ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/96 by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: BSE

The Commission has repeatedly expressed the view that the various methods of testing for BSE which have been debated in the media are unsuitable and unreliable. What scientific research supports this Commission standpoint? In particular, what research has been undertaken into Dr H. Narang's live animal test and taken into account in the Commission's view?

The Commission, citing the World Health Organization, has expressed the view that, in certain circumstances, the production of gelatin is safe as regards exposure to infectious material. Is the Commission familiar with the scientific basis of the WHO's position? Is it true that sodium lye (NaOH) is often not used in the production of beef gelatin, and that even when it is, the concentration is around 20 times too low to inactivate the agent, according to the present state of knowledge?

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

The Commission is aware of the live animal tests cited by the Honourable Member and has offered the scientist the opportunity to have his tests represented independently by the United Kingdom's authorities. He has not accepted the offer. Other test methods which have been discussed are based upon examining samples of cerebrospinal fluid. Such sampling is very difficult to perform in live animals and is consequently not appropriate for a large-scale screening programme. However, the Commission will of course assess any test methods for live animals which may be proposed. Recently, information has been received on a test for scrapie using tonsil biopsy. This is under scrutiny, and could prove useful for BSE.

The Commission has asked Professor Weissman of Zurich to set up a group of experts to advice on research needs, including the field of testing of live animals. His report is expected soon.

The report of a World health organization consultation on public health issues related to human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, of 2-3 April 1996, states:

'Gelatin in the food chain is considered to be safe if produced by a manufacturing process utilizing production conditions which have been demonstrated to significantly inactivate any residual infectivity that may have been present in source tissues.'

The scientific references on which this opinion was based are set out in the annex to the report.

The Commission is aware of various production methods for gelatin. For production of gelatin in the United Kingdom, Commission Decision 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )) requires that the raw materials may only be low risk tissues in accordance with the International office of epizootics criteria and that the process must include both alkaline and acid treatment or alkali alone for extended periods of time at high concentrations, followed by heat treatment. The methods are currently under review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2060/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Adoption of Directive 91/439/EEC

Can the Commission disclose how many Member States have adopted fully EC Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1. )) and how many have abolished their 'grandfather rights' to existing drivers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1996)

Five of the fifteen Member States have fully implemented Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, and a further five are close to full implementation. There are difficulties involving five Member States. But, as Council Directive 91/439/EEC took effect from 1 July 1996, all European citizens can already enjoy their rights under this Directive, in particular profiting from the mutual recognition of all driving licences issued by Member States.

Directive 91/439/EEC does not include any provision for 'grandfather rights'. Such a provision was included in point i) of Annex III minimum standards of physical and mental fitness of Council Directive 80/1263/EEC of 4 December 1980 ((OJ L 375, 31.12.1980. )), but has not been retained in the same Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC. Consequently, the absence of such a provision in Directive 91/439/EEC obliges all Member States to abolish their 'grandfather rights'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/96 by Astrid Lulling (PPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Hunting insurance

In most Member States civil liability insurance ('hunting accidents') is an essential condition for obtaining a hunting licence.

There are, however, a considerable number of differences between the Member States, both from the point of view of the minimum guarantees provided in the case of material damage or physical injury and as regards the duration and cost of the insurance schemes and the geographical area covered. Furthermore, legislation in some Member States provides that the insurance scheme must be provided by a company established in the country in question.

All these arrangements hinder the freedom of movement of hunters and sports shooters on Community territory - when they go on hunting trips or where they live in frontier regions - and prevent insurance companies from freely offering their services in all the Member States, as provided for in Directive 92/49/EEC ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1. )) 'direct insurance other than life insurance'.

Does the Commission agree that, in the interests of the smooth functioning of the internal market, the harmonization of national legislations on civil liability insurance for hunting is necessary, notably as concerns the minimum guarantees and periods covered, and that Community citizens should be able to take over an insurance policy with the company of their choice, regardless of the Member State in which it is established?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 October 1996)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the rules of the Treaty and with the relevant Council Directives, in particular Directive 92/49/EEC, ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) Member States are required to authorize the taking-out of an insurance contract written either under the right of establishment and by way of freedom to provide services, with a view to obtaining cover in respect of civil liability arising from hunting activities, with an insurance company duly authorized in its home Member State to write such insurance.

The Commission takes the view that the Member States are better placed to decide whether hunting activities carried out on their territory should be the subject of insurance covering the associated civil liability and, where appropriate, to determine the amount of the guarantees and the conditions of cover, having due regard to the differences that exist between Member States in the exercise of hunting activities.

If it transpired that the rules in Member States regarding civil liability insurance for hunting could create obstacles to the practice of the sport, the Commission could take any appropriate measures consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2611/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Visit by the Troika to Israel

Is the European Union Troika planning to visit Israel and Orient House in East Jerusalem?

