ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/97 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Measures to combat violence against children, adolescents and women

What practical measures does the Commission intend to take following the European Parliament's adoption of budget line B3-4109 on child protection?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

The Commission has launched the Daphne initiative to implement budget line B3-4109. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the voluntary sector have been invited to come forward with proposals for projects for combating violence and sexual exploitation of children, adolescents and women. The first round of applications were due to be sent to the Commission before 30 June 1997 and the second round should be sent before 15 September 1997.

The Commission will support actions which give added value to the work already going on at national level. Actions should, as a rule, include at least two Member States, and should promote exchange of best practices. They could include training, support to networks of NGOs, support to pilot projects, studies, research and information and cooperation between NGOs and public authorities.

The Daphne programme complements the STOP programme which mainly supports the professionals of the public sector responsible in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (28 April 1997)

Subject: Socrates programme

Mrs Edith Cresson, Member of the Commission, has said that the Socrates programme has a crucial role to play in developing education and in training young people in Europe, and the programme has proved a great success.

Can the Commission say how many young people have benefited from this programme, broken down by nationality, and how many applications have not been accepted, also broken down by nationality?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1997)

Socrates, the Community action programme in the field of education approved on 14 March 1995, targets young people, with particular emphasis on measures to promote mobility (grants) or participation in projects arising from partnerships between educational institutions.

The table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament contains information on the number of young people participating in these activities in 1995 and 1996. Some of the data are still provisional.

As regards higher education (Socrates/Erasmus), mobility grants are awarded in the Member States to students wishing to undertake a period of study abroad. In addition, a process of cooperation established under the programme enables students without grants to benefit also from mobility.

Young people participating in school exchanges within the framework of joint educational projects become involved in activities to promote language learning (Socrates/Lingua).

With regard to school partnerships (Socrates/Comenius), the table shows the number of schools participating in partnerships in 1995 and 1996. The number of pupils actually taking part in projects conducted through partnerships may be estimated on the basis of the average number of classes participating in each school.

Generally speaking, demand for participation in mobility-oriented activities under the Socrates programme exceeds availability by some 35% to 40%.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2199/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Recording data on novel food products

What authorities are responsible, pursuant to the novel food regulation, for recording data in databases on all products which are approved or which have been registered?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: ATAC depot in Piazza Bainsizza in Rome

ATAC, Rome's municipal transport company, has a large bus depot in Piazza Bainsizza in the densely-populated 'Prati' district of Rome. Buses are refuelled at the depot and parked there overnight. The roads of this extremely densely-populated area are therefore crowded with large public transport vehicles. XXXXX Local residents have made several protests to the City Council about the intolerably high level of pollution, vibration and noise in the area around the depot, but have, as yet, received no reply.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. whether the above situation is in breach of any European legislation regarding maximum levels for exhaust emissions in urban areas?

2. whether the above situation is in breach of any European legislation regarding maximum levels for noise pollution in urban areas?

3. its position regarding protection of the quality of life of the inhabitants of large cities and what legislative measures it intends to take in this area in the future, if no such legislation already exists?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1997)

1. Directive 88/77/EEC ((OJ L 36, 9.2.1988. )) lays down limit values for emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates by diesel engines fitted to heavy goods vehicles. These emission limits have a useful effect both inside and outside towns.

2. At the moment there is no European standard laying down a maximum limit for ambient noise in towns.

3. As regards the quality of life in conurbations and in particular the problems of air pollution the Commission will this year put forward new targets for air quality, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides particulate and lead on the basis of Directive 96/62/EEC on the assessment and management of air quality. ((OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. )) The targets (limit values) will have to be met by the Member States throughout their territory. The new proposals will also include a number of specific criteria on the measurement of the concentrations of these various substances.

Following the publication of the Green Paper on future policy as regards noise ((COM(96) 540. )) and also the discussions concerning that document, the Commission will this year also define its approach towards combating noise.

