ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Commission response to Written Question E-1954/97

The third part Question E-1954/97 ((OJ C 391, 23.12.1997, p. 145. )) asked whether the information requested of the Member States was yet available. Given that 'to date, nine Member States have replied', would the Commission advise whether these nine responses are available to the Honourable Member?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1997)

The Commission's letter of 18 September 1996 calling on the national authorities to supply the information available on toxic shock syndrome (TSS) had the avowed aim of enabling the Commission to establish basic documentation.

Given that any other use of the material collected in this way requires the agreement of the national authorities, and that the rules of application of the Decision of 8 February 1994 on improving access to Commission documents ((OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994. )) provide that when a document does not come from the Commission but, for example, from public authorities, private individuals, etc., the requester of the document must be asked to contact the source, the Commission is therefore unable * under the current circumstances * to pass on the replies received to the Honourable Member.

However, in a spirit of cooperation, the Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of the Parliament a summary of the ten replies received (one additional reply has been received since the Commission answered written question E-1954/97 from the Honourable Member).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2611/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Organic farming practices

Does the Commission recognize that at present the proposed organic livestock regulation is causing great concern for many organic farmers who are undertaking a conversion to organic farming practices and those wishing to convert?

The proposals will prohibit farmers from rearing the same species organically and conventionally on a single holding. Does the Commission recognize that this policy will impede the expansion of organic farming throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

The Commission proposal ((COM(96) 366. )) for a Council regulation supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991. )) to include livestock production, includes a provision prohibiting the rearing of the same livestock species on the conventional and organic units of the same holding.

This provision is coherent with a similar provision for crop products in Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, as adopted in 1991, and is essential to ensure credibility of organic husbandry to the consumer.

In the opinion delivered in its session of May 1997, the Parliament accepted the Commission's proposal on this subject and did not propose any amendment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/97 by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Breaking the EU embargo on British beef

On 2 July 1997, Commissioner Bonino reported a possible illegal sale of British beef, under embargo because of the mad cow crisis, stating on Italian television that Spain was one of the countries of destination for this beef.

It appears that the Commission later denied that Spain was concerned.

Does the Commissioner acknowledge her mistake?

What were the reasons for issuing the denial?

What authority or official provided the new information which allowed her to change her claims?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2576/97, E-2577/97, E-2578/97, E-2603/97, E-2604/97 and E-2605/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

On 2 July 1997, the Commission notified the discovery of a fraud involving British meat illegally shipped to other Member States and to third countries.

True to its policy of transparency, and in compliance with the undertakings given to Parliament, the Commission has kept Parliament and the Member States abreast of all developments in this affair.

Initially, a Spanish firm, with the same name as a firm established in Guinea Bissau, was wrongly accused.

Subsequently, however, another Spanish firm was identified as having received 200 tonnes of meat from one of the offending Belgian firms. The Spanish authorities were informed by the Commission and are currently investigating the matter.

The Commission is aware that certain information may have repercussions on the meat market, but it gives priority to informing consumers as required by the principle of transparency.

However, the event referred to by the Honourable Members of Parliament has not influenced the market, since, according to the information provided [on a weekly basis] to the Commission by the Member States, wholesale meat prices have not been affected by the disclosures concerning the illegal exports of meat from the United Kingdom in July.

The Commission continues to believe that it is its duty to keep Parliament and the Member States - and, if necessary, consumers - fully abreast of affairs of this kind. This approach has also been widely approved by the Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/97 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Municipal elections

1. Can the Commission confirm that it is possible for European citizens to stand as candidates at municipal elections in the Netherlands even though they are not resident in that country?

2. Can it indicate the extent to which this tallies with Article 8b of the EC Treaty which lays down that: 'Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State'.

3. Should the answer to Question 2 indicate that the absence of the residence requirement is not in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, what measures will the Commission take?

4. What is the Commission's view of the liberal interpretation of Directive 94/80/EC ((OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38. )).

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1997)

On the basis of the Dutch electoral law, it is in fact possible for anybody, whether or not they are resident in the Netherlands, to stand as a candidate in municipal elections. However, if they are elected, they may only take office if they reside in the municipality for which they sought office.

It should be noted that Directive 94/80/EEC of 19 December 1994 on the right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections for citizens of the Union resident in a Member State of which they are not nationals does not provide for an harmonization of electoral law throughout the Community, but simply aims to abolish the nationality requirement for the exercise of electoral rights. Moreover, Article 1 (2) specifically indicates that '... nothing in the directive shall affect each Member State's provisions concerning the right to vote or to stand as a candidate either of its nationals who reside outside its territory or of third country nationals who reside in that State'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (18 June 1997)

Subject: Cohesion Fund

When he spoke to the plenary of the European Parliament on 14 May 1997 the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers said that at present no position could be adopted regarding the continuation of the Cohesion Fund in the financial perspective after 1999.

