ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3109/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Roma-Pantona line at Tor Bella Monaca

The residents of Tor Bella Monaca, a densely populated Roman suburb, have recently made representations to the commune of Rome to stop construction work on the Rome-Pantano light metro and revise the plans. The present plan for this project, which would pass overground through the built-up area of Tor Bella Monaca, involves the construction of a railway line enclosed between two concrete walls several metres high. The local residents point out that, if the railway followed the planned route, the walls would be built almost directly in front of people's homes, and the impact on the environment would be disruptive to say the least. It appears that the official plans for the project fail to indicate a large number of homes situated right next to the proposed high concrete walls.

In view of the foregoing,

1. Is this project covered by Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) on environmental impact assessment?

2. Does the failure to involve local residents in the environmental impact assessment study for the Rome- Pantano light metro project constitute a breach of Directive 85/337/EEC?

3. If it is ascertained that the provisions of that directive were breached, does the Commission consider that fresh plans should be drawn up in accordance with Community legislation?

4. Does the Commission intend to take the initiative on this matter?

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

The project referred to falls within the scope of Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects on the environment.

In this type of project, the environmental impact assessment procedure is not compulsory. However, the Court of Justice, by its judgment of 2 May 1996 in case C-133/94, Commission/Belgium, ruled that a national law excluding a priori certain projects of the classes listed in Annex II from possibly having to undergo an environmental impact assessment, where it is found that the characteristics of the projects of the said classes require the above-mentioned assessment, is contrary to Directive 85/337/EEC, and in particular Articles 2(1) and 4(2).

It is clear that if the environmental impact assessment procedure is necessary, the absence of measures enabling citizens to express their opinion on the project, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Directive 85/337/EEC, constitutes a breach of this Directive.

In the event of a breach of Directive 85/337/EEC, the Commission does not have the power to call for a new project to be carried out. However, it can insist that the Member State concerned comply with the obligations under the Directive for the project in question, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission will intervene by requesting information from the Italian authorities on the facts presented by the Honourable Member. If necessary, the Commission will investigate the case in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3505/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: 250 million children involved in slave labour

Has the Commission followed the preparatory work for the Oslo Conference on 27 and 28 October 1997 at which 40 countries and hundreds of trade union leaders and NGO representatives will discuss the dramatic situation caused by the increasingly widespread use of child labour, especially in the poorest countries?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that the harshest and most despicable forms of such 'work' are in fact often tantamount to a new form of slavery as confirmed by two UN agencies (UNICEF and ILO) and that they now involve 250 million children often aged between 9 and 10 who work (e.g. making carpets in India and Pakistan) up to 16 hours a day for on average no more than 100 francs a month (LIT 30 000)?

What will the Commission do to mobilize the European Union against this disgraceful state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)

The Commission did not follow the work of the conference in Oslo on 27 and 28 October.

The European Union sets great store by respect for children's rights and the protection of their life and dignity.

It is largely at the EU's instigation that every year since 1995 the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly of the United Nations have adopted a resolution on the rights of the child addressing the most serious problems facing the world's children, in particular the need to eliminate the use of child labour.

In these forums the Presidency, speaking on behalf of the Union, asks those states that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority, and calls on all states to fulfil the commitments to which they have signed up. This convention, which has been ratified by more than 190 countries, states (in Article 32) that 'States Parties recognise the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development'.

For its part, the Commission makes a point of raising these issues in its contacts with the authorities of the countries concerned and strives with all means at its disposal to contribute to the elimination of the practices referred to by the Honourable Member.

An example of this is the proposal it adopted at the end of October regarding the implementation of the social and environmental incentive clauses in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). Specifically, the draft Council Regulation provides for the granting of additional preferences to those countries benefiting from the system which specifically request them and which can demonstrate that they have adopted, and are effectively enforcing, the substance of the international standards relating to the protection of workers established by the International Labour Organisation, in particular Convention No 138, on the minimum age for admission to employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Wetlands of Nea Fokaia in Khalkidiki

The community of Nea Fokaia in Khalkidiki comprises two important coastal wetlands which are surrounded by woodland. Much of this region has already been built on with licences issued by the state, and pressure has been mounting since 1961 to develop the land.

These two wetlands have been registered as such by a number of bodies (the Ministry of Agriculture in 1988, the National Centre for Biotopes and Wetlands/ the Goulandris Museum of Natural History in 1994, the Kassandra Forestry Authority in 1996 and 1997 and the Environmental Department of the Prefecture of Khalkidiki in 1997).

