ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2627/96 by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission (2 October 1996)

Subject: Car manufacturers cutting commission on sales to non-EU countries

In April 1995 a German company ordered a vehicle from a car dealer with registered offices in Germany. The vehicle was delivered to the company in August 1995 and registered. Because of the difficult sales situation a considerable discount was allowed following consultation with the manufacturer. In November 1995 the vehicle was transferred to a branch of the company in Hungary and reregistered. Because of this change of location the manufacturer asked the dealer to repay a customer service commission of 3% of the German list price for the basic model of the vehicle.

Is this claim compatible with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 ((OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25. )) on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements?

If so, can the Commission explain why, even though the vehicle was sold to a German company and the firm in Hungary is a branch of a company with registered offices in the European Union?

Is the manufacturer's claim compatible with the Association Agreement between the European Union and Hungary?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 October 1996)

The Commission is examining whether, in the case in question, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 concerning motor vehicle distribution have been infringed. It will inform the Honourable Member of its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2117/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Health and hygiene responsibilities in connection with transmission of BSE

Given that ten years have elapsed since the existence of an epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy was reliably detected and that the 'competent authorities' in the UK did not manage to control the spread of the epidemic in their own country nor prevent it spreading to other EC countries, who are 'the competent authorities' in this area in the UK and has the government set in train any enquiry, investigation or official report to establish administrative or legal liability?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

The competent authority for the measures to control bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom is the state veterinary service of the Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food. The recently-formed National meat hygiene service is responsible for the implementation of certain measures in the abattoirs.

The Commission is not aware of any official action of the nature mentioned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1996/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Mad cow disease in Member States other than the UK

According to reports in the media, it has been estimated that tens of thousands of animals were exported to the other EU Member States in the years when the risk of the spread of BSE was particularly high. Statistical estimates published in a veterinary periodical indicate that this must have led to a considerable number (thousands) of BSE cases in other EU countries; if this is so, it is much greater than the number of cases actually reported.

Is the Commission aware of this? Does the Commission consider that these figures are reliable, and if not, why not? If the Commission does consider the figures to be reliable, what action has it taken or does it intend to take?

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

It is correct that considerable numbers of cattle were sent from the United Kingdom to other Member States and third countries before the risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was appreciated, and it is likely that some of them were incubating the disease. The number of those which would have developed BSE is very difficult to estimate, since many would have died or been slaughtered before the disease developed.

BSE is notifiable in the Community and the Commission has no reason to suppose that suspected cases are not being notified to the authorities of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Eurostat

Are there any restrictions placed by Eurostat on purchases of comtext cd-rom quarterly/library version as regards the use made of the information?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The publications of the Community institutions are subject to copyright, whether or not that is expressly claimed. This is true both of printed publications and those in other forms. Thus, the use which a purchaser of Eurostat's Comext CD-Rom (quarterly or library version) may make of the material contained therein is governed by copyright law and by provisions of international copyright conventions, according to the licence terms (single-user, single-workstation or local area network) associated with the type of product purchased.

In a limited number of situations reproduction of copyright matter is permitted by law. Reproduction which does not fall into this category requires prior written permission. Copyright permissions and licences are handled on the institutions' behalf by the Office for official publications of the European communities, to which applications for permission must be addressed in writing.

In the context of the information market, the pricing of the statistical publications aims to ensure equitable and non discriminatory access to all, in particular to the companies eager to redisseminate Community data (under the terms of the copyright), support the development of commercial information services based on public sector data which could be maintained by private operators or by national statistical institutes, avoid practices which would constitute an obstacle to the sales activities of national statistical institutes and ensure the respect of copyright, which covers not only the data but also the support, organization and value added.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1982/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Information on beef

1. What are the production, export and import figures for beef, by Member State?

2. What is the origin in each Member State of beef on public sale, by country of origin and by Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

1. Beef production and trade 1995, by Member State

('000 tonnes)

>TABLE>

2. The Commission only has particulars of beef available on the market if the stocks receive private storage aid or have been bought into intervention. Public intervention stocks of beef at 31 December 1995 stood as follows, by Member State:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/96 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: New fishing vessels - Spain 1994-99

In the context of the Community support framework for the Kingdom of Spain 1994-1999, can the Commission say how many new fishing vessels are to be built (indicating their total GRT if possible) with a view to confirming - or otherwise - the public statement made by the director of a Portuguese association that Spain is planning 1400 new fishing vessels?

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

In the framework of the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance and Community support framework in Spain, structural measures for the fisheries sector are taken in the framework of a Community programme agreed between the Commission and the Spanish government in the spirit of partnership. They include the renewal of the fishing fleet for an amount of 85,600 gross registered tons. This would allow 1,155 new fishing vessels to be built. In any event, if modern vessels join the Spanish fishing fleet, it will be by way of replacement, without increasing capacity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Labour market deregulation

Is the Commission aware that temporary workers employed via employment agencies can be held liable for financial claims brought against the company for whom they are working, even though permanent workers within the same company are not?

