ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2775/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Natura 2000 and economic influences

The Natura 2000 conservation network, to be established in accordance with the habitats Directive, is causing conflict among different interest groups in the Member States.

Can prospecting, for example, be prohibited in a Natura conservation area?

Who can give permission for a Natura area to be exploited for, say, economic reasons? Does the Commission have the right to intervene in areas designated by Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

The Natura 2000 network is implemented as required by Council Directive 92/43/EEC ('Habitats' Directive) ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )), Article 6 of which states that the Member States shall take measures to avoid deterioration of the natural habitats and species within the Natura 2000 areas.

No economic activity is either authorised or prohibited per se by the Directive. All plans or projects likely to affect a Natura 2000 area (such as mining prospecting) must be assessed by the Member State concerned (Article 6(3) and (4)).

If a Member State decides to authorise a project despite its negative impact on the conservation of a site it must inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. If that site includes a natural habitat or protected species the Commission's opinion must be sought.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/97 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species - Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein

Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 was published in Official Journal of the European Communities L 61 of 3 March 1997. Almost immediately - in the Official Journal of 17 April 1997 - it was necessary to publish a correction because the date of entry into force had been quoted as 1 January 1997, whereas in fact the Regulation entered into force only on 1 June 1997.

The German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety has observed that in addition the text published in the Official Journal contains other errors, including some in the annexes. It is therefore necessary to await an EC Regulation containing corrections.

What can be done to ensure that, in future, legal acts which need to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union contain fewer errors, thereby obviating the need to issue a series of correcting Regulations?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (13 October 1997)

The publication of regulations is the responsibility of the Council.

In this case, the errors were not misprints, but were contained in the original manuscript.

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities plays no part in the contents of the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1928/97 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (5 June 1997)

Subject: Enlargement of the European Union

Is it consistent with the Treaty on European Union signed by the 15 Member States to put the objective of enlargement of the European Union ahead of the goal of achieving economic and social cohesion in the European Union?

Answer (17 October 1997)

The Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 confirmed that the countries of central and eastern Europe could become members of the European Union. No order of priority was established in that context between the goal of enlargement and that of achieving economic and social cohesion in the European Union.

The Amsterdam European Council on 16 and 17 June 1997 noted that, with the successful conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference, the way was open for launching the enlargement process in accordance with the conclusions of the Madrid European Council.

On 16 July 1997 the Commission presented its opinions on the accession applications as well as a comprehensive communication ("Agenda 2000¨) covering the development of the Community, including the main conclusions and recommendations deriving from the opinions.

The Council (General Affairs) will examine the Commission's opinions and Agenda 2000 in depth and will present a comprehensive report to the December meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg, which will take the necessary decisions on the overall enlargement process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/97 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Invalidity card

Does the Commission plan to propose a harmonization of the invalidity cards issued in Member States in the form of a single card which Community citizens could use throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

On the basis of the powers and responsibilities conferred on it by the Treaties, the Commission currently has no plans to harmonise the invalidity cards issued in the various Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/97 by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Aid to the table olive sector

The table olive sector is at present going through a serious crisis. The high costs of this product - which, apart from promotional measures, is not the subject of Community aid - cause prices to rise, which in turn leads to a fall in consumption and a loss of competitiveness for Community production compared with third countries.

The Commission options paper on the reform of the olive oil sector COM(97) 57 final mentions the seriousness of the situation the what the sector expects from the reform.

Does the Commission intend to take steps to ensure the survival of this truly European product?

Has it considered the possibility of granting a specific form of aid, as requested by producers, which does not come into conflict with the olive oil sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

There is no Community assistance for table olives except some part-financed promotion and marketing aid that has not been greatly successful.

There are two basic reasons for the sector's current difficulties: increased competition from third countries with cheaper labour costs and the move in recent years in the olive oil sector from consumption aid to production aid.

