ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: EU-Morocco fisheries agreement

Representatives of the Moroccan Government have announced that they are not intending to renew the current fisheries agreement with the European Union, as a consequence of which only the Moroccan fleet will be allowed to continue fishing in the waters concerned.

Does the Commission know whether or not the exclusion of the EU fleet will be extended to other fleets such as the Russian and Japanese ones?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2217/97 and E-2219/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1997)

The fisheries agreement with Morocco has been concluded on a four-year basis as from 1 December 1995, so that it has been in effect for only about one and a half years. The Commission considers it premature to draw any conclusions yet about fishing relations with Morocco from 1 December 1999.

Before then, it will be necessary to assess whether the goals to which the two sides committed themselves under the current agreements have been attained and to make an evaluation of progress in their cooperation over fishing, which constitutes a key element in future relations between the Community and Morocco.

On the subject of Morocco's fisheries agreements with other countries, the Commission has no information about the intentions of the Moroccan authorities regarding renewal of them.

On the subject of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the Community and its Member States on the one hand and Morocco on the other, the Commission would like to point out that it has been concluded for an unlimited period. However, it is true that the Community and Morocco have committed themselves to examining, after 1 January 2000, the situation in trade in agricultural and fishery products with a view to arriving at greater liberalisation of mutual trade as from 1 January 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2138/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Composition of the Food Committee

1. How will the public be represented on the EU's Food Committee?

2. Will representatives of national consumer and environmental organizations be involved in the Food Committee's deliberative and decision-making procedures?

3. If so, how will the representatives be chosen?

4. Will consumer and environmental organizations be entitled to nominate persons?

Answer (20 October 1997)

Subject to any additional provisions in its rules of procedure, the composition of this Committee is declined by Decision 69/414/EEC setting it up.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2351/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Latest information concerning the construction of the high-speed rail link between Rome and Naples

In its additional answer of 5 June 1997 to Written Question E-0508/97 ((OJ C 391, 23.12.1997, p. 15.)) concerning construction of the Rome-Naples high-speed rail link the Commission said it had contacted the Italian authorities and that it intended to draw up measures aimed at ensuring compliance with Community legislation on environmental impact assessment.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. which Italian authorities it contacted;

2. what precisely are the measures it is devising to ensure respect for Community legislation as regards the projects listed in Annex I to Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.));

3. in what ways the initiatives the Commission is drawing up actually differ from those concerning other instances of failure to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC pointed out by the author of this question in connection with the execution of a number of projects covered by Annex II of the Directive;

4. whether the steps taken by the Commission may lead to the work being suspended or the projects being revised?

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

The Commission still contacts the Office of the Permanent Representative of Italy to the European Communities who then sends the Commission's letter to the relevant Italian Ministries - in this case the Ministry for the Environment.

The action planned if there is an infringement of Community law consists of introducing an infringement procedure based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty. The act of bringing a presumed infringement of Community law to the attention of the Commission does not necessarily lead to the introduction of an infringement procedure based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty since the facts and arguments put forward must be checked and legally assessed, normally after the receipt of comments by the national authorities.

It cannot be ruled out that, under particular circumstances, and as part of a procedure based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission may ask the Court of Justice to establish what temporary measures are needed under Article 186 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Call for tenders for an advisor on the privatization of the ACEA by Rome City Council

In its answer to Written Question P-1071/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 60.)) on the tendering procedure initiated by Rome City Council in order to find an advisor on the privatization of the Municipal Energy and Environment Board (ACEA), the Commission said that since the amount awarded was LIT 327 726 000 net of VAT, Directive 92/50/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.)), which sets a minimum threshold for applicabilty of ECU 200 000 excluding VAT, could not be considered as applicable. However, the Commission also stated that the threshold of ECU 200 000 does not refer to the amount

'awarded', but to the amount 'estimated' when the call to tender is issued. Hence if the amount of the contract estimated by the City Council had been more than ECU 200 000, it would indeed have contravened European legislation.