Does the Commission know of similar problems in other Member States arising as a result of increased labour market deregulation? Is any protective legislation predicted at European level under the Social Chapter which would prevent this type of discrimination?

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

The Commission is not aware of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers, where temporary workers can be held liable for financial claims brought against the company in which they have been placed by an employment agency. The Commission would, however, stress that, in the absence of specific Community rules, the matter will have to be dealt with, in the first instance, according to the law and practice of the individual Member States.

Where the more general problem of labour market deregulation is concerned, the Commission acknowledges that the deregulation process must provide sufficient security for the workers involved.

The need to maintain a balance between social and economic considerations led to the adoption of Directive 91/383/EEC of 25 June 1991 supplementing the measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of workers with a fixed-duration employment relationship or a temporary employment relationship. ((OJ L 206, 29.7.1991. )) It is also central to recent Commission action on the flexibily of working time and security for workers, based on the Agreement on Social Policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Health and safety and the working time directive

Is the Commission aware that trans-national oil companies operating in Europe are apparently unable to establish a representative body concerning the working time directive?

Does the Commission agree that such apparent inability should not be sufficient reason to avoid full involvement of workers' representatives in agreeing arrangements to control and limit working time in the interests of health and safety?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1996)

The Commission is aware that organisations of companies in the off-shore sector state that they are not mandated to take part in social dialogue at European level. It will therefore be difficult for agreements to be reached in this sector at European level on arrangements to control and limit working time in the interests of health and safety. The Commission hopes, however, that employers' and workers' representatives in the Member States will be able to agree such arrangements, at the appropriate collective level, where they have not already done so.

The Commission is currently preparing a white paper on the sectors and activities excluded from the working time Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )), including 'other work at sea'. This will set out the Commission's views on the way forward on this matter. Trade union organisations at European level, as well as the organisations representing the oil companies, will be invited to give their views on the course of action proposed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: ESF Objective 4

If the UK continues to refuse to use Objective 4 funding, what will happen to the £250 million to which the UK is entitled?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1996)

The indicative share between Member States of the resources available under objectives 3 and 4 of the European social fund (ESF), outside objective 1 regions, for the period 1994 to 1999 was decided by the Commission on 19 January 1994. The share for the United Kingdom was set at 3377 MECU (in 1994 prices). This figure represents the sum available to the United Kingdom over the six year programming period under the joint financial envelope for objectives 3 and 4.

The revised regulations governing the structural funds approved in July 1993 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) allowed the Member States some flexibility to propose the relative amounts going to objective 3 and objective 4. While the British authorities did not submit a plan for objective 4 expenditure, a single programming document (SPD) was approved under objective 3 for the three year period 1994 to 1996. The ESF financial allocation to this objective 3 SPD totalled 1 501 MECU (in 1994 prices).

The Commission is currently in negotiation with the British authorities on the use of the remaining resources over the period 1997 to 1999. The final split of resources between objectives 3 and 4 is a key element in these negotiations. Although the British authorities submitted a new plan for objective 3 in February 1996, the Commission has not yet received a plan for objective 4.

The implementation of effective measures to anticipate, and thereby prevent, job losses means that objective 4, designed to facilitate the adaptation of workers to industrial change and to changes in production systems, is a key instrument in the more pro-active employment strategy being developed in the framework of the Essen European Council conclusions. In this context the Commission will continue to push for an appropriate level of resources for objective 4 in the United Kingdom in the 1997-1999 period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/96 by Erich Schreiner (NI) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Article 157 of the Treaty on European Union and the example set by Commissioner Fischler

The Members of the European Commission must guarantee their complete independence and are bound by the duty to refrain from accepting privileges (Article 157 of the TEU).

How, then, can the Commission explain the fact that one of its Members, Mr Fischler, has been maintaining a political office at No. 8-10 Schenkenstrasse, Vienna, for over a year, whose rent and running costs are met by the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and whose manager, Mrs M. Baumgartner, is paid by the Austrian Industrial Association?

Will the Commission either remind Mr Fischler of his obligations and suggest that he close this political office, the only one of its kind in the EU, or instruct him to meet the costs and salaries for this office from the generous allowances paid to him for this purpose?

If so, when?

If not, why not?

Does the Commission intend to urge Mr Fischler to reimburse the Ministry of Agriculture and the Industrial Association for these perks, to which he had no entitlement?

If so, when will it request him to do so. When will Mr Fischler refund the money to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Industrial Association, and what is the sum involved?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

It is not true that Mr Fischler, Member of the Commission, maintains a political office in Vienna, as stated by the Honourable Member in his question.

It is true, however, that the Austrian Federal Government has opened an office in Schenkengasse, on a decision taken by the cabinet on 4 April 1995 for the avowed purpose of making cooperation with Mr Fischler easier.