In the latter case the market policy followed in the sector has indirectly given rise to an increase in table olive prices to offset the increase in production aid for olive oil. The situation is complicated by the fact that some table olive growers receive production aid for oil under the small producer scheme, which results in unfair competition for growers receiving no aid.

The Commission in its note to the Council and Parliament mentioned by the Honourable Member has already examined the table olive problem and is aware of the budgetary difficulties of introducing a new common market organisation (CMO) for table olives. The solution may lie in using part of the budget at present committed to olive oil.

At all events the debate on reform is open but so far the opinions of Member States and the professional organisations on the inclusion of table olives in the new olive oil CMO are not convergent, which poses additional difficulties.

An appropriate solution for table olives is still however possible. The Commission in its discussion paper on reform of the olive oil sector envisaged this as being provided by the tree aid option.

The Commission wishes to consider the views of all parties before making a concrete proposal for reform of the olive oil sector. It still awaits the observations of some Community institutions, including Parliament, on its discussion paper.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2148/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Varieties directive

1. In the event of authorization for a plant variety pursuant to the varieties directive which does not require approval pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )), is labelling of this variety - which is required pursuant to the novel food directive - guaranteed in the case of sale of seeds?

2. How is this labelling maintained if the seed is passed on or if seedlings are sold (e.g. special packages or stickers in the case of sale to private or commercial users)?

3. Is the intention to revise the varieties directive so as to guarantee labelling pursuant to the novel food regulation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2148/97 and E-2150/97 (20 October 1997)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to reply to question 2112/97 and to note that Article 8 of Regulation 258/97 states how the labelling requirements, referred to in Article 7 (2) of the Regulation, will be established

Since the wording of the question does not allow the "Varieties directive¨ to be identified, it is not possible to indicate whether any amendment to it is envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2708/97 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: The Interreg III initiative

At the informal meeting of the Council held in Nordwijk on 10 June 1997, it was decided that cross-border cooperation was a fundamental aspect of European regional planning. In application of the principle of subsidiarity, the states and regions involved should participate fully in such cooperation.

Does the Commission believe that the new regulations governing the Community initiatives, more specifically Interreg III, should be adapted in such a way as to facilitate the participation of local and regional authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

The Commission included in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000. )) provision for a Community Initiative on cross-border cooperation for the next period of programming of the Structural Funds. It also intends to table a communication to deal specifically with this topic and set out the operational conclusions which can be drawn from earlier Interreg Initiatives and future arrangements for cross-border, inter-regional and trans-national cooperation.

The border regions and those active there have an important contribution to make to the success of cross-border cooperation and should play an active part in the arrangements for promotion and management. Dialogue still does not always take place and genuine cross-border and trans-national cooperation should develop to the full. The Commission has been working in this direction for some time. Subsidiarity should assume a higher profile in this area than it has done hitherto.

The Commission's future guidelines on cross-border and trans-national cooperation will be based on this approach.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2923/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Plutonium in teeth of teenagers in Ireland and Britain

A study commissioned by Britain's Department of Health has detected plutonium in teeth of teenagers in Britain and Ireland, with the highest levels in those living close to the Sellafield nuclear complex.

The study, which has been published in Science of the Total Environment, examined a sample of 3 300 teeth taken from teenagers during orthodontic treatment from Wexford to Antrim in Ireland and from Kent in England to the Scottish Highlands. Average plutonium levels were 7 millibecquerels per kg within 75 km of Sellafield, 5 millibecquerels within 75 to 225 km and 3 millibecquerels beyond 225 km.

Nick Priest, who carried out the research while head of biomedical research at AEA Technology at Harwell, has concluded that the plutonium found in these samples 'almost certainly' came from aerial emissions from Sellafield. Another possibility, he stated, was that some particles from Sellafield's marine discharges may have been blown back from the Irish Sea in sea spray and breathed in through the lungs and entering the bloodstream, before lodging in bone, teeth and the liver.

Has the Commission studied the findings of this report? Has it made any representations to the British authorities about it?