However, Rome City Council's Decision No 1937 of 1995, which announced the call to tender for an advisor on the privatization of ACEA, did not in fact make any estimate of the amount involved. This means that Rome City Council's infringement was twofold, in that it not only did not forward the call to tender but it did not even estimate the amount of the contract beforehand. However, it is stated clearly on page 5 of that same Decision No 1937 that 'Rome City Council shall forward the call for tenders to the Publications Office of the European Communities by fax, to be confirmed subsequently by registered letter ...'.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether Rome City Council's failure to estimate the amount of the contract and to forward the call for tenders to the Publications Office constitutes an infringement of Directive 92/50/EEC;

2. if so, what steps it intends to take to restore compliance with Community law;

3. also, if an infringement has been committed, whether the procedure for finding an advisor, on the basis of the evidence set out above, may be considered as invalidated from the outset?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1997)

The fact that Rome City Council's Decision No 1937/95 does not specifically give an estimate of the contract amount is not in itself an infringement of Community law on public tenders.

The Commission has, however, asked the Italian authorities to explain the failure to send a copy of the call for tender for an advisor on the privatisation of the Municipal Energy and Environment Board in Rome to the Office for Official Publications of the European Community.

The Honourable Member will be informed of the Commission's assessment of the reply from the Italian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2693/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Seal culling in the White Sea

The Commission has previously advised me that Directive 83/129/EEC ((OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30. )) bans the import of skins of certain seal pup species (harp seals and other) and products derived from them, with the aim of putting a stop to the killing of baby seals.

However, given the fact that over 30 000 seal pups continue to be slaughtered in the White Sea areas of Russia and given your failure to provide me with the results of the scientific studies carried out by the Russian authorities, reportedly carried out in 1995, what action does the Commission now intend to take?

Given the total lack of progress by the Commission, has the time now come for the Commission to be a little more assertive in its dealings with the Russian authorities?

What evidence indicates that the 'scientific studies' were even conducted? Were any PHARE funds utilized for this purpose? How long is the Commission going to wait and how many more seal pups will be killed before more urgent representations and action are taken?

What action is the Commission planning to take?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

The Commission's request to obtain the results of the scientific study referred to by the Honourable Member has so far not been granted. The Commission has no information whether such a study was actually conducted. It has not financially contributed to studies on seal populations in the White Sea. In view of the fact that Directive 83/129/EEC effectively prohibits the import into the Community of pelts of whitecoat pups of harp seals, the Commission does not intend to take further action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Management of the URBAN initiative in Rome

The aim of the last round of Community initiatives such as URBAN for the period 1994-1999 seems to be to involve citizens, undertakings, development operators on a vast scale and public authorities at various levels in a close partnership.

As a logical consequence therefore, when implementing the URBAN initiative, the city of Rome should properly provide for such a partnership at various levels and seek as close contact as possible with the urban, social, economic and administrative problems of the two districts in which URBAN will apply in Rome, Tor Bella Monaca and Torre Angela.

By creating its 'Ufficio speciale Urban' (URBAN special office), however, the city of Rome has excluded from management of the initiative the 8th district, the city's decentralized administrative body for the area which would appear to be the administration's main interlocutor for implementation of URBAN as it represents the needs of the local communities and is the natural link between the citizens of Tor Bella Monaca and Torre Angela and the city of Rome.

This decision raises considerable doubts as to the way in which the city of Rome is managing the initiative, especially from the point of view of involving the districts in which URBAN is operational.

1. What therefore is the Commission's general view on the subject?

2. Will it check the timetable and procedures for implementing URBAN in Rome?

3. Would it not be better for the city of Rome to make full use of all instruments at its disposal, including decentralized bodies, when implementing URBAN?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

Given the nature of the activities being supported by the Community initiative URBAN, the Commission considers it essential to have strong involvement of the relevant local actors during the implementation phase.

