ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0905/97 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission (5 March 1997)

Subject: Calls for proposals: use of languages

The Commission regularly publishes calls for proposals in connection with programmes of Community initiatives, as was recently the case for innovative projects for women in agriculture and in rural areas (96/C284/10).

In order to be admissible, any proposal has to be drawn up according to a standard format described in the call for proposals.

The provisions of invitation to tender 96/C 284/10 concerning the use of languages especially caught my attention.

It appears that candidates submitting proposals in French must attach to the (8 page) summary in French an English translation of the summary, and vice versa.

This Commission rule arbitrarily reduces the number of potential tenderers in rural areas and does not appear consistent with the rules on the use of working languages in the European Union.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the invitations to tender it publishes are accessible to all Union citizens, in particular the most disadvantaged?

More generally, could the Commission inform Parliament regularly of the holding, selection procedure and outcome of invitations to tender of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1997)

Following the call for proposals in question particulars of the standard presentation format to be used were sent to all persons wishing to apply in the Community language of their choice.

Bidders were asked to present, in conformity with that format, their proposal in the Community language of their choice, a summary of it in the Community language of their choice and a translation of the summary into English or French. Compliance with the format was a condition for consideration of the proposal.

This procedure was not an arbitrary decision of the Commission. The classification and examination of several hundred proposals is a considerable burden of work and standardisation and prior translation of the summary is enabling the Commission to examine each proposal in proper and consistent fashion.

The number of proposals received, in particular from applicants in rural areas and less favoured zones, indicates that the procedure followed does not at all appear to have disadvantaged potential applicants by reason of non-accessibility to all Community citizens.

The call for proposals was given adequate publicity by publication in all languages in the Official Journal. The period for submission of proposals ran from 27 September 1996 to 20 February 1997.

Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds ((OJ L 185, 15.7.1988. )), amended by Regulation (EC) No 3193/94 ((OJ L 337, 24.12.1994. )), requires the Commission to submit each year to Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on implementation of the Structural Fund regulations during the previous year. This covers financing by the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund of pilot and demonstration projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1292/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: EU employment conditions

What rights do workers from EU Member States have when working in the Isle of Man, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino and the Channel Islands? Is there any difference in these conditions to people working in countries outwith the EU?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1292/97, E-1293/97 and E-1294/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City are not part of the Community for the purpose of free movement of people. Consequently, citizens of these countries are not treated as Community nationals and hence do not enjoy the right of free movement conferred by Community law. Conversely, the EC Treaty free movement provisions do not apply to Community nationals in these countries, except in exceptional circumstances.

The position as regards the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is complex. The EC Treaty applies only 'to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for these islands set out in the United Kingdom Accession Treaty' (Article 227 5c).

Under Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom Accession Treaty, the Community rules on the free movement of workers are, in principle, not applicable on the territory of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. However, the authorities of those islands may not discriminate against natural and legal persons from the Member States. Concretely, this means that those authorities may, for example, require work permits of Community nationals provided that they do so in a way which does not discriminate according to the nationality of the person concerned.

As regards rights enjoyed by people from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, Protocol 3 expressly provides that they do not benefit from the Community provisions relating to free movement of people, but without prejudice to the rights which they enjoy in the United Kingdom under British domestic law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0801/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various other bodies

With regard to heading B3-4103 (Measures to combat poverty and social exclusion), can the Commission provide a complete list of associations and other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies and the exact amount of these subsidies for the last completed budgetary year, i.e. 1996?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

An account showing the use of the appropriations under budget heading B3-4103 for the 1996 financial year, project by project, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the European Parliament's Secretariat.

As regards the commitments entered into after 30 June 1996, the agreements were supplemented by a payment suspension clause in order to comply with the order issued by the President of the Court of Justice on 24 September 1996 in response to the United Kingdom's request for provisional measures in the context of case C-240/96. Under the terms of this order the Commission is authorised to sign agreements but may make payments only after the judgment has been delivered, and only if it wins the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/97 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Training and employment of seafarers in the European Union

Following my participation in a Commission-sponsored conference in Dublin during December 1996, on the Training and Employment of Seafarers in the EU, I wonder whether the Commission has undertaken any research comparable to that undertaken in the UK by the University of Wales in Cardiff for the UK Department of Transport, the Chamber of Shipping and the Marine Society, investigating requirements for people with seafaring experience in shore-based jobs?

If such research has not been conducted for the EU as a whole, would the Commission agree that there is a need for further research, since without knowledge of the requirements on a European-wide basis, the true dimensions of the problem posed by the decline in EU seafarer employment cannot be assessed, nor the nature or scale of any corrective action that may need to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (4 April 1997)

The Commission has already undertaken a number of studies of various aspects of maritime training and the prospects for the maritime professions in the Community. At the conference in Dublin on 17-18 December 1996, a series of other research topics carried out in Member States and by the industry and international organisations were presented to the participants.