What action does it propose to take in the light of this study and to ensure that no further radioactive pollution is caused by Sellafield?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 October 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to her oral question H-656/97 during question time at Parliament's September 1997 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (September 1997). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3270/97 by María Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Processing of used oil at cement works

Is it permitted to burn waste oil at cement works, as if it were just a fuel, when the owners of the works do not have a licence to process such oil?

Answer given by Mrs. Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

Cement works cannot dispose of waste oils without obtaining a permit to this effect. According to Article 6 of Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 on the disposal of waste oils ((OJ L 42, 12.2.1987. )), any undertaking which disposes of waste oils must obtain a permit. Where necessary, this permit shall be granted after examination of the installations. Member States were required to ensure that the measures adopted pursuant to the Directive were applied to the undertakings existing at the time of notification of Directive 87/101/EEC within seven years of the said notification, i.e. 13 January 1994. Regarding new undertakings, the measures must be applied from their establishment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/97 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Data relating to Portugal in the Commission's 'First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion - 1996'

In a recent report of the Portuguese Economic and Social Council on 'Implementation of the Community Support Framework - 1995', Prof. Dr José da Silva Lopes, author of the report, expresses doubts regarding certain figures quoted in the Commission's 'First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion - 1996', in particular the 13% increase in Portugal's per capita GDP relative to the European average between 1983 and 1993 and especially the 8.6% increase in the period 1990-1993.

More specifically, the report states the following: 'The abnormal per capita GDP percentage increase relative to the EU average is most probably due to the changes introduced by Eurostat in 1990 in methods for calculating PPP (purchasing power parity).'

In view of the importance of this matter, which is not merely statistical, will the Commission clear the doubts raised in the report of the Portuguese Economic and Social Council and, in particular, provide figures concerning the actual trend in Portuguese per capita GDP in the aforementioned periods, should it be confirmed that the published figures are the result of changes in calculation methods?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The increase in per capita GDP in Portugal between 1983 and 1993 relative to the per capita GDP in the Community, calculated in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), is due to two main factors:

The first is Portugal's good economic performance over that period. The increase in Portugal's per capita GDP is greater than the Community average and Portugal's purchasing power has increased as a result of accession to the single market, reducing the cost of imports by abolishing customs duties. On average, Portugal's per capita GDP moves about one percentage point closer to the Community average each year.

There is a second factor alongside this economic aspect: the adjustment of the Community average between 1990 and 1991 as a result of the inclusion of the former German Democratic Republic (ex-GDR) in the statistics. The per capita GDP was lower in the ex-GDR at that time than in any of the Member States, and this caused a reduction in Germany's per capita GDP and a lower growth rate in the Community's. As a result, Portugal's per capita GDP increased relative to the Community average by slightly less than two percentage points between 1990 and 1991, which is logical and arithmetically correct.

In contrast, the revisions applied to the methodology (inclusion of the Azores and Madeira in the Portuguese national accounts and change in the method of calculating purchasing power parities) did not have a significant impact on Portuguese per capita GDP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2883/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Listing of soap and cosmetic ingredients in Latin

Can the Commission confirm reports that a directive has been introduced requiring all ingredients of soap and cosmetic products to be listed in Latin on the product packaging?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1997)

Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products ((OJ L 262, 27.9.1976. )) (the cosmetics directive) as amended ((OJ L 151, 23.6.1993. )) provides for the labelling of ingredients on all cosmetic products, including toilet soaps and decorative cosmetics.

The Commission has established ((Decision 96/335/EC of 8 May 1996 establishing an inventory and a common nomenclature of ingredients employed in cosmetic products - OJ L 132, 1.6.1996. )) a common ingredients nomenclature that makes it possible to identify the substances by using a single name in all Member States. The INCI (International nomenclature cosmetic ingredient) names that have been adopted best meet these requirements in that they are relatively simple and already in use at international level. Such practices enable consumers to recognise substances that they have been advised to avoid(for example because of allergies), no matter where the product is purchased.

