ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo

According to press reports large refugee camps have been discovered in Congo which have been revealed to be mass extermination camps. It is estimated that there are some 40 000 refugees in Congo, and no-one can say exactly how many of them have already died or will die in these inhuman camps.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to help ensure that the events which led to this disastrous situation are investigated and that those responsible are found and brought before an international court?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The rebellion staged at the end of 1996 by the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (AFDL) caused Rwandan refugees who had been in Kivu since 1994 to scatter.

An estimated 600 000 to 800 000 refugees returned to Rwanda; the remainder, whose numbers are difficult to estimate (almost 200 000 according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), fled the advancing AFDL forces. Some sought refuge in remote areas of the country or in states bordering the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but a great many others were very probably persecuted and died of that or of exhaustion.

In the light of revelations by a number of non-governmental organisations in particular, detailing grave human rights violations and massacres, the United Nations decided to send a fact-finding mission to the area.

The Union has called on the government of President Kabila, by means of public declarations and overtures by the European troika, actively supported by the Commission, to comply fully with humanitarian law and to grant humanitarian organisations unrestricted access to all regions to assist the refugees. The Union has also asked the government to grant immediate authorisation to the UN mission to conduct a full investigation into the alleged massacres in Congolese territory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Legal protection of the Marjal del Moro (Valencia)

240 species of bird have been identified in the Marjal del Moro, in Sagunto, Valencia, including some threatened with total extinction, such as the marbled duck (Marmonetta angustisostris) and the ferruginous duck (Aythya nyroca). The presence of bitterns, weaver birds and purple gallinules indicates just how important these wetlands are - all these birds are in danger of becoming extinct in the European Union. Furthermore, the Marjal del Moro is the most important breeding ground in the Valencian Autonomous Community for the cinammon teal (anas cyanoptera) and the whiskered tern (chlidonias hybridus).

This area is classified as a 'Zepa zone' as far as the Community Directive on the protection of wild birds (79/409/EEC) ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )) is concerned, but the administration of the Valencian Autonomous Community is continuing to drag its feet over legal protection for the marshes, although the Sagunto Town Council requested that it be declared a nature reserve in 1994.

1. Does the Commission not believe that these valuable wetlands should be made a conservation area by the administration of the Autonomous Community, which has the requisite legal powers?

2. Could the Commission approach the Valencian authorities and ask them to speed up the process of having the area declared to be one which enjoys legal protection?

3. What kind of measures and action could the Commission take to ensure that the Valencian authorities deal with the legal protection of the Marjal?

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

1. For sites classified as special protection areas pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds Member States are required to prevent the deterioration of the habitats of the bird species for which the sites has been classified as well as to avoid significant disturbance of the birds. It is the responsibility of the Member States to choose the most appropriate legislative, administrative or management measures in order to achieve these objectives. In the case of Marjal del Moro in Sagunto, Valencia, it is the Spanish national and regional conservation authorities which must decide on the necessary measures to be taken.

2. The Commission therefore has no reason, at this stage, to approach the regional Valencian authorities to request them to give a particular protection status to Marjal del Moro under its regional legislation.

3. However, if the Commission is provided with clear evidence that the protection requirement for this special protection area are not being respected it would be in a position to enter into discussions with the national Spanish authorities on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/97 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Council (10 June 1997)

Subject: Drugs and freedom of expression

On 3 July 1997 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the sentence on Gérard Jubert, editor of the 'ELEPHANT ROSE', to 10 months prison and a fine of FF 300 000 for incitement to consume cannabis and its presentation in a favourable light.

The Joint Action of the Council of 17 December 1996 (96/750/JHA) ((OJ L 342, 31.12.1996, p. 6.)) lays down that 'Member States (shall) undertake, subject to their constitutional principles and the basic concepts of their legal systems, to make it an offence publicly and intentionally to incite or induce others, by any means, to commit offences of illicit use or production of narcotic drugs'.

