ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0217/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (3 February 1997)

Subject: Labelling of genetically modified soya and maize

1. Will the recently adopted novel food regulation be applied to Ciba Geigy's genetically modified maize, which has already been approved for marketing and cultivation within the EU?

2. If not, what is the Commission's view of the legal situation where two transgenic useful plants and thousands of novel foods are not covered by the novel foods regulation?

3. If the genetically modified maize and soya are not covered by the novel food regulation, does the Commission agree that in this case national labelling of the genetically modified organisms is possible, since this question was deliberately left open in directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. ))?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

Further to its answer of 27 February ((OJ L 138 of 5.5.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the approvals for placing Ciba-Geigy's maize and Monsanto's soybeans on the market were given under Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment ((OJ L 117 of 8.5.1990. )), which is the relevant legislation. At the time of approvals of these products, the Directive did not foresee any labelling requirements in the absence of safety reasons.

As far as the labelling of products derived from Ciba-Geigy's maize and Monsanto's soybeans is concerned, the Honourable Member may have heard that the Commission intends to take an initiative on the basis of Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ((OJ L 33 of 8.2.1979. )), which would imply making products derived from genetically modified maize and genetically modified soybeans subject to the principles of the labelling of novel foods as laid down in the novel foods Regulation (EC) 258/97 ((OJ L 43 of 14.2.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1158/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: The collapse of money-lending agencies in Albania

According to reports, one of the money-lending agencies which have collapsed in Albania goes by the name of 'Galitsa' and its chairman is Mrs Aisha Gantria, a Turkish passport-holder originally from Kosovo.

Mrs Gantria has now escaped to Turkey, with Turkish help, taking 190 million dollars with her.

Does the Commission intend to look into these reports and what steps does it intend to take to ensure that the money is returned to its owners?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

The Commission is aware of the matter raised by the Honourable Member.

It takes the view, however, that it is solely one for the authorities of the countries concerned to settle, including the return of the funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/97 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Scrapping programmes in the inland waterways sector

Scrapping programmes to achieve structural improvements in the inland waterways sector are currently running once again. Taxpayers and those concerned are wondering whether or when such programmes will actually produce successful results and freight rates for inland waterways transport will reverse the present trend and rise again, so as to give inland waterways operators in the European Union prospects for the future.

1. What actual over-capacity in terms of tonnage currently exists in the European Union and in the main countries concerned, namely Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands?

2. By how much is current tonnage in each country actually to be reduced by the end of 1997 and by the end of 1998?

3. By how much, and by when, are freight rates expected to rise, and on what is this expectation based?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

On 19 November 1996 the Council adopted Regulation No 2254/96 ((OJ L 304, 27.11.1996 )), which established the basis for a new scrapping action to be carried out over three years (1996 to 1998) aimed at reducing current waterway transport capacity by 15% of the total tonnage. This estimate of the overcapacity in the Member States concerned (Belgium, Germany, France, Netherlands and Austria) has been established by the professional organizations of inland waterway carriers and by the Commission in 1995. The scrapping action in 1996 confirmed the accuracy of this evaluation since approximately 5% of the capacity of the fleet was registered on the list of requests for scrapping premiums.

The 1997 scrapping action will make it possible to estimate the remaining overcapacity in the Member States. The Commission will then be able, taking into account these first results, the market developments and the liberalization measures taken, to determine the requirements for the scrapping measures for the year 1998.

Apart from the economic crisis in the years 1993-1994, price indexes in the free market on the Rhine as well as in the North-South market, have tended to increase in parallel with the scrapping actions. In addition, the Commission was even obliged to increase the old for new ratio in order to counterbalance the tendency of over-investment in new boats. This demonstrates that the profession, like the Commission, believes that this mode of transport has good prospects for the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1665/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control

With regard to the progress on the BAT development programme, arising out of the IPPC directive and in particular Article 16.2 of that directive, will the Commission include NGOs in the technical working groups of the Information Exchange Forum (IEF)? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

Article 16(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. )) on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) requires the Commission to organise an exchange of information between Member States and industry on best available techniques (BAT), covering all activities included within the scope of the Directive. The information exchange is overseen by an information exchange forum (IEF), while technical working groups are set up for each of the sectors to be covered. Published results of the exercise will take the form of BAT reference documents, which will provide guidance to the authorities of the Member States responsible for issuing permits under the Directive.

Although not explicitly mentioned in the Directive, environmental non governmental organisations participate in both the IEF and the technical working groups. No distinction is made in these groups between full participation and observer status.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Material privileges of EU officials: Economat shops

EU officials enjoy numerous generous material benefits and privileges.

1. Is there any justification for maintaining special Economat shops in countries where commercial services are adequate to ensure the availability of bread, cheese, meat and tights such as used to be on sale to members of the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union in special shops?

