ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3222/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Recycling of discarded vehicles

One of the greatest subjects of polemic in the environmental sphere is the recycling of discarded vehicles.

There are a large number of different proposals, ranging from the recommendation that the market should draw up the best solutions, with the cooperation of everybody, to the idea of imposing 'eco-taxes', as in Holland, although there is the risk, according to those opposed to this proposal, that owners may forget their vehicles and abandon them on the street.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in regulating this matter, which countries have opted for levying a recycling tax and whether it intends to make any proposals to the Member States to facilitate the solutions agreed on?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

On 9 July 1997, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on end of life vehicles ((Doc. COM(97) 358. )). This contains measures in the field of prevention, collection, treatment, recovery, monitoring and information. In particular, it lays down quantified targets for the re-use, recycling and recovery of waste.

With this proposal, the Commission intends to promote the harmonization of national approaches to the problem of end of life vehicles. Initiatives by national authorities or by economic operators exist in certain Member States. These initiatives vary considerably in their content, the year of achievement of the targets, the period of time covered and the nature of the commitments. Initiatives (some including recycling and recovery objectives) have been started in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom.

In order to avoid the risk of vehicles being abandoned in the environment, the proposal for a directive requires that end of life vehicles may be de-registered from public registers only after the delivery of a certificate of destruction issued by an authorized dismantler. Only dismantlers complying with the requirements set out in the directive will receive an authorization to operate and to issue certificates of destruction.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4124/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Environmental clean-up operations on the Kola peninsula

The Commission is aware that much radioactive waste is being stored on the Kola peninsula in medium-term facilities which are incompatible with modern safety requirements and that a tiny ECU 5 million was earmarked for disposal projects. Will the Commission please explain whether this work has been undertaken?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

An inventory of the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste presently in storage in facilities in North West Russia, together with the quantities that are expected to be produced in coming years, was prepared in 1996 under a study contract financed by the Commission. As a follow-up to this study, 5 MECU of TACIS nuclear safety funds were allocated to radioactive waste management in the region. The four projects that make up this programme were all started in 1997.

In addition to these projects, the Commission also supports a number of other activities related to radioactive waste management in the area. These include remediation of the storage vessel 'Lepse', removal of spent nuclear fuel, development of a cask for the storage and transport of the removed fuel, evaluation of the possibilities for storage of spent nuclear fuel removed from submarines and icebreakers, and an evaluation of the impact on the environment of the nuclear reactors dumped in the Kara Sea.

However, in addition to these activities, a great deal more needs to be done. A recent international expert opinion advised that the situation in the region was deteriorating further as more and more nuclear submarines were decommissioned. It urged states to encourage financing of additional activities in the region. The Commission endorses this position and hopes to step up its efforts to remedy the situation. It looks to the Parliament for continuing support.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3901/97 by Carlo Secchi (PPE) to the Commission (27 November 1997)

Subject: Ban on advertizing laxatives in Italy

Is the Commission aware that the Italian Health Ministry's Drugs Board has decided to reclassify laxatives, which are at present classed as OTC [over the counter] drugs, as so-called SOP (senza obbligo di prescrizione) or restricted non-prescription drugs which, unlike OTC drugs, cannot be advertized to the public?

Does the Commission take the view that this measure could constitute a barrier to the free movement of goods, in view of the fact that current European legislation, as well as the Member States' domestic legislation, allows drugs for self medication to be advertized to the public?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1997)

The planned Italian measures which may have the consequence of prohibiting the advertising for all laxative products were brought to the attention of the Commission by an Italian pharmaceutical industry association on 20 November 1997.

Considering the clear wording of Article 3 of Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use ((OJ L 113, 30.4.1992. )) it seems that Member States are not allowed to have more restrictive rules on the advertising to the general public. Therefore, a national ban on the advertising of a certain category of medicinal products 'which by virtue of their composition and purpose, are intended and designed for use without the intervention of a medical practitioner for diagnostic purposes or for the prescription or monitoring of treatment, with the advice of the pharmacist, if necessary' and which is not covered by the explicit derogations laid down in Article 3 paragraphs 1 and 3, appears to be an infringement of Community law.

The Commission is closely monitoring the further development of this issue in Italy and will, if necessary, initiate the appropriate steps to ensure full compliance with Community law.

Directive 92/26/EC of 31 March 1992 concerning the classification for the supply of medicinal products for human use ((OJ L 113, 30.4.1992. )) gives to the Member States the possibility to re-classify the legal status of medicinal products so that advertisement requirements could be different, including the possibility of prohibiting such advertisement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4138/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Import of primates from Indonesia

In view of the findings of the recent report on the trade in non-human primates from Indonesia and, in particular, the serious breaches of CITES provisions and the immense animal suffering recorded, is the Commission considering carrying out its own investigation into the trade in primates?

Furthermore, will the Commission consider imposing an embargo on the use of primates originating from Indonesia in experiments in the EU, pending the results of such an investigation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4137/97 and E-4138/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Commission is aware of the November 1997 report by the British union for the abolition of vivisection (BUAV) on a number of shipments of primates from Indonesia to the United States. As at least one shipment transited through the Community, the Commission reminded the authorities of the Member State concerned of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein ((OJ L 61, 3.3.1997. )) and in particular Article 9(5) thereof.

The Commission further requested the Indonesian Convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) management authority to provide it with a reaction to the claims in the BUAV report and to indicate its policy with regard to the implementation of International air transport association (IATA) regulations and captive breeding.

