliance with payment deadlines and ceilings.

The Commission is sending a table giving details of the reductions in and suspensions of advances decided pursuant to Article 13 of Decision 94/729/EC directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3617/96 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 des Travailleurs Chrétiens (CFTC)

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-3632/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4103: Measures to combat poverty and social exclusion

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:

B3-4103: Measures to combat poverty and social exclusion?

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.