ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2247/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: The extension of the working life of the nuclear power stations in Calder Hall at Sellafield and Chapelcross at Annan (both in Britain)

On 3 July 1996 Britain's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) decided that the nuclear power stations in Calder Hall at Sellafield and Chapelcross at Annan were safe to operate for a further ten years. Both stations have Magnox reactors, which have a design life of 40 years.

Have the NII or other relevant authorities in Britain provided any information to the Commission on what grounds the decision was made? Can the Commission supply details of any safety data relating to these plants which the NII or other relevant authorities have supplied to it? Can the Commission also give details of any inspections it has carried out in these facilities and can it state whether or not it is satisfied that the plants have complied with EU and international safety standards in the past?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1996)

The granting of authorization to operate nuclear facilities is the exclusive competence of the regulatory bodies in the Member States. The decision to extend the working life of the Calder Hall and the Chapelcross nuclear power stations belongs to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the United Kingdom, a body whose task it is to ensure that the physical state and operating conditions of these facilities continue to comply with their design, with national safety requirements and with the operating limits and conditions laid down.

The NII is not required to inform the Commission of the reasons for its decision; the only obligations in this sphere are those under Articles 37 (plans for the disposal of radioactive waste) and 41 (investment projects relating to new installations) of the EAEC (Euratom) Treaty.

The inspection of nuclear facilities in order to assess their safety is outside the Commission's competence, the field of which is defined in the EAEC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Goodwill in the market trading business

Does the Commission have any details of the right of outdoor market traders in the 15 Member States to pass on their consumer base as an act of goodwill when selling their stalls?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1996)

The Commission keeps a close eye on the itinerant trade sector, which, given its very propensity for geographical mobility, constitutes an active element in the internal market.

Itinerant traders carry out their activities on public highways or markets which, in most cases, are public areas under the jurisdiction of national or local authorities. The authorities designate such areas as places where goods may be sold, generally on a temporary basis, in return for payment of a specific fee. In this context, it is national or local regulations, particularly those regarding the use of public areas, which set out the rules of conduct governing the activities of itinerant traders. The situation does, therefore, differ from one Member State to the next as regards the possible existence of goodwill or a consumer base, conditions regarding the sale thereof, or any terms governing the transfer of rights granted to itinerant traders for the use of public areas.

The Commission does not possess an exhaustive study of national or regional regulations on this specific point.

Given the absence of any clear information on the impact of disparities between Member States' laws, regulations and administrative provisions on freedom of establishment and the operation of the internal market, the Commission does not at this stage intend to propose any harmonising measures. On the other hand, it will continue to ensure that these laws, regulations and administrative provisions are not in breach of the provisions of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2168/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Illegal imports and 'Communitarization' of Argentine lemons

I understand from reliable sources that vast quantities of lemons from Argentina have been and are being imported into the Community illegally through ports in Spain and Portugal where they are passed off as Community produce and marketed as lemons of Spanish or Portuguese origin.

This situation is extremely serious and damaging to the Community's interests as produce from other Member States is exposed to unfair competition because of the low prices of Argentine lemons, the production costs of which are significantly lower than for European produce. Consumer health is also at risk since pesticides and preservatives which have long been banned in the Community are still being used in Argentina.

1. Is the Commission aware of these serious breaches of Community law?

2. What direct action will it take and what measures will it ask the Member States to take to put an immediate stop to this practice?

3. Should Community producers not be compensated, indirectly if not directly, for the serious damage they have suffered?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

The Commission is unaware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. To date it has registered no quantitative anomalies in imports under quota nor any significant fall in the entry price of lemons.

To satisfy itself that Spain and Portugal are not in breach of the rules, it is of course willing to ask the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to check that these imports are compatible with the established Community arrangements.

However, to do so constructively and effectively it must have a clear picture of any problems likely to affect the proper operation of the internal market, and would therefore ask the Honourable Member to be more specific in his allegations and provide whatever detailed particulars he can.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2926/96 by Wilfried Kuckelkorn (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Moonlighting at the Commission

From newspaper reports there would seem to be grounds to assume that at the Commission there are workers who are moonlighting, i.e. who are employed without adequate social and employment protection. What is the Commission's response to these accusations and what does it intend to do to ensure that such situations do not recur in future?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-2814/96 by Mrs Dury ((See page 81. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2617/96 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (14 October 1996)

Subject: Subsidy of the 'Transhennuyère' project, designed to end overexploitation of the Pecq-Roubaix (PR) aquifer by transfers of water taken primarily from the Péruwelz-Seneffe (PS) aquifer under Objective 1 (Hainaut)

The overexploitation of the PR basin dates back to the early 1900s. In 1971, 65 million m3 of water per year was drawn from it but by 1990 the figure was 78 million m3 per year, even though the natural supply level was estimated at 57 million m3 per year. The Belgian authorities have never taken any measures to preserve this aquifer through more rational water use.

