ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2826/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: PVC

What is the view of the Commission as to the safety of the use of PVC as a building material?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann au nom de la Commission (25 September 1997)

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is widely used as a building material, for applications such as window frames, pipes, floor and wall coverings and cables. Building applications account for over half of the Community PVC market (55 % in 1995).

PVC products used in construction, as for those products manufactured with any other material, must meet the applicable technical regulations on safety. The fact that the material used is PVC and not any other material does not make a difference in this respect.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that the Commission is committed to consider the evidence regarding the environmental aspects relating to the presence of PVC in waste streams and, on the basis of this evidence, will review its policy regarding PVC in waste streams and will come forward with proposals to address problems which may arise in this regard, where this is justified on environmental or health grounds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Council (13 September 1997)

Subject: Criticism expressed by 33 universities concerning the management of the Socrates programme

The 'Coimbra Group', consisting of 33 European universities, has criticized the management of the Socrates programme and the lack of funding available, which is frustrating for the universities given that they have had to put in a considerable amount of preparatory work for the projects.

Can the Council provide guarantees as to the future of the programme and ensure that sufficient funding is made available to carry the projects through?

Is the Council aware that the take-up by universities vastly exceeds the programme's budgetary limits?

What are the Council's views on the frustration felt by the universities owing to the fact that the programme is underfunded because it covers so many areas? Does it believe that an increase of ECU 50 million for two years is enough to remedy these shortcomings?

Answer (10 November 1997)

The Council has examined the desirability of reviewing the level of funding of the Socrates programme, which was adopted in co-decision with the European Parliament in March 1995, in the context of the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending the Decision establishing the Socrates programme.

The abovementioned proposal for a Decision, being based on Articles 126 and 127 of the EC Treaty, is subject to the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the Treaty, and it is in that context that the Council has now adopted its common position. It therefore seems premature to draw definitive conclusions at this stage as to the Council's attitude.

The Council nevertheless recognizes the importance of ensuring the development of the programme during the last two years of its life and accordingly envisages a substantial increase in Socrates' funding, in spite of the current budgetary restrictions in all Member States. Those economic constraints cannot be circumvented and must therefore be taken into account in seeking an equitable solution.

Finally, the Honourable Member will recall that the Socrates programme provides that the resources to be committed for higher education (Erasmus) are not to be less than 55% of the overall budget for the programme, and that the management of that amount is to be the responsibility of the Commission, assisted by a committee composed of representatives of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/97 by Renate Heinisch (PPE) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Level of European Union funding awarded to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1996

For what measures was Community funding given to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1996 and what amounts came from

1. the fourth framework programme on research, technological development and demonstration,

2. Community programmes in the energy and environment sectors,

3. Community Initiatives, especially the Interreg programme,

4. the Socrates, 'Leonardo da Vinci' and 'Youth for Europe' programmes,

5. the Regional and Structural Funds and

6. other Community programmes?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3312/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1997)

Subject: Financial aid for the victims of torture

The Commission has approved the funding of 27 projects and programmes intended to help rehabilitate the victims of torture throughout the world, as part of a Community strategy aimed at promoting human rights and democracy.

Will the Commission say whether any of these programmes is intended to help the victims of torture in East Timor?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1997)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that there are no projects for East Timor among the 27 approved by the Commission on 11 June as part of support for rehabilitation centres for torture victims (budget heading B7-7070).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/97 by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Progress of ratification procedures of European Union Conventions as at 1 June 1997

The Action Plan to combat organized crime, drawn up by the High Level Group created by the European Council, cited Conventions and Protocols whose ratification was considered essential for the common fight against organized crime:

- Convention on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union,

- Europol Convention,

- Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests,

- Convention relating to Extradition between the Member States of the European Union,

- Convention on Corruption.

Will the Council state for each signed Convention (and signed Protocol, where appropriate)

1. date of signature,

2. progress of ratification procedures in each Member States at 1 June 1997?

Answer (10 November 1997)

The Council is unable to give information on the progress of internal ratification procedures in each Member State for conventions adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. However, as regards conventions ratification of which is regarded as essential in the Action Plan to combat organized crime, it can indicate which Member States have already deposited their instruments of ratification as at 20 October 1997.

Convention on Simplified Extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union, signed on 10 March 1995:

Denmark, 19 November 1996; Sweden, 18 July 1997; Portugal, 13 October 1997.

Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office (EUROPOL), signed on 26 July 1995:

United Kingdom, 10 December 1996; Spain, 9 June 1997.

Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests, signed on 26 July 1995:

No instrument of ratification deposited yet.

Protocol on the Interpretation, by way of Preliminary Rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office, signed on 24 July 1996:

United Kingdom, 10 December 1996; Spain, 6 October 1997.

Convention relating to Extradition between the Member States of the European Union, signed on 27 September 1996:

Denmark, 17 September 1997.

Protocol on the Interpretation, by way of Preliminary Rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests, signed on 29 November 1996:

No instrument of ratification deposited yet.