2. How is the cost of distributing the cut-price alcohol delivered to officials at Christmas time justified?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

1. The 'economats' referred to by the Honourable Member are a shopping facility for officials of the institutions. They also sell regional products from the Member States and their prices are comparable to those in any other shop.

The Commission will inevitably have to look into the appropriateness of maintaining this facility as part of the new discussions on modernizing its administration. A solution will have to be reached in close cooperation between the institutions.

2. The scheme whereby officials can buy a duty-free pack of alcoholic drinks (the so-called 'colis') once a year is a privilege that has traditionally been granted by the authorities of the Member States where the institutions are based. The value of the 'colis', which has not changed since 1960, is fixed at BEF 1 500 per year per official (plus BEF 300 for transport and packaging, also paid by the official).

The countries that host the institutions have been questioning whether this facility should continue to be offered and the matter will also be looked into by the Commission as part of its modernization drive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Harmonizing the rules of procurement for aid

Would the Commission agree that there is need to harmonize the rules governing procurement which it applies in different parts of the world (Meda, Lomé, ALA, CEEC, CIS, etc.) to the highest standards in terms of sound management? Given the initiatives taken recently in the framework of OECD (DAC) and by the World Bank, does the Commission intend to improve its own procurement rules so as to prevent corruption more effectively?

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

Yes. The Commission outlined its general views in its Green Paper on public procurement in the European Union: Exploring the way forward ((COM (96) 583 final. )). This document clearly reflects the concern to fight corruption. It recognizes the need for transparency of the procedures for concluding public procurement contracts. In addition, it recalls that there are new instruments to be used where Community funds are in play (Convention and protocol on the protection of the Communities' financial interests ((OJ C 316, 27.11.1995 and OJ C 313, 23.10.1996. ))). On 26 May 1997, the Council adopted a Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member States of the Union.

With regard to external assistance and cooperation, the recent communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Union policy against corruption ((COM (97) 192 final. )) puts the emphasis on preventive measures encouraging transparency, sound administrative management and the independence of the courts.

The Commission will review its rules on public procurement and endeavour to apply them uniformly to the various groups of non-member countries which receive assistance from the Community or have concluded assistance or cooperation agreements with it. This review will extend to the matter of penalties to be imposed on firms which have been convicted of corruption.

This coherent anticorruption strategy is operated in close cooperation with the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other multilateral donors which have already taken measures in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1771/97 by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: European Commission conditions for the retention of documentation by successful European grant applicants

Would the Commission please explain why it demands that applicants for European grants keep the original documentation of any successful application for up to seven years and why it is necessary to insist that this documentation be kept in paper form, not on micro-film or any other form of document retention? Does the Commission not appreciate the storage problems this regulation presents for organizations?

In the light of the fact that many European citizens' image of the European Commission is one of an over-bureaucratic institution, would the Commission not agree that it would be a constructive and popular initiative to reduce considerably this apparently excessive seven year requirement and allow documentation to be retained in a less space consuming format, thereby reducing the bureaucracy and the mountains of paper work?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1997)

The Honourable Member's question focuses on European grant applications, without specifying the relevant sector of Community aid. However, a seven year retention period as indicated by the question is inherent in the programme approach to structural funds financing. The Honourable Member appears to be referring in particular to the Council Regulation (EEC)4253/88 amended by Council Regulation (EEC)2082/93 covering the structural funds ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) which provides in Article 23(3) that:

'For a period of three years following the last payment in respect of any operation, the responsible body and authorities shall keep available for the Commission all the supporting documents regarding expenditure and checks on the operation.'

Given that in the structural funds, operations in the form of programmes may last up to six years it is possible that, in application of the above mentioned article, documentation may have to be retained for the period of time indicated by the question. The nature of programme financing by a series of annual commitments and advance payments inevitably involves on-the-spot-checks being carried a considerable time after the expenditure has been incurred and involving many different types of beneficiary. It is essential therefore that the original documentation should remain available.

There will be an opportunity to examine the problem raised by the Honourable Member when the regulations are reviewed for the structural fund operations after 1999. However, given the need, which all recognise, for tight financial control on the management of Community funds, it is unlikely that any reduction of the three year period or of the requirements in relation to document retention could be envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: New NATO Research and Technology Organization

NATO's new R& T Board, which held its first meeting at the end of November 1996 as the governing body of NATO's Research and Technology Organization, replaces the previous management bodies of the Defence Research Group and AGARD (Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development).

Given the desire to continue emphasizing aeronautical technology in the fifth framework programme and the growing need, within the Community framework, for technological assessments with a solid scientific basis, does the Commission plan to monitor the Technology Coordination Reports, which were first compiled in 1995, and draw conclusions on the possible implications for the development of civil technology of this source of information which is available to most Member States?

Answer given by Ms Cresson on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

Information gathered on reports concerning technological cooperation within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) indicates that these reports deal chiefly with the reorganization of science and technology activities carried out within the organization.

The Honourable Member's question is a pertinent one, since certain technologies have a dual use and research in such fields as aeronautics is of both civilian and military interest.