In some cases, in which an ingredient was known by a different common name in various geographies, the Latin name was adopted for labelling purposes e.g. Aqua is the INCI name for water. This was certainly the approach taken for a number of plant extracts and similar natural ingredients. However, the published nomenclature has been agreed at an international level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: International Criminal Court

Given the existing limitations of the International Court of Justice, what is the Commission's position on the current negotiations to create an International Criminal Court which would be empowered to prosecute any individual for genocide, aggression, war crimes and other crimes against humanity, without any veto by national governments?

Is the Commission in favour of giving individuals and citizens' groups, as well as national governments and the Court's Prosecutor, the right to bring cases before the court?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1997)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2944/97.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question ((See page 152. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/97 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Restoration of Verrocchio's 'Baptism of Christ'

Professor Alfio della Serra of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence has begun restoring the 'Baptism of Christ', a Renaissance masterpiece with figures and landscape painted by Leonardo da Vinci and an angel attributed to Botticelli, which is of incalculable value not only to the European Union but to the whole of mankind.

Objections of various kinds have been raised concerning the way in which the restoration work is being carried out and how urgent it is by Professor Carlo Pedretti and Jacques Franck, eminent experts on Leonardo's paintings, and by James Beck of Colombia University, Chairman of Art Watch International, who, dissatisfied by the information on the subject supplied by the Curator of the Uffizi, has lodged an appeal to the courts calling for the restoration work to be suspended.

1. What urgent steps does the Commission intend to take to allay the fears felt by the international art world concerning the preservation of Verrocchio's 'Baptism of Christ', not least because of the fierce polemic on the subject?

2. What steps will the Commission take to ensure greater transparency concerning the methods used and the reasons for the restoration work decided by the Curator of the Uffizi Gallery, Anna Maria Petrioli Tofani?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (20 October 1997)

Firstly, the Commission would like to state that its role in safeguarding the cultural heritage, based on Article 128 of the EC Treaty, is confined to supporting and supplementing action by the Member States. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is not empowered to intervene in matters falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Member States, such as the restoration of a work belonging to the Italian national heritage.

However, in this specific case, the Commission checked that the methods used to restore Verrocchio's painting were those commonly and correctly applied by the Uffizi Gallery in its professional work.

The scientific rigour of the current restoration is not open to doubt, as was confirmed, moreover, by the Soprintendente of Florence himself. He has already defended the restoration work in an answer to a parliamentary question similar to the one put by the Honourable Member in the Italian Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3078/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: US extra-territorial laws

What stage has been reached in cooperation between the European Union and the United States with a view to reaching a clear understanding on the need for the US to repeal or desist from implementing its extra-territorial laws?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1997)

An example of the Community's efforts to convince the United States to cease to resort to legislation with extraterritorial effects is the understanding reached between the Community and the United States on 11 April 1997 on the dispute between the Community and the United States on the Helms-Burton and D'Amato Acts adopted by the United States. This legislation has extraterritorial effects in that it has the intention or effect of influencing the behaviour of companies in the Community because of their involvement in Cuba, Libya or Iran.

Under this understanding, the Community agreed to suspend the World trade organization (WTO) panel procedure which it had initiated against the United States because of its Helms-Burton legislation. On the United States side, there is a presumption of the continuation of the waiver of Title III and a commitment to work with the Congress to permit a waiver under Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act. On D'Amato, the United States has agreed to work with the Community toward the objectives of meeting the terms for granting the Community a waiver.

At the same time, the understanding calls for the Community and the United States to develop disciplines which should inhibit and deter the future acquisition of investments from any state which has expropriated or nationalised such investments in contravention of international law, and subsequent dealings in covered investments. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the United States to work together to address and resolve through agreed principles the issue of conflicting jurisdictions and secondary investment boycotts with extraterritorial effects.