With a view to ensuring that its Joint Action does not prompt all the other Member States to introduce laws and penalties as repressive as those in force in France, can the Council clarify whether:

1. publicly inciting the consumption of legal narcotics, such as alcohol, should be treated as a criminal offence?

2. the thousands of artworks, of every genre and every period, which present legal or illegal drugs in a favourable light, should be banned or censured?

3. the public expression of the hope that all drugs currently banned will be legalized - a hope which is also mine - should be prosecuted in law?

Answer (16 October 1997)

1. The implementation of the Joint Action is a matter for each Member State of the European Union and remains subject to their constitutional principles and the basic concept of their legal system.

The present distinction between legal and illegal narcotics within the EU Member States is generally based on commitments of Member States under the relevant Convention of the United Nations. Moreover, the Joint Action does not include alcohol in the concept of narcotics.

2. It is obviously difficult to draw a clear distinction between works of art and other comparable expressions in the form of pictures, sculptures, music, literature and other traditional forms of art. It is anyway up to the criminal laws of each Member State to determine whether the characteristics of incitement or inducement to commit offences are fulfilled.

3. The public expression of the hope that all drugs currently banned be legalised is not covered by the Joint Action. if however this public expression also includes an incitement or inducement to commit offences, the situation may be different.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2913/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (5 September 1997)

Subject: EU aid to Kenya

Following the brutal clamp-down on pro-democracy demonstrators in June 1997 which resulted in 14 deaths in Nairobi, violence has spread throughout Kenya. Evidence suggests the troubles are being orchestrated by forces loyal to President Moi in an attempt to divide opposition parties in the run-up to elections later this year. Further concerns have been expressed about the misuse of treasury funds and corruption within the governing KANU party. In protest the IMF suspended the second installment of a loan to Kenya worth in total some $468 million. Latest troubles on the coast resulting in 42 deaths stem from the destruction of forests sacred to the Mijikenda tribe initiated by President Moi's supporters.

Will the Commission now reconsider suspending financial aid in the run-up to elections as an expression of concern about the turbulent political climate engulfing Kenya?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the deteriorating situation in Kenya and in close co-ordination with the Member States is actively pursuing all opportunities to emphasise to the Kenyan government the importance the Commission attaches to the fact that development policy and co-operation are closely linked to respect for fundamental human rights and to the recognition and application of democratic principles, the consolidation of the rule of law and good governance (Article 5 of the Lomé Convention).

Several Union declarations have been made, the last in August, urging all parties concerned to refrain from all acts of violence and to resort to peaceful means in seeking to resolve political differences, and emphasising the need to initiate a serious dialogue as the only means of achieving a peaceful solution beneficial to all Kenyans.

If the Commission considers that Kenya has failed to fulfil an obligation in respect of one of the essential elements in Article 5 (the preparation and holding of free and fair elections are of decisive importance in this context), this may lead the Commission to propose opening consultations with Kenya in accordance with the provisions of Article 366(a) of the Convention. Suspension of aid is considered to be a measure of last resort.

As far as balance of payments support is concerned, the International monetary fund (IMF) decided on 31 July 1997 to suspend the disbursement of the second tranche 33.8 MECU (37 million $) of its programme for Kenya. The main reason for this decision was that the IMF was dissatisfied with measures taken by the Kenyan government to tackle corruption and fraud. An IMF mission (25-29 August 1997) agreed with the Kenyan government measures required to restore IMF aid, but no date was set when the two parties would resume aid negotiations. The Commission's structural adjustment programme with Kenya is suspended since 1991 and will only be resumed once the necessary economic and non-economic conditions are in place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/97 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Fish withdrawn under minimum price scheme

Can the Commission provide details by EU Member State of the tonnage and value of fish withdrawn from the market under the Commission minimum price scheme, broken down by species and by producer organization for each of the last four years?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

The data showing the quantities withdrawn under the Community withdrawal price scheme, for the period 1993-1996 broken down by species and by Member State is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. Data by producer organization is not available.