Convention on the Fight against Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union, signed on 26 May 1997:

No instrument of ratification deposited yet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/97 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Charges for the right to sell alcohol

Only Systembolaget, a state-owned company, currently has the right to sell alcohol to the general public in Sweden. Private firms and importers may, however, obtain licences from the Alcohol Inspectorate to sell alcohol to restaurants, or to Systembolaget.

The licences are very expensive and do not take account of the amount of alcohol actually sold. Instead, companies pay for the right to sell up to a given limit. For example, in order to obtain a licence, a company which sells 250 litres of spirits has to pay for the right to sell 50 000 litres. This both discriminates against SMEs and impedes the free movement of goods.

Does the Commission take the view that the current system of licensing and the cost of the licences are fair? If not, what does it intend to do about them?

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

The Swedish state monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic drinks run by Systembolaget, to which the Honourable Member refers, is currently the subject of a request for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice ((Case C-189/95 Äklagaren v. Harry Franzén. )). The Court has been asked to rule on the compatibility of the Swedish alcohol retailing system with Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has also received complaints from members of the public and traders about the system for licensing sales of alcohol to restaurants or to Systembolaget, as well as about the costs involved. The conditions that must be met in order to obtain licences could be impeding transfers to Sweden of alcoholic drinks from other Member States, in which case they would be incompatible with Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty. The Commission is investigating these complaints and will also take account in its assessment of the preliminary ruling which the Court is expected to deliver shortly in the above-mentioned case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: British Telecom Internet provision

As part of the election manifesto, the British Labour Party pledged to provide Internet access across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. An agreement was struck with British Telecom accordingly.

Now that Labour is the governing party in the UK, does the Commission agree that any such deal will effectively give British Telecom a monopoly in backbone provision of the Internet? Will the Commission undertake an investigation to clarify whether this agreement contravenes EU competition law?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

No discussions have been held with the Commission about any possible competition implications of any such agreement, either on behalf of the United Kingdom government, British Telecom (BT), or interested third parties. If such an agreement were to be implemented, the Commission would, if appropriate wish to examine its implications in the light of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, and, also possibly, Articles 5 and 90 of the EC Treaty. Any party adversely affected by any such agreement can, of course, make representations to the Commission or the appropriate national regulatory authority.

In the Internet field, the Commission has already opened an investigation into the issue of access to facilities controlled by public telecoms operators for Internet service providers in the United Kingdom and some other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3395/97 by Hugh Kerr (V) to the Commission (23 October 1997)

Subject: Harmonization of rights of way legislation in the EU

Is the Commission aware that the public in the United Kingdom benefits greatly from rights of way legislation in terms of access to the countryside compared to their counterparts in other Member States?

For example, in the UK there has always been a common law that in effect states that regular use of a way makes it a public highway and once a highway always a highway.

It is an offence in the UK to obstruct a right of way and there is a statutory obligation that local highway authorities signpost footpaths and bridleways.

This is greatly appreciated by walkers from the Member States who visit the UK countryside.

Has the Commission any proposals in the pipeline to harmonize rights of way legislation in the Union?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2524/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Introduction of the institution of environmental inspectors

Following the amendment to Article 171 of the Treaty on European Union and the decision by the ECJ to begin imposing penalties (OJ C 63, p. 2, 28.2.1997), we are on the threshold of a new era of more vigorous implementation of Community law. Given that Community environmental law has developed particularly rapidly over the last twenty years and attracts lively interest among EU citizens and with a view to encouraging and supporting attempts by the Member States to implement the legislation in question and to avoid onerous fines from the ECJ, will the Commission say whether it intends to introduce the institution of Community environmental inspectors, using as a model the arrangements obtaining in other sectors of Community policy?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

The Commission is fully conscious of the major role inspection bodies can play in the area of the environment. It sees it as extremely important that the competent authorities in the various Member States fulfil their inspection functions in such a way as to ensure the effective protection of the environment. It would draw the Honourable Member's attention, in this context, to its Communication of 22 October 1996 on the implementation of Community environmental law ((COM(96) 500 final. )), in which it stated its intention to adopt recommendations defining, specifically, guidelines for environmental inspections. In this way it hopes to help reduce the great disparity in this area between the situations currently obtaining in the various Member States.

The Council, in its Resolution of 19 June 1997, confirms the approach advocated by the Commission and calls on the latter to draw up, on the basis of the work accomplished in the context of Impel ((European Union Network for Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law. )), minimum criteria for inspection missions carried out by Member States. The Commission is also called on to look at possible ways of enabling Member States to ensure uniform application and implementation of Community environmental law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Incentives to replace catalytic converters in cars in Greece

According to Greek press reports, 95% of cars with catalytic converters in Greece produce pollution, even more than conventional cars, because replacement of converters is proceeding at a snail's pace.

