ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3025/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

With reference to the Commission's green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final),will it make noise abatement one of the priority areas of Community research and development and will it take steps to improve the coordination and increase the concentration of its R& D?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.

Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3027/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

The Economic and Social Committee believes that the Commission's proposal, contained in its green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final), to restrict the establishment of limit values for noise caused by machines used in the open air to sectors which are already regulated will cause problems because the existing measures were not adopted systematically or in line with practically-based priorities, but more or less haphazardly.

Will the Commission therefore adopt a comprehensive programme to reduce noise pollution of this type? Will it also provide further incentives (possibly through fiscal measures) for the early introduction of low-noise machinery?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.

Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3153/97 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Recall of the head of delegation in Bratislava

Why was the head of the Commission delegation in Bratislava, Mr Georgios Zavvos, recently recalled?

Can the Commission confirm Slovak reports that its head of delegation was involved in or covered up financial irregularities in the PHARE programmes in Slovakia?

Which programmes, which beneficiaries and what appropriations were involved?

Does the Commission intend to get to the bottom of these cases and report to Parliament on them?

If so, when and how will Parliament be informed?

How long has the Commission known about the irregularities in Bratislava?

What action has it already taken and what action does it intend to take?

What disciplinary action does the Commission intend to take against those involved?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

Mr Georgios Zavvos was nominated head of the Commission's delegation in Slovakia in December 1994. He took over new functions as political adviser on enlargement issues in Brussels on 1 October 1997. This transfer was decided in the interest of the service.

The Commission is currently conducting an investigation concerning the matters to which the Honourable Member refers and therefore cannot make any definite comments at this time.

When the investigation is concluded, the Commission will ensure that the Parliament is informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3024/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

Given the scale of the problem of noise pollution in the Community and the fact that noise abatement has not so far been given a high priority under European environmental policy, the plans to draw up a wide-ranging programme to tackle the problem, set out in the Commission's green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final), are very important.

The contents of the green paper are welcome in principle and the Commission is asked to lose no time in drawing up the action programme.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.

Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Authorization for insurance companies based in Gibraltar to operate in the EU

The United Kingdom has granted authorization, through the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission, for insurance companies based in Gibraltar to operate in the countries of the European Union.

Does the Commission not believe that this poses a definite risk of turning Gibraltar into a tax haven?

In granting such authorization, has Community legislation on insurance and financial services been respected?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission has been notified by the United Kingdom of the implementation of all the insurance directives in its dependent territory of Gibraltar. Directive 95/26/EEC ((OJ L 168, 18.7.1995. )) amending Directives 77/780/EEC and 89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential supervision which affects insurance as well as the other financial sectors, has not yet been fully implemented. The United Kingdom has recently indicated that the work for such implementation is reaching its final stages.

The Commission is as usual carrying out an examination of the implementing legislation in order to ensure full consistency with the provisisons of the insurance directives. The legislation in question is confined to the supervision of insurance activities and undertakings, and does not concern tax matters.

In the context of the current efforts to combat harmful tax competition, a code of conduct is envisaged, which is designed to avoid fiscal paradises in the Community. Such code would also apply to Gibraltar. Additional measures on taxation of savings may also be proposed as part of a wider tax package foreseen in the single market action plan. The cope and coverage of this package will be discussed over the coming months and it is hoped that an appropriate agreement will limit the scope for harmful tax competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: The role of information in the affair of the Italian peace mission in Somalia

The Italian media have recently made much of a scandal concerning the torture and abuse allegedly inflicted by Italian soldiers on Somali civilians during the international peace mission 'Restore Hope' in Somalia. In addition to identifying individuals who may have been responsible for instances of violence incompatible with the humanitarian spirit of the mission, which should be the task of the military courts, the Italian media have treated the affair with excessive sensationalism, often highlighting unsubstantiated rumours and involving indiscriminately all those who took part in the humanitarian mission. This coverage threatens to become an unacceptable smear campaign against the Italian armed forces. The affair is an outstanding example of the central role played by the media in modern society - it creates the impression that a peace mission turned into an endless series of torture and abuse from one day to the next. All this suggests that we should think seriously about the role of the media. Without prejudice to the right to freedom of information, instruments must be devised to guarantee the public's right to information which is accurate, unbiased and free of sensationalism or the possibility of exploitation, on both issues involving the national interest and issues concerning individuals. There should be emphasis on the need to ensure that everyone is entitled not to be pilloried or subjected to trial by television.

In view of all this can the Commission say:

1. what it thinks about this affair;

2. whether thought has been given at European level to the ethics and accuracy of information, and if so, with what tangible results?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997)

The Commission is aware of the news in the press about accusations of ill-treatment of Somalis in connection with the United Nations' operation Restore Hope.

