ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1142/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Adoption of children and possible discrimination in European law

In response to the experience of one of my constituents, can the Commission identify relevant areas of Community law and support in respect of the adoption of children? In particular, where a public authority in Europe has refused the opportunity for adoption to a woman on the grounds that she is overweight (which she strenuously denies), is it possible that such a decision could constitute unfair discrimination against women according to European law, or a breach of her human rights?

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

In areas which do not fall within its exclusive powers, the Community takes action only where the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or impact of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community. Accordingly, no Community measure has been taken with regard to the civil law institution of adoption.

In April 1967, the Council of Europe adopted a European Convention on the Adoption of Children, which came into force in April 1968. So far the Convention has been ratified by nine Member States of the Union (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and signed by France and Luxembourg. It applies only to the legal adoption of a child who, at the time when the adopter applies to adopt him, has not attained the age of 18, is not and has not been married and is not deemed in law to have come of age.

Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989 and has been ratified by all the Member States of the Union, pays special attention to inter-country adoption and lays down certain legal rules to ensure that 'the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration' in the event of (inter-country) adoption; in particular, States are encouraged to conclude 'multilateral arrangements or agreements' in order to pursue the objectives set out in that Article.

Lastly, in the course of the year the European Observatory on National Family Policies will be publishing its sixth annual report (1996), which is expected to contain a comparative study of the various national laws.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Spain

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, consumption aid accounted for ECU 268.6 million and ECU 166 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the figure for total expenditure on consumption aid for olive oil in Spain?

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 E-1075/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Anti-abuse valve for paint spray cans

Is the Commission aware that 3 - 7% of paint spray cans that are marketed are stolen for graffiti purposes?

Is the Commission also aware that 22 square metres can be sprayed with a 400 ml can and that the cost of cleaning this up is some ECU 550, quite apart from the damage to the environment, and that Netherlands Railways suffers damages of Fl 10 million per annum from graffiti?

Is the Commission aware that there is a satisfactory means of preventing graffiti, namely the patented 'Snep-Kep' invention (U.S. Pat.: 543914B; PCT/NL/92/0002; Eur.Pat.: 00 57 0487 NL (EU)) which is a valve/nozzle combination that is supplied separately from the spray can; that it has the support of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, the HALT Foundation and the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Regional Planning and the Environment; and that it has received an honourable mention in the 'Hein Roethof prize' crime-prevention programme?

Is the Commission aware that European producers of paint spray cans - Auto-K and Duplicolor, in the Federal Republic of Germany, and Motip in the Netherlands - are sympathetic towards the introduction of the 'Snep-Kep' but that valve manufacturer Perfect Valios, which has a near monopoly in the US, and the major paint spray can manufacturers in the US are unwilling to introduce the 'Snep-Kep' because of the loss of turnover?

Is the Commission prepared to introduce legislation in the EU to make the sale of paint spray cans with the 'Snep-Klep' obligatory? If so, how and when? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

The Commission was not aware of the specific information provided by the Honourable Member as regards the use of valves for paint spray cans.

The standardization of aerosol propellants has up to now been concerned only with the risks due to pressure and flammability. Harmonization measures allow for the free movement of aerosols throughout the European Economic Area.

This question is chiefly a matter for the Member States. The Commission would therefore only be able to take action on the basis of subsidiarity if differing measures were adopted at national level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1000/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Farmers in Luxembourg

Will the Commission say how many farmers there are in Luxembourg and how many people are directly employed in agriculture in that country at the present time?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0989/97, E-0990/97, E-0991/97, E-0992/97, E-0993/97, E-0994/97, E-0995/97, E-0996/97, E-0997/97, E-0998/97, E-0999/97, E-1000/97, E-1001/97, E-1002/97 and E-1003/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

Survey on the structure of farms

>TABLE>

Source: Eurostat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Risk to the health of the public and employees as a result of underestimating neutron radiation during transport of highly radioactive waste

A group of scientists submitted to a sister organization of the ICRP, the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), even more far-reaching recommendations on quality factors. Because of the many indications in radiation biology experiments that the relative biological impact of neutrons, especially in low doses, is still much higher than originally assumed, these scientists proposed a quality factor of 25 irrespective of the energy of the neutrons (ICRU 40 1986).

1. What is the Council's position vis-à-vis the guidelines proposed in ICRU 40 1986?

2. What conclusions has it drawn as regards radiation protection in the EU Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1029/97, E-1031/97 and E-1033/97 (2 July 1997)

On 13 May 1996 the Council adopted Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1. )). Adoption of that Directive has enabled protection standards in the previous Directives to be strengthened, in the light of, in particular, recent scientific data.

With particular reference to the assessment of the effects of various types and energies of ionizing radiation, Articles 15 and 16 of the Directive provide for the use of the radiation weighting factor values annexed to the Directive, which are those recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its publication No 60, to which the Honourable member refers. Article 15 also stipulates that the competent authorities may authorize the use of equivalent methods. This possibility is of particular value where a knowledge of the actual parameteres of the situation enables the dose to be estimated more precisely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1156/97 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Legality under EU law of the Austrian scheme for bus tolls in the urban area of Salzburg

The city of Salzburg requires buses wishing to drive in the urban area to acquire a permit which is available at only two points on the motorway for a fee of ÖS 500. In order to drive on the motorway buses have to acquire a motorway vignette, with the result that they have to pay twice to drive in the urban area.