The reason for this is the lack of a legal framework laying down the specifications for imported catalytic converters which has led to large numbers of imitations circulating on the Greek market. In addition, the checks carried out by the Ministry of Regional Planning, Housing and the Environment are rudimentary; the probability of any driver in Athens being checked on any given day by the Ministry's patrols is 21,000:1.

The catalytic converters are designed to last for 100 000 km but they often have a shorter life, while the cost of replacing them is extremely high for Greek car-owners.

Is there any possibility of providing aid or incentives through an EU programme or Community initiative to enable owners of cars with catalytic converters in Greece to replace them?

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

The Commission is interpreting the figures quoted by the Honourable Member with the greatest of caution. Indeed, the information in its possession, and more particularly that acquired in order to map out a Community strategy for the monitoring of air pollution by road transport ((COM(96) 248 final. )) rather conflicts with the figures supplied and shows that the pollution by road vehicles in Athens is mainly caused by old vehicles that have not been fitted with catalytic converters. In addition there is major pollution from stationary sources.

While the Community action intended to reduce emissions by road vehicles has little effect in cases such as this the Commission, has in its strategy, been able to pinpoint the division of responsibility among the various levels of authority that determine traffic conditions. Urgent consideration should be given to local action in areas such as the scrapping of the oldest vehicles, more appropriate traffic management, improvements to public transport or the use of clean fuels.

The Commission intends to take steps towards requiring a minimum efficiency level from those catalytic converters that are fitted as replacements for the original equipment. However, this will have a less positive effect in those Member States that have already introduced the stringent checking of emissions by vehicles already in service and where the introduction of converter technology took place earlier.

Finally, as regards the possibility of support, the Commission would point out that this type of project is not eligible for intervention under the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3246/97 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: High-Level Experts Group on the social and societal aspects of the Information Society

Will the Commission indicate the membership of the High-Level Experts Group on the social and societal aspects of the Information Society?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/97 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Khmelnitski Unit 2 and Rovno Unit 4 in Ukraine (k2/r4) and the Nuclear Safety Account at EBRD

What position has the Commission taken within the Nuclear Safety Account of the EBRD, where the purpose is to increase reactor safety in the East, on its decision concerning the proposed completion of the nuclear reactors in the Ukraine, since the Union is a contributor to the Nuclear Safety Account?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

The proposed completion of the two nuclear reactors in Ukraine (project R4/K2) is not a project of the nuclear safety account of the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD).

Ukraine has introduced a request for loan financing of this project under the EBRD's normal operations. Financing is also envisaged under the Euratom loan facility in accordance with the established procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2752/97 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Tax-free sales

Tax-free sales on ships and aircraft travelling within the EU will in all likelihood cease in 1999.

In the case of Finland this means that car ferries sailing either to Tallinn or via the Åland Islands to Sweden will be able to retain this advantage but ferries sailing directly to Sweden will loose it. Vessels operating out of Vaasa and Pietarsaari/Jakobstad will be among the losers. Ending such sales threatens the closure of all these routes as uneconomic, resulting in irreparable damage to transport links throughout central Finland.

The conditions of competition would also be seriously distorted, which runs counter to the basic principles of the EU.

What action does the Council intend to take to prevent the distortion of competition, uphold transport links between the Member States and ensure the continuation of tax-free sales?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2666/97 and E-2752/97 (7 November 1997)

The Council would ask the Honourable Members to kindly refer to the reply given to Written Question No E-1515/97 ((See page 3. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2769/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Fish kill at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain

On 18 July a leak of non-radioactive caustic soda into the River Calder occurred at the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria, Britain. The British Environment Agency (EA) has estimated that over 1 000 eels and a further 1 000 juvenile salmon and sea trout and many other fish were killed due to the spillage.

The cause of the spillage is believed to have been a defective valve from a storage facility on the Sellafield site.

Previous fish kills of this type have occurred at Sellafield. In April 1991, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) was prosecuted by the National Rivers Authority for an acid spill into the Calder which killed over 1 500 fish and a leak of polyelectrolyte in the nearby Black Beck which killed over 2 000 fish. BNFL was found guilty of both offences and fined £2 000.

Has the Commission been notified of the recent fish kill? If so, what action has it taken and/or what action does it propose to take?

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

The Commission has seen the reports in the press about the leak of non-radioactive caustic soda from British nuclear fuels Ltd (BNFL) plant at Sellafield. However, there are no requirements for the company or the British authorities to inform the Commission about such an incident. The Commission will not be taking any action regarding this matter.

The investigation into the origin of the incident and requests for possible modifications to the installations or procedures are only within the competence of the national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3213/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Monaco's status in European Union

What official relationship does Monaco have with the European Union?

Is it the Commission's view that the Bosman ruling should not apply to the transfer of John Collins from Monaco to Celtic?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

Monaco is an independent third country which is not part of the Community. However, given its special relationship with one Member State, Monaco is part of the European customs union.

As regards the second part of the question, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1920/97 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 121. )).