ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1695/97 by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Derogation from the ceiling on the number of animals slaughtered by limited-capacity slaughterhouses situated in geographically disadvantaged regions

About a year ago, various Member States apparently requested derogations from the ceiling on the number of animals slaughtered, but the Commission has not yet responded.

The users of the facilities concerned are farmers and butchers who often operate in the Community's mountainous areas. Many such areas fall under Objective 5b within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5. )). Plans are under way to create designation of origin labels to protect and enhance the image of local produce, safeguard livestock and agri-foodstuffs activities, and increase employment.

Will the Commission request the Standing Veterinary Committee to consider the application for derogations from the ceiling on the number of animals slaughtered by limited-capacity slaughterhouses situated in geographically disadvantaged regions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler au nom de la Commission (18 June 1997)

With a view to the completion of the internal market the rules of Directive 64/433/EEC ((OJ 121, 29.7.1964. )) (fresh meat directive), as amended by Council Directives 91/497/EEC ((OJ L 268, 24.9.1991. )) and 95/23/EC ((OJ L 243, 11.10.1995. )), were extended to the national markets of fresh meat. In this Directive special requirements (derogations) were introduced for small artisanal establishments (up to a production volume of 1000 livestock units per year) in order to avoid difficulties in the implementation of the provisions. These derogations concern structural requirements.

In addition a derogation was introduced in the Directive for slaughter establishments which handle not more than 2000 livestock units per year taking specific geographical situations and infrastructure circumstances in Member States into account. Member States may, at their request, be authorized to apply the structural requirements for small slaughterhouses (1000 livestock units per year) to these establishments if they are situated in regions suffering from special geographical constraints or affected by supply difficulties.

The Italian authorities have transmitted a list of slaughterhouses to the Commission with a request to make a proposal for derogations to the standing veterinary committee. This list contained several points which have to be clarified before further action can be initiated. Therefore the Italian authorities were asked for clarification. Having received this the Commission will examine the request and initiate the necessary action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1822/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Activities of publicly-owned Spanish shipyards

The Commission has informed the Spanish Government of its decision to extend the procedure concerning the aid granted to publicly-owned shipyards ((OJ C 53, 22.2.1997, p. 3. )).

Pending further information from the Spanish authorities, the Commission appears to accept that Astander (Astilleros de Santander) should cease building new vessels and should maintain its activities of 'repair and conversions'.

What arguments has the Spanish Government put forward which would make it possible to prevent Astander from continuing to carry out 'conversions'?

Has the Commission taken any firm decision in this connection?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1820/97 and E-1822/97 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1997)

First, to avoid any possible misunderstandings, it should be explained that in deciding to extend the procedure under Article 93.2 EC Treaty, the Commission was concerned about the adequacy of the capacity reductions in the beneficiary public yards as the necessary counterpart for the very substantial amounts of aid proposed, a large part of which was incompatible with the normal shipbuilding aid rules. It was within this context that the Commission had expressed doubts whether the proposals for Astander could be considered a sufficient and genuine capacity reduction, particularly since the yard had ceased new building in 1990 and would remain open to conversions whereas normally conversions and newbuildings are treated together for the purposes of the shipbuilding aid directive (both activities being eligible for contract-related production aid, unlike ship repair).

However, as the Honourable Member is probably aware, the procedure was subsequently overtaken when the Spanish government presented revised proposals to address the Commission's concerns (shared by many Member States) that the possible distortions to competition should be minimised. Under the revised plan, in addition to the cessation of newbuilding at Astander, a series of other measures (involving closure of installations but not total closure of yards) will be taken with immediate effect to achieve an overall capacity reduction in the public yards of 30,000 compensated gross registered tonnes (cgrt). This will be supplemented by the non-reopening to shipbuilding of the public yard at Astano and by further capacity reductions in the private sector amounting to 17,500 cgrt. The Spanish government has also agreed that Astander will not carry out ship conversions as long as it remains in public ownership. Questions about the thinking behind the revised plan are a matter for the Spanish authorities.

On this basis the Industry Council, at its meeting on 24 April 1997, agreed that Spain could be granted a derogation from the rules of the shipbuilding aid directive. This derogation was formally adopted as a Council Regulation on 2 June 1997 ((OJ L 148, 6.6.1997. )) leaving the way clear for the Commission to close the procedure and approve the aid. A final Commission decision is expected shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/97 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Disaster control at EU airports

Following the disaster involving the Belgian air force Hercules at Eindhoven airport, a report on 'Coping with aircraft accidents at airports' was recently commissioned by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the report looks at disaster control plans at aiports in the Netherlands. It shows that disaster control plans are poorly organized, that there is virtually no communication between the various services involved and that they have no real contact with each other.

