ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Invasion of East Timor

What is the Commission's attitude towards the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia?

What is the Commission's attitude towards the imprisonment and torture of peaceful protesters in that country, including Mr Jacinto Das Neves Raimundo Alves, a civil servant, who was one of 13 people tried and sentenced for organizing a procession at the cemetery at Santa Cruz, Dili, on 12 November 1991?

For information, he was tried at Dili District Court in June 1993 and sentenced to 10 years in jail: He is currently being detained in Semarang Prison.

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

The Commission's general position with regard to the situation in East Timor is that laid down in the Union's common position of 25 June 1996, calling on the Indonesian government to adopt effective measures leading to a significant improvement in the situation in the Territory.

The position of the Commission and the Member States concerning more specifically respect for human rights has also been expressed as regards the situation in East Timor. Numerous demarches have been made asking for fair treatment and access to prisoners, and a just and equitable solution respecting the legitimate interests and aspirations of the people of East Timor, which is internationally not recognized as being part of Indonesia. The Commission has also given its full support to the tripartite negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations.

More specifically on the tragic events of November 1991, the Community and its Member States issued a declaration on 3 December 1991 condemning the unjustifiable actions of the Indonesian armed forces and stressing the respect of human rights and democracy. Another Community declaration was issued on 13 February 1992, stressing the improvement of human rights in East Timor and calling for fair trials.

With regard to the individual case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission usually uses its established channels of communication to express, together with Member States, concern over individual cases of harsh and unjustified treatment.

The Commission has followed closely the recent events concerning the political process in Indonesia and will continue to make all useful representations to the Indonesian government for the maintenance of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1640/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Euratom, monitoring of MOX fuel elements

The use of MOX fuel elements in nuclear power stations raises various problems since it involves (in line with safeguard categories) weapons-grade fissile materials, and moreover because the fuel rods cannot be distinguished from uranium fuel.

1. How does the Commission assess the particular problems connected with MOX-fuel safeguards?

2. How does the Commission ensure the monitoring of MOX fuels in the various European nuclear plants?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

1. The Commission would recall that, regarding mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, one has to distinguish between the fabrication, transport and storage of fresh fuel elements and the irradiated spent fuel elements after use in a reactor.

Spent fuel elements always contain plutonium regardless whether they stem from fresh uranium or MOX elements. Thus, the Euratom verification activities are equal for both categories.

For the fabrication and storage of fresh MOX fuel elements (which are different from those containing uranium only) specific safeguards concepts had to be identified to implement the strict safeguards goals defined for nuclear material containing such fresh plutonium.

The increasingly complex and automated MOX fuel fabrication plants require high inspection effort for continual inspections and the wide use of unattended measurement equipment to achieve these goals.

2. Based on the safeguards goals, the Euratom approach for safeguarding MOX fabrication plants in the Community is specifically tailored to the design and throughput of the particular installation. Frequent or continual inspections and a comprehensive system of measurement equipment which is specially designed, calibrated and optimised for the type of measurements and the materials that are handled in such plants form the important elements of Euratom safeguards in this installation type.

The finished MOX fuel elements are routinely measured at the fabrication plant due to the optimal measurement conditions compared to the situation at reactors.

During shipment to the reactor and storage there, the continuity of knowledge on the MOX fuel assemblies is preserved by seals and/or safeguards surveillance systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1798/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Retroactive swingeing taxation on private vehicles

By Law No 2459/97 the Republic of Greece has abolished exemptions in respect of the import of vehicles, but not of other personal effects, for one single category of Greek returning to Greece, namely people returning in order to settle permanently in Greece, having been employed or self-employed outside the country for more than two consecutive years.

This decision totally overlooks the fact that these vehicles form part of the personal effects of each entitled person which were exempt from VAT on purchase, because the purchasers were employed in the diplomatic or consular services or because the vehicles were purchased in the Member States of NATO or other international organizations.

This law which has been in force in Greece since 1.1.1997 has taken the owners by surprise within the required six-month period of use before their permanent establishment in Greece, so they have terrible financial problems in raising the amount of taxation due (special consumer taxation and VAT), since in accordance with this law vehicles imported until 18 August 1997 attract taxation of over 75% of their value, while after that date they attract taxation of 400%. However, the exemption is maintained on imports of vehicles in the event of the permanent establishment of other (i.e. ordinary, non-diplomatic) owners in Greece.

