ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1564/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Distribution of ERDF funds

The Commission has granted ECU 118.3 m under the ERDF for projects to improve energy efficiency and promote the development of renewable forms of energy in Spain.

What type of projects will be funded, and will regions with the greatest needs in this sector, such as the Canary Islands, receive special treatment?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Commission approved on 29 March 1996 the global grant European regional development fund (EDRF) - Instituto para la diversificación y el ahorro de la energia (IDAE) for the improvement of energy efficiency and the promotion of renewable energies in Spain. This foresees public spending of 234 MECU, of which 50.6% will originate from the ERDF. IDAE, a public organism accountable to the ministry of industry and energy, will be responsible for the implementation.

The global grant has been created within the framework of the Plan de ahorro y eficiencia energética (PAEE), itself part of the larger Plan energético nacional (PEN) 1991-2000 drawn up by the Spanish government. As such it is closely linked to the objectives set under the PAEE, which are the reduction of sectoral final energy demand (energy saving), the saving and substitution (diversification) of final energy use, and the supply of independent electrical generation from renewable energies and thermoelectric co-generation plants.

The overall aim of the global grant is to help achieve these objectives in the Spanish regions covered by objective 1, through co-financing the national public funds assigned to actions which are eligible to receive grants from the ERDF. This will ensure that regions with particular shortcomings in this sector, such as the Canary Islands, will benefit from ERDF finding.

The measures envisaged by the global grant are based on priorities 6 and 8 of the Spanish objective 1 Community support framework. The type of project covered is defined with strict reference to the structure of the global grant itself, which is as follows:

- Priority 6: Energy

6.2.1 Grants for investments in the rational use of energy in the industrial sector

6.2.2 Direct investment actions by the IDAE for the rational use of energy in the industrial sector

6.2.3 Grants for investment in the rational use of energy in the sectors of trade, services and others

6.2.4 Direct investment actions by the IDAE for the rational use of energy in the sectors of trade, services and others

- Sub-priority 6.3: Environmental protection and improvement

6.3.1 Grants for investment in the use of renewable energy sources

6.3.2 Direct investment actions by the IDAE in the field of renewable energies

- Priority 8: Technical assistance

This measure includes grants for promotion and information dissemination in the various fields covered by the global grant.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Directive 88/166/EEC on battery cages

In response to my question E-1159/96 ((see page 34. )), the Commission stated that they 'have no information about the number of inspections carried out ... as such activities clearly fall within the competence of the Member States'. However, Article 7.1 & 2 of Directive 88/166/EEC ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83. )) clearly states that the 'Commission shall check on its application on the spot regularly' and that 'Commission experts shall carry out inspection operations jointly ...'. In addition, 'the Commission will prepare periodical general reports on the results of the inspections ...'.

Why is the Commission not fulfilling these requirements? If this is not being done, then how are we to know if the individual Member States are implementing the Directive? Has the Commission produced a periodical general report on the results of the inspections as required by the Directive?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

As already pointed out in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1159/96, the Commission, being short of staff in the sector of veterinary inspections, was until now unable to carry out on-the-spot inspections in the field of the protection of laying hens in battery cages (Council Directive 88/166/EEC).

As a consequence, the Commission does not have the necessary information to evaluate whether this Directive is uniformly applied on the spot, throughout the Member States. Since no Commission inspection results are thus available, the Commission was unable to prepare periodical reports.

It is once more repeated that the Commission is ready to fulfil its obligations, once the necessary budgetary funds for the employment of further veterinary inspectors are made available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/96 by Brian Crowley (UPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Applications for co-financing under R& D framework programme

What are the minimum and maximum staff rates charged by company participants/consultants under the EU third and fourth R& D framework programmes for (i) engineers, (ii) senior managers/administrators and (iii) researchers?

