ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Council (11 March 1997)

Subject: Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the Council

In its reply to Question E-2153/96 ((OJ C 72, 7.3.1997, p. 16. )), the Council pointed out that it cannot take a decision at first reading until it has obtained the opinion of the European Parliament (and that this justified the fact that Parliament, in its rules, allows Council to request urgency from Parliament).

As it is similarly the case that Parliament cannot take a decision in its second reading until Council has completed its first reading, should there not be a similar provision allowing Parliament to request urgency from Council?

Answer (14 July 1997)

The purpose of the European Parliament's second reading is to give it the opportunity to state its views on the common position adopted by the Council. The EC Treaty imposes a time limit on Parliament for doing this, which does not begin to run until the Council has forwarded its position to it. On the other hand, the Treaty lays down no time limits concerning first reading by the two Institutions.

However, as stated in reply to Question No E-2153/96, there is nothing to prevent the European Parliament, when delivering its Opinion, from calling upon the Council to take a decision or adopt its common position swiftly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Italy

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, consumption aid accounted for ECU 268.6 million and ECU 166 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the figure for total expenditure on consumption aid for olive oil in Italy?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/97 by Pierre Bernard-Reymond (PPE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Origin of feed products for farmed fish

Could the Commission state whether it is true that, as of 20 February 1997, there were no regulations in place to prevent farmed fish intended for consumption from being fed meat and bone meal of the same kind as those whose use as cattle feed resulted in the grievous problem of BSE?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is thought to have originated from the feeding of meat and bone meal of cattle or sheep origin which had not been processed sufficiently to inactivate the agent of the disease, starting probably in the early 1980s.

There is no evidence that fish are susceptible to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. However, this cannot be ruled out at present. 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 which requires minimum parameters for the processing of meat and bone meal, which 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 a ban on the use 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.

The Commission can therefore state that measures have been taken since 1995 to protect all food species, and that these measures have been progressively tightened in the light of new knowledge. On the date mentioned by the Honourable Member, the controls on processing had improved considerably compared with the situation in the early 1980s which is thought to have given rise to the BSE problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1681/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Openness

Commissioner Bonino is quoted in 'The European' of 17-23 April 1997 as saying that openness is not possible if the Union is to be able to take decisions.

Can the Commission name other legislative bodies in Europe that have been unable to take decisions because of openness?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1997)

Contrary to the Honourable Member's assertion, and as the very title of the article which appeared in The European of 17-23 April 1997 ('Bonino opens up the debate to real people') would suggest, Ms Bonino has never implied that openness impedes decision-making. The opposite is the case: 'Emma Bonino has attacked Europe's senior figures for refusing to court public opinion and continuing to negotiate in secret', as the first sentence of the article in question reads. Furthermore, the Commission itself considers openness to be one of its priorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Community strategy for integrated control of emissions

Is the Commission going to proceed with the drafting of a proposal for a Community strategy for the integrated control of emissions of dangerous substances from smaller installations? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1997)

The legislative programme of the Commission for 1997 mentions the preparation of a proposal for a framework directive for the integrated control of emissions of dangerous and long range effect substances from smaller installations. However, it has been decided that it is currently not opportune to proceed with the development of this proposal, for the following reasons:

1. The aims of this initiative were to bring simplification and additional flexibility to the existing environmental rules and at the same time to provide for a more comprehensive and consistent approach to the control of pollution from the industrial installations not covered by Directive 96/61/EEC ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. )) on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).

However, following extensive consultations organized by the Commission, it became clear that environmental control of industrial installations not covered by the IPPC Directive, a large part of which are small to medium sized installations, is a very complex issue. In particular, these installations are diverse in nature and size and give rise to several different environmental problems. It has proved very difficult to find common regulatory ground, which would properly address all the issues at stake.

2. The consultations also showed that the issues at stake in relation to small installations and the environment need further clarification. Additional analysis as to the appropriate possible solutions is therefore necessary.

3. A wide array of regulations, European and national, already apply to industrial installations not covered by the IPPC Directive. Many of the environmental problems these installations may cause are addressed by those regulations. The consultations have made clear that the model foreseen for the proposal would not have provided the environmental benefits originally expected of it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1234/97 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Cable in Tarifa

The ERDF is funding a measure, under the Community initiative programme Interreg II (Spain-Morocco), which involves the construction of a high-voltage cable (400 000 volts) to transfer energy from Spain to Morocco.

One of the districts through which the cable runs on its way to Morocco is Tarifa (in Andalusia, Spain) and, because it passes near a residential estate, there has been a hostile reaction locally.

Is the energy transferred via this cable of nuclear origin? If so, and bearing in mind the denuclearization policies emerging in some Member States, is there any Community legislation limiting transfers of this type of energy?