1. Is this dual toll permissible under European law?

2. Can the city of Salzburg be requested, pursuant to European law, to change its city regulations in such a way that transit routes for buses must be exempt from this licence fee if it is clear that buses do not wish to drive into Salzburg but simply want to drive between the border crossing points of Freilassing, Walserberg or Schwarzberg into the Land of Salzburg, Styria or Carinthia, without also wishing to use the motorway? Until now all Federal and regional roads in the vicinity of the border have led through the urban area of Salzburg and there are no corridors which do not require a fee to be paid.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

It is generally true that a fee must be paid to permit buses to enter the city of Salzburg. It is possible to obtain a permission in advance and there are two places where a bus driver is able to obtain such a permission immediately. One is located at the Salzburg-North exit of the A1 motorway (heading to Vienna). The second which is located at Alpenstraße in the South of Salzburg is not connected with a motorway. It is, however, readily accessible via the frontier crossing point Hangenden Stein/Marktschellenberg or other crossing points in the South.

Given that no specific Community legislation exists governing the imposition of road charges on buses, payment of fees such as the one requested by the city of Salzburg could be regarded as a measure relating to traffic control, provided that it does not discriminate against drivers of non-Austrian buses registered in another Member State of the Community and it is proportionate.

The Commission takes the view that payment of a fee for driving into the city of Salzburg is acceptable as a measure of traffic control, provided the regime in question is compatible with the basic principles of the EC Treaty and does not discriminate against holders of non-Austrian buses registered within the Community.

If the destination of the bus is Land Salzburg, Kärnten or Steiermark there at least two frontier crossing points (Hangenden Stein in the South of the city on the way to the South of Austria and Laufen in the North of the city) where it is not necessary to drive through the city of Salzburg or to use a motorway.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the crossing point Walserberg, which he mentioned, is a motorway crossing point. This means that buses must have an Austrian motorway vignette if they cross the frontier at this point.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Risk to the health of the public and employees as a result of underestimating neutron radiation during transport of highly radioactive waste

The biological radiation impact of dense ionising radiation, such as neutrons, is greater than the same physical dose of loose ionising radiation, such as gamma rays. In order to take account of this danger, a physical dose of neutrons is converted into an equivalent dose, by multiplying it by a quality factor Q. According to a scientific consensus which has prevailed for more than ten years, the quality factors for radiation protection do not reflect current scientific knowledge. As far back as 1990, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) adopted enhanced factors (ICRP 60 1991). The recommended values depend, like the previous factors, on the energy of the neutrons.

1. What is the Council's position vis-à-vis the guidelines laid down in ICRP 60 1991?

2. What conclusions has it drawn as regards radiation protection in the EU Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1029/97, E-1031/97 and E-1033/97 (2 July 1997)

On 13 May 1996 the Council adopted Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1. )). Adoption of that Directive has enabled protection standards in the previous Directives to be strengthened, in the light of, in particular, recent scientific data.

With particular reference to the assessment of the effects of various types and energies of ionizing radiation, Articles 15 and 16 of the Directive provide for the use of the radiation weighting factor values annexed to the Directive, which are those recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its publication No 60, to which the Honourable member refers. Article 15 also stipulates that the competent authorities may authorize the use of equivalent methods. This possibility is of particular value where a knowledge of the actual parameteres of the situation enables the dose to be estimated more precisely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/97 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (13 March 1997)

Subject: 1995 report from the EDMC

Having received an utterly inadequate and derisory reply to my question (E-3924/96) ((OJ C 186 of 18.6.1997, p. 133.)) from Mrs Gradin, on behalf of the Commission, I am again asking the Commission:

1. is it not unacceptable that the only report produced so far by the EDMC is only available in English?

2. Is this not a serious breach of the language rules in force in the Community Institutions, which apparently do not apply to the satellite bodies?

3. Will it pay more attention to Members' questions instead of expressing 'hopes' which have nothing to do with the instrument of the parliamentary question?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1997)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is a decentralized Community agency. Its Management Board is responsible, among others, for the language versions of the annual report on the drugs situation. The Board comprises representatives of the Member States, the Commission and two scientists designated by Parliament ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93, 3.2.1993. )).

Through its representatives on the Management Board, the Commission makes known that it attaches great importance to preparation of the annual report as soon as possible after the end of the reference year and to its publication in the eleven official languages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Future of regional policy

Does the Commission think that the priority for the future development of regional policy should continue to be the breaking down of social and economic differences between regions and social groups?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1997)

Economic and social cohesion is one of the three main priorities of the Community alongside the single market and economic and monetary union. The existence of wide disparities in standards of living between the regions and in the opportunities open to different social groups is damaging to cohesion in the Community. In its first cohesion report ((COM(96) 542. )), the Commission pointed out that these disparities remain significant even if there has been considerable progress over the last decade. In the conclusions to the report the Commission stresses the need for a long-term commitment to promote catching up in the poorest regions as well as the need to support the adaptation of other regions, local communities and social groups to new circumstances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1357/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: PTT Telecom's Internet plans

1. Is the Commission aware of the plans of the Dutch PTT Telecom to provide all its telephone subscribers in the Netherlands with an e-mail address with effect from September of this year ((See De Volkskrant, 19 and 20 March 1997. ))?