Could the Commission also indicate an approximate average figure for the Cohesion countries and the four biggest Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

As set out in Article 7 of the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in research, technological development and demonstration activities of the Community (Council Decision 94/763/EC of 21 November 1994) ((OJ L 306, 30.11.1994. )), the Community financial participation usually consists of the reimbursement of a proportion of the actual costs of the research project including indirect overhead costs.

As staff costs of a project, although important, are only an element of the total cost, and given the different criteria applied by participants as to the categories of staff, the Commission does not distinguish in its existing data base between the various elements of the total project cost and is thus not in a position to provide minimum or maximum staff rates or average staff rates by Member States or groups of Member States. It should however be noted that where possible contractors use rates accepted by Member State authorities with suitable adjustments to take into account any differences in funding arrangements.

The appropriateness of the cost of the various elements which go to make up a project proposal, and the corresponding level of Community financial support, is however assessed during the evaluation of the proposal by independent experts, and is the subject of detailed examination during contract negotiations between the consortium participants and the Commission. In addition the Commission uses both its own staff and external organizations to audit both contracts and contractors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1149/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Use of banned pesticides

According to consumers' associations, three types of pesticide included in the list of 12 pesticides whose use is banned in the Community are regularly available in Greece, despite the ban.

The products concerned are the weed-killer Paraquat, which is highly toxic, the fungicide ethylene bromide, which is carcinogenic, and the insecticide Listene, which is highly carcinogenic and which has recently been found in samples of mothers' milk in Greece.

1. Is the Commission aware that the toxic products described above are in circulation in Greece and, if so, will it say what quantities have entered the Greek market since the legislation was introduced?

2. Which authority is responsible for the control of these products and their withdrawal from the market in Greece?

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

One of the pesticides mentioned in the question, ethylene dibromide (1,2-dibromethane), is prohibited, as a plant protection product, throughout the Community under the provisions of Directive 79/117/EEC ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )) prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances, as amended. The other two, paraquat and lindane (gamma-HCH), are not prohibited by Directive 79/117/EEC but are currently under review in the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC ((OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. )) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. The review will lead to a decision on whether or not they are listed in Annex I of this Directive as active substances authorized for incorporation in plant protection products. Member States are then responsible for reviewing their national plant protection product authorizations.

1. The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that ethylene dibromide was withdrawn as a plant protection product from the market by ministerial decision of 5 January 1988. However, this compound also has industrial uses (chemical and petroleum industries). As far as paraquat and lindane are concerned, the Greek authorities have informed the Commission that they are authorized in Greece as active substances of plant protection products. Information on quantities of plant protection products containing paraquat and lindane entering the Greek market is not available to the Commission. For lindane as a chemical, Eurostat data indicate that in 1992-1993-1994 Greece imported a total of 10 tonnes from Community sources and 0 tonnes from outside the Community for all uses. There are no Eurostat data for ethylene dibromide and paraquat.

2. The Greek authority for the placing on the market of plant protection products, and the inspection and control of their use, is the department of pesticides of the ministry of Agriculture.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2290/96 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (30 July 1996)

Subject: Assessment of the quality of non-higher education

In its working document SEC(96) 675 the Commission sets out its criteria for assessing the quality of non-higher education.

Can the Commission detail the activities it has carried out or intends to carry out to improve the interchange of information and experience among the Member States in connection with assessing the quality of non-higher education?

By what date will the results of the two studies commissioned by the Commission in order to draw up an inventory of assessment mechanisms used by the Member States be made available?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1996)

The working document of 22 April 1996 was prepared as a briefing note for the Education Council of 6 May 1996. The Commission's approach to quality assessment in non-higher education and more specifically its intention to launch pilot projects in this domain were cordially welcomed by the ministers, who once again underscored the need to strengthen cooperation at European level in this crucial sector.

As indicated in paragraph 3.2 of this document, various activities connected with the preparation of the pilot projects were initiated in 1995. These activities were continued and reinforced in 1996, notably in the framework of action III.3.1 of the Socrates programme.