Will the Commission say what action it intends to take to abolish these taxes, since it is clear that no one would have bought the above vehicles if they had known in advance that they would attract such high taxation?

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

Supplies of goods effected in Member States which are party to the North Atlantic Treaty and intended for the use of the forces of other States which are parties to that Treaty or of the civilian staff accompanying them - i.e. the transactions referred to in the third indent of Article 15(10) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )) - may be deemed by Member States not to have satisfied the general conditions of taxation in force in the internal market in the case of means of transport, this pursuant to Article 1(4)(a) of Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another ((OJ L 105, 23.4.1983. )).

If Greece makes use of this option, it follows that VAT may be charged by the Greek authorities in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

As to the other taxes connected with the registration of such means of transport in Greece, they may be charged if their users have transferred their 'normal residence' within the meaning of the above-mentioned Directive83/182/EEC to Greece and they are levied in accordance with Article 95 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that Community law defines the conditions of 'normal residence' without taking any account of the nationality of the individuals in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Electronic scrap

1. In which Member States are there rules governing electronic scrap?

2. What does the Commission intend to do in view of the increasing arisings of electronic scrap?

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

For the time being none of the Member States has enacted comprehensive legislation on waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). However, in several Member States preparations are well advanced.

The adoption of the first ordinances on take back and treatment of WEEE is expected in Denmark and the Netherlands. These ordinances comprise various product groups of the waste stream. Germany, Italy and Sweden are expected to follow the example of these two Member States in the near future.

The Commission is examining different options to improve the waste management of electronic products, including the results of a study it launched on the environmental and economic impact of recovery of WEEE. On the basis of these conclusions and the findings of various national studies the Commission is preparing its decision on further action in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1433/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (18 April 1997)

Subject: Greek Government's draft law on the exercise of the profession of accountant, tax consultant, etc.

The draft law entitled 'Exercise of the profession of accountant, tax consultant, functioning of Institute of Chartered Surveyors and other provisions', recently announced by the Greek Government, provides inter alia that accountancy graduates from Technical Education Institutes (TEI) are demoted to 2nd class accountants, which hinders their professional development even though they chose to study in a department of Greek higher-education that was specifically for accounting. The draft law further provides that graduates of other educational institutions will be able to practice accountancy as 1st class accountants, even if they have not studied in fields with such relevant subject-matter and therefore have little or no knowledge of accountancy.

The proposed arrangement is in direct breach of Greek Presidential Decrees 349/89 and 186/92, which safeguard the professional rights of the graduates concerned. More importantly, however, the measure breaches the spirit of Community Directive 89/48 ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. )) establishing the unhindered professional development of higher-education graduates. The Court of Justice (judgment delivered by the Third Chamber on 23 March 1995 in Case C-365/93) has, incidentally, already found against Greece for failing to safeguard the professional rights in question. What view does the Commission take of this issue, and what steps will it take to ensure Greece's full compliance with Community law in this particular matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

The draft law referred to by the Honourable Member does not infringe Directive 89/48/EEC, under which the task of regulating the professions, and in particular the conditions of access to them, by laying down qualification requirements is a matter for the Member States.

The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-365/93 concerns the failure to transpose the Directive and not the safeguarding of professional rights mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission has decided to issue a reasoned opinion for failure to comply with the Court's judgment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2185/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Further development of demonstration methods

What efforts are the Institutions of the EU making to facilitate further development of demonstration methods?

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-1544/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon 20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate ester poisoning. As it was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76. )) on the same subject, I would ask the Commission to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

Which institution examines the mode of action of ethical and freely available antiparasitics, especially for their harmlessness to humans and animals and their compatibility with the environment? Is the Commission aware that manufacturers wishing to continue marketing products registered before 1978 were required to submit the results of all tests by the end of 1996? Did they do so? Is this governed by EU legislation? Were products authorized after 1978 adequately tested?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1534/97, E-1540/97 and E-1544/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts reported by the Honourable Member. It is making enquiries among the Member States concerned and with the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of these enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1795/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Decision 96/449/EC on the processing of waste from mammals into meal for use as feed

Regarding Decision 96/449/EEC ((OJ L 184, 24.7.1996, p. 43.)), on which I have already tabled two questions to the Commission and which is proving enormously difficult to implement at the practical level in all the Member States, will the Commission clarify the following points:

1. Does the protein residue obtained from processed mammal bones (fit for consumption or otherwise) always have to be pressure-treated (3 bar at 133 °C for 20 minutes) in accordance with Decision 96/449/EC in order to be used as animal feed?

