ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Conversion of a Christian church into a lodge

According to a report in the Turkish-Cypriot newspaper 'Cyprus Today', the church of the Panayia Eleousas Sina in the Carpasia region, which is occupied by the Turkish army, has been converted into a holiday lodge by the illegal Turkish-Cypriot authorities. The church was declared an ecclesiastic treasure on 31 August 1965 by the Department of Antiquities of the Cypriot Republic.

How will the Commission react and what sanctions will it impose to put an end to the incessant, crude, provocative and contemptuous acts of the Turkish army of occupation and of official Turkey?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1413/96 and E-1432/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Commission does not have concrete information on the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

It recalls that Community policy concerning the Cypriot question was reaffirmed during the last Association Council with Cyprus. Negotiations for Cyprus' accession to the Union will begin, on the basis of a Commission proposal, six months after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference and taking its results into account. The Community further expressed its support for a comprehensive settlement of the Cypriot question in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, based on the concept of a bi-communal and bi-zonal Cypriot federation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1450/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Women on the edge, women's jobs and insecurity in the 1990s

Is the Commission aware that the TUC published on 13 March 1996 a publication entitled 'Women on the edge - women's jobs and insecurity in the 1990s' in which the continued major disadvantages women face in the labour market were highlighted?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to eradicate women's disadvantages in the job market?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

Yes, the Commission has received the publication cited by the Honourable Member.

Council Decision 95/593/EC on a medium-term Community action programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996-2000) ((OJ L 335, 30.12.1995. )), states that one of the aims of the programme is to promote equal opportunities for men and women in a changing economy, especially in the fields of education, vocational training and the labour market.

One of the main principles of the action programme is to incorporate equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities. The Commission's communication on this subject ((COM(96) 67 final. )) confirms the Commission's commitment to encouraging measures to promote women's employment and improving their position in the labour market. It also mentions the integration of equal opportunities policy into the structural funds, which, since the 1993 regulations ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), include equal opportunities among the objectives and lay down the respect of the principle of equal opportunities in the implementation of measures financed under the structural funds.

The Commission also stresses the importance of incorporating equal opportunities policy into labour market policy aiming to fight unemployment. Equal opportunities in the field of employment is one of the guidelines agreed at the Essen, Cannes and Madrid European Councils.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Infringement of the Treaty of Lausanne

According to the Turkish newspaper 'Hürriyet', the Turkish authorities have announced the construction of a reservoir involving the flooding of a Turkish village in the Gallipoli area, and the removal of its inhabitants, together with Kurdish settlers, to the island of Imbroz.

The Treaty of Lausanne, however, specifically and categorically prohibits settlement on the islands of Imbroz and Tenedos and states that the two islands shall be self-administered.

Will the Commission raise this issue at the next meeting of the EC-Turkey Association Council?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Commission has asked the Turkish authorities for information about the article in the daily paper, Hürriyet, referred to by the Honourable Member.

The authorities have said they have no intention of sending settlers to the islands of Imbroz or Tenedos.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1533/96 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Comparative survey of drug use and addiction in the Union

In view of the differences in drugs policy between the Member States of the Union, is the Commission prepared

1. To conduct an independent inquiry into drug use and drug addiction in the European Union?

2. To carry out a comparative survey of implementation of international conventions on drugs policy?

If so, does the Commission agree that such research can best be carried out by persons responsible for implementing drugs policy in that they are able to reach an objective decision that conventions concluded in the past can lead to differences in implementation in the present and may be out of date (shift from heroin to chemical drugs, for example)?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

1. The European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction is a decentralised Community agency, established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 ((OJ L 36, 12.2.1993. )), to provide the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information at European level concerning drugs and drug addiction and their consequences. Its most visible output will take the form of a report, on a yearly basis, on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. The first edition is due to be published in September 1996 and is expected to provide a fair overview on the drugs situation in Europe.

2. The main international conventions on drugs around which international efforts are concentrated were concluded under the aegis of the United Nations. Therefore, a comparative study on their implementation with a view to their possible review lies within the responsibility of the United Nations bodies.

However, the Commission has organised jointly with the Italian Presidency of the Council and the Parliament a workshop on the comparison of national drugs legislation (Brussels, 25-26 March 1996) and its application in practice. In this context, the Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that the way drugs policy is implemented in practice is very important. Moreover, the organisers of the workshop welcomed the participation of a great number of authorities in the Member States which are directly involved in the application of national legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0832/96 by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Discrimination by Netherlands authorities

A citizen from my constituency visited the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. During his visit he parked in a public car-park managed by the Parkeerbeheer (Car-park Management Service). He displayed the requisite parking ticket prominently on the windscreen. Although he went to collect his vehicle several minutes before the ticket expired, he had unjustifiably been given a parking fine and the vehicle had been wheel-clamped. The owner complained about the incident to the Parkeerbeheer, which demanded immediate payment of the fine. The owner submitted numerous complaints but the unjustified fine was never refunded. All his complaints were rejected as unfounded.