Has the Israeli Government indicated to the Troika that it will not be received unless it refrains from visiting Orient House?

If so, what consequences might the attitude of the Israeli Government have on EU policy with regard to visits to Orient House?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1996)

The declaration of the Union on the Middle East peace process adopted on 1 October 1996, states that the Union is currently preparing a ministerial Troika visit to the Middle East. As for the Israeli government indications to the Troika with regard to visits to Orient House, the Council Presidency is best suited to provide the relevant information to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1729/96 by Antoine-François Bernardini (PSE) to the Council (1 July 1996)

Subject: Situation of Eurocopter

The European defence industry is in process of being restructured, following the decisions to reduce the military budget, particularly in France.

The Franco-German consortium Eurocopter, the second biggest helicopter manufacturer in the world, is particularly affected by these decisions, and is considering making 1500 employees redundant (1000 in France and 500 in Germany).

What action does the Council intend to take to preserve the necessary industrial basis for the development of defence policy?

Does the Council intend, in the context of the review of the defence industry being undertaken by DG III, to introduce a programme in support of the enterprises and regions most affected by these restructurings, on a significantly larger scale than KONVER, whose objectives are strictly confined to conversion and SMUs?

Reply (7 November 1996)

The Council has not received any Commission proposal to establish a support programme for the enterprises affected by the industrial restructurings referred to in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/96 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: French neoprotectionist practices in the seed and plant sector which are hindering the entry of Spanish companies on to the French market

There is a Community list of all seed varieties marketable in the European Union. This enables European companies, including French companies, to market their seed varieties and mixtures in Spain subject only to the condition that they are registered on the European list (a compilation of national catalogues).

The French authorities continue to require varieties marketed in France to be registered in their national catalogue, which is clearly illegal in the light of Council Directive 70/457/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1. )) of 29 September 1970 which provides for the creation of a single European list valid for all the Member States.

French distributors trading with Spanish companies must be entered on a special register, entailing an annual payment of FF 3185, something which is not required if they only market seeds and mixtures of other French companies.

In addition, a special annual levy per kg. of imported seed must be paid. In order to pay this levy, French clients must complete and send to the GNIS ('Groupement national interprofessionnel de semences et de plantes') a periodic declaration of their imports.

Is the Commission aware of the restrictive practices imposed on Spanish companies by French companies which market seeds and plants? Would it be possible to abolish immediately the red tape and levies which are hindering free trade in our products on Community soil?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

The Commission has been informed recently that for seeds in the form of mixtures to be marketed in France the following is required:

1. The mixtures of varieties of grasses for green spaces must be composed of seeds from varieties registered in the French catalogue.

2. The Groupement national interprofessionnel de semences et plantes (GNIS) levies a parafiscal tax on the first sale of seed mixtures. It also levies a tax in the case of non mixed seed.

3. Operators introducing seed in France are bound to register themselves at a cost of 3 185 FF per year.

The Commission takes note that the Honourable Member has referred in his written question to the requirement described in 1. above extending it from mixtures of seeds to all seed varieties. The requirement stated in 3. is also covered by the written question, albeit limiting it to French operators in their transactions with Spanish firms. Furthermore, the Honourable Member alleges that an annual tax per kilogramme of seed introduced in France is levied.

The Commission is looking into the above matters in order to establish whether such requirements are compatible with Community law. The Commission will seek the observations of the French authorities on this matter and its conclusions will be made available to the Honourable Member in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/96 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Council (25 June 1996)

Subject: Herring quota

1. Is the Council aware of the research into herring fishing carried out by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)?

2. Can the Council confirm the research finding that the Danish fish meal industry, in particular, is responsible for a possible quota restriction because a considerable quantity of young herrings are caught along with sprats?

3. Can the Council also confirm that Scottish fishermen catch more than their permitted quota?

4. If so, does the Council agree that these points should be borne in mind when the quota is allocated and that other Member States should not have to suffer from the unacceptable practices of the Member States referred to above?

Reply (19 November 1996)

1. The Council is aware that the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) conducts regular research into a number of fish stocks, including herring. Indeed this scientific advice forms the basis for the Proposals made to the Council each year by the Commission to determine the levels of total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas. These are allocated according to the principle of realtive stability, and subject to certain technical catch restrictions.

2. The latest report from ICES on herring expresses grave concern on the state of the herring stocks and makes a number of recommendations, including reduction in catches and fishing mortality for all fleets exploiting the herring stocks, for both human consumption and industrial purposes.

3. The European Community held consultations with the Norwegian authorities, who are jointly responsible for the management of North Sea herring stocks, and on 25 July 1996 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1602/96 ((OJ L 198, 8.8.1996, p. 1. )) to reduce very considerably the 1996 TAC for these stocks.