How was the mandatory environmental impact assessment carried out and was account taken of expert studies which regard the installation of high-voltage networks in residential areas as extremely damaging to health?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

The project to provide an electrical interconnection between Spain and Morocco was included on the list of the projects of common interest proposed by the Commission under the guidelines on the trans-European energy networks and was designated as a project of common interest by Decision No 1254/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 1996 ((OJ L 161, 29.6.1996. )).

In most European countries, energy is generated in power stations of various types (hydro-electric, thermal, oil or gas fired, nuclear, wind, etc.) which feed the distribution grid. The electric power that Spain will export to Morocco will be of mixed origin from various sources, the relative proportions of which will vary depending on the season, the fuel price and the availability of the various types of production.

The Commission would point out that there is no Community legislation limiting the transfer of energy of nuclear origin.

The environmental impact report was provided by the national authority, the ministry of public works, transport and the environment, and approved by the Commission.

The Commission would also point out that the lines do not cross inhabited areas and that Tarifa is more than 1 400 metres from those lines. At such distances, risks to health from overhead power lines are negligible, both as regards thermal effects (e.g. shock reactions from spark discharges) and as regards alleged non-thermal effects (tumour promotion or co-promotion, developmental effects), in respect of which some studies, which have not been confirmed or which have been contradicted by others, have shown an association with electromagnetic fields under certain conditions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1586/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Financial support for the 'Euro-Film News' review

'Euro-Film' News a European film review written in English and concerning mainly small-scale European film productions, providing a source of news and information for the largest film publications, had been successfully launched in Greece thanks to the SCALE initiative, part of the MEDIA - 1 programme, which provided half of the funding. However, the SCALE initiative came to an end at the same time as the MEDIA - 1 programme. Unfortunately the MEDIA - 2 programme does not provide for any similar measures to assist small-scale film productions, which means that the 'Euro-Film News', which is provisionally (for the next three months) being funded entirely by the Greek Ministry of Culture, is in danger of disappearing.

In view of the importance attached by Greece to the publication of this review, and the valuable contributions it has made and is continuing to make, particularly through its support for small-scale European film productions, what immediate measures will the Commission take to provide financial aid for 'Euro-Film News'? Under which programmes could be necessary funding be provided to ensure the continued and uninterrupted publication of this review, enabling it to continue the work it has begun in supporting and promoting awareness of small-scale national film productions?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1997)

Euro-Film News was created by the SCALE initiative, one of the nineteen parts of the MEDIA-I programme (1991-1995). The aim of the publication is to throw the spotlight on film and audiovisual industries of Member States or regions with a low production capacity and a limited linguistic or geographical area.

In accordance with the aims of the two Council decisions governing the MEDIA II programme (1996-2000) ((Council Decisions 95/563/EC and 95/564/EC, OJ L 321, 30.12.1995. )), the Commission takes particular interest in projects from such Member States or regions, notably by adopting positive discrimination measures in their favour.

The MEDIA II programme has identified and concentrates on three priority areas: the training of professionals, the development of audiovisual programmes and films, and their distribution.

Unfortunately, these new priorities do not allow for financial support for press publications, even if they are specialist publications, as is the case with Euro-Film News.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2009/97 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: Noise standards for machinery and engine-rooms

Is the Commission allowing Denmark to set noise-suppression standards

1. for premises housing machinery, without modifying the machinery itself,

2. by requiring machinery in print shops or engine-rooms to be encased in order to reduce the noise level to below the limits laid down in the directive on machinery,

3. by requiring personal protective equipment, ear protectors etc.?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

Council Directive 86/188/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to noise at work ((OJ L 137, 24. 5.1986. )) requires all Member States (and consequently Denmark) to protect workers against risks and in so far to their health and safety including their hearing and including the prevention of risks arising or likely to arise from exposure to noise at work.

This Directive does not prejudice the right of Denmark to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions ensuring greater protection for workers or intended to reduce the level of noise by taking action at source, particularly in order to achieve exposure values which prevent unnecessary nuisance.

Additionally, Council Directive 89/656/EEC ((OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. )) lays down minimum health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace.

The above mentioned directives do not specifically require or oblige Denmark to take action in the field mentioned in the question but they do require Denmark to ensure the respect of the directives by employers in the most effective way by incorporating noise prevention measures into the design of the installations and to choose materials, procedures and working methods which produce less noise.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: SFOR military units in Bosnia

What remit has the European Union bestowed on the SFOR military units deployed in Bosnia and what is their margin for manoeuvre?

Answer (4 July 1997)

The Stabilisation Force "SFOR¨ was authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1088/96 of 12 December 1996, which also sets out the rules of engagement. Although individual EU Member States have contributed an important share of the personnel and finances, the EU as such is not responsible for the implementation of the military aspects of the Dayton/Paris Agreements on the basis of which IFOR and its follow-up force SFOR have been established. Therefore, "SFOR¨ is a military initiative not carried out under the auspices of the European Union.