2. Does the Commission agree that this mass provision of e-mail addresses, together with associated Internet services, will cause an undesirable market concentration, not least because of the tendency of Internet users not to change an Internet address once chosen?

3. Can the Commission state whether, in view of the monopoly position of PTT Telecom on the market in the Netherlands for telephony, it regards this plan as conforming with European rules on competition policy and the liberalization of telecommunications which is underdoing a critical transitional phase?

4. Can the Commission state what action it intends to take if implementation of this plan really does contravene European rules?

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

The Commission is aware of the plans of PTT Telecom to provide telephone subscribers in the Netherlands with an E mail address. The Commission is enthusiastic to promote the widest possible use of

the Internet for electronic mail and other applications. However, it is concerned to ensure that the provision of new telecommunications services is carried out in a fully competitive manner and that companies with dominant market positions do not transfer those positions into new markets. In particular, the Commission believes that there should be an accounting separation between monopoly and non-monopoly activities ((According to the Commission's guidelines on the application of EEC competition rules in the telecommunications sector (91/C 233/02), paragraphs 102-107. )). The Commission will investigate the provision of E mail addresses by PTT Telecom in the light of these considerations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1336/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Was the 'grippe espagnole' Spanish?

A team of North American researchers, headed by Dr. Jeffrey K. Taubenberger, has apparently discovered the geographical and clinical origin of the so called 'grippe espagnole', the influenza epidemic which caused 20 million deaths in 1918 (The New York Times - 22-23 March 1997).

It appears that 'the Spanish flu epidemic seems to have begun in the United States in late spring and early summer of 1918' in US military establishments. Nowhere is there any reference to a Spanish (and therefore European) origin of the epidemic.

Can the Commission confirm this information, which, if correct, means that medical historians will be forced to revise their terminology, thus relieving Spain (and Europe) of this regrettable stigma?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission can neither confirm nor rebut information contained in scientific articles discussing mutations of the influenza virus, and in this specific instance concerning the true origin of the 1918 pandemic.

The article to which the Honourable Member refers was published in 'Science', a journal that has its own editorial committee and its own rules for verifying the quality of manuscripts submitted to it.

It is up to the scientific community, if it sees fit, to change the name traditionally given to this pandemic.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1575/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Action to assist the elderly

Under the EU's new budget for 1997, some projects to assist the elderly could receive new funding. The 'zero growth' budget was finally adopted by the European Parliament at the plenary sitting in December, thereby ending the long and complex interinstitutional procedure.

Three budget items closely concern the elderly, and ECU 2.5 million have been earmarked for 'measures for the elderly' (item B3-4104).

Will this funding be incorporated into a 'framework programme for the elderly'?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1997)

A Commission proposal for a Council decision on Community support for older people 1995-1999 was tabled in March 1995 ((COM(95) 53. )). This proposal has so far not been adopted by the Council. Budget line B3-4104 envisages the funding of pilot projects in anticipation of adoption of the tabled programme.

However, the United Kingdom has brought an action before the Court of justice challenging the Commission competence to fund projects on the budget line B3-4104 without a decision voted by the Council. On 24 September 1996 the President of the Court gave an order which means that the Commission is authorised to sign agreements in 1996, but not to make any payments until the date of the final judgement, and then only if the judgement is in its favour. The Commission is currently seeking legal clarification on the 1997 budget line in favour of older people.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Application in Italy of Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment

In her answer to Written Question E-1508/96 ((OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 48. )) Mrs Bjerregaard stated, on behalf of the Commission, that with regard to projects included in Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) there was no provision under Italian legislation for an environmental impact assessment, contrary to Article 2 of the Directive itself. She also stated that infringement proceedings had already been instituted against Italy on the basis of Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in these proceedings as regards the case referred to above and what, if any, the outcome has been?

Can the Commission say whether the adoption of Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. )), which amends Directive 85/337/EEC, will have any impact on these proceedings?

Can the Commission also describe what, in general, is the outcome of infringement proceedings based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Ms Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)

The infringement proceedings relating to Italy's transposition of Directive 85/337/EEC is at the stage where the decision has been taken to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. The adoption of Directive 97/11/EC has no effect on the proceedings.

The outcome of infringement proceedings based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty may be a judgment of the Court of Justice to the effect that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under a Directive. The Member State must then comply with the Directive. If it does not do so, the Court may give a second judgment, after further infringement proceedings based on Article 171 of the EC Treaty, ordering the Member State to pay a fixed fine or a certain sum of money for each day of delay in complying with the first judgment of the Court.