Finally, on 18 June 1996, the Commission adopted a strategy intended to reduce pollution by vehicles. That strategy stresses the responsibility that is shared by the Community and the national and local authorities for reducing air pollution. New standards for reducing vehicle emissions form part of that strategy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (3 July 1997)

Subject: EU subsidies for cattle exports to the Middle East

Would the Commission give details of any subsidies for cattle exports to the Middle East, including the country of origin of the cattle and the amount of subsidy paid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1997)

Details of the subsidies for cattle exports are contained in the Commission's reply to written question E-1701/97 by Mr Holm ((See page 37. )). The main exporters of live animals are Germany, France and Ireland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2179/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Demonstration methods

1. Is the intention also to use indirect detection methods in order to be able to determine the changes characteristic of genetically modified varieties (e.g. modified fatty acid samples in oil from genetically modified soya beans)?

2. Will such significant changes be recorded and collected as alternative detection possiblities for monitoring bodies?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1564/97 by Leen van der Waal (I-EDN) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Results of the Third Framework Programme

1. Can the Commission indicate the total amount of expenditure in the Third Framework Programme on research in the area of transport?

2. What proportion of this funding has gone specifically to transport by inland waterways?

3. What results has the funding referred to in question 2 produced, where are the results being applied by the inland navigation sector and what savings have these results led to in that sector?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)

1. In the third framework programme transport elements were covered within two different specific programmes namely Drive II and Brite-Euram. These programmes concentrated on narrow objectives such as road telematics and aeronautics. There were no funds for inland navigation. In the fourth framework programme however there is for the first time a comprehensive specific programme dedicated to transport with an overall budget of 256 MECU.

2. Out of the 256 MECU, there is an allocation of 19% (49 MECU) waterborne transport research and development which encompasses R& D in maritime transport and in inland navigation.

Under the first and second calls for proposals, four research projects and one concerted action are co-funded in the area of inland navigation. A concerted action is a forum of Member States' representatives and delegates of European organisations to set up a European network of interested parties, to establish a European state-of-the-art, to define common European user requirements and methodologies and to define future R& D needs. The Community's contribution to these projects or actions amounts to 2.4 MECU.

The third and final call for proposals closed on 17 March 1997. The process of evaluation and selection is currently in progress, but not yet finalised. Information on its results will be available in the course of 1997.

3. Projects have an average life span of two years meaning that all of them are still ongoing. Final results, particularly in terms of implementation, are therefore not available yet. This also excludes an economic impact assessment at this stage of the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1964/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Import of frozen sparrows from China into the European Union

On 28 January 1997 a customs officer at the port of Antwerp confiscated a container which was to be brought into the Netherlands by lorry. The container held a total of 1 236 000 plucked and frozen sparrows with a value of BFR 3 300 700. Neither trade nor imports or exports of tree sparrows (Passer montanus) are permitted. Nonetheless about 6 000 000 birds of this species are brought into the country each year. Belgium mostly acts as a transit country and the main purchasers of the frozen birds are Italy, Spain and Portugal where these birds are traded at high prices as a delicacy and placed on the menus of restaurants.

1. Is the Commission aware of the incident described above and the whole problem of imports of sparrows from China into the EU and in particular Belgium?

If so, what action has the Commission taken to date and what does it intend to do to halt this trade?

If not, what steps will it take to find out about the problem described above?

2. Does the Commission consider that the problem of the import of species which are protected in the EU has been adequately clarified by the case law of the European Court of Justice?

If so, what action does it consider incumbent on itself and the governments of the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

1. The Commission was unaware of this matter, nor had it been approached on the problem raised by the Honourable Member. In similar cases, however, when all is said and done frontier policing falls solely within the powers of the national authorities as Community law now stands.

2. and 3. In a judgment handed down on 8 February 1996 ((Case C-202/94, Godefridus van der Feesten, 1996 Court Reports, p. I-355. )) the European Court of Justice stated that Council Directive 99/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the protection of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, Directive as last amended by Directive 94/24/EC of 8 June 1994 (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994). )) applies to subspecies of birds that do not naturally live in the wild state other than outside Community territory if the species to which they belong, or other subspecies of that species, naturally live in the wild state on Member-State territory.

This being the case this judgment does not concern direct imports from non-member countries and, to the Commission's knowledge, the Court of Justice has still not been caused to hand down judgments in cases involving this type of import.