In Rome, as in the other cities in Italy, the authority responsible for implementing URBAN is the municipality, which, unlike the 8th district mentioned by the Honourable Member, has the requisite administrative powers to manage such a programme. For this purpose the municipality has created a special URBAN office which, during implementation, will ensure a local presence in the areas concerned and will closely involve the 8th district.

The Commission considers the procedures for implementing URBAN in Rome satisfactory and expects that the initial delays in starting up the programme will now be overcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: New prospects as regards retirement pensions for housewives

In its recent reply to my question (E-0119/97) ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 101. )) on the above-mentioned subject, the Council of Ministers held out hopes that a satisfactory solution might be found to the issue of retirement pensions for housewives, which is the subject of a far-reaching debate in the Community.

The Council referred to new Commission initiatives which might encompass an issue of great importance for all housewives, a section of the population that is always at the mercy of interminable discussions which fail to provide a solution to a question of considerable importance to society.

Can the Commission provide information on the specific proposals on this subject, in the light of the prospects raised by the Council of Ministers in its recent reply to my question, and how can it respond the legitimate demands made by housewives throughout the European union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1997)

The Commission intends to rekindle the debate on the subjects broached in its proposal for a Directive dated 23 October 1987 ((COM(87) 494 final. )) by putting forward a new proposal for a Directive. This proposal, intended to redress the shortcomings of the existing directives in the field of equal treatment for men and women, should take into account developments in case law, particularly in the field of occupational schemes (the Barber case and related cases), and changes in family and social structures.

It should be pointed out that the problem of social protection for women at home is tackled in the context of the debate launched at Community level by the Commission communication of 12 March 1997 on 'Modernising and

improving social protection in the European Union' ((COM(97) 102 final. )). In this communication, emphasis is given to adapting social protection to the new balance of the sexes in terms of participation in working life, and to changes in family structures.

In addition, in its 1997 report on social protection, the Commission will include the efforts of Member States to make progress towards the individualisation of rights without jeopardising the economic situation of women.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/97 by José Happart (PSE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Transparency and democracy relating to the provisions governing the operation of the European Union's scientific advisory committees

Following the consequences of the BSE crisis, the Commission is endeavouring to set up new structures, which are currently under consideration by the European Parliament's BSE follow-up committee.

As an initial step, the scientific advisory committees will be based on new internal rules of procedure.

Even at this stage, the discussions reveal distrust on the part of the scientists with regard to transparency of information about the work of these committees.

1. What is Mrs Bonino's reaction to the reservations expressed about the European Parliament's participation in the work of the scientific committees?

2. What are the criteria determining the confidentiality or transparency of given situations?

3. Is the Commission aware that such lack of transparency will continue to engender mistakes, instead of preventing them?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

As the Commission's members and its Directors-General have already informed the Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the Commission has reformed the scientific committees in various respects in the interest of transparency. The agendas and records of the meetings and the opinions adopted are systematically placed on the Internet and transmitted on demand.

More generally, the Commission wants to give Parliament wide access to the work of its scientific committees. However, it cannot endorse the request that Parliament participate in the meetings of these committees. This opinion is also shared by the majority of scientists involved.

The Commission believes that separation of the respective remits of the two institutions makes for greater clarity. Parliament's participation at committee meetings might create ambiguities as to the proper role of each party.

At any rate the Commission will make sure that Parliament has access to the information on which the experts in the Scientific Committee base their work.

Besides, to do justice to the principle of transparency and impartiality in selection, a Parliament observer and a Council observer were invited to attend the procedure for selecting the scientific experts most suitable to be appointed to the scientific committees.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Submission of genetically modified basic varieties and varieties bred from them

Is it intended for the manufacturer to submit, in parallels with the tests, both genetically modified basic vartieties and varieties bred from them (given that in some cases significant changes are apparent only from a direct comparison)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2188/97, E-2190/97 and E-2194/97 (28 October 1997)

Article 4(4) of the Regulation cited by the Honourable Member, with any supplements adopted in accordance with paragraph 5 or, where applicable, Article 3(4) or Article 9(1) of the Regulation, covers the information to be supplied in support of a request for the placing of products on the market.