Concerning the value of the species withdrawn from the market, reference is made to the annual publication of the withdrawal prices (for the 1997 fishing campaign, the Honourable Member is referred to Regulation (EC) No 2427/96 fixing for the 1997 fishing year, the withdrawal and selling prices for fishery products listed in Annex I (A), (D) and (E) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3579/92 ((OJ L 331, 20.12.1996. ))).

The budget for the financial compensations within the Community withdrawal scheme has amounted to between 12 and 20 MECU per year during the period 1993-1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2178/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulastion No 258/97 - Demonstration methods

1. Is the intention also to use indirect detection methods in order to be able to determine the changes characteristic of genetically modified varieties (e.g. modified fatty acid samples in oil from genetically modified soya beans)?

2. Will such significant changes be recorded and collected as alternative detection possiblities for monitoring bodies?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2160/97, E-2162/97, E-2164/97, E-2166/97, E-2176/97, E-2178/97, E-2180/97, E-2182/97 and E-2186/97 (28 October 1997)

As specified in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )), an appropriate analysis should be able, if necessary, to demonstrate that certain characteristics of a novel food or food ingredient "are different in comparison with a conventional food or food ingredient, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics¨. It should also be noted that any arrangements for applying Article 8 will be adopted in accordance with the (Committee) procedure provided for in Article 13.

The questions are worded in such a way that it is difficult to identify the checks or monitoring to which the Honourable Member refers. The general provisions of Community legislation on the monitoring of foodstuffs are in any event applicable.

Regarding the assessments to be carried out under Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 258/97, the detailed arrangements, and notable the role of the Member States as regards the assessment bodies, are laid down in Article 4(3) and Article 6(2) to (4), supplemented, where Commission will publish recommendations concerning the scientifc aspects of the preparation of the initial assessment reports. These provisions are supplemented, where appropriate, by the relevant provisions of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )).

Regarding methods of analysis, it will be recalled that Article 4 of Directive 93/99/EEC ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )) provides that Member States shall ensure that the validation of methods of analysis used within the context of official control of foodstuffs complies whenever possible with certain criteria laid down in Directive 85/591/EEC ((OJ L 372, 31.12.1985. )) concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2721/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Floods in Palencia (Spain)

A torrential downpour of rain and hail on the night of Tuesday, 15 July 1997 flooded the city of Palencia in Castile-León, causing serious damage to the city and the industrial and farming areas of the capital and province.

Has the Commission set aside any emergency aid to help alleviate the damage caused in Palencia?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

The Commission extends its deepest sympathy to the victims of the torrential rain and hail which flooded the town of Palencia (Castile-Leon) during the night of 15 July 1997. It is aware of the serious hardship suffered by the inhabitants of Palencia and the surrounding area, both in industrial and farming terms.

With regard to emergency Community aid for the victims of disasters, the Commission would remind the Honourable Members that heading B4-3400 of the 1997 budget has not been allocated the funds with which any immediate action could be taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2404/97 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Reducing CO2 emissions

In its answer to question E-1218/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998. )), the Commission says that Council Directive 93/76/EEC ((OJ L 237, 22.9.1993, p. 28. )) of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency contains the following provision: 'Member States shall draw up and implement programmes so that new buildings receive effective thermal insulation, taking a long-term view, on the basis of standards laid down by the Member States, taking account of climatic conditions or climatic areas and the intended use of the buildings'.

Although the abovementioned answer says that the Commission will shortly be reporting on application of the directive, I should be grateful if the following question could be answered in advance:

How many Member States have submitted such programmes?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1997)

All the Member States have now submitted programmes on energy performance requirements for new buildings. The requirements generally specify the level of thermal insulation to be complied with, but allow other factors to be taken into consideration, such as internal gains, solar input and the energy efficiency of the heating installation.

These programmes are periodically reviewed and updated in line with policy developments and technical and scientific progress.