In 1990 the executive body of the Region of Wallonia instructed its Ministry for Water to contact all parties concerned with a view to holding a trilateral conference (Wallonia, Flanders and France) at an early date in order to ensure the best possible management of this carboniferous limestone aquifer. The decision was never followed up. The plan to draw water from the PS aquifer is thus not based on any strategy for the rational management of water resources: there has been no study of demand which might have revealed potential water savings in the various industries involved (more efficient procedures, closed-circuit water utilization) or any potential reductions in water lost in the distribution network.

Thus, the EU subsidy granted to the 'Transhennuyère' project under Objective 1 has not led to a modernization of existing practices for the use of natural resources but only serves to paper over the shortcomings of the Belgian authorities by transferring the risk of overexploitation to another region. Indeed, the development potential of the Péruwelz region is now under threat. In the absence of an impact study, it is impossible to determine the effect of drawing water from the PS aquifer on the numerous springs and wetlands in the area. Were they to dry out, this would be disastrous for the development projects based on attracting tourists to landscapes and biotopes currently planned in this crossborder region.

Does the Commission not think, therefore, that subsidising the 'Transhennuyère' project is unjustified and even contradicts regional policy guidelines?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2605/96 and E-2617/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is re-examining the 'Transhennuyère' project, designed to combat overexploitation of the Pecq-Roubaix aquifer, in the light of its environmental impact on the Péruwelz area.

In view of the complexity of this investment, following a preliminary technical meeting with the Walloon authorities, the Commission asked for additional information to enable it to adopt a final position on the project.

The Commission has informed the Walloon regional authorities that ERDF part-financing for this project has been suspended for the time being.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2276/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (27 August 1996)

Subject: Cancellation of the last Research Council

Can the Council give a credible explanation of why the last Research Council was cancelled?

Does it agree that suspicious individuals might conclude that this cancellation will help the diversion of the promised extra ECU 700 m from the re-financing of the 4th Framework programme into the financial blackholes of BSE and Bosnia?

Does it oppose such a mugging of the R& D budget?

Answer (13 December 1996)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply which the Council gave at the plenary session on 23 October 1996 to Oral Question 0-172 put by Mr Scapagnini and also to the comments made during the debate on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/96 by Jacques Donnay (UPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Combatting drug trafficking - checks on goods

The Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union has reaffirmed that the fight against drug trafficking is one of its major priorities.

Against this background, what exact measures does the Commission intend to take to enforce strict controls on goods containers at all the Union's external frontiers, particularly at large ports?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

The Commission has no legal power in the law enforcement field and cannot, therefore, take measures to enforce controls on container goods at the Community external frontiers. This subject forms part of the drugs action programme endorsed by the Madrid European Council and which is being presently examined by the Council. A progress report will be made to the Dublin European Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/96 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Redefinition of areas assisted as part of the joint task entitled 'Improvement of Regional Economic Structures'

According to the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Commission is planning to delete a third of the areas currently assisted in Bavaria when the areas assisted as part of the joint task are redefined.

1. Does the Commission intend to delete the districts (Landkreise) of Rhön-Grabfeld, Wunsiedel, Tirschenreuth, Passau, Bad Kissingen, Hof, Schwandorf and Kronach and the boroughs (kreisfreie Städte) of Passau, Hof, Weiden, Amberg and Schwandorf from the list of areas assisted as part of the joint task? If so, on what criteria were the decisions based?

2. Why are areas defined by European rules as 5b areas which are eligible for assistance no longer to receive national assistance?

3. According to the Bavarian Government, the Commission is now trying to exercise more influence over the selection of assisted areas than in the past. Would it not be appropriate, given the subsidiarity principle, for the selection to be left to the Bavarian Government and for the Commission merely to establish the framework?

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

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/96 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: Imports into the European Union of wines from third countries

Last year, considerable quantities of white wine, red wine and must were imported into the EU from third countries. Imports from Argentina alone amounted to more than 10 million hectolitres.

1. Is the Commission aware of the large quantities of wine being imported into the EU from third countries?

2. Is the Commission also aware that imports from third countries are often labelled as Community wines?

3. If so, how does the Commission intend to control the situation and guarantee the right to Community preference?

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

1. The Commission too has noted the sharp rise in imports of wine from non-EC countries, particularly Spanish imports of wine from Argentina.

2. It has seen reports in the press of the rumoured irregularities. It would point out, however, that checks on imports are the responsibility of the Member States and that it has repeatedly reminded Member States of the need for their national control bodies to exercise strict supervision of imports.