Taking into account the first report on progress made in achieving economic and social cohesion within the EU, according to which the cohesion policy pursued to date has made a significant contribution to reducing structural disparities between the richest and poorest countries in the Union and the Commission's belief, expressed in the answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies to a Written Question tabled by this Member (E-3430/96) ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 87. )), that it undoubtedly remained committed to maintaining the structural policies and was still determined to ensure that resources are concentrated in favour of the poorest regions, does the Council not consider that continued aid to the four countries which benefit from the Cohesion Fund is essential to enable them to make more rapid progress towards the goal of achieving the same level as their European partners?

Answer (4 December 1998)

In accordance with the rules of the Cohesion Fund, which determine the beneficiary countries and the financial framework of the Fund until the end of 1999, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, will re-examine the rules before 31 December 1999.

The Commission has not yet submitted a proposal on Fund action from 2000 onwards, but on 16 July 1997 it submitted a communication entitled 'Agenda 2000' on the development of the Community, in which it proposes that the Cohesion Fund be maintained in its present form and indicates the amount it considers should be allocated to the Fund. On 15 September 1997 the Council began a preliminary policy debate on that communication.

As it has not yet received a formal Commission proposal on Fund action as from 2000, the Council has not yet adopted a position on the matter.

However, the foregoing in no way prejudices the pursuit of the objective of economic and social cohesion between Member States, as provided for in the Treaty and the Protocol annexed thereto.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Free movement of people

Can the Commission confirm that free movement of people is intended as a two way street i.e. both in and out of Member States?

What proposals do they intend to make to ensure convicted criminals and suspects can be quickly and simply moved to the Member State of conviction or to the Member State investigating an offence?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

A number of international agreements govern the arrangements for the extradition of suspected or convicted criminals from one Member State to another, the principal agreement being the European Convention on extradition, 1957 and its Protocols of 1975 and 1978.

In addition Member States have concluded two conventions to facilitate the application of the European Convention and to improve on its provisions, the Convention relating to simplified extradition procedures concluded on 10 March 1995 and the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union concluded on 27 September 1996.

As long as Member States have not ratified the conventions, the problems that the Honourable Member raises will not be solved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2859/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Human rights abuses and excessive irradiation at Gorleben

Has the Commission seen the video evidence of blatant police brutality during the protects at Gorleben in connection with the recent transports of nuclear waste?

Does the Commission feel that legitimate protest against such trans-boundary nuclear waste shipments (where the Commission has a particular responsibility to the EU citizens) can ever justify the abuse of the human rights of citizens of the Union?

Furthermore, has the Commission studied or tested the radiation emanating from the actual nuclear waste transport containers in use, to check for compliance with standards based on ICRP 60, as well as generally concerning the actual health of the drivers, police, protesters and general public, most specifically concerning neutron radiation, and is the Commission aware of scientific claims that the radiation from the containers is up to 30 times more dangerous than stated?

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

The Commission is perfectly aware of the subject of transboundary shipment of nuclear waste within the Community. However, it is not in a position to comment on national measures taken to overcome resistance against legally authorized activities in the nuclear sector.

The shipment containers in use are certified and type approved according to international and national regulations and standards. During authorised handling and use, the protection of the population and workers against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation is guaranteed by the application of national legislation, regulations or administrative measures based on the Council Directive laying down the basic safety standards in radiation protection ((OJ L 265, 5.10.1984. )). There is no evidence that these standards are not being applied.

The currently accepted scientific position on biological radiation effects is reflected by the 1990 recommendations of the International commission on radiological protection (ICRP) issued as Publication No 60. The new basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom ((OJ L 159, 29. 6.1996. )) mirrors the dosimetry concepts as provided by the ICRP and there is no substantial evidence known which could give reason for modifying these internationally agreed methods for monitoring and assessing doses involving neutrons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/97 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Rehabilitation aid for torture victims

1. Can the Commission confirm that there have been delays in the payment of rehabilitation aid for torture victims despite the fact that the European Parliament created a special budget line, B7-7070, in l997 making ECU 6 million available for precisely that purpose?

2. How many of those eligible for such aid actually received it in 1997, and why have some of them not yet done so?

3. Is the Commission aware that the average time for processing applications increased from 3 months in 1994 to 8 months in 1996 and could well be as much as 10 months this year?

4. What does the Commission intend to do to resolve these problems and how will it prevent any recurrence in 1998?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1997)

1. The Commission can confirm that, in order to provide, in line with the wishes of the Parliament, greater transparency in the administration of its grants programmes, there have been delays in the payment of grants to organisations working to rehabilitate torture victims.

2. In 1997, 33 contracts have been issued and in most cases the first payment has been made or has been ordered. It is intended to issue a further 20 contracts before the end of 1997. The delays are a result of the reorganisation mentioned above.

3. The Commission is aware that the average time taken to process applications has increased significantly since 1994.

4. The Commission has initiated a far-reaching review of the support of organisations through subsidies. Until now, support of organisations which help victims of torture has been treated as project support and subject to control in line with SEM 2000. As soon as revised guidelines for subsidies are adopted, it is hoped that it will be possible to manage torture victim support under those guidelines which will provide for more rapid and appropriate assistance than is now possible.