1. Does the Commission agree that Member States should be encouraged to carry out similar inquiries if they have not already done so?

2. Does the Commission agree that the increase in air traffic in Europe calls for a proper approach to disaster control at all European airports, and that air passengers should be informed of which airports in Europe comply with the requirements of proper disaster control?

3. Does the Commission have any information on the approach to disaster control at civilian and military airports in the EU?

4. Have any cross-border agreements been made between airport management bodies, fire brigades, ambulance services and local authorities in the EU and, if not, does the Commission not feel that this should be done, certainly in the context of the euregions, and is it prepared to take any action in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1997)

Responsibility for the provision of airport services, including safety and emergency services, has always rested mainly on national authorities.

When organising such services, Member States are required to apply the standards adopted by the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO), as well as related recommended practices. ICAO has also developed an airport manual describing best practices for managing airport safety, in particular, how to organise emergency services in case of accident.

It appears, nevertheless, that airports are not always fully aware of their role and responsibilities in this domain and that the distribution of responsibilities among various parties is not sufficiently clear.

The Commission therefore considers it appropriate to create a common safety regulatory regime for the provision of airport services. It has suggested in its proposals for the creation of a European Aviation Safety Authority that this body should be charged with the task, so that airport operators would need to be certified by an independent safety regulator and, to obtain the necessary approval, would have to demonstrate that satisfactory emergency plans exist and can work effectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1931/97 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Structural Funds

Does the Commission consider that the procedure for verifying compliance with the additionality principle for the Structural Funds is satisfactory? If not, does the Commission have any plans for reforming this procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

The review of the Structural Fund regulations in 1993 reinforced the principle of additionality.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) gives a precise definition of the principle of additionality and indicates the rules to be complied with. Thus, the new Article 9 of Regulation No 4253/88 stipulates that 'in order to achieve a genuine economic impact, the Structural Funds and the FIFG appropriations ... may not replace public expenditure undertaken by the Member State in the whole of the territory eligible under an objective' (paragraph 1). 'For this purpose, ... the Commission and the Member State concerned shall ensure that the Member State maintains, in the whole of the territory concerned, its public structural or comparable expenditure at least at the same level as in the previous programming period ... ' (paragraph 2).

In order to check that this principle has been complied with, Article 8 of the same Regulation, as amended in 1993, also provides for the insertion in the Community Support Frameworks (CSFs) and the single programming documents (SPDs) of procedures for verifying additionality and an initial evaluation of the latter. It also requires the supply of appropriate information concerning the transparency of the relevant financial flows (paragraph 3). The insertion of these various rules in the regulations currently in force has considerably improved implementation of the principle of additionality.

All the CSFs and SPDs relating to Objectives 1 and 6 were the subject of a prior appraisal. For Objective 2, this appraisal was also performed in the majority of cases. In the case of the few documents for which there was no prior appraisal at the time of their adoption payments will be suspended as from the second advance if it has still not been carried out.

Ongoing assessment was facilitated by the definition, in partnership with the Commission, of checking methods applicable to each Member State. This has enabled the Commission to obtain more relevant financial information, adapted to the individual situation of each.

The Commission will examine the future of the principle of additionality and its implementation under the new regulations on the Structural Funds that it is due to propose in the first half of 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Assessing the effects of the consumption of novel food products

1. How, and by whom, is the monitoring system called for by the Scientific Committee for Food (opinion on the assessment of novel foods, III/5915/97) for gathering information on the short- and long-term effects of the consumption of novel foods to be carried out once it has been introduced?

2. What data are to be recorded and over what period?

3. Will the results of the monitoring programme be made available to the public?

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-1868/97 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Basis of the Commission's appeal against the final report on a common organization of the market

Ever since it came into being, the COM in bananas established under Regulation 404/93 ((OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1. )) has been attacked on all sides by all kinds of manoeuvres. The aim of the COM was to devise a Community system for the banana market which would be compatible with the needs of the single market as well as existing agreements with the ACP states. The final report of the panel affects rights and interests of vital economic and social importance for the ACP states.

What measures does the Commission plan to take to defend the existing agreements with the ACP states?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

The Commission fully appreciates the Honourable Member's concern regarding the final report of the Panel on bananas published recently.

At this stage all means of redress within the World Trade Organization have not yet been exhausted and the Commission has notified its intention to appeal.

The Commission is aware how important banana production is for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries concerned and is ready to take all steps necessary to abide by its international commitments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Genetically produced enzymes and additives

Are there plans for activities for the European Union aimed at plugging the existing legislative gaps for the authorization of enzymes or additives produced with the aid of genetically modified micro-organisms which are not converted by either the novel food regulation or the additives regulation?

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-1641/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Safeguard inspections in the German nuclear power station at Unterweser

Internal IAEA reports maintain that (a) the IAEA's Euratom authority does not allow any inspections in the German nuclear power station at Unterweser. They also note that there are (b) qualitative differences in respect of the technical inspection options between the IAEA and Euratom, the options offered by the Euratom authority being inferior to those of the IAEA.

Are these reports correct?

If so, on what grounds are access to and inspection of MOX fuel in the Unterweser nuclear power station being refused?

If so, why is it that the Euratom authority's inspection options are inferior and why is the best possible technology not being used?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that access was not denied but that the accurancy of measurements is the issue. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her written question E-1642/97 ((See page 33. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Form and content of labelling

Is there any provision for involving national authorities, consumer associations and environmental groups etc. in making and discussing proposals before the form of labelling is finally agreed?

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-2088/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Open-cast lignite mining

1. On 3 April 1997 in Brussels the Commission decided to halt its complaint procedure against the continuation of open-cast lignite mining, on the basis of its view that the permits issued for the open-cast lignite mining operations are in accordance with EC law.

(a) What justification does the Commission have for this decision?

(b) Why does the Commission take the view that the Council Directive on environmental impact assessment (85/337/EEC) was not breached?

2. A merger between the German coalmining companies Saarberg AG and Ruhrkohle AG is being planned. The merger would concentrate almost 100% of the German coal industry in one undertaking. These companies are also active on a large scale in other fields and as a result a merger would also produce concentrations excluding competition elsewhere.

Does the Commission consider this monopolistic merger to be compatible with EU competition law?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

1. The Commission is unaware of any decision of 3 April 1997 concerning open-cast mining. Indeed, the Commission has not taken any decision at all on open-cast mining over the last months.

However, it is true that, on the basis of petitions put forward to Parliament's Committee on Petitions ((Petitions 392/95, 584/95, 293/96 and 947/96. )), the Commission is currently investigating two open-cast mines situated in Germany. The Commission has not yet taken a final decision in these cases.

2. Ruhrkohle AG and Saarbergwerke AG have announced that they intend to inform the Commission in the next few weeks about the plan to merge their respective Ruhr and Saar coal mining activities. As yet the Commission has no more detailed information on the intended merger. Mergers of firms in the field of coal mining are subject to preventive merger control under Article 66 of the ECSC Treaty. The structure of supply and demand and competition conditions in the substantive and geographical markets concerned will have to be examined to determine whether a merger between Ruhrkohle AG and Saarbergwerke AG is compatible with the common market. In view of the high concentration of hard coal production in Germany the examination will have to concentrate on whether imports of hard coal from third countries (imported coal) and from intra-Community trade restrict domestic producers' scope for competitive behaviour to any extent, and from the customer's point of view represent an adequate provisioning alternative. The outcome of this examination cannot be anticipated here.

If the plan were also to concern products or markets which are not covered by the ECSC Treaty (e.g. Saarbergwerke's activities in mechanical engineering or waste disposal), the merger may, as far as these activities are concerned, possibly also need to be notified under Council Regulation No 4064/89 (the 'merger control Regulation') ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/97 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:

To what extent have Tiguvon's interaction with other cholinesterase inhibitors and its effect on humans and animals been investigated? Which agents are compatible? How are pet-owners warned of possible substances having a potentiating effect on Fenthion and other phosphoric acid derivatives?

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 E-1860/97 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Narcolepsy

1. Is it true that consideration is being given at European level to deprive all people suffering from sleeping disturbances, including people with narcolepsy, of the right to take part in motorized transport?

2. What is the situation in the various Member States?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1742/97.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question ((See page 40. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2906/97 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (3 September 1997)

Subject: Extra charge levied on EU nationals' health-care bills in New York State

1. Is the Commission aware that New York State levies an extra charge of 32% on health-care costs incurred by visitors (tourists) from outside the US as a means of covering the health-care costs of poor (uninsured) Americans?

2. Does the Commission consider that this amounts to unlawful discrimination against non-US nationals compared with US nationals?

3. Does the Commission agree that this imposes unwarranted additional charges on EU nationals, possibly even causing them serious financial problems, if they fall sick in the US? At all events, European sickness and travel insurance policies do not cover these extra costs. EU citizens are now being forced either to take out extra insurance or to expose themselves to an unacceptable risk.

4. Does this practice contravene agreements concluded between the US and the EU (e.g. in relation to the WTO)?

5. What action will Commission take?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.