ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Authorization requirements

Will secondary products which contain only a small, percentage of plant products requiring authorization need to undergo separate authorization (e.g. tomato concentrate in ready made pizzas)?

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-2101/97 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Hard-core pornography

Following an anonymous letter which I received in my constituency, I would like to draw the Commission's attention to the activities of Estremo Sound & Vision, Singel 417, No 72, 1012 WP Amsterdam, Holland. They guarantee the delivery of hard-core and child pornography, mailed within the UK and totally free of customs.

What can the European Union do to combat both the activities of this company and the illegal trafficking of hard-core pornography between Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1997)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member to combat the spread of hard-core pornography and in particular child pornography throughout Europe.

The Commission draws to the attention of the Honourable Member the joint action of the Council of 24 February 1997 concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children ((OJ L 63, 4.3.1997. )). This requires Member States to classify as a criminal offence the sexual exploitation of children including the production, sale and distribution or other forms of trafficking in and the possession of pornography involving children. The Council will assess the fulfilment by the Member States of their obligations under the joint action by the end of 1999. However, the joint action does not contain any provisions relating to other types of hard-core pornography. The legality or illegality of such material and its prosecution before the courts is thus to be decided by the individual Member States and differences do exist between their various legislations.

The Honourable Member is further referred to the Commission's Communication of 16 October 1996 ((COM(96) 487 final. )) on illegal and harmful content on the Internet. This document contains an analysis of the problem raised by him and makes concrete proposals for combating it.

The European Drugs Unit (EDU), the precursor of Europol, has had a mandate since the joint action of 16 December 1996 ((OJ L 342, 31.12.1996. )) which covers trafficking in human beings (including child pornography) where it involves at least two Member States. Although the ultimate responsibility for dealing with crimes related to child pornography rests with the individual Member State, the EDU will play an important role also in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2119/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Authorization of varieties

Will secondary products of plants already covered by variety authorization needed to be tested and authorized individually pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. ))?

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-1760/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: French experiments with longer vehicles

Is the Commission aware that the French government is investigating, in anticipation of the introduction of Directive 96/53 ((OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 59. )) on weights and dimensions, whether longer vehicles can be permitted in initial and terminal road haulage in combined transport? What it involves is the transport of two 8.15 metres swap bodies. Is the Commission also aware that experiments are currently being carried out in the Netherlands with freight vehicles of 4 TEU?

Given that there are two Member States carrying out experiments with non-standard dimensions and/or weights in combined transport, is it the Commission's belief that experiments may also be carried out using alternative dimensions and/or weights for freight vehicles in other Member States within the European Union?

Could this lead, in the Commission's opinion, to common rules for such experiments to develop combined transport?

Does the Commission not think it is worth considering, with a view to protection of the environment, permitting greater dimensions for non-combined transport, in accordance with Parliament's opinion on the dimensions and weight of freight vehicles above 3.5 tonnes, provided the maximum axle pressure does not exceed a fixed amount and there is still a sufficiently large statutory turning circle?

If so, hows does Commission intend to draw up such rules?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

Member States have until September 1997 to implement Directive 96/53/EC on motor vehicle weights and dimensions. This Directive sets a maximum load length of 15.65 metres and so will prevent the transport of two 8.15 metres swap bodies on a single vehicle combination. It is only until this date that Member States remain entitled to allow greater vehicle dimensions on their territory.

Article 4(4) of the Directive does allow scope for Member States to have vehicle dimensions exceeding the maxima laid down in the Directive. However, these are subject to strict criteria and the Commission must be informed in advance. To date only two Member States (Finland and Sweden) have formally indicated an interest in longer vehicle combinations in accordance with Article 4(4).

Non-standard experimental vehicles will continue to be permitted under Article 4(5) of the Directive for trial periods.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission did seek to harmonise total vehicle weights throughout the Community but this aspect of the Commission's proposal was rejected by both the Parliament and the Council. Each Member State is, therefore, entitled to set maximum vehicle weights for domestic transport and may have higher limits for vehicles undertaking combined transport operations if they so wish.

The Commission currently has no plans to propose changes to the maximum dimensions permitted by the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the CAP

The countries of Central and Eastern Europe that hope to become members of the European Union represent an agricultural area of 60 million hectares and a population of 105 million. Agriculture in those countries is generally characterized by low productivity and low prices.

In preparation for opening negotiations with these 11 countries,

1. Has the Commission assessed the impact that accession could have on the Community agricultural sector and in particular on the 1992 reform?

2. Has it considered which new policies should be implemented to harmonize prices between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Union in order to prevent crises in the market and indefensible price increases?

3. Has it examined in detail the need to provide for a transitional period, especially prior to accession, in order to prevent harmful imbalances in the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 July 1997)

1. Assessment of the impact of accession of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) to the Union has been considered an important matter by the Commission since the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 declared in favour of their possible accession.