4. The Council does not have any specific statistical information on the herring fishery which would make it possible for it to attribute overfishing to fishermen of particular Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2324/96 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Security measures to combat terrorism in air transport

The latest of many air disasters, this time near New York, where a TWA jumbo jet exploded, killing 230 passengers, highlights once again the problem of security in air transport on national and international routes.

Those working in the air transport sector agree that security controls at airports are shockingly inadequate, with insufficiently trained staff being employed and equipment - including electronic equipment - being used which often proves incapable of detecting weapons and explosive devices and substances.

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to ensure that security is finally guaranteed in air transport, by adopting stringent measures and strict rules - to be introduced in agreement with countries outside the Community too - to prevent further tragedies caused by terrorist acts (as seems to have happened in this case), in response to which official expressions of condolence and good intentions are useless and are only prompted by the emotional reaction immediately following such disasters?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1996)

The Commission is not at present legally able to intervene in the matter of aviation security, as suggested by the Honourable Members.

While Title VI of the Treaty on European Union established a cooperation between Member States in the areas of justice and home affairs, the initiative for action in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation lies only with the Member States. In both common foreign and security policy, and justice and home affairs, Member States have working groups devoted to the fight against terrorism.

In addition, aviation security is dealt with in the framework of the European civil aviation conference (ECAC), which indeed covers a much wider territory than the Community. The Commission attends the meetings of the ECAC working group as an observer and is confident of the commitment of Member States to the implementation of ECAC security standards and recommended practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Closure of Fisons-Italia by Rhône-Poulenc

Does the Commission intend to intervene - at least by conducting searching inquiries prior to taking whatever measures may be appropriate - to ascertain the real reasons for Rhône-Poulenc-Rorer's decision to close down Fisons-Italia completely? The 133 sales staff are due to be dismissed, as are the 37 employees of the head office in Rome (which is to be closed down), while the jobs of the 77 employees of the Pomezia factory, which is for sale, are under threat.

The French pharmaceuticals company is liquidating a group - Fisons-Italchimici SPA, a thriving business that is in the first rank in terms of staff, technology and science - after acquiring Fisons-Internazionale for Lire 5000 billion. This perverse financial manoeuvre aimed at achieving industrial concentration for speculative purposes is enormously damaging to employment and industry in Italy, and the Community authorities could and should intervene.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)

On 21 September 1995 the Commission adopted under Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )) with a Community dimension a decision declaring that the takeover of Fisons plc by Rhône Poulenc Rorer Inc. was compatible with the common market.

The main aim of the appraisal carried out by the Commission in merger cases is to establish whether such operations are likely to create or strengthen a dominant position on the market. In so doing, the Commission is duty-bound to place its appraisal within the general framework of the fundamental objectives of the Treaty, including that of strengthening economic and social cohesion.

The detailed investigation of the takeover of Fisons plc by Rhône Poulenc Rorer enabled the Commission to establish that the takeover had not led to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position by Rhône Poulenc Rorer. Given that considerations of economic and social cohesion can be taken into account only if the takeover creates a competition problem, the operation was declared to be compatible with the common market.

The subsequent liquidation of Fisons Italchimici SpA cannot be assessed on the basis of the above-mentioned rules since the Commission is not competent to deal with that operation (which does not constitute a takeover).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Conditions in Romanian prisons

1. Is the Commission aware of what is in the report 'Ill-Treatment and Conditions of Detention in Romania' written by the Association for the Prevention of Torture, and is the Commission aware of the fact that this is not the first report on poor conditions in Romanian prisons and in the Romanian legal system?

2. What are the Commission's views on the substance of the report and on the human rights violations in Romania, and what conclusions does it draw?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

1. Yes.

2. Romania has ratified the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the European convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As a signatory Romania is obliged to comply with the standards set out in those conventions.

The Commission follows with particular attention the human rights situation in Romania, including the question of prison conditions, particularly in the light of the visit to Romania by the committee for the prevention of torture of the Council of Europe at the end of 1995. The findings of the committee are the subject of confidential discussions between the government of Romania and the Council of Europe. The Commission will closely follow the outcome of these discussions.

The protection of human rights is one of the criteria for membership of the Union established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. In its opinion on Romania's application for membership of the Union, the Commission will pay particular attention to Romania's ability to take on the rights and obligations of membership in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1911/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Environmental impact assessments and Trans-European Network projects

Since environmental protection for the TENs will rely on Member States' observance of the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) and habitat Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )), what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that both these directives are fully transposed into all Member States' national legislation?

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

The Commission has used its powers under Article 169 EC Treaty to take legal action against Member States which have not communicated any legislation in respect of these directives.

The Commission also tries to ensure that any relevant legislation that is communicated to it by Member States is in conformity with these directives. A number of legal actions have been started where national legislation has been found to be deficient.