ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1944/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: BSE and water

1. Is the Commission aware that the BSE pathogen may enter drinking and ground water?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take to avert the danger of ground water contamination by the pathogen, especially in regions where knacker's yards are located?

3. How does the Commission rate this danger?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

1. The Commission has no information concerning the possibility that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent can be transmitted via water.

2. The Commission has, through Decision 95/348/EC ((OJ L 202, 26.8.1995. )) laying down the veterinary and animal health rules applicable in United Kingdom and Ireland to the treatment of certain types of waste intended to be marketed locally as feedstuffs for certain animal categories, authorized the use of knackers' yards. In accordance with Article 3 of this Decision these establishments must have a waste-water disposal system meeting hygiene requirements. The sanitary situation of knackers' yards is the responsibility of the United Kingdom authorities. The United Kingdom has rules prohibiting the removal of the spinal cord and the brain from the carcase which also apply to knacker's yards. This should prevent any possible contamination of the environment around the knacker's yards. The Commission has during its two missions to the United Kingdom (21-24 April and 28-31 May 1996) visited knackers' yards and a problem regarding the sanitary situation in regard to the waste water was not observed.

3. The Commission has not received any scientific epidemiological information suggesting this possible way of transmission and no specific measures with regard to this aspect are taken. However, the Commission will, of course, upon any suspicion that there may be a risk to human or animal health due to knackers' yards, immediately assess the situation and take the appropriate measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/96 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Implementation of Budget line B3-2003: 'Other cultural measures in the Community and cultural cooperation with third countries'

The remarks against Line B3-2003 of the 1996 General Budget assign the major part of this amount (ECU 4 710 000 out of a total of ECU 6 000 000) to certain specific activities.

Can the Commission say how much of the remaining ECU 1 290 000 is intended for third countries, and how much for the Community?

How much is intended for Latin American countries which have a cultural clause in their agreements with the EU?

How much is intended for countries which do not have agreements with the Community?

What proportion will go to third countries in Europe and the rest of the world?

According to what criteria are projects selected?.

Answer given by M. Oreja on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

First of all, the Commission would like to point out that it is difficult to provide exact figures in the course of the financial year. However, it can give some indications of the pattern so far.

The Community has agreements containing cultural clauses with 112 non-member countries, but its budget does not permit it to meet all its commitments. Therefore, the Community currently tends to distinguish between countries participating in European cultural projects - at the moment ten Central and Eastern European countries and Cyprus and Malta are involved - and other countries.

The Commission has set aside approximately ECU 600 000 for projects in the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe as an interim measure until protocols making provision for cultural programmes are added to the Treaties of Association. These projects must fit in with existing cultural projects.

In the particular case of Latin America, very few cultural projects have been referred to the Commission; some have been supported, such as 'La casa de los tres mundos' project, which has received ECU 100 000.

Grants of ECU 30 000 (Tibet) and ECU 40 000 (the European Union Baroque Orchestra's tour of South Africa) have been made to support cultural projects regarding other non-member countries.

The Commission also plans to run joint projects in the cultural sphere with UNESCO and the Council of Europe. To this end, a coordination meeting will shortly be organized.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2001/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Commission decision of 12 July 1989 - UIP case

Commission Decision 89/467/EEC ((OJ L 226, 3.8.1989, p. 25. )) of 12 July 1989 in the UIP case was favourable to UIP on condition that this subsidiary company and its parent companies encouraged production in Europe.

1. Does the Commission believe that this condition has been met?

2. If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

It is true that UIP's contribution to European production was one of the factors taken into account when the Decision of 12 July 1989 was adopted. With a view to determining whether or not this exemption should be renewed, the Commission is currently examining UIP's effects on the cinema market. Its impact on European production, as one of these effects, is being taken into account. The Commission has not as yet completed its investigations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Fight against Racism

Why does Commissioner Liikanen continue to try and impose his view that the Commission has no competence in the fight against racism and xenophobia by slashing budget lines when the Commissioner named responsible has already admitted competence in this area?

Does he always try and impose his views by slashing budget lines in such a manner?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The Honourable Member does not accurately reflect the views of either Mr Liikanen or the Commission.

On the contrary, the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 1997 provides for ECU 4.7 million to combat racism (heading B3-4114), despite the particularly tight constraints affecting this budget.

The Honourable Member is also reminded that the Commission operates on a collegiate basis.

Last but not least, on the basis of a Commission proposal 1997 has been declared European Year against Racism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2282/96 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Quality of bathing water in Germany

According to the Commission's thirteenth report on the quality of bathing water in 1995, only 46% of the inland waters met the necessary quality standards.

Has the Commission taken any steps to remedy this situation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2281/96 and E-2282/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

The unsatisfactory quality of bathing water in the Netherlands was indicated in the recently published Commission report on the quality of bathing water in 1995.

The Commission has decided to question the Dutch authorities on this matter through a letter of formal notice - the first step in the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Regarding the poor quality of inland bathing waters in Germany, the Commission, having identified the situation some time ago, has instituted infringement proceedings. A reasoned opinion, the last step in the Article 169 procedure before the matter goes before the Court, has already been notified. Proceedings are continuing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1779/96 by Abdelkader Mohamed Ali (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Impact of the new information technologies on employment

The application of the new technologies in the future information society opens up enormous scope for professionals, business men and potential users. However, the speed of the introduction of these new media, whilst creating technical jobs, may have a substantial impact on employment.

Does the Commission intend to carry out a study on the impact of the new information technologies on employment, to ascertain the number of jobs created and the number lost, because of the replacement of people by machines?

Is the Commission taking account of the need to recycle highly qualified employees by means of specialized training programmes which would, as far as possible, enable men and women affected by the technological changes in their work environment not to be excluded from the process of renewal?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

The Commission believes that the new information technologies in the information society will have an important effect, both quantitative and qualitative, on employment across the economy.

Several studies have already been launched to examine the relationship between employment and information technology.

This issue is equally at the core of the work of the information society forum set up by the Commission, and which includes representatives from all sectors concerned and which presented its first annual report to the public on 9 July 1996. Furthermore, a high level group of experts, set up by the Commission, submitted its interim report in January 1996 (Building the European information society for us all).

The Commission will use this work, as well as a series of other studies, to put together a green paper 'People first: living and working in the European information society'.

This document, along with other communications on the information society currently under preparation, will seek to clarify the impact on employment and will stress the challenges from these developments in the information society to education and training.

The Commission considers vocational training related to new technology a necessity. In the context of the structural funds such an approach is already followed, particularly under measures related to the adaptation to industrial change, for example under the European social fund's objective 4 and the Community initiative programme Adapt.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Future of the PACTE programme in 1997

Given the Commission's proposal to merge budget line B2-600 into the Article 10 Programme, can the Commission confirm its intention to retain support for the PACTE Programme for 1997 at its current level of funding and with its current administration by the local authority associations themselves?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2093/96, E-2149/96 and E-2151/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1996)

The Commission appreciates the Parliament's concern about the financing of projects for initiating interregional cooperation, and in view of the budgetary situation it is studying the possibility of funding these projects under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended, which relates to the European Regional Development Fund. ((OJ L 193, 31 July 1993. )) These projects could involve a Community contribution of ECU 150 000 to 300 000.

The Commission will not fail to inform Parliament at the appropriate time of the results of its study, which must take account in particular of the Court of Auditors' criticisms of partially delegated management of Community appropriations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Marine equipment

The main objectives of the proposal for a Council Directive on marine equipment (COM(95) 0269 ((OJ C 218, 23.8.1995, p. 9. ))) are safety at sea, uniform application of testing standards within the Community, free circulation within all Member States of equipment approved under EU legislation and standards.

However, the Directive appears to be geared more to removing obstacles to free circulation of the equipment than to promoting a higher level of safety.

Since safety is an essential objective, will the Commission bring forward legislation in this area which makes safety and protection of the environment the first priority?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's opinion that safety is an essential objective of the legislative measures which have been proposed in the field of maritime transport since the adoption of the communication on a common policy on safe seas in 1993.

Safety is certainly the main objective of the proposal for a Council directive on marine equipment, which is based on Article 84(2) of the EC Treaty. The draft aims to enhance the performance of the equipment carried on board ships throughout the Community. Free movement of the equipment manufactured in accordance with the provisions of the directive is however an additional and useful objective of the proposal. Member States will accept the equipment carrying the mark referred to in the directive without further controls since such a mark is a guarantee that the equipment fulfils the relevant safety standards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1806/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (8 July 1996)

Subject: European currency

It has been reported that the Governors of the central banks of certain Member States of the European Union have expressed reservations regarding the use of the word 'euro' in Greek, despite a clear decision on this matter taken at the summit meeting in Madrid in December 1995.

Will the Council say:

1. Are these reports correct?

2. What is its position?

3. Does it accept that the Governors of the central banks should determine the political strategy of the European Union?

Reply (7 November 1996)

It should be noted that work in this area has not yet been completed by the European Monetary Institute, which is responsible for supervising the technical preparation of banknotes (Article 109f(3) of the Treaty). When the third stage of EMU begins, the European Central Bank will have the exclusive right to authorize the issue of banknotes within the Community (Article 105a(1) of the Treaty).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: Competition policy

Industries evolve in anticipation of the emergence of new markets. New alliances with global implications have been have been submitted to the Commission for approval. An analysis of these cases demonstrates that, if applied in a realistic manner, the existing competition rules allow due account to be taken of the processes of innovation and globalization. However, an alliance should not necessarily be authorized simply because it is intended to provide access to emerging markets. Although alliances of this kind should be permitted, or even encouraged, when they stimulate competition, they are unacceptable when they obstruct or undermine the process of dismantling monopolies.

Given the above, how does the Commission intend to prevent alliances between large companies from excluding smaller companies (particularly SMEs) from the market?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 October 1996)

The Commission takes account of technological change and globalization of the economy when analysing and hence defining the relevant market. It is also aware that rapid technological change may call for new forms of cooperation between businesses.

When vetting mergers in the light of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )) or examining agreements in the light of Article 85 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is vigilant, however, in ensuring that the practical effect of such agreements is not to seal off markets or to damage efficiency.

In the case of mergers, the Commission verifies that they do not create or strengthen a dominant position on the relevant market. In the case of alliances caught by Article 85(1), it would examine whether the conditions for an exemption under Article 85(3) were met. In other words, the agreement in question must contribute to promoting technical or economic progress while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit. The restrictive features of the agreement must, however, be indispensable and must not afford the firms concerned the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.

Taking these elements into account ensures that, following a merger or some other form of cooperation, effective competition is safeguarded for all firms, including small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Commission recently arranged for some forty studies to be carried out into the impact of measures relating to establishment of the internal market (Single Market Review 1996). Some of them examine the links between the single market and competition, particularly in the case of alliances. The Commission intends to send to the Council before the end of the year a communication summarizing the findings of the studies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1885/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Biodegradation of oil from nuclear plants

In Europe there are in all probability 4 500 000 litres of contaminated oil from nuclear plants.

The USA has given up the practice of incinerating the oil and is expressing interest in the technology of biodegradation to get rid of it.

EDF in France is going to try out biodegradation on 100 000 litres of oil to test the new system.

What are the Commission's views on incineration and biodegradation as methods of getting rid of contaminated oil? Has any study been carried out that would indicate the path the 15 Member States are to follow? What is their position on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

In the Member States oil from nuclear power plants contaminated with radionuclides is usually treated by incineration in installations with a nuclear licence. The ashes and filters containing the radionuclides are then conditioned for storage and disposal as radioactive waste. Biodegradation of organic materials has been studied in the Commission's research programmes in relation to the action of microbes on such material present in deep geological repositories.

Whatever the process of treatment of contaminated oils, the by-products containing the radionuclides have to be conditioned to be suitable for storage and disposal as radioactive waste. This has to be done in accordance with the radioprotection requirements laid down in Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty and subsequent legislation. The Commission is not involved in the selection of the technical solution chosen by the industry.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2425/96 by Claude Desama (PSE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: European War Victim's Card and European Major Disability Card

Is the Commission intending to introduce at an early date (a) a European War Victim's Card and (b) a European Major Disability Card?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1996)

The Commission has no plans to create in the near future a European Card either for war victims or for people with severe disabilities. With regard to the latter, it is the case that the question of defining disability is decided at Member State level, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. There is no common Community level definition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/96 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL), Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

In view of reports in the last few days of the tragic death of political prisoners in Turkey following their hunger strike to protest against prison conditions, the acts of torture inflicted on prisoners and the persecution of their families; given that there are some 300 prisoners in this situation and that further deaths are to be expected;

in view of the recent Customs Union Agreement between the European Union and Turkey;

in view of previous resolutions, which clearly set out the conditions to be met by the Turkish Government with respect to human rights;

how does the Commission intend to react to this blatant failure to respect the conditions laid down and the violation of human rights and basic democratic freedoms, in accordance with the positions it has adopted?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

The Commission was very aware of the recent hunger strikes in Turkish prisons and the unfortunate deaths, and fully shares the Honourable Members' concern. On 25 July, the relevant Member of the Commission sent a letter to Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister, Mrs Tansu Çiller, expressing the feelings aroused in Europe by the hunger strikes and urging her to do her utmost to avoid further loss of life.

The Commission was heartened by the news that the hunger strikers and the authorities had reached an agreement on 26 July, putting an end to the suffering; it nonetheless deplores the fact that it took so much time, loss of life and an international outcry before a solution was finally found.

The Turkish authorities have also invited the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture to visit Turkey and conduct an in-depth study, particularly in detention centres. The Commission will follow its work with interest.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2348/96 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission (8 August 1996)

Subject: EU audit of the sub-operational programme for the re-integration of the socially excluded

Noting that the Belcamp Estate Steering Committee and others have withdrawn from the EPIC programme, could the Commission supply me with a copy of the recently completed EU Audit on the Dublin Corporation's (Ireland) implementation of the sub-operational programme for socially excluded?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1996)

The sub-programme for the socially excluded, to which the Honourable Member is presumed to refer, is receiving European social fund assistance under the Human resources development operational programme in Ireland. The Commission is not aware of any recent audit on this sub-programme. In adddition, Dublin Corporation is not responsible for implementing measures under this sub-programme. Therefore additional information is required on the operational programme and the structural fund through which this specific project receives assistance from the Community, before it will be possible to respond to the Honourable Member's request.

For the Honourable Member's general information, Commission audit reports or letters giving the main findings of audits are sent to the Member State concerned. The national authorities are given the opportunity to respond on the issues and conclusions raised. It is the responsibility of the Member State to allow the audited beneficiaries to be informed of the observations and conclusions of the reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2148/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Article 10 Programme

What progress has the Commission made under the Article 10 Programme in response to Parliament's recommendation that urban pilot projects are made available to smaller towns under the previous 10 000 population threshold, and for the setting up of a European network of local authorities cooperating on issues of democratic initiatives and citizen participation?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

Following the Parliament's recommendation the Commission reworded the call ((OJ C 319, 31.11.1995. )) for urban pilot project proposals under Article 10 of the European regional development fund Regulation ((OJ L 193, 31. 7.1993. )).

As far as the 100,000 population threshold is concerned, the above call specified that '... smaller towns could also be accepted, provided they have a marked urban economy and social structure, play a central role within a region, or are adjacent peri-urban conurbations of large cities.'

Concerning issues of democratic initiatives and citizen participation, the same call made explicit mention, among other possible themes for action, of 'the establishment of partnerships and citizens' participation'.