In particular the Commission has promoted analytical work on and establishment of statistical collection for the agriculture of these countries. These efforts led to publication of monographs on the agriculture of the ten CEECs and of a composite report in July 1995. Updated versions of the reports will be published before the end of the year.

2. In December 1995 the Commission presented to the Madrid European Council a document on possible strategies for developing agricultural relations between the Union and the associated countries with a view to their future accession, known as the 'agricultural strategy document' ((CSE/95/607, 29.11.1995. )). This sets out the guidelines to be followed. Pursuit of the approach adopted in 1992 will raise the competitiveness of European agriculture while articulating it with development of an integrated rural policy.

3. The European Council of December 1995 also asked the Commission to prepare

- opinions on the CEEC accession applications

- an analysis of the impact of enlargement on Community policies, particularly the agricultural and structural policies

- a document setting out proposals for facilitating accession of these countries.

The Commission indicated several months ago that Agenda 2000 would deal with all of these matters.

It is within this framework that questions of pre-accession adjustment by the CEECs and post-accession transitional provisions will be examined by the Commission and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2494/97 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Commission (9 July 1997)

Subject: Need for review of nuclear reprocessing within the European Union

In the light of the fact that in June alone there were:

- new concerns raised over the discovery of hot radioactive particles on the beaches close to the Dounreay nuclear reprocessing plant in Scotland;

- fresh alarms raised by the discovery of very high levels of technetium-99 in lobsters in the Irish Sea, arising from radioactive discharges from the Sellafied nuclear reprocessing plant;

- intense environmental worries, admitted by the French Government, following the publication by Greenpeace of an independent analysis of radioactive discharges from the La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant,

will the Commission instigate an immediate safety review of nuclear reprocessing within the European Union?

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

As regards Sellafield and Cap de la Hague the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's replies to written question E-443/97 by Mrs Pollack ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997. )), written question P-2225/97 by Mrs McKenna ((See page 112. )) and written question P-2323/97 by Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 171. )).

Concerning Dounreay and according to the information available to the Commission, contamination has been discovered on-site around a shaft used in the past for the disposal of solid active wastes and this contamination may have resulted from an explosion in the shaft in 1977. Moreover, radioactive particles have been identified off-site, mainly on the site foreshore, an area to which the public does not have ready access, although one particle was found on a public beach in 1984 and another in 1997. It is not known whether the finding of particles off-site is related to the explosion in 1977. However, the national authorities are supervising an enquiry into the circumstances of the contamination around the shaft and off-site. Beaches in the area are subject to regular monitoring and, taking into account the rarity of such particles and the effectively limited access, the risk to the public of even coming into contact with a particle is small.

Moreover, Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty provides for Commission access to environmental monitoring facilities to verify their operation and efficiency. A visit to Dounreay in 1993 confirmed that the facilities in question were satisfactory.

The events to which the Honourable Member refers were unrelated and the Member States responsible for the various installations indicated are responding to the situation in each case. The Commission has no evidence of any breach of Community legislation. It does not, therefore, propose to instigate a safety review of nuclear reprocessing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1988/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Application of Community law in Italy

There are constant reports in the Italian press of Italy's very poor record when it comes to implementing Community law.

Replying to a question tabled by several MEPs, including myself, the Commission revealed that there were 410 different proceedings under way against Italy as at 6 March 1997.

Can the Commission specify how many directives have not yet been transposed into Italian national law?

Can it also give more general details of the course of an infringement procedure against a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

As of 30 June 1997 Italy had still not informed the Commission of measures for the transposal into national law of 88 Directives (out of a total of 1 346 that were due to be transposed by that date). In most of these 88 cases, Italy had informed the Commission of its intended timetable for adopting the measures.

As far as the course of an infringement procedure initiated by the Commission against a Member State is concerned, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to Article 169 of the EC Treaty. The Commission has described this procedure in its annual reports on the monitoring of the application of Community law. It would refer the Honourable Member in particular to the introduction to the 10th ((OJ C 233, 30.8.1993. )) and 14th ((COM(97) 299 final. )) reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Defence industry

The Commission has submitted a communication entitled 'The challenges facing the European defence-related industry, a contribution for action at European level' (COM(96) 10 final).

The Member States are moving towards the definition of an original design for European security, which should take account on the one hand of existing international organizations (WEU, NATO, OSCE, etc.) and, on the other, the needs of those EU Member States which traditionally take a neutral or non-aligned stance in military affairs.

Any action by the Commission in the defence industry sector should take account of the specific nature of this industry and its links with security and defence policy, the systems of research and development and production, and the dependence of the sector on purchases by ministries for defence.