On 27 March 1996 the Commission published a second call for proposals for the implementation of this action, with 30 June 1996 as the deadline ((OJ C 90, 27.3.96. )). This invitation puts the priority on evaluation of the quality of school education. The proposals submitted to the Commission are currently being selected. Besides supporting the organisation of various conferences and exchanges of experts in the assessment field, the Commission intends to finance studies which will focus specifically on auto-evaluation and external evaluation of educational establishments.

In September 1996, on the basis of the results of the preparatory work, the Commission will present concrete proposals to the Education Committee and the Socrates Committee concerning the implementation of pilot projects as of the beginning of 1997. These pilot projects will for the first time involve local players, such as inspectors, teachers and pupils.

More particulars on the preparatory work done in the framework of action III.3.1. from 1995 onwards have been directly transmitted by the Commission to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

The two studies which the Commission commissioned in 1995 in the context of action III.3.1 run for two years (the purpose of the first study is to survey piloting mechanisms at national level, while the second looks at assessment of the pupils' achievements). They cover the 18 countries participating in the programme. The interim reports will be available towards end-1996 and the final reports towards end-1997. The Commission will of course transmit the final reports to Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0959/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Council (29 April 1996)

Subject: Nigeria

What moves is the Council taking to investigate the situation in Nigeria and to ensure that democracy is restored?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The European Union has been deeply concerned by the blatant disrespect for democratic principles and Human Rights which have been displayed by the Nigerian regime. After the annulment, in 1993, of elections that have been considered free and fair, and the subsequent takeover of power by the military, restrictive measures were introduced by the European Union in the field of military cooperation and the granting of visas.

As the Human Rights violations by the military regime reached a new climax in November 1995 with the execution of the Human Rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and his co-defendants after flawed legal proceedings, the European Union adopted, on 20 November and 4 December 1995, two Common Positions according to Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union, laying down further restrictive measures against Nigeria. In particular, an arms embargo was introduced. These measures constitute an additional effort to persuade the Nigerian authorities to respect Human Rights and ensure an early return to democracy.

The Common Position adopted on 4 December states that 'further measures will be considered, including sanctions, if specific steps are not taken by the Nigerian authorities towards an early transition to democracy and to ensure full respect of Human Rights and the rule of law'. In this regard, the Council is following the situation in Nigeria very closely, through the diplomatic representations of the Member States of the European Union on the ground, as well as in coordination with other members of the international community, and will decide on its further course of action in the light of developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1524/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (5 June 1996)

Subject: Urban Community Initiative programme

Have all the UK Urban programmes been adopted and signed? If not, can the Commissioner give reasons for the delay?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Urban Community initiative is being applied in the United Kingdom through eleven different programmes. The two Northern Ireland programmes have been adopted by the Commission. The nine other programmes, covering urban areas in Great Britain, have not yet been adopted.

Although the selection of areas for the Urban initiative was made by the United Kingdom authorities in March 1995, there were then considerable delays while they identified financial allocations to individual Urban programmes. Allocations were not agreed until October 1995. Since then a new problem has arisen with the administrative arrangements. The Commission is pressing in particular for adequate responsibility for the implementation of these programmes to be given to the target areas themselves.

The Commission wishes to adopt these programmes as soon as possible and has invited the United Kingdom authorities concerned to meet it with a view to resolving the remaining differences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1159/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Directive 88/166/EEC on battery cages

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that Member States are implementing Directive 88/166/EEC ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83. )) on battery cages?

Given that there is only one EU inspector on animal welfare, it is apparent that the Commission is not in a position to undertake inspections itself.

How many national inspections have been carried out in each Member State and have penalties been imposed for failure to comply with the rules?

Does the Commission intend to employ further EU inspectors to cover animal welfare, as one inspector is clearly insufficient?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

So far, the Commission has only one veterinary expert working in the field of animal welfare. His efforts and visits focus on the protection of animals during transport.