1. Is the Commission aware of these unjustified practices and what is it going to do about them?

2. Is this a case of discrimination against an EU citizen, in particular a German in the Netherlands?

3. Is this practice an infringement of European law?

4. Does the Commission agree that such procedures lead to rejection of the process of European unification among citizens?

5. Can the Commission annul the decision taken by the Netherlands authorities against an EU citizen, and is there a chance of demanding that the fine be refunded?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1996)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the Netherlands authorities.

The case described by the Honourable Member reveals no infringement of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Development programmes in Bolivia

How has the Commission responded to the recommendations made by the European Parliament in the Liese report (A4-0070/96) that aid in the campaign against drugs should be fully monitored, administrative costs kept to a minimum and coordination with other donors such as the IMF and World Bank improved to ensure that the various policies do not contradict each other?

In particular, how will the Commission incorporate Parliament's recommendations into EU-funded programmes aimed at the eradication of coca plantations in Bolivia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1474/96 and E-1475/96 given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (18. July 1996)

Regarding measures taken to date in Bolivia, the Commission has financed a small number of alternative development measures for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. Essentially these are schemes financed by various Bolivian or European NGOs.

As to future action, Bolivia has requested the Community's support for the funding of a major alternative development programme to eradicate coca plantations in the Chapere region. This request is currently being considered by the Community authorities. It is clear, however, that should the Commission agree to act upon this request, the basic criteria used for all development aid programmes would be rigorously applied. This means ensuring that measures to be financed have a sound technical basis (especially prior market surveys), use participatory methodology, and avoid excessive bureaucracy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/96 by Gastone Parigi (NI), Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Ethnic cleansing in the 1940s perpetrated against the Italian community living on the Adriatic coast

In the answer given by Mr Van den Broek on 26 April 1996 the Commission said it was 'not in a position to assess the events' referred to by the above Members in their Written Question E-0644/96 ((OJ C 183, 24.6.1996, p. 44. )) of 15 March 1996. In view of this, we would now point out that:

- these events took place during and after the Second World War, the 'assessment' of which must be obvious to everyone;

- dramatic evidence of these events is provided by hundreds of dead Italians exhumed from dozens of karst pits and hundreds of others still lying buried in other pits, one of which has been declared a national monument (the Basovizza pit on the border between Italy and Slovenia), precisely so that those unable 'to assess the events' may be provided with plenty of food for thought;

- these events are the painful basis for the current dispute between Italy and Slovenia concerning the latter's admission to the European Union;

- finally, these events may be assessed by the Commission on the basis of an informative, albeit shocking, photographic exhibition which, subject to the authorization of the relevant departments, could be held by and at the expense of the above Members on the premises of the European Parliament.

In view of the above, we should like to be heard on the above-mentioned subject, which the whole world knows about and has already 'assessed', not least as a result of the confirmatory evidence of barbarity in the Balkans provided by the recent bloodbath in former Yugoslavia.

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

The Commission has noted the views of the Honourable Members but cannot add further information to its reply of 26 April 1996 ((OJ C 183, 24.6.1996. )) to Written Question E-644/96.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1559/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Freedom of movement for persons and workers

Following the visit by Commissioner Van Den Broek to Switzerland for the purpose of bilateral and sectoral negotiations with that country, can the Commission say what results were achieved or what the prospects are as regards the free movement of persons and workers, particularly in view of the fact that large numbers of workers from certain Member States, such as Portugal, are resident in Switzerland on a permanent or seasonal basis?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

The Commission is pursuing the negotiations with Switzerland in the area of the free movement of people on the basis of the negotiating directives of the General Affairs Council of 31 October 1994, which foresee the mutual application of the entire acquis communautaire in the area of free movement of people for the citizens of the Community and their family members in Switzerland and for the citizens of Switzerland and their family members in the Community. In the course of these negotiations Switzerland has recently offered to adapt its legislation to the acquis communautaire as far as Community citizens already resident in Switzerland are concerned, but to maintain the existing access quota for new arrivals of salaried employees and self-employed. The Commission deems this offer insufficient and insists on a binding obligation for the abolition of these quotas. Quantitative limitations are incompatible with the principle of free movement of people, which is now the standard in Western Europe. The Commission will pursue the negotiations in order to achieve the complete free movement of people with Switzerland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1453/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: UN Fourth Conference on Women and Council of Ministers' resolution of 20.12.1995

What steps has the Commission taken to implement the Development Council resolution of 20 December 1995 'Integrating gender issues in development cooperation'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1446/96 and E-1453/96 given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The resolution of 20 December 1995 on integrating gender issues in development co-operation has been distributed widely, together with a summary of the main Beijing implications for development co-operation. A process of consultation and discussion is under way in the Commission on implementation of the resolution and follow-up to the Beijing platform.

The Commission has already introduced mandatory procedures to ensure attention to gender at each stage of the project cycle. These will be continued and reinforced for all mainstream development co-operation. Systematic attention will be given to integrating gender issues in policy and strategy documents. Focal points for gender issues have been established in a number of key services, in order to identify needs, constraints and the best ways for implementing the resolution. A number of training workshops on gender for Commission staff are taking place in June and July 1996. Others are planned to follow.