Research carried out within defence organizations such as NATO may also have an impact on the development of civilian technologies, as supported by Community programmes.

However, information on defence research into dual-use technologies is generally sensitive and not published. Consequently, if there is to be complementarity between civilian and defence research, it must be coordinated at Member State level and between the firms and research institutions involved.

In the field of aeronautics, the Commission has set up a task force to provide an interface between the industries and research centres involved in both civilian and defence research. This exchange of information makes it possible to avoid duplication of effort, particularly in dual-use technological fields.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1348/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Women officials in the Commission

What percentage of head of unit, director and director-general posts are held by women in the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The percentage of women in middle and senior management posts in the Commission on 31 March 1997 is as follows:

>TABLE>

It can be noted that the Commission has set annual objectives for female recruitment in order to increase the number of women in all levels of Category A, including management posts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Research into BSE

What stage has been reached by research into BSE? Have investigations been carried out into the possible use of meat meal (which was used for cattle breeding) for the breeding of animals other than cattle or in fish farms (salmon, etc.) in Europe and have any initial findings or analyses been forthcoming concerning the consequences of this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

Details of the research programme carried out by the Community have already been submitted to the temporary committee of inquiry. A further call for proposals under the FAIR programme was published on 17 December 1996 with a deadline of 14 February 1997. Twenty three proposals for projects were received and these are currently under evaluation.

Concerning the use of meat and bone meal for animal feeding, tests carried out in the United Kingdom have demonstrated that the other food species, notably pigs and poultry, are not susceptible to oral exposure to high concentrations of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent. Sheep, on the other hand, have developed disease in similar experiments and infective material has been recovered from their tissues. The Commission is not aware of any similar experiments on fish. Recent publications have indicated that some fish species do have the normal prion protein, as is found in the mammalian and avian species. Abnormal prion protein, which is associated with this diseases, has not been found in fish. It is therefore reasonable to expect that fish could be susceptible but there is no evidence to date that they develop disease. One project submitted under the FAIR programme is aimed at investigating the susceptibility of fish to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs).

In the absence of definitive data, the Commission has taken the view that a high level of protection is necessary for all species which may enter the human food chain. Consequently, it has adopted Decision 94/382/EC of 27 June 1994 which requires minimum parameters for the processing of animal waste, and came into force on 1 January 1995 ((OJ L 172, 7.7.1994. )). This has been reviewed in the light of more recent evidence, and even more stringent parameters were applied as from 1 April 1997 ((Decision 96/449/EC - OJ L 184, 24.7.1996. )). Furthermore, based on the advice of the scientific veterinary committee, the Commission has also proposed the removal of specified risk materials from animal feed throughout the Community. However, this proposal was rejected by a simple majority in Council on 17 December 1996. The Commission is, at present, reflecting on the necessary follow-up to this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1227/97 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Discrimination against Union citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany

Certain administrative procedures in the Federal Republic of Germany, such as the registration of a vehicle with the licensing authorities, require members of the public to provide proof of an address in the Federal Republic, something which is usually given in identity documents. Since, for example, UK identity documents do not give the holder's address, UK citizens cannot provide proof in this way. The German authorities thus require instead a registration certificate from the relevant registration office which may not be more than three months old. A substantial fee is charged for the issue of such a certificate. As a result, in extreme cases Union citizens whose address is not given in their passport are forced to pay this fee every three months so that they can present the corresponding certificates to the authorities.

1. Does the Commission take the view that this constitutes discrimination against Union citizens?

2. Does the Commission see the introduction of a harmonized European identity document as a suitable means of preventing the daily discrimination and disadvantages suffered by Union citizens living in another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1997)

The Commission takes the view that an authority is entitled to check on the place of residence of an individual, notably where the administrative procedure involves another administrative authority.

As regards the means by which proof of residence is provided, if the individual does not have any identity document showing his address, it does not seem either disproportionate or discriminatory to ask him to provide a recent residence certificate.

The Commission agrees, however, that such elaborate and costly formalities could be avoided if EU citizens' residence permits issued in Germany included the holder's address, as is the case with the identity cards issued to German citizens. These are in the form of a plastified card which includes a photo and an optical feature to prevent forgery, with a detachable sticker showing the holder's current address.

At present, the holder's address is not one of the items that has to be included on the residence permits of EU citizens. The Commission is currently examining a possible proposal for harmonizing the residence permits issued to EU citizens and to citizens of non-EU countries subject to Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1870/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: EU involvement in the development of As Pontes, Galicia

The government of the Spanish region of Galicia has signed a cooperation agreement with one of the principal electricity companies of the country and with the trade unions concerning the economic development of the district of As Pontes, Galicia.

The reindustrialization plan will run until 2001. The regional government will invest 300 million and the electricity company 900 million.

How could the European Union take part in this plan, what could it contribute and under what Community programme or specific measure could it consider participating in the development of the district?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.