Nevertheless, also in the light of the EU's leading role in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU has actively participated in the international decision-making process which led to the deployment of IFOR and later SFOR in order to provide a safe environment for reconstruction and return of refugees. Against this background, the EU has made an essential contribution to the implementation of the conclusions adopted at the Peace Implementation Council's Conferences which were held in London in December 1995 and 1996 with the aim of co-ordinating the international assistance to stabilisation and reconstruction in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0644/97 by Claudio Azzolini (UPE), Guido Podestà (UPE) and Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Council (10 March 1997)

Subject: Raphael Programme

Article 128 of the EC Treaty places new emphasis on culture and refers to incentive measures in this field.

The Raphael Programme has been the subject of a number of discussion meetings, particularly the most recent tripartite meeting between the Council, the Commission and Parliament on 21 January 1997.

Will the Council state its objective reasons for delaying the adoption of such an important programme? Will it say, in particular, why the budget appropriation of ECU 86 million proposed by Parliament for the Raphael Programme was rejected, along with the Commission proposal which reduced the appropriation to ECU 57 million, and why the Council's proposal amounted to only ECU 30 million?

Will the Council also state its reasons for proposing a two-yearly programme, with a possible extension for a further two years, instead of proposing a four-year programme from the outset, given the risk that the success of the Raphael Programme could be undermined by interrupting the measures taken under it?

Answer (14 July 1997)

1. The procedure for adopting the programme referred to by the Honourable Members is currently suspended, as the Council is awaiting the European Parliament's agreement to the convening of the Conciliation Committee, in accordance with the provisions of Article 189b(3) of the EC Treaty. Without such agreement, conciliation cannot take place and the procedure for adopting the programme cannot be completed.

2. Article 128 of the Treaty, referred to by the Honourable Members, requires the Council to act unanimously. The result arrived at by the Council in its common position on the financing of the programme was therefore one which received unanimous approval.

3. Bearing in mind the fact that ECU 10 million were entered in the 1996 Community budget for activities of the same type as Raphael, the Council considered that 1996 could be seen as a preparatory year for the programme.

The Council therefore opted for a four year duration for the programme, from 1 January 1997.

The Council proposed not a biennial programme, but a four-year programme with a review clause after two years, on a proposal from the Commission, in the light of the budgetary situation and the results achieved in the first stage of the programme. Although the financial allocation adopted by the Council is ECU 30 million over four years, the Council nevertheless agreed at its meeting on 11 June 1996 to support the entry of a sum of ECU 10 million as part of the budgetary procedure for 1997 and 1998. This means that, in accordance with the abovementioned review clause, the Commission could, after two years, make any proposals it considers appropriate in respect of the budget, without causing the programme to be interrupted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Imports of pharmaceutical products

Under Regulation 467/97 of 3 March 1997 ((OJ L 71, 13.3.1997, p. 1. )), the Council extended duty-free treatment to specified pharmaceutical active ingredients bearing an 'international non-proprietary name' (INN) from the WHO.

What volume of imports is expected to materialize as a result of this regulation and what will be the impact on the European industry?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

There is no trade data available on the volume of imports of the pharmaceutical products covered by Regulation 467/97 ((OJ L 71, 13.3.1997. )). This is due to the very specific nature of the products involved for which no separate import statistics have been collected. However, the impact on the European industry of the duty free treatment provided in this Regulation for the products in question is expected to be positive because:

- it provides for cheaper access for the active ingredients in question;

- the European industry is a net exporter of pharmaceutical products.

In fact the industry has welcomed the provision of duty free treatment not only for the cheaper access to the active ingredients in question, but also for the export possibilities in the United States, Japan and Canada which are also providing similar duty free treatment for these products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1909/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: XXVth report on competition policy

With reference to the 'XXVth report on competition policy (1995)' (COM(96) 0126 final) and the 'draft Commission notice on cooperation between national competition authorities and the Commission in handling cases falling within the scope of Articles 85 or 86 of the EC Treaty' ((OJ C 262, 10.9.1996, p. 5. )), will the Commission be sufficiently flexible in reconsidering vertical forms of cooperation, which should not necessarily fall under the prohibition in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome?

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

Vertical agreements or restrictions within such agreements are not prohibited as such under the Community competition rules as the Honourable Member seems to assume.

In fact,a great number of them either fall outside the scope of Article 85 EC Treaty under the "de minimis¨ notice or are automatically exempted under the block exemption regulations. Agreements falling outside the block exemption regulations can and often are exempted upon individual notification when the conditions of Article 85(3) are met.