The Commission will consider whether measures under Articles 4(6) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 are necessary in the light of the results of the necessary consultations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: European pass for persons over 60 years of age

Following the Commission's reply to my Question E-1019/97 ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 69. )) in which it refers to a feasibility study for a Europass for persons of over 60 years of age, will the Commission say whether such a study has already been undertaken and what developments have occurred in respect of this project since April 1997?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1998)

The results of a feasibility study on an over 60s card, carried out by non-governmental organisations working in the field of older people in five Member States, were received by the Commission just very recently. These results now fall to be carrefully ewamined by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3892/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Discrimination against Romanies in the Czech Republic

In recent months there have been a number of disturbing reports concerning the widespread discrimination against Romanies in the Czech Republic, many of whom find themselves illegitimately deprived of Czech citizenship. What steps will the Commission take to pressurize the Czech Government into recognizing the rights of these groups?

Does the Commission agree that the satisfactory resolution of this problem must constitute a fundamental precondition to the Czech Republic's entry into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

Inn its opinion on the Czech Republic's application for membership of July 1997, the Commission concluded that the Czech authorities should address, among other issues, the situation of Roma in their country. In the opinions on a number of other applicant countries the Commission drew similar conclusions.

The Community assists the associated countries to prepare for membership through its pre-accession strategy, in which the Phare programme plays a central role. This programme contains a number of projects which specifically address human rights questions and the situation of minorities, including Roma.

The Commission will continue to closely follow the situation concerning human rights and minorities in each of the associated countries. In the case of the Czech Republic this implies also a close monitoring of the programme adopted by the Czech government on 29 October 1997 to improve the situation of Roma. At the same time the Commission will continue to assist these countries in addressing effectively the short-comings in these areas identified in the opinions through the Phare programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3634/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in Portugal

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether Portugal requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3449/97 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Television without frontiers

From 1-23 July 1997, the transmissions of the satellite channel MED TV were jammed. MED TV, which broadcasts in Kurdish, operates from London under licence from the United Kingdom's Independent Television Commission. The jamming also affected another EUTELSAT-based company, the Romanian channel Antena I.

This interference effectively deprived citizens of several EU Member States of their right - as set out in both the Television Without Frontiers Directive and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - to receive broadcasts from another Member State.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the right of EU citizens to receive information from EU-based television channels - in accordance with the relevant EU Directive - is not curtailed by the jamming of such channels, from either inside or outside the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1997)

The television without frontiers Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities ((OJ L 202, 30.7.1997. ))) provides that Member States shall ensure freedom of reception on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States (Article 2a (1)).

This obligation is based on one of the four fundamental freedoms laid down in the EC Treaty (the freedom to provide services - Article 59).

The implementation and application of Community law is of great importance to the Commission. The Commission has opened a number of infringement proceedings in this area to ensure the correct and complete implementation of the Directive, as well as to ensure its application in practice.

In respect of the issue raised, the Commission is not aware of the events referred to by the Honourable Member. Further information would be required to enable the Commission to carry out the necessary evaluation, and to decide whether such actions are an infringement of the television without frontiers Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/97 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Free movement of workers

During the past 30 years the autonomous province of Bolzano-Bozen (Italy) has adopted for its territory an extensive series of legal and administrative provisions concerning grants from public funds towards the purchase of property for use as a main residence, and other housing assistance (including the provision of subsidized building land, rent subsidies, crisis payments, etc.) for low-income families and individuals.

Apart from financial need, the main criterion on the basis of which subsidies are granted and their level fixed is the length of time that the recipient has resided within the territory of the autonomous province of Bolzano-Bozen (Article 4, regional law No 4 of 2 April 1962). Residence in other EC Member States is not taken into account.

Is the Commission aware of this arrangement?

Does the Commission take the view that this arrangement, particularly in so far as it applies to workers from other Community Member States, is consistent with the ban on discrimination in Community law and, in particular, with Article 9 of Council Regulation 1612/68/EEC ((OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2. )) of 15 October 1968, particularly with respect to the long period of residence required? If the Commission takes the view that this arrangement violates Community law, can it say what steps it has taken, or will take, to ensure that Community law is complied with?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 February 1998)

The Commission will ask the Italian authorities to provide full details of the arrangement in question. These details will make it possible to establish whether the situation described by the Honourable Member constitutes indirect discrimination against a Community worker in comparison with an Italian worker.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in Greece

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether Greece requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3451/97 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Bean sprouts from genetically modified soya beans

What information is available to the Commission regarding the results which would occur when genetically modified beans are used to produce bean sprouts which are then eaten raw?

What tests were done with soya bean sprouting and what were the results of these tests?

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

According to the Commission Decision of 3 April 1996 and the subsequent consent issued by the British authorities, the Monsanto genetically modified soya beans have been granted consent to be placed on the market for the specific uses of 'handling in the environment during import, before and during storage, and before and during its processing to non-viable products'. The consumption as food of soya beans in a viable form was not authorized under this consent.

In order for genetically modified soya beans to be grown in the Community, a new notification under Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) would be required. For soya bean sprouts from genetically modified soya to be used as food or a food ingredient, a notification under Regulation (EEC) No 258/97 on novel foods and novel food ingredients ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )) will be required. No such notifications have been received by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4110/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Purification Plant in Patras

A biological purification plant for the municipality of Patras is currently under construction in the Kokkinos Mylos area of the Paralias Patron seafront. Complaints have been received from local residents concerning the environmental impact of alleged irregularities regarding the project and the environmental impact thereof.

Is the Commission aware of these allegations? Has an appropriate environmental impact survey been carried out and is any alternative solution possible?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 February 1998)

The Commission is financing the Patras purification plant through the Cohesion Fund (project No 94/09.61.029)-1).

According to information passed on to the Commission by the Greek authorities, an environmental impact assessment was carried out and closed by Ministerial Decision No 30339 on 20 July 1994. The issue of alternative solutions must, where appropriate, be dealt with in the framework of such an evaluation. However the decision regarding the choice of site resides with the national authorities.

The Commission has not yet received complaints concerning the project in question.