Thus the Commission has not yet been able to start on-the-spot inspections in the field of the protection of laying hens in battery cages. The Commission is, however, ready to employ further veterinary experts to fulfil its obligations in the many other domains of animal welfare, if the necessary budgetary funds are made available.

The Commission has no information about the number of inspections carried out concerning the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages nor about the penalties that have been imposed, as such activities fall within the competence of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Fishing issues in Essex and Kent

Is it true that with British Government capital gains tax regulations as they stand, instead of making a contribution towards EU decommissioning, the British Government is actually making a profit? If so, why does the Commission not insist that this money is reallocated to aid impoverished fishing communities?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1071/96, E-1072/96 and E-1073/96 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1996)

Community aid is provided for measures adopted in Community programmes for fisheries within the framework of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 ((OJ L 346, 31.12.1993. )). Individual fisheries projects, including construction or modernisation of fishing vessels cited by the Honourable Member are considered by the Member State in accordance with the programme indicated above and having regard to the capacity reduction targets fixed in the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

The Commission does not feel that the above-mentioned measures favour construction or modernisation of vessels of a particular length, design or type of fishing gear. Also, it is not correct to say that incentives are used to finance new constructions under 10 metres in length to avoid conservation or territorial limits.

The purpose of a measure such as decommissioning is to reduce fishing capacity in line with MAGP targets. The United Kingdom decommissioning scheme requires the surrender and suppression of the licence attached to the decommissioned vessel. The fleet capacity is, therefore, reduced irrespective of whether the owner purchases another existing licence or not. The measure satisfies the purpose for which it was introduced by reducing the size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

Provided that national legislation does not contravene the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty, in particular the prohibition of discrimination, and provided that exemptions from taxation do not amount to unlawful state aids, Community law cannot interfere with the autonomy of a Member State in matters of taxation. Member States can apply their own social and fiscal law in relation to matters of income, as long as they are in conformity with the Treaty and the aims of the common fisheries policy are not impeded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1325/96 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL), Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: The Orotava Galdar asphalt factories in the Canaries

Is the Commission aware of the progress of the work to extend the TF-5 motorway in the north of Tenerife (Canaries) and the environmental impact this work is having on the Orotava Valley?

Does the Commisison know whether the 'asphalt agglomerate plant' operating in the valley in order to supply the motorway work is illegal? Many ecological and social groups have complained that this plant fails to comply with the Islands' administrative and environmental law.

Can the Commission state whether the works to extend the TF-5 motorway between km 32.900 and km 39.300 on the Orotava to Los Realejos section are in receipt of Community funding of any kind?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

The Commission has been made aware of the extension work on motorway TF-5 on Tenerife by means of several complaints. It emerges from the information in the Commission's possession that the project in question was submitted to the environmental impact procedure provided for by Council Directive 85/337/EEC, ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact on the environment of certain public and private projects.

Under that procedure the public concerned was able to express its views before the project began as provided for by the Directive. The environmental impact statement on the project was published in the Boletín Oficial de Canarias No 73 of 5 June 1992.

On the other hand the Commission was unaware of the setting-up of an asphalt-aggregate plant for the purpose of extending the motorway. However, installations of this type are not covered by Directive 85/337/EEC, which therefore does not apply. The Commission is not empowered to act against the Member State concerned where there is any infringement of national provisions that do not originate in Community law. On the basis of the information in its possession the Commission has not been able to establish any failure to meet the obligations deriving from Directive 85/337/EEC.

The Commission is jointly financing the 'motorway TF-5, Orotava-Los Realejos' project under the operational programme for the Canaries (1994-99). It concerns in this case an extension of the existing motorway by 6 400 m.

This work, 70% of which has already been completed, is helping to improve traffic conditions in the north of the island and will considerably reduce the travelling time between La Orotava and Los Realejos.