As a general rule, the Commission has set a target that its operations of payment should be completed within 60 days ((SEC(91) 1172, SEC(95) 1122, SEC(96) 564. )). To deal with cases where, despite those precautions, payment has not been made within the period of 60 days, the Commission decided in June 1997 to change its policy on contracts to introduce from the 1 October 1997 creditors right to interest when payments are made late ((SEC(97) 1205. )). This decision on payment of interest applies neither to officials nor to public authorities nor does it apply to straightforward subsidies. It covers however grants and financial contributions when there is a specific obligation laid down on the beneficiary, e.g. the obligation of submitting a report to show that the funds were spent in accordance with the objectives specified. For the longer term, the Commission is examining the possibility of extending the application of interest payment to other sectors by a modification of the Financial Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Marking of packaging

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on marking of packaging and on the establishment of a conformity assessment procedure for packaging (COM(96) 191 final - 96/0123 COD) ((OJ C 382, 18.12.1996, p. 10. )).

A European mark indicating whether a product can be reused or recycled should:

- be based on existing and widely recognized marks;

- enjoy international recognition;

even if this involves a certain delay in introducing such a mark. It is more important for the Member States to introduce adequate mechanisms for re-use, recycling and, where appropriate, recovery, together with consumer information campaigns.

Will the Commission take steps to accelerate the drawing up of European standards for the marking of packaging and speed up the conformity assessment procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

The Commission proposal on marking of packaging was adopted on 25 November 1996. This proposal completes the Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )) by introducing the marking symbols which should be used, and the assessment procedure for the compliance of the packaging with the essential requirements of the Directive.

As the Honourable Member underlines, the development of international standards in the area of marking of packaging is important. Therefore, the Commission proposal provides that such international developments, once adopted, shall be examined in view of a possible future adaptation of the future Community directive.

There are at present discussions at international level (International organisation for standardisation) concerning symbols for recyclable packaging. The final outcome of these discussions is not yet known.

The Commission has given a mandate to the European centre for standardisation to develop harmonised standards on packaging to ensure compliance with the essential requirements of the packaging directive. As regards the marking of packaging the Commission has not foreseen to initiate specific European standards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

The Economic and Social Committee endorses the priority attached in the Commission's green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final) to measures to assess and reduce rail-traffic noise but believes that the noise reduction measures proposed in the Green Paper can be improved, for example by using low-noise trains.

Will the Commission evaluate and avoid using variable rates for the use of individual railway lines? The resulting additional charge would prompt a shift to other, generally less environmentally-friendly, modes of transport.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.

Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Political killings in Cambodia

On July 18 1997 Amnesty International released details of how over 30 opponents of Cambodia's Second Prime Minister Hun Sen were killed and hundreds more arrested following the coup on July 5.

In provisional areas, there have also been reports of FUNCINPEC members being arrested, charged, tried and convicted of various offences within a matter of days. Human rights groups have expressed fears that the judicial system is being used for purely political ends to harass and intimidate political activists.

What action has the Council taken and what action does it propose to take on recent human rights abuses in Cambodia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2348/97 and E-2744/97 (17 November 1997)

1. The European Union has followed with concern the recent developments in Cambodia. In particular, it has made representations to King Sihanouk and the two joint Prime Ministers, Ung Huot and Hun Sen, in order to obtain political guarantees for a rapid return to constitutional normality in Cambodia.

The European Union has expressed its concern at allegations of summary justice and disappearances following the coup of 5 July 1997. The European Union has asked for the maximum amount of light to be shed on these reports and for respect for human rights to be stored immediately.

Confirmation of the above has been provided by the Cambodian Government.

2. The part played by the Khmer Rouge has been a determining factor in the recent Cambodian crisis, which led to Prince Ranarriddh being ousted as joint Prime Minister. In fact, the Khmer Rouge still hold territories in the north of the country.

The European Union is in favour of a negotiated solution between all parties which are prepared to accept constitutional legality, with a view to national reconciliation.

It is agreed that perpetrators of extortion and crimes against humanity as defined by the Geneva Convention must be brought to justice as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: International criminal court

In view of the existing limitations of the International Court of Justice, what is the Commission's position on the current negotiations to create an International Criminal Court which would be empowered to prosecute any individual for genocide, aggression, war crimes and other crimes against humanity, without any veto by national governments?

Does the Commission support giving individuals and citizen's groups, as well as national governments and the Court's prosecutor, the right to bring cases before the court?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1997)

The Commission is convinced of the need for an international criminal court because events of recent years have shown the urgent need to set up a permanent institution which, by its very existence, may play a considerable part in preventing serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, and act as an important means of preventing culprits from going unpunished.

The Commission is not involved in the current negotiations on the creation of the International Criminal Court and does not consider it expedient to make any statement at this stage on the powers of that body.