In this connection, will the Commission impose a ban at European and international level on the production, sale and use of anti-personnel land mines?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1997)

The conclusion of an international treaty to ban anti-personnel mines is essentially a matter to be negotiated among sovereign states through the complementary mechanisms of the Ottawa process and the conference on disarmament. In its joint action of October 1996, the Union is 'committed to the goal of the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines and shall work actively towards the achievement, at the earliest possible date of an effective international agreement to ban these weapons world-wide'. At the same time the Union implemented a common moratorium on the export of all anti-personnel landmines to all destinations and continued its extensive practical action to overcome the problems of anti-personnel landmines in all the most afflicted countries. The Commission strongly supports the early conclusion of an international agreement on a total ban, and uses every opportunity in its dealings with third countries, to encourage political and practical action that will assist this process and help overcome the landmine tragedy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2552/97 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (15 July 1997)

Subject: China - GSP

In its report on the communication from the Commission on a long-term policy for China-Europe relations (McMillan-Scott report, A4-0198/97), Parliament 'calls on the Commission to open investigations into forced labour and prison labour in China, pursuant to Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Council regulations on the Generalized System of Preferences, No 3281/94 ((OJ L 348, 31.12.1994, p. 1. )) and 1256/96 ((OJ L 160, 29.6.1996, p. 1. ))'.

Has the Commission opened these investigations? If so, when does it expect to be able to forward its conclusions to the Council? Does it intend to inform Parliament of the investigations? If so, when and how? If the Commission has not yet opened the investigations, when does it intend to do so?

In conducting the investigations, does the Commission intend to make use of the experience of specialized organizations, such as the Laogai Research Foundation?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The Commission has taken note of Mr McMillan-Scott's report on its communication on a long-term policy for China-Europe relations. It has taken particular note of paragraph 42 of the proposal annexed to the report for a resolution calling on the Commission to open an investigation under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulations (EC) No 3281/94 and (EC) No 1256/96 into forced labour and prison labour in China.

Slavery (forced labour) and the export of goods produced by prison labour (though not prison labour itself) are among the practices listed in Article 9 of the Regulations in question as constituting grounds for temporary withdrawal of generalised preferences. However, Article 10 does not give the Commission the power to open the investigation provided for in Article 11 on its own initiative. The Commission may act only if it has received a duly-substantiated complaint from a natural or legal person, or association not endowed with legal personality, which can show an interest in such temporary withdrawal. This complaint must be accompanied by all the documentary evidence needed by the Commission to examine its admissibility and determine the relevance of the allegations made. By way of example, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the cogently-argued complaint that it received with a view to the temporary withdrawal of preferences from Myanmar (Burma) on the grounds of forced labour. This complaint was backed up by some 1400 pages of information and testimony. The decision to open an investigation is taken by the Commission, after consulting the Member States in the Committee for the Management of Generalised Preferences, only where it considers there is sufficient evidence to warrant doing so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2415/97 by Edward Kellett-Bowman (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Draft Commission Directive adapting to technical progress for the 4th time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC

The text of the above draft states in paragraph 3 that it has become known that certain of these dangerous substances and preparations in the form of oils classified as presenting an aspiration hazard, when coloured, pose a risk to human health and specifically to the health of young children. Can the Commission please indicate how, when and where such a statement became known, and by whom?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-2302/97 and P-2377/97 by Mrs Jackson and Mr Cassidy ((See page 122. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2052/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Channel Employment Services Limited

A British sub-contracting company from my constituency, Channel Employment Services Limited (CES Ltd), has been operating in Germany for almost five years. During this time the company has fully complied with both British and German regulations.

However, the company has been subjected to continous, rigorous raids and check-ups on their employment practice by various German government bodies. This has resulted in reduced output on the part of the company due to the amount of time employees have to spend in dealing with the demands of the German authorities, in addition to jeopardizing future work with existing clients who may fear that their sub-contractor is operating illegally in Germany.

Could the European Commission investigate that German contractors are being sub jected to similar check-ups by the German government authorities? Could this be an instance of discrimination by the German government authorities against British companies, undermining the Single Market by blocking the free movement of goods, services and people?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1997)

The Honourable Member's question is concerned, in general terms, with checks on the activities of a British company in Germany.

It is not clear from the question whether the inspections carried out by the German authorities should be examined from the view point of right of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty), assuming that the British company has been established in Germany for almost five years, or from that of freedom to provide services across national frontiers on a temporary basis (Article 59 of theTreaty).

In any case, both Article 52 and Article 59 require the abolition of all restrictions which discriminate against Community nationals on grounds of nationality. Discriminatory measures can be justified only for imperative reasons of public policy, public security or public health. What is more, such reasons may be invoked only within the limits imposed by the Court of Justice in the light of the principle of proportionality. Within this framework, the authorities in Member States must comply with Community law.

The Commission has insufficient information to decide on this specific case and to give a full reply. It is prepared to examine the question in greater detail on receipt of further information.