Against this background it would also be appropriate to examine this body of problems in the light of the relevant rules of international law that apply to trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1811/97 by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Ban on the entry into Portugal of pigmeat products from Catalonia

On 30 April 1997 the Commission adopted a Decision concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Spain (97/285/EC ((OJ L 114, 1.5.1997, p. 47. ))), under which the transport of live animals was prohibited.

Even though Spain has taken the measures laid down in Directive 80/217/EEC ((OJ L 47, 21.2.1980, p. 11. )) of 22 January 1980, Portugal has unilaterally banned the entry of pigmeat products from Catalonia.

Has the Commission taken or does it intend to take any action against this measure adopted by Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

The Spanish veterinary authorities confirmed on 17 April 1997 two outbreaks of classical swine fever in the province of Lerida. The infected pigholdings were depopulated and disease control measures were introduced within the framework of the provisions of Council Directive 80/217/EC introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever. In spite of these measures the disease had on 23 April been confirmed on a total of 10 pigholdings. With the objective to confine the disease to a limited geographical area the Commission adopted on 30 April 1997 Decision 97/285/EC concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Spain. This bans the movement of live pigs from a region consisting of 5 comarcas (communes) to other Member States. The ban does not refer to pigmeat or pigmeat products.

The Commission has not been informed about a Portuguese unilateral ban on import of pigmeat products from Catalonia, but an investigation has been initiated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1642/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: IAEA safeguard inspections in the EU

The United Kingdom allows IAEA inspections in plants such as Urenco. In the German nuclear power station at Unterweser comparable inspections are not wanted.

Are there are national differences within the European Union on authorization of IAEA inspections?

If so, what are those differences, what are the reasons for them and why does the Euratom authority not ensure a uniformly cooperative approach in the treatment of IAEA inspectors?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Urenco plant in the United Kingdom is an installation for the enrichment of uranium, whereas the German installation Unterweser is a power reactor. This means that, in a technical sense, the situation is different as far as safeguards verification activities are concerned.

Enrichment plants require very frequent or continual inspections, whereas power plants are subject to fewer inspections but still several a year.

At Unterweser, more than 10 inspections took place in 1996, most of them together with the International atomic energy agency (IAEA). The technical divergence with the IAEA is where mixed oxide (MOX) fuel should be measured. Whereas the Commission applying Euratom safeguards, thinks that the controls are most efficient if they are performed at the MOX fabrication plants (in this case in the United Kingdom), the IAEA prefers to make such measurements in a non-nuclear weapons state, even if such measurements at reactors need to be performed under water. The discussions on this issue are going on.

There are indeed national differences in the Community concerning the IAEA safeguards verifications, depending on whether the country is a nuclear weapons state or not. Therefore, to implement IAEA safeguards in the Community, three different agreements were concluded between the European atomic energy community, its Member States and the IAEA:

- INFCIRC/193: agreement between the Community, its non- nuclear weapon Member States and the IAEA, entered into force on 21 February 1977;

INFCIRC/263: voluntary agreement between the Community, the United Kingdom and the IAEA for the application of IAEA safeguards in the United Kingdom, entered into force on 14 August 1978 (a fundamental difference from INFCIRC/193 is that routine IAEA inspections apply only to facilities designated by the IAEA from a facilities list provided by the United Kingdom, covering all the United Kingdom civil nuclear facilities);

- INFCIRC/290: voluntary agreement between the Community, France and the IAEA for the application of safeguards in France, entered into force on 12 September 1981 (its scope is limited to materials specifically designated by France).

However, all civil nuclear material in both France and the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards under the Euratom Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2203/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Publication of data on novel food products

Will both the scientific data that have been submitted and the evaluation of such data be published?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Testing the health and environmental impact

When new genetically modified varieties are entered in the common list of varieties which require neither an authorization pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) nor an authorization pursuant to the deliberate release directive ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )), what form does testing of health conformity and the ecological effects tasks?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Transparency of authorizations of novel food products

1. How will the requisite level of long-term public transparency and information be guaranteed?

2. Are the consumer organizations to be informed of all the products that have been authorized?

3. What guarantees are there that this information will be complete and up-to-date?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.