3. Although the Commission has so far received no official complaints of fraud, it has asked the national supervisory bodies to keep an eye on these imports and the way in which they are subsequently used in the trade. Their investigations have not uncovered any evidence of failure to comply with Community rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2746/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Leghold traps

With reference to the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards (COM(95)737 ((OJ C 58, 28.2.1996, p. 17. ))), can the Commission draw up a timetable showing that negotiations with the third countries concerned will be concluded by the end of 1996 or by June 1997 at the latest, and can the committee of experts, which was appointed some time ago, complete its work no later than the same deadline?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2743/96, E-2745/96 and E-2746/96 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's suggestions, which relate to the current negotiations with Canada, the United States and Russia for a framework agreement on humane trapping methods. In accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty, the Commission is negotiating for the Community on the basis of negotiating directives received from the Council in June, directives which draw heavily on the conclusions set out in the final report delivered by the expert working party on 20 June.

The Commission would furthermore point out that it adopted, on 13 December last year, a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 for transmission to the Council. ((COM(95) 737 final. )) This proposal contains provisions concerning the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain species, including specific provisions on pelts and products obtained through trapping by indigenous peoples. The proposal also includes a timetable of measures to be taken by the Commission, measures which depend primarily on the progress made in the above negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Leghold traps

With reference to the Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards (COM(95)737 ((OJ C 58, 28.2.1996, p. 17. ))), can the European Commission ensure that in its negotiations with the producer countries a 'transparency clause' will be included for the benefit of consumers, on the basis of which the skins and pelts imported will be accompanied by a statement concerning the hunting and/or killing methods, including reference to the places where the animals were caught and/or raised?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2743/96, E-2745/96 and E-2746/96 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's suggestions, which relate to the current negotiations with Canada, the United States and Russia for a framework agreement on humane trapping methods. In accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty, the Commission is negotiating for the Community on the basis of negotiating directives received from the Council in June, directives which draw heavily on the conclusions set out in the final report delivered by the expert working party on 20 June.

The Commission would furthermore point out that it adopted, on 13 December last year, a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 for transmission to the Council. ((COM(95) 737 final. )) This proposal contains provisions concerning the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain species, including specific provisions on pelts and products obtained through trapping by indigenous peoples. The proposal also includes a timetable of measures to be taken by the Commission, measures which depend primarily on the progress made in the above negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2465/96 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Examination of the situation of children within the framework of the IGC

The Treaty on European Union, which contains special provisions for certain sections of society, for example, the elderly, ethnic minorities and the disabled, contains no provisions for the protection of Europe's 120 million children, an increasing number of whom are in a particularly vulnerable situation.

Will the situation of children be considered in the course of the IGC with a view to establishing a specific framework for protecting the rights of the child?

Is the Council envisaging the possible inclusion within the common provisions of a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989?

Answer (16 December 1996)

1. The Council is deeply committed to the respect of fundamental rights as provided for in Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union and as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover it is fully conscious of the provisions of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which all Member States are signatories.

2. However, the Honourable Member should note that this is mainly a matter for the Member States, notwithstanding some Community provisions such as the Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work ((OJ L 216, 20.8.1994. )).

3. The Council cannot comment on the activities of the Intergovernmental Conference and the positions adopted by Member States there.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2777/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: reduction of costs for businesses as a result of monetary union

When the Treaty on European Union was adopted, it was asserted that monetary union would reduce the costs borne by companies by an overall amount of FF 150 billion for all the participating Member States. This figure is still being quoted (for example, in the Commission information bulletin of December 1995 on a frontier-free Europe).

Would the Commission state whether this estimate still holds true? What impact would a lower number of participants in monetary union have on this figure?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

In its publication 'One market, one money', ((European Economy, No 44, October 1990. )) the Commission took the view that, once in place, economic and monetary union (EMU) would alleviate the cost burden on firms via the following mechanisms:

- elimination of the costs of converting one Community currency into another, making for estimated savings of over ECU 15 billion a year;

- savings on transaction costs put at between 0.1% and 0.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the large Member States and at 0.9% of GDP in the smaller Member States, whose economies are more open;

- removal of exchange-rate uncertainties; savings here are difficult to quantify but surveys among managements indicate that these uncertainties have a negative effect.

All in all, potential savings are currently estimated at ECU 30 billion, or 0.5% of Community GDP.

Then there are the gains - also difficult to quantify - stemming from the adoption of an improved economic policy framework. Stable prices and sound public finances will help to boost growth and employment.

The savings that might accrue should some Member States not participate in the euro from the outset have not been quantified, However, the aforementioned study contains a chapter setting out in detail the gains for each Member State and so permits a more in-depth assessment to be made.