However, on 4 April 1995, the Government decided to cede 181.1 hectares of one of the two wetlands to the Greek Tourist Board for the construction of a golf course, basing its decision on the fact that the Greek Tourist Board has characterized the region as a dried-up marsh.

The local authorities have called for the wetlands to be preserved, but at the same time to be promoted for tourism; they have also demanded a stop to the illegal seizure of land and violations of national and Community legislation which bring Greece into disrepute internationally.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the above allegations and whether it intends to call on the Greek authorities to explain this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1997)

The Commission is already aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. An initial investigation has revealed that at the moment the site in question is not designated as a special protection area under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )), nor has it been proposed by Greece as a site of Community importance for the Natura 2000 network under Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )).

However, information does exist which points to the ecological value of the site (scientific inventories, a recent review of important areas for the conservation of birds). Furthermore, a coastal area proposed by Greece as a site of Community importance is located in the immediate vicinity.

The Commission will be contacting the Greek authorities for further information regarding nature conservation at the site in question. If appropriate, it will take action under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3725/97 by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Legibility of future euro banknotes for the blind

Can the Commission say whether the interests of the blind and visually impaired will be taken into account in designing euro banknotes and, if so, how?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

Article 4.2 of the Statute of the European Monetary Institute (EMI) states that it is responsible for supervising the technical preparation euro-denominated banknotes.

However, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Association for the Blind has been fully involved in the design and production of euro banknotes by the EMI.

On 13 December 1996 the EMI issued a press communiqué on the implications of the euro for blind and visually impaired people, which describes the technical specifications necessary to ensure that euro banknotes meet the needs of the blind and visually impaired. These include differences in size and colour, the presence of clearly legible figures in the same position on all banknotes to facilitate identification of their face value, and symbols which can be read by touch.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Growing of hemp in the EU

I have been informed through sources in the United States that there is an increasing demand for hemp fibre both for textiles and in paper manufacturing. Hemp fibre is getting very popular in the USA as an alternative to cotton as 50% of the world's pesticides are evidently used on cotton when it is growing and hemp does not require any.

A major problem is that hemp is a member of the cannabis family and, for instance, can only be grown in the UK under licence. It has, however, been alleged that in the EU it can be grown in France and Italy without such restriction.

Can the Commission indicate whether this is the case and also state whether there is an EU policy on the growing of hemp?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp ((OJ L 146, 4.7.1970, p. 1. )) provides for aid per hectare of hemp grown in the Community.

The aid is only granted if the hemp is produced from certified seed of varieties with an intoxicating substance (tetrahydrocannabinol) content of not more than 0.3%. Furthermore, the aid is paid solely on areas completely sown and harvested and on which normal cultivation work has been carried out. The list of varieties of hemp and the rules governing controls are set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp ((OJ L 121, 29.4.1989, p. 4. )).

Over the last five marketing years, Community aid has been paid on the following areas under hemp in the Member States referred to by the Honourable Member.

(ha)

>TABLE>

In Italy, the last marketing year in which aid applications covering hemp were submitted was 1982/83.

In the UK, the Home Office monitors hemp cultivation strictly. Since 1993/94, the first marketing year hemp was sown in the United Kingdom, growers have been required to obtain prior authorisation from the authorities to grow the crop. No such authorisation is required in France.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3207/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Investment aid for processing of organic produce

Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 ((OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29. )), implementing Regulation 866/90 ((OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1, )), which lays down the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products, gives priority to investments relating to organic produce grown in accordance with Regulation 2092/91 ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1. )).

In view of the fact that the Greek Government has rejected a proposal for investment relating to the production of cider from organically grown apples - which falls under Regulation 2092/91 - on the sole grounds that funding such investment is prohibited by Decision 94/173/EC, will the Commission say whether investment in the production of cider from organically grown apples pursuant to Regulation 2092/91 satisfies the criteria laid down in Decision 94/173/EC and is eligible for aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1997)

The Commission does not have enough information on the investment to which the Honourable Member refers to be able to judge whether it is eligible for Community part-financing under Regulation (EC) No 951/97 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products ((OJ L 142, 2.6.1997. This Regulation is the recasting of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90, to which the Honourable Member refers. )). This is because it is the Member States which are responsible for selecting such investments, subject to compliance with the selection criteria laid down in Commission Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products and repealing Decision 90/342/EEC.

The Commission can therefore provide only a general answer on the eligibility of the investment in question, namely that priority can be granted to investments in products produced organically in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, on condition, however, that such products are not subject to the exclusions provided for by Commission Decision 94/173/EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2825/97 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Trade in anabolic steroids

Is the Commission aware that trade in anabolic steroids, which is allowed in Spain but banned in the Netherlands, is distorting the internal market and jeopardizing public health protection?