2. Does the protein residue obtained from rendered mammal fatty tissue (fit for consumption or otherwise) always have to be pressure-treated in the manner laid down in the Decision in order to be used as animal feed?

3. What fluid has to be pressurized to generate the 3 bar specified in the Decision, air, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or water vapour?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

1. Commission Decision 96/449/EC requires animal waste to be processed at 3 bar at 133 °C for 20 minutes. This applies to all mammalian animal waste but there are certain exemptions including for bones which are fit for human consumption. Other bones are not exempt.

2. The above exemption refers only to bones, and any material which is removed from these bones, whether or not it is fit for human consumption, must be pressure treated unless it is intended that it should go for direct human consumption. Consequently, for use in animal feed it must be treated in accordance with Decision 96/449/EC.

3. The liquid used to generate 3 bars pressure as mentioned in the Decision is not specified. However, the normal and most obvious practical method is by the heating of water in a confined vessel which will, by the laws of physics, generate 133 °C at 3 bar. The Commission is unaware of any other system which would give these conditions and which is in practical use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2159/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Unintentional inclusion in tradcitional foods of substances for which labelling is obligatory

1. What procedure is to be adopted towards products which, while not consisting of genetically modified products, may (unintentionally) contain elements of such products?

2. Is there any provision, in these cases, for monitoring and, where appropriate, labelling (e.g. honey and honey products with pollen from transgenic plants)?

3. Are products containing pollen to be tested to ensure that consumption poses no health risk?

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-2127/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - 'Substantial equivalence' in derived varieties

1. What guarantees will there be that the 'substantial equivalence' of all plants of the same tested and authorized line remain present, or that they can be tested?

2. What will be the approach towards derived varieties?

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-1848/97 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Market organization for olive oil

Why are their irregularities with the appropriations provided for the market organization for olive oil?

What is the natures of these irregularities?

What are the reasons for the increase in these irregularities?

How does the Commission intend to prevent them in the future?

What is the extent of the damage suffered hitherto?

What countries are affected?

What penalties can the Commission impose?

What penalties have been imposed?

What data are available on these points 1996?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (14 July 1997)

As regards cases of irregularities and fraud involving olive oil (second, fifth, sixth and ninth points raised), the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1059/97 by Mr Cabezón Alonso ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 57. )). In addition, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat general a table containing cases of fraud communicated by the Member States in 1996.

Concerning weaknesses of the current legal framework and actions to prevent fraud in the future (points one, three and four), the Commission would take the view, as indicated in its note to the Council and the Parliament ((COM(97) 57 final. )), that measures have to be adopted to counter irregularities in the framework of the common market organisation. The matter has been referred to the Parliament for its advice and when this is received, the Commission will be in a position to table its proposals.

As far as penalties are concerned (points seven and eight), the Commission would point out that a range of penalties exist (both administrative and criminal) and would add that it is the responsibility of the Member States to apply such penalties. For example, under the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2677/85 ((OJ L 254, 25.9.1985, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 887/96, OJ L 119, 16.5.1996. )), as regards consumption aid and depending on the seriousness of the infringement, Member States apply:

- the payment of an amount equal to between 3 and 8 times the aid improperly applied for;

- the withdrawal of approval for a period from 1 to 3 years where the quantity for which aid has been unduly applied for is at least 20% of the total quantity subject to checking for which entitlement to aid has been recognised.

The Commission would finally underline that it does not systematically receive information on sanctions decided by national authorities from the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2290/97 by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Quarantine

Can the Commission confirm the status of the implementation of the BALAI directive?

Has the directive been reviewed and is it likely to be extended to cover pet dogs and cats?

Has the Commission had any recent contact with the British Government about the future of the British quarantine system and its impact on free movement in the Single European Market?

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

All of the Member States have notified the Commission that they have implemented Council Directive 92/65/EC laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC ((OJ L 268, 14.9.1992. )) (so called Balai Directive).

This Directive is currently being reviewed by the scientific veterinary committee, particularly in relation to various aspects of rabies. A report is expected in the near future. Following this report the Commission will make suitable proposals at an appropriate time.

The Commission has regular contacts with the British authorities on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: European Environment Agency

With regard to budget heading B4-3101 for financial year 1995: Subsidies for the European Environment Agency, can the Commission say whether the European Environment Agency has granted subsidies to outside bodies and, if so, can it list them and state the amount of such subsidies granted in Italy for each activity and for each organization?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.