Cooperation with the Member States is an important factor in the performance of the duties of Members of the Commission, and this does not run counter to their independence as required by Article 157(2) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Inspection carried out by DG XX vis-à-vis the Lazio regional authorities

I refer to my questions E-2387/95 ((OJ C 311, 22.11.1995, p. 52. )) of 1 September 1995 and E-3649/95 ((OJ C 112, 14.4.1996, p. 56. )) of 12 January 1996 regarding the inspection carried out in the offices of the Lazio regional authorities by the Financial Control Directorate of DG XX from 9 to 13 January 1995. The national authorities have not yet received official information on the subject, although a relatively long time has passed.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the inquiry and how long it will take to complete it?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

As already communicated in the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-2387/95 and E-3649/95, the results of controls carried out by the Commission pursuant to Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, amended by Council Regulation (CEE) No 2082/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), are the subject of a confidential Commission report, a copy of which is forwarded to the Court of auditors.

The findings of the on-the-spot control which was carried out in the region of Lazio have been the subject of an interim report which requires more study.

The final report on this control will be forwarded to the Court of auditors and the findings of this report will be the subject of a follow-up by the Commission with the responsible bodies in the Member State in order to proceed to the regularization of any errors or irregularities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2366/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: EMU and unemployment in construction

Does the Commission accept the conclusion of the recent report from the European Construction Industry Federation (ECIF) that over a quarter of a million jobs will be lost in the EU construction industry before the end of 1997 as a result of the application of limits on public borrowing and debt imposed by the EMU convergence criteria?

If not, could it give the arguments upon which it bases its denial of the ECIF assertion, and the data upon which those arguments are based?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1894/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Urban Barometer

In its Guide to Innovative Actions for Regional Development the Commission mentioned an idea for setting up an 'Urban barometer' to find ways of measuring the quality of life in cities and expressing it in an index of particularly significant indicators.

Has this progressed past the idea stage? What is the current state of play?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission attaches great importance to information about the socio-economic and environmental situation in cities, both to assess the impact of present policies and to enable effective monitoring of the quality of life in urban areas. The 'urban barometer' to which the Honourable Member refers is one of the ideas in this respect, for which it is necessary to collect and analyse a number of data related to the various aspects of living conditions in our cities.

In this respect, the Commission has defined a work programme on urban indicators which will be the subject of a call for tender. This work programme concerns a pilot phase that will be implemented in a considerable number of European cities. The call for tenders is expected to be published in the Official Journal early in the autumn of 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1748/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Council (5 July 1996)

Subject: Decentralized, federally organized civil protection and disaster planning

There are still no uniform civil protection and disaster planning arrangements in the States of the European Union.

Disaster planning is becoming increasingly important, as modern society and settlement in risky areas combine to increase the risk of natural disasters.

Will the Council state whether any initiatives are under way to develop plans for coping with disasters?

Does it not consider that such plans should be developed, through local authorities and provincial or regional administrations, in a decentralized and federal form?

Reply (29 October 1996)

It is not for the Council to make statements on the internal organization arrangements of the Member States with regard to civil protection and disaster assistance organization.

It is nevertheless examining proposals on European cooperation in this area. It has also been informed of the opportunities for cooperation in disaster prevention and the organization of assistance as part of the Community initiative programmes managed by the Commission, such as the Interreg programme (Structural Funds), which allow local authorities to participate actively.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1684/96 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Labelling of animal feed products

Does the Commission intend to bring forward legislation to enforce manufacturers to declare all ingredients on the labels of all bags of animal feed so as to avert any possible recurrence of a catastrophe like bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1996)

As already stated by the Commission in its answers to written questions E-932/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 18. )) by Mr Spiers and P-1232/96 ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996. )) by Mrs Kinnock, the rules applicable to the labelling of animal feed are being amended to ensure that stock farmers are always informed of the nature of the various ingredients which make up the feed they use for their stock.

The measures planned, which will be put to the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs in the very near future, should significantly reinforce existing legislation. Directive 79/373/EEC ((OJ L 86, 6.4.1979. )) already lays down specific provisions concerning the need to declare the ingredients of compound feedingstuffs for animal use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Tattoos and the single market

Is the Commission aware that regulations concerning the use of pigments for tattoos are not harmonized across the Union? This leads to barriers between Member States applying different standards. Are there any plans for such harmonization? If so, when?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The Commission is aware that regulations concerning the use of pigments for tattoos are not harmonized across the Union. It would remind the Honourable Member that, in the absence of Union-wide harmonization, Member States are free to adopt or maintain in force national regulations provided that these comply with the rules set out in the EC Treaty. The divergent national standards referred to by the Honourable Member are, therefore, in themselves not in breach of Community law, but they must not lead to compartmentalization of the internal market. For instance, national regulations which had the effect of impeding the movement of goods within the internal market would, in order to comply with the relevant provisions of the Treaty, have to be justified by one of the objectives spelt out in Article 36 of the EC Treaty, such as the protection of health, and would have to be proportionate to that objective.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide it with any useful information which sheds light on the barriers in question and which has not yet been brought to its attention. It will then take the appropriate action.