Under what conditions is the trade in Spain permitted (is prescription required, is export allowed)?

What arrangements does the Commission have in mind to bring about uniform European regulations ensuring comprehensive health protection?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

Available by medical prescription in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 92/26/EEC concerning the classification for the supply of medicinal products for human use ((OJ L 113, 30.4.1992. )), anabolic steroids are, in Spain, medicinal products placed on the market with very specific therapeutic indications, such as remedying loss of muscular mass following severe malnutrition, compensating for prolonged treatment with high doses of corticoids or certain cancer treatments, use in conjunction with major surgical operations and treating burns patients. All these anabolic agents are available in Spain by virtue of national marketing authorisations granted by the Spanish authorities and valid only on Spanish territory. To date none of these agents has been the subject of a mutual recognition procedure, the principle of which is to allow the smooth functioning of the Community internal market. As for health protection, this is ensured inter alia by the provisions of Directive 92/26/EEC. Within the framework of the mutual recognition procedure, it is only where discrepancies appear between Member States in the granting of marketing authorisations for the same anabolic agent that, where appropriate, the Commission could invoke Article 11 of Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products ((OJ L 147, 9.6.1975. )) with a view to harmonising the relevant national marketing authorisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/97 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Equal pay

The difference between men's and women's pay has increased in Denmark in recent years. The contrast is now so sharp that the average monthly wage of a male and female worker differs by 147.3%. A new study shows that wage differences primarily arise where the system of pay is not transparent and the criteria determining the amount of pay are not clear and objective.

Systems of pay that lead to growing wage differentials between men and women must clearly be contrary to Directive 75/117/EEC ((OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19. )) on equal pay. What stringent sanctions will the Commission use to ensure that Denmark complies with the equal pay directive?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1998)

The principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work has been enshrined in Community law since its origins (Article 119 of the EC Treaty). It was amplified by the equal pay Directive 75/117/EEC, which introduced the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. All Member States, including Denmark, have fully transposed into their national law this Community legislation. However, the attainment of equal pay for women and men is not yet a reality due to various factors (horizontal and vertical segregation in the structure of female employment, undervaluing of female occupations, variations in employment structures and reward systems). In order to help lessen the pay gap between women and men, the Commission adopted in July 1996 a code of practice in this field. This aims to provide concrete advice for employers and collective bargaining partners at all levels, on how to set up and implement job evaluation and job classification systems, which are considered to be essential in order to eliminate sexual discrimination from pay structures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in Germany

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether Germany requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3813/97 by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Toys inside food

The EU Product Safety Emergencies Committee has now on two occasions addressed the issue of the danger to consumer safety caused by toys inside food, but has so far not recommended specific action (most recent meeting 22 October 1997).

Is the Commission aware that this type of product is banned in the USA and that a large food manufacturer has very recently had to withdraw such a product from the US market in the wake of 12 reported accidents?

Why is the Commission not taking urgent action to protect our consumers, and especially our vulnerable children?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

As already mentioned in the answers to question E-2479/97 by Mr Whitehead ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 89. )) and E-3085/97 by Mr Apolinario ((OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 164. )), the emergency committee under the general product safety Directive 92/59/EEC ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )), has already taken specific measures in relation to combinations of toys with foodstuffs.

The Commission is aware of the differences between American and European legislation with regard to inedible items inside foodstuffs. It is also aware of the decision of Nestlé, responding to growing criticism, voluntarily to stop marketing the sweets 'Nestlé Magic' although the American Food and drug administration did not decide on any mandatory measures.

At European level there is no specific legislation that prohibits non-nutrition items being embedded in food. However, Directive 92/59/EEC provides that Member States must take the necessary measures to guarantee that all consumer products put on the market are safe. The Commission can under this Directive only intervene against products presenting a serious and immediate risk if Member States have requested it and several other conditions are met ((Articles 9 to 11 of Directive 92/59/EEC. )).

At the latest meeting of the emergencies committee on 22nd October 1997, Member States representatives reported on the results of the specific market surveys concerning unwrapped non-food articles mixed with foodstuffs, launched at the request of the Commission. Member States declared that they have the necessary instruments to cope with the risks arising from these kinds of products in the future and that no Commission action was necessary.

Concerning wrapped non-food items embedded in food products, Member States did not report any need for action at national level and did not request any Commission measures. The Commission however has invited those Member States that have further information on this issue to supply it.

The Commission will on the basis of this information continue to follow the issue. If the existing instruments do not prove to be sufficient, it will consider further steps in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection.