ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0452/98 by Luigi Florio (PPE), Claudio Azzolini (PPE), Giacomo Santini (PPE), Alessandro Danesin (PPE), Livio Filippi (PPE) and Alessandro Fontana (PPE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Milk quotas in Italy and sums withheld by buyers

The management of milk quotas in Italy is notoriously chaotic. The committee of inquiry appointed last year by the Italian Government has so far discovered that much of the responsibility for the disastrous management is attributable to the public administration. Among the things requested by the Cobas milk representatives received in Brussels on 29 January 1998 by Commissioner Fischler's chef de cabinet, Corrado Pirzio Biroli, and the Deputy Director of DG VI, Franco Milano, was that in order to prevent the probable ruin of many farms the huge amounts sometimes withheld by buyers should be entrusted to producers pending clarification of the real reasons for the surplus production. Does the Commission consider this procedure to be acceptable given that there is no reason to believe that buyers offer better guarantees of solvability than producers and that Regulation 3950/92 ((OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1. )) is not particularly clear?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1998)

The Commission cannot accept the proposal from the milk committee representatives that levy amounts payable which are withheld by purchasers be entrusted to producers. According to Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, the purchaser, who is liable for the levy, must pay the competent body in the Member State the amount due which he withholds from the price paid for the milk to the producers who owe the levy, failing which, he must collect it by any appropriate means. The purchaser consequently represents the key element in the withholding of the levy and the payment of the amount due to the competent body in the Member State

The purchaser furthermore is the key figure also for notifying figures on milk collections to the authority which must verify compliance by the purchaser with the requirements of Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products ((OJ L 57, 10.3.1993. )). Failure by the purchaser to fulfil those requirements may mean that he may be subject to penalties.

The Commission attaches particular importance to compliance with the deadline for the transmission of the figures for the quantities collected and with that for the payment of the levy. Delays by purchasers in carrying out one or other of these tasks would prevent the arrangements from being fully effective. It should be borne in mind that the choice of the purchaser as the point of reference both in relation to the Commission and to the Member State is due to the number of purchasers which is considerably smaller than the number of producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0520/98 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Financial support for growers of addictive drugs

Given the Commission's decision to continue to support tobacco production to the tune of a billion ecus a year, can cultivators of relatively harmless substances such as heroine (which takes a tiny fraction of the lives lost every year to tobacco) expect similar subventions? Alternatively, has the Commission considered spending our money on something more beneficial?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

No.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Injury prevention

This question concerns the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a programme of Community action from 1999 to 2003 on injury prevention in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health (COM(97) 178 final - 97/0132 COD ((OJ C 202, 2.7.1997, p. 20. )).

With regard to health monitoring, in order to ensure effective interaction between a future Community action programme on health monitoring and the proposed one, can the Commission ensure that there is no duplication or overlapping between the initiatives envisaged?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0704/98, E-0705/98, E-0706/98 and E-0707/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The proposed programme on injury prevention aims at the systematic collection of progressively improved information on injuries and their prevention, the sharing of expertise in the selection and adaptation of the best prevention interventions and improvements in the epidemiology of injury. As such, it does not duplicate the health monitoring programme, which seeks to establish health indicators in certain areas as a tool for the overall definition and evaluation of national and Community health policy, but will complement the latter by providing the background material on which appropriate selection of indicators can be made. Moreover, the programme on injury prevention will support the evaluation and dissemination of best practice as regards protective measures, and will promote the drawing up of effective policies. As regards the future development of health policy, present activities judged to merit priority status will feature prominently in future proposals of the Commission.

On 3 November 1997 the Council confirmed its support for the continuation and improvement of the Europe home and leisure accident surveillance system (Ehlass). On 11 March 1998, the Commission accepted, to a large measure, the amendments of the Parliament in first reading related to the integration, development and extension of the former Ehlass system in the proposal for a programme on injury prevention. The proposal of the Commission on this programme is being modified accordingly.

The proposed decision provides that the Commission shall ensure consistency and complementarity between actions to be undertaken under the proposed programme and those implemented under other relevant Community programmes and actions. As such, an appropriate cross link with Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) is already provided. Furthermore, as regards the injury prevention capacity, activities will be supported to increase the use which public health bodies can make of other Community policies for injury prevention.

An amount of 14 MECU for 5 years will be proposed for the actions under the programme between 1999 and 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0513/98 by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission (19 February 1998)

Subject: European criticism of the way in which swine fever is being tackled in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands Second Chamber, the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture said that the Commission was not treating the Netherlands properly or fairly in its assessment of the way in which the recent outbreak of swine fever was being tackled.

Can the Commission indicate in detail its assessment of the way in which the Netherlands Government is tackling swine fever and the basis for that assessment?

Is it true that the Commission is trying to link financial implications to its criticism? If so, what are those implications and on what are they based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 March 1998)

As with the other Member States, the Commission carefully checked the expenditure on eradicating swine fever in the Netherlands which the Community had been requested to fund.

These checks formed the subject of an inspection report that was subsequently communicated to the Netherlands. The Dutch authorities have had several opportunities to comment on this report, both orally and in writing.

The Commission is well aware of the seriousness of the situation affecting pig farming in the region hit by the epidemic. However, on-the-spot checks revealed irregularities in the application of Council Directive 80/217/EEC of 22 January 1980 introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever ((OJ L 47, 21.2.1980. )).

The Commission will take these irregularities into account when it decides on the amount of financial aid to be awarded on the basis of the final account.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0461/98 by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission (16 February 1998)

Subject: Food controls

1. Is DG XXIV aware that there is currently a private-sector initiative involving several Member States, entitled the 'European Working Party on Food Controls and Consumer Protection' (EWFC), which has set itself the objective, inter alia, of harmonizing monitoring activity in Europe with the aim of ensuring better consumer protection?

2. This initiative was previously supported by DG III, and has been subsidized since 1995. Does the Directorate-General which is now responsible also intend to continue to support and subsidize this private-sector initiative?

3. Would the Commission regard it as a good idea for the initiative to be extended to all the other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

1. The Commission is aware of the existence of the private organisation in question and of the subsidies it has received.

2. The Commission published an invitation for the submission of projects for the protection of consumer interests in 1998.

The 'Europäische Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Lebensmittelkontrolle und des Verbraucherschutzes' is one of the associations that presented such a project. The selection process has not yet been concluded and bidders will be duly informed when the selection has been finalised.

3. The Commission approves of initiatives designed to ensure effective controls in the interest of food safety and consumer protection in Europe and welcomes the extension of this initiative to the other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Taking mountain regions into account in connection with the reform of the Structural Funds

Mountain areas, and in particular the Alps, are amongst the most sensitive regions of the EU. The economic, structural, social and cultural problems of these regions have already been highlighted in connection with the reform of the Structural Funds, and attention has been drawn to the need for a coordinated regional development policy with lasting positive effects.

Are there plans for mountain regions to be covered by a specific Objective after the reform of the Structural Funds?

If so, what should be the criteria for awarding aid and who should receive such funding?

What other measures to assist mountain regions are planned to take account of the special features of these regions?

Are studies under way to establish what effects a continuing drift from rural areas will have on the ecological and economic situation of mountain regions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)

The Commission is aware of the importance of mountain regions and of the special problems referred to by the Honourable Member. This is shown by the special aid provided for such regions under the common agricultural policy and rural development policy. The Commission proposals for the future rural development policy do not include the creation of a specific objective for mountain regions, or the Alps in particular. However, the rural development programmes will permit increased, decentralised support for the various aspects of agriculture and for mountain regions and will enable measures to be better tailored to and targeted on the specific needs of the sector in the different regions of the Community. Given the special characteristics of mountain areas, these should particularly benefit.

As regards the Honourable Member's question about specific studies into the impact of the continuing drift from rural areas on the economic and ecological situation of mountain areas, no such study is available at Community level. The Commission has, however, launched a study into the environment and hill farming which also look at the socio-economic situation of these regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/98 by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Comparative value of state pensions in European Union countries

Further to the answer given by the Commission to Written Questions Nos 2620/88 ((OJ C 262, 16.10.1989, p. 58. )) and 792/92 ((OJ C 16, 21.1.1993, p. 5. )) on the relative value of state pensions in European Union Member States, will the Commission now provide an up-date, calculated for a single person at his/her legal retirement age after a full contribution career, for as recent a date as available figures permit?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat first estimates in the framework of a study by Eurostat to update 'Old age replacement rates - volume 1' first published in 1990. The complete methodology and final estimates for the eight Member States covered will be published in June 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Structural Fund appropriations

The amount of outstanding Structural Fund appropriations reportedly increased in 1997 by ECU 2.8 million.

In drawing up the 1997 EU budget, the Commission underestimated payment appropriations by ECU 2 billion, while the budgetary authority cut them by a further ECU 1 billion, the effect of which was a premature halt in 1997 to the settlement of accounts because of a shortfall in payment appropriations.

It is also reported that there will be no extension for implementing Structural Fund commitment appropriations for 1998 and 1999 beyond 1999 and that, therefore, any outstanding appropriations will be irrevocably lost, reducing the particular package of structural measures by an equal amount.

This is a matter of vital importance, particularly for the southern Member States which are in vital need of Structural Fund appropriations to execute the infrastructure projects they require. Would the Commission therefore say:

1. in what way the shortfall in payment appropriations tends to increase the amounts outstanding under the Structural Funds, and

2. what its formal position is on carrying over outstanding commitment appropriations for 1998 and 1999 to subsequent budgets covered by the new Financial Perspective for 2000-2006?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1998)

1. In the 1997 preliminary draft budget, the Commission proposed the amount of ECU 24 823 million in payment appropriations for the Structural Funds. This figure was based on a study of the needs of Member States in 1997. During the 1997 budgetary procedure, the budgetary authority reduced the amount by ECU 1 000 million, bringing it to ECU 23 823 million.

The payment appropriations entered in the 1997 budget proved to be insufficient to meet all the payment requests submitted by the Member States to the Commission. The shortfall, which totalled almost ECU 1 200 million for Community support frameworks, had to be made up in 1998.

This shows that the Commission's forecast in the 1997 PDB was correct. Had the amount of payment appropriations not been reduced, the rate of payments could obviously have been improved and the increase in outstanding commitments could have been limited.

2. Under the current rules, all Community commitments relating to the Structural Funds must be cleared by 31 December 1999.

The information currently available to the Commission does not indicate that under-utilisation of commitments for the Structural Funds is likely in 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Nuclear waste at Dounreay - reliability of safeguards

In its answer to my Written Question P-3167/96 ((OJ C 83, 14.3.1997, p. 124. )) the Commission explained the background to the warning which it had to issue to the operators of the Dounreay reprocessing facility on account of faulty accounting of radioactive materials. It stated that alone in 1995 the safeguards inspection effort invested in the Dounreay site was 619 man/days. Except for the breaches concerning the accounting system for fissile materials in respect of which sanctions were duly imposed, 'there were no anomalies detected with regard to safeguards'.

Having regard to the latest revelations in 'The Guardian' concerning a second waste shaft on the site of the Dounreay reprocessing facility in which at least 40 kg of uranium, plutonium and sodium in addition to other waste had been dumped in the very recent past, serious doubts arise about the effectiveness of safeguards inspections.

1. How does the Commission explain the fact that, despite its many inspection visits to Dounreay, it failed to acquire information about the disposal of radioactive fissile materials in a second shaft on the site of the reprocessing facility?

2. How does it assess the reliability of its own inspections when it fails to notice the establishment of such a waste dump in the course of such inspections?

3. Did it notice during its inspections that such large quantities of plutonium and uranium were missing as are now suspected to be present in the second shaft?

4. What changes will it be making to its inspection arrangements to avoid such shortcomings in the future?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1998)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that some of the statements made in the press are at variance with the reality (see also the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-0661/98 ((OJ C 310, 9.10.1998. ))). The 'unknown shaft' mentioned in the press is a disposal area named 'intermediate solid waste silo'. The ounreay plant is under Euratom safeguards since the accession of the United Kingdom to the Community. In line with Commission Regulation Euratom No 3227/76 of 19 October 1976 concerning the application of the provisions on Euratom safeguards ((OJ L 363, 31.12.1976. )), the operator has provided the Commission, with the basic technical characteristics of this installation as well as updates thereto. In addition, the Commission is getting from the operator all the information required to perform the safeguards verification activities foreseen by the Euratom Treaty, including flows and inventories. As long as resources are available, the Commission will continue to perform continual inspections at the Dounreay site, which also cover the installation in question.

Thus the Commission is not aware either of any shortcomings in its safeguarding operations or of any dumping of safeguarded materials at the Dounreay site.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0979/98 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Mutual recognition of organic product labelling in the Community

Can the labelling of organic products be mutually recognized in the Community?

Under the present system (Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1. )) on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs), operators who produce organic products are subject to an inspection system and must pay the costs of inspection.

This means, in practice, that operators wishing to export to another Member State must be members of the inspection authority in the importing Member State and pay that inspection body. No account is taken of the fact that the necessary inspection has already been carried out in the exporting Member State, which increases exporters' costs in a situation where the product fulfills the criteria for organic produce in both the country of production and the importing country.

The present system, therefore, has genuinely discriminatory effects and constitutes an obstacle to trade in the internal market.

Presumably the Commission would agree that an inspection carried out in one Member State should not need to be repeated when the product is exported to another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

The Commission is of the opinion that any product which has been produced in a Member State or imported from a third country in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs can be placed on the market in any Member State. Member States may therefore not impose barriers to imports of such products for other Member States.

However, the marketing of organic products in certain Member States or regions thereof is traditionally strongly linked with certain private marks, which in these countries or regions have a very high attraction to the consumer. In certain cases the holders of such marks set supplementary requirements with regard to production standards or inspection requirements. Such supplementary requirements are regulated by private law. A producer using this mark has only to respect such supplementary requirements if he brings his products on the market with the particular mark they have been set for.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/98 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Law governing imports of cars into Ukraine

In September 1997 Ukraine amended its statutory rules governing the import of new and used vehicles from third countries, including the EU.

Does the Commission consider that the resulting legal framework complies with the current agreements between the EU and Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

In relation to a major investment by the Korean car company Daewoo in the Ukrainian car manufacturer Avtozaz, the Ukrainian government adopted, in September 1997, a law granting discriminatory fiscal advantages to the Korean investor. The Commission considers that this law is in violation of the most-favoured-nation treatment of the World trade organisation (WTO) (incorporated in article 10 of the partnership and co-operation agreement with Ukraine which entered into force on 1 March 1998), in violation of the non-discrimination clause of the partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) (article 15 of the PCA) and in violation of state aid rules (article 49 of the PCA). This law will make it virtually impossible for any one else to sell cars in Ukraine. It compounds with a March 1998 regulation banning the import of second hand cars more than five years old and imposing a USD 5 000 minimum customs value for all used cars, that will practically halt second hand car imports to Ukraine. The Commission considers this a quantitative restriction in violation of article 14 of the PCA.

The Commission presented its concerns to the Ukrainian government as early as July 1997. A verbal note was transmitted to Ukraine on 21 October 1997. As Ukraine did not yet reply on the substance, the Commission started formal consultations with the Ukrainian authorities on 9 March 1998 with a view to using the dispute settlement procedure provided by article 96 of the PCA with Ukraine.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0914/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Tinned tuna and bonito in agreements with third countries

Can the Commission provide information on the undertakings accepted with regard to imports of tinned tuna and bonito under EU agreements with third countries, indicating the individual quantities by country of origin?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0907/98, E-0908/98, E-0909/98, E-0910/98, E-0911/98, E-0912/98, E-0913/98, E-0914/98 and E-0915/98 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.