This information does not prejudge implementation of the assessment procedures by the assessment bodies referred to in Article 4(3) of that Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2825/97 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Trade in anabolic steroids

Is the Commission aware that trade in anabolic steroids, which is allowed in Spain but banned in the Netherlands, is distorting the internal market and jeopardizing public health protection?

Under what conditions is the trade in Spain permitted (is prescription required, is export allowed)?

What arrangements does the Commission have in mind to bring about uniform European regulations ensuring comprehensive health protection?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 October 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-2940/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Statement by Mr Michel Rocard

In an article in Le Monde newspaper on 14 August 1997, Mr Michel Rocard, referring to his efforts to secure the setting up of a voluntary international peacekeeping force between the armed factions in Congo, concluded with the following words: 'The European Commission, replying to my inquiries, says that it still has some 'external and security policy' appropriations at its disposal. The plan can go ahead.'

Can the Commission explain what procedure this initiative comes under?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1997)

The Commission was indeed questioned by Mr Rocard, Chairman of the Committee on Cooperation and Development, about the situation regarding appropriations under the budget heading 'common foreign and security policy' (CFSP). It provided the information requested according to its usual practice and in line with the principle of transparent management of budget resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1839/97 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: EU aid to Italy

What aid did the EU grant to Italy in 1994, 1995 and 1996 in the form of allocations in principle and commitments and payments in respect of policies relating to the following?

CAP - Guarantee Structural Funds R& TD TENs Environment SMEs Culture

Can the Commission provide details of exemplary and successful measures, if necessary with the aid of brochures which have been published about the various policies, to illustrate such data?

What technical resources (e.g. databases, Internet-Europa) does it have at its disposal in order to bring these financial operations to the notice of the general public?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the study on contributions to the Community budget transmitted to Parliament on 14 October 1997 ((SEC(97) 1918. )).

The Honourable Member will find data relating to the utilisation of the Structural Funds in Italy for the years 1994 to 1996 in the 6th, 7th and 8th annual reports on the implementation of these funds.

The Commission (Directorate-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion) has a database including almost one thousand entries relating to information on successful projects cofinanced by the ERDF. Thirty-six projects were selected and included in the publication 'History of the Regions' (a copy of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat) and distributed free of charge. Moreover, it now publishes brochures by Member State, which illustrate other projects.

Operational programmes cofinanced by the ERDF and approved by the Commission are announced in real time in Inforegio News, published in eleven languages. This newsletter is available via the Internet on the Europa and Europa Plus web sites, which also contain an ERDF programmes data-base (http:/cc.cec:8080/en/comm/dg16/re-prog/rphome.htm), where each programme is described briefly and refers to the authority responsible for its implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2949/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Rail infrastructure

Is the Commission aware that major differences in maximum axle load exist for different national rail infrastructures?

Will the Commission make proposals, in connection with the proposal on freight freeways and with the Trans-European Networks, to harmonize maximum axle loads and loading-gauges, so to eliminate this technical obstacle to European rail transport?

If so, what maximum axle load and what loading-gauge does the Commission envisage?

If not, why does the Commission not believe that there is any need for harmonization?

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

The Commission is aware of the variety of national rail infrastructures throughout the Community, which include differences in maximum axle loads and loading gauges. These differences result from the development of separate national networks over many years.

The Commission supports interoperability of national networks and took a first step towards that in presenting its proposal for a directive on the interoperability of the high speed train (HST) network ((Directive 96/48/EC - OJ L 235, 17.9.1996. )) which was adopted by the Council on 23 July 1996. In addition, in order to find the best ways of improving the competitiveness of international freight and passenger services (other than the high speed links) the Commission has launched a study on interoperability covering a number of questions including gauges, and plans to make proposals in late 1998 on cost-efficient measures to help integrate the conventional national networks.