In addition to these provisions, the Commission has laid down an obligation to provide thermal insulation in buildings in Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products ((OJ L 40, 12.7.1989. )), particularly in respect of the essential requirement of energy saving.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Production, importation and marketing of wine designated as 'port'

The recent Vinexpo-97 world wine and spirits fair, held in Bordeaux, clearly highlighted the fact that producers from a variety of regions misuse the designation 'port'. For example, Californian winegrowers displayed their 'portwine' products and even had the cheek to present 'vinhos do Porto', using labels copied from those of some of the most prestigious Portuguese producers of the authentic Douro wine.

Moreover, in the context of trade negotiations, South Africa is seeking to export to the EU fortified wines designated as 'port', which of course are no more than poor imitations of the Portuguese product.

Further examples of this can be found in other regions and countries, as the Commission is well aware.

The production of fortified wines designated as 'port' - whether in California, South Africa, Australia or any other country or region, even within the EU - constitutes a clear case of counterfeiting and an infringement of intellectual property rights and rules on designation of origin.

In view of the above, I would ask the Commission to state:

- what measures it has taken or intends to take, in the context of the external trade policy and the World Trade Organization, to prohibit effectively the production, importation and marketing in the EU of wines bearing the designation 'port' from California, South Africa, Australia and any other third country;

- what measures it has taken or intends to take at internal level to make the fraudulent marketing of wines bearing the designation 'port' illegal and to combat such practices.

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

1. The name 'port', use of which is exclusively reserved for wine originating in the 'Oporto' specified region delimited under Council Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions ((OJ L 84, 27.3.1997. )), enjoys absolute protection in Community territory. This means that it cannot be used in the designation or presentation of any other wine marketed in the Community, whether Community or imported wine, and also that it may not be used in a derived form such as in 'port wine', regardless of whether or not the actual origin is indicated as in 'South African port'.

The Honourable Member is also asked to refer to the reply to Written Question E-2485/97 ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 91. )) by Mr Barros Moura also dealing with protection of the designation 'port'.

2. It is incumbent above all on each Member State to apply Community law properly and combat fraud. To reinforce control in the wine sector and facilitate direct cooperation between Member States the Council in 1989 adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2048/89 laying down general rules on controls in the wine sector ((OJ L 202, 14.7.1989. )). The provisions applicable to designation and presentation of wine sector products, which includes Oporto wines, are explicitly included in its scope.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/97 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) and Jan Wiebenga (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Choice of language by the Dutch Commissioner for an important statement

The Dutch Commissioner, Hans van den Broek, made an important statement in English on Agenda 2000 before the European Parliament's plenary assembly in Strasbourg on 16 July 1997.

The Netherlands has always urged, during the Dutch Presidency as at other times, that the 11 official languages be used. Language is an expression of a country's culture and identity. When the Treaty of Amsterdam was being drawn up, the Netherlands also rightly urged that each Member State should retain its own Commissioner. Although the Commission is a collective body, this is important for the identification of Dutch citizens with distant Brussels.

Why did Commissioner van den Broek not make his statement in his native language?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

The Commission fully shares the view expressed by the Honourable Members that language is an expression of a country's culture and identity. The Commission also attaches importance to clear communication of its work to the citizens of Europe.

The Commission would however remind the Honourable Member that, when its Members address another Community institution, their only obligation is to use one of the official languages of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2142/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Applications for authorization already made pursuant to directive 90/220/EC



Official Journal C 102 , 03/04/1998 P. 0014



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2142/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997) Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Applications for authorization already made pursuant to directive 90/220/EC Is it true that the genetic products currently awaiting marketing, authorization for which has been applied for under the deliberate release directive ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )), do not have to be labelled pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) although the genetic modification in them has been demonstrated (in other words, voluntary labelling by the manufacturer is possible)? Joint answer to Written Questions E-2112/97, E-2116/97, E-2124/97 and E-2142/97 (31 October 1997) The conditions for implementing Directives 70/457/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1. )) and 70/458/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. )) and Regulation No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty, as regards authorization and labelling procedures are specified in Article 3(2) of that Regulation.