The Commission agrees that the study carried out by the University of Wales in Cardiff is a very useful piece of research and, as far as it is aware, no similar exercise has been conducted for the Community as a whole. The Commission however cannot at this stage indicate to the Honourable Member whether a further study covering the other Member States will be undertaken although the matter is under continual review, especially as a result of the approach to maritime employment set out in the 1996 maritime strategy White Paper.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Definition, adoption and monitoring of Community RETEX initiative

Can the Commission provide information on the level of participation of local authorities and the two sides of industry in the definition, adoption and monitoring of the RETEX initiative in the various Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0497/97, E-0498/97, E-0499/97 and E-0500/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

Participation of the various local authorities and other partners in the definition and monitoring of assistance under the Community Initiatives is governed, like any other operational programme, by Article 4 of the basic Regulation on the Structural Funds ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). Each Member State designates the authorities and other partners which are to participate in the partnership involved in structural assistance in accordance with current practice in each Member State.

In the interests of efficiency, consistency and optimization of the technical means available, the Community Initiatives are generally monitored by the same Monitoring Committees responsible for monitoringthe various operational programmes and single programming documents.

The wide range of situations and practices and the very complexity of the assistance procedures make it difficult to carry out a detailed quantitative analysis for each Member State of actual participation by local authorities and social partners in the definition and approval of each operational programme or Community Initiative or of their participation in the Monitoring Committees. The information on this subject available to the Commission is presented in the 6th and 7th annual reports, which Parliament has received.

The Commission believes that there has been real progress in the application of the principle of partnership for these Community Initiatives, as for all other structural assistance. It recognizes, however, that the quality of implementation varies from one Member State to another.

The report on economic and social cohesion recently adopted by the Commission stresses that partnership will have to be strengthened in the future, but it also proposes that the current assistance procedures be simplified so as to ensure that partnership is really made possible and effective.

The Commission is currently promoting territorial employment pacts as a means of trying out new forms of partnership, particularly at local level, involving the economic and social partners.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0163/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (3 February 1997)

Subject: Employment

At the Conference on Growth and Employment held in Rome in June 1996, the Commission President, Mr Santer, spoke of the need for initiatives in order to make decisive progress by the end of 1996.

He referred in particular to three priority measures which had remained blocked for years:

- a European company statute, the absence of which was costing the European economy ECU 30 billion a year;

- a legal framework for biotechnological inventions, the lack of which was discouraging investment in this leading sector;

- an internal electricity market, the lack of which was creating major competitive disadvantages.

Will the Commission say what progress has been made since June 1996 with these vital initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 April 1997)

In order to facilitate the adoption of the European company statute, the Commission established, in November 1996, a group of independent experts chaired by Mr Davignon, former vice-president of the Commission and

current chairman of the Société Générale de Belgique. The group was asked to find solutions in the area of employee participation acceptable to all the Member States. It is expected that the group will report in April 1997. The Commission hopes that it will then be possible to unblock this dossier, the importance of which has been emphasised by business representatives in the context of consultations on the Commission's communication on the impact and effectiveness of the single market ((COM(96) 520 final. )) and the preparation of the action plan for the single market which will be presented at the European Council in Amsterdam.

The Commission is awaiting the opinion of the Parliament on its first reading of the proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions ((OJ C 296, 8.10.1996. )).

An important breakthrough with regard to establishing the single market in electricity was made with the adoption, on 19 December 1996, of Directive 96/92/EC ((OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. )) of the Parliament and the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity. The Directive entered into force on 19 February 1997 and the Member States have two years to implement it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1599/97 by Hedy d'Ancona (PSE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Emergency aid to Bulgaria

1. In what way has the Commission acted on the urgent resolution of 24 October 1996, in which Parliament called for 'an emergency support programme to deliver the necessary basic food products to Bulgaria, with the aim of overcoming the serious food crisis facing the poorest sections of the Bulgarian population'?

2. In setting up the emergency aid programme, was account taken of the criticism - made by various Bulgarian NGOs and elsewhere - of the quality and reliability of the Bulgarian government as the recipient and distributor of European emergency aid?

3. In what way can adequate monitoring of the quality and effectiveness of bilateral aid be guaranteed? Are Bulgarian NGOs involved in - or asked for their opinion on - the monitoring of the bilateral aid programme?