A number of pilot countries have been selected in each developing region for intensive attention to gender and development at policy, programming, and project level, with detailed backup from highly qualified consultants. It is planned to hold in autumn 1996 the first of the expert meetings on gender and development with Member States advocated by the resolution, to discuss development of common criteria and indicators for integration of gender in development. A number of large-scale positive action programmes to reduce gender inequalities are already included in development co-operation programming for 1996. Others are likely to be included as developing countries complete their follow-up plans of action for Beijing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: EU economic planning with regard to the problem of 'mad cow disease'

The measures envisaged by the EU to enable the United Kingdom to tackle BSE consist in the slaughter and destruction of all cattle more than 30 months old (15 thousand animals per week, equivalent to a value of Lit 600 billion per year).

Since the EU took action on 28 July 1989 in the form of Regulation No 469 for the benefit of cattle-breeders in the United Kingdom and hence the phenomenon does not seem to be new, but goes back at least 8 years, EU intervention does not seem to be penalizing bad farming but seem to be rewarding it. Can the Commission therefore consider immediate measures to reduce drastically the premium to British farmers and grant it to producers in other Member States who are suffering the effects of the 'mad cow' crisis without being in any way responsible for it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

In general stockfarmers in the United Kingdom or any other Member State cannot be held responsible for the development of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) problem. Premia therefore will continue to be paid across the Community on a fair and equitable basis.

The measures taken in connection with BSE concern all Community producers and are designed to support the beef market throughout the Community. Amongst the most important measures already taken by the Commission are:

- the part-financing of the destruction of animals of less than six months, born in the United Kingdom and held by producers in Belgium, France and the Netherlands;

- the re-introduction of intervention, with certain temporary derogations designed to make it more effective. This measure has been mainly taken up by producers in Member States other than the United Kingdom;

- an increase in the export refunds on live cattle and beef.

Finally, at its meeting of 24 to 26 June 1996, the Council adopted a package of 850 MECU income support for beef producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Participation by local government from South-East England (outside London) in regional conferences organized by the European Union

How many and what proportion of delegates from the Rest of the South East (ROSE) region of the UK, attended the DIRECTORIA event organized by the Commission, in relation to attendance by other regions both in the UK and throughout the rest of Europe?

Does the Commission hold figures for participation from this region in other regional conferences and events it holds, and will it publish such figures in the official answer?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1996)

There were 54 delegations from the United Kingdom at the December 1995 edition of Directoria, compared with 516 from the Community as a whole. Eleven authorities from the Rest of the South East region (ROSE) took part. Others were represented by these participants or by Brussels regional offices.

The Commission does not hold figures for participation by ROSE in other regional conferences and events.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Contractual discrimination against naturalized Italians

In accordance with the European Court of Justice judgment of 2 August 1993 the 88 lecturers at the Eastern university institute of Naples should have been contractually employed like their Italian colleagues on the teaching staff. Instead, as they had refused a work contract that offered them disparaging and professionally degrading conditions they were dismissed.

Those who suffer from this absurd policy would seem to be those who graduate in foreign languages and literature from the institute, who are apparently absolutely lacking in a practical knowledge of their chosen languages.

Given this discrimination, which amounts to a serious infringement of the principle of equal treatment of citizens of the Union, what will the Commission do to ensure that Community law is complied with?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1st August 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-1092/96 by Mr McMahon ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 135. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Implementation of the bird protection directive in the Federal Republic of Germany

1. Can the Commission list the bird protection areas designated in the Federal Länder, broken down by Land? If so, can it provide me with a copy of the list?

2. Does the Commission regard this as satisfactory implementation of the bird protection directive, 70/409/EEC? ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. ))

3. If not, where does the Commission see evidence that implementation has been inadequate?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

1. The Commission regularly produces a report listing all special protection areas (SPAs) classified by Member States and officially notified by them pursuant to Article 4 of the birds Directive (79/409/EEC). A new list for 1996 is in preparation and will be available in the late autumn 1996. The 1994 list, including for Germany all SPAs by Länder, is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

2. and 3. The Commission continually assesses the progress made by the Member States towards creating a coherent network of SPAs for annex 1 species and migratory bird species (see Natura 2000 newsletter of May 1996 for Natura 2000 barometer assessing the situation).

The Commission estimates that, with the exception of Belgium and Denmark which have largely classified their 'most suitable territories', all Member States should classify further SPAs to meet their obligations under Article 4 of the Directive 79/409/EEC. The Commission is using, as a reference, scientific inventories of important bird areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 958/96 by Christine ODDY to the Council. Electronic telecommunications



Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0009



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0958/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Council (29 April 1996) Subject: Electronic telecommunications What arrangements has the British Government made with other European governments which allow the Royal Air Force (RAF) to intercept electronic telecommunications from Europe? Is the RAF allowed to share trade, commercial or other kinds of intercepted information with the US National Security Agency? Reply (14 October 1996) Arrangements such as those to which the Honourable Member refers are a matter for individual Member States.