4. What percentage of aid under the emergency aid programme is channelled through non-governmental organizations?

5. Under the emergency aid programme, funds are reserved for the 500 000 poorest people, with families being identified from the current government registry. Is the Commission convinced that this gives an accurate picture of the poorest people, bearing in mind that single-parent families, families with no home address and parents who are not formally married or divorced are not taken into account, as a result of which the gypsy population in particular is losing out?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

1. Since mid-1996 the Commission has mobilised 73.6 MECU of Community assistance in response to the economic crisis in Bulgaria. This includes a 20 MECU Phare emergency social assistance programme for the neediest groups in society and an ECHO grant of 1.1 MECU for emergency medical and food aid.

2. The choice of the delivery system for the 20 MECU Phare emergency social assistance programme was motivated by the need to provide rapid assistance to a very large target group of households and socio-educational institutions. It was therefore necessary to use the existing targeting mechanism of the state welfare system. The ECHO aid is delivered through non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

3. The Phare emergency social assistance programme is monitored by a team of external Community and Bulgarian experts and will be assessed by external auditors. In addition, Bulgarian NGOs carry out monitoring missions at the municipal level.

4. The Commission is satisfied that the Phare social assistance programme reaches the designated target groups. A large-scale publicity campaign in the national and local media (television, radio, press) has generated considerable public interest, as reflected in the large number of applicant households (more than 600 000). The Commission is in touch with the new Bulgarian government in order to determine the extent to which marginalised groups can benefit from the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1082/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Kalodikio Marshes

The vitally important wetlands of Kalodikio Marshes in Parga (Thesprotia) have been put forward for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. These wetlands are characterized by a very rich fauna and flora (many species of reptile, mammal and invertebrate covered by Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.)) have been recorded) and play a crucial role in the complex of wetlands of Western Greece.

Given the great environmental value of these wetlands together with the fact they are directly threatened by human activities (poaching and over-use of water for agricultural activities), will the Commission say:

1. On what criteria these wetlands could be excluded from the Natura 2000 network;

2. Whether it knows how the Greek authorities intend to protect the region (for example, by using forest rangers, etc.); and

3. How it intends to respond if the Greek authorities put forward proposals for the funding of land reclamation schemes in the region?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

1. Pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the network is to be set up on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex III to the Directive. The Greek authorities have put forward the marshes of Elos Kalodikou in Thesprotia as a potential Natura 2000 site, and it should therefore form part of the network unless it fails to meet the abovementioned selection criteria.

2. The Commission does not yet have any specific information on the management of conservation of the site, the practical arrangements for which are the responsibility of the Member State.

3. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive, Member States must take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species. Accordingly, any plan or project liable to have a significant effect on this site must be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in Greece

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure in Greece?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1328/97 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (10 April 1997)

Subject: Motor vehicle safety

Very many unsafe and pollution-causing vehicles remain on the market, or are put back onto the market after perfunctory repair work. From the time when vehicles are built and placed on the market until they are taken off the market, the motor industry is responsible for preventing hazards and pollution, that responsibility implying a formal agreement between manufacturer and user and with the various intermediaries involved.

Accordingly, does the Commission believe that these concerns should be taken into account in order to guide the establishment of a sustainable market in motor vehicles and related services and, if so, what initiatives does it propose to take to encourage improved safety for, and renewal of, Europe's motor vehicle base?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

The Commission believes the very large number of old, unsafe and polluting vehicles still on the road in the Community to be a considerable cause for concern. To encourage greater safety and curb the pollution problems linked to these vehicles, the Commission has adopted various proposals to introduce compulsory regular checks on motor vehicles in circulation.

It has also adopted a Green Paper 'Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport' ((COM (95) 691 final. )), which advocates the use of economic instruments (taxes, for instance) as an appropriate means of rationalizing and encouraging the use of less polluting and safer vehicles.

In addition, the Commission is drawing up a proposal on disused vehicles, which are becoming an increasingly worrying problem even though economic operators are increasingly incorporating recycling requirements into their strategies. The Commission intends to adopt a proposal along these lines before the summer holidays. The proposal will contain preventive measures and measures relating to the collection, processing and recycling of vehicles. It is essential that all the main actors concerned by this problem (manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, distributors, those in charge of recycling installations, users) play their part and so help reach effective solutions.

The question of whether to encourage the withdrawal of old vehicles from the market on environmental or safety grounds is essentially a matter for the Member States, which are free to adopt measures encouraging renewal of the motor vehicle base as long as they comply with the provisions of the Treaty.

Such measures have already been introduced in a number of Member States (Greece, Spain, France and, most recently, Italy).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0342/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in Greece

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, storage measures had a negative value in 1995, standing at ECU * 94.9 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure on storage measures in respect of olive oil in Greece?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>