To the Commission, such conduct - if proved - merits condemnation but must not be allowed to obscure the positive outcome of UN action and the key role played in it by the Union and the contributing countries' forces.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: The internal market and 'internal' emigrants

An Italian citizen, who emigrated to Germany forty years ago, is a Veneto regional councillor and owns a house in his town of origin, where he spends his holidays and lives when he is not working. He has been prevented from re-registering his old car or even registering a new one, by something referred to simply as circular 'DG No 65', issued by the Italian Ministry of Transport on 20 June 1997. This circular 'forbids' Italians listed on the 'register of residents abroad' to register and hence also to own cars in Italy. Can the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of the contents of this circular,

2. whether this ban is compatible with the principles on the basis of which the internal market operates,

3. why, if freedom of movement and freedom of establishment are granted, discriminatory restrictions are set on the free movement of goods?

4. how it is conceivable that the right of purchase and hence the right of ownership can be regulated in the internal market by a 'circular' (rather than a law) and be based on the concept of 'residence',

5. what steps it intends to take, after all the talk about European citizenship:

(a) to prevent a citizen of a Member State residing in another Member State of the Union from being penalized because of this situation, and

(b) to ensure that the 'internal market' is valid for the motor vehicle sector too?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (27 October 1997)

The Commission is not aware of the circular to which the Honourable Member refers.

It has contacted the Italian authorities asking for information on all the relevant legislation.

It will, where appropriate, investigate the matter under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3088/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (19 September 1997)

Subject: Catholic church in Russia

I have learnt from reliable sources that Russian President Boris Yeltsin is about to sign a law approved by the Duma on 23 June and by the Council senators on 4 July 1997 which will reduce the Catholic church to a simple sect with very limited rights.

Not only would the oecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic churches be compromised, but a fundamental human right, freedom of religion enshrined in Article 18, would be violated.

What is the Commission doing to stop this serious and unjust act?

Should not the Council, the Commission and the EP take joint action and set up a committee of inquiry to safeguard the rights of Russian Catholics who have embraced the Catholic faith and protect the Catholic church?

The Catholic religion can never be regarded as equivalent to a sect like so many in the world that have often been created for purely financial ends.

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1997)

The Russian bill on freedom of conscience and religious association which was passed by the two Russian legislative assemblies at the end of June and the beginning of July was vetoed by President Yeltsin on 22 July 1997 on the grounds that it conflicted with the religious freedom established by the Russian constitution and was incompatible with Russia's international commitments.

However, since strong support for the bill within the Russian parliament meant there was a real risk of the assembly overruling the presidential veto this autumn by a two-thirds majority, a 'Conciliation Committee' was set up on President Yeltsin's initiative, made up of members of the legislative and executive bodies and representatives of religious associations. Its remit was to propose amendments to remedy the flaws and incompatibilities pointed out by the President. As a result a new law which incorporates some of the proposed amendments has just been adopted, approved almost unanimously (358 for, 6 against) by the lower house (the Duma) on 19 September, passed by the Federal Council on 24 September and signed by President Yeltsin on 26 September.

The possibility nevertheless remains that the constitutional validity of this act could be challenged at the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

At present the Commission is examining the content and implications of the new law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/97 by Carlo Casini (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of poultry from third countries

Under Decisions 96/482/EC ((OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 13. )) and 96/483/EC ((OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 28. )) veterinary certificates for importing poultry from certain third countries are granted subject to a compulsory period of six weeks' quarantine after the poultry is imported.

This period of quarantine causes major problems for poultry intended for breeding since, during the breeding period the males are kept in shared coops and fight amongst themselves with such violence that they cause unnecessary suffering and often death.

Given the above, will the Commission say whether, in the light of the rules on animal welfare, it intends to remedy this situation by speeding up the checks and administrative procedures provided for as much as possible and eliminating the quarantine period or reducing it to the absolute minimum?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

Commission Decision 96/482/EC lays down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the import of poultry and hatching eggs other than ratites (flightless birds) and their eggs from third countries, including animal health measures to be applied after import.

This decision does not provide for detailed quarantine measures, but establishes an isolation and a minimal observation period in order to avoid any deterioration of the health status on the territory of the Community.

In particular, according to Article 3 of this decision, following import, breeding or productive poultry shall be kept on the holding of destination for a period of at least six weeks from the day of arrival. During this period, the imported poultry shall be kept separately from non-imported poultry. The decision does not require that during this period the birds be kept in cages or in shared coops.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3224/97 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Re-commissioning of rigs

In light of the conference of oil companies and others held in Brussels on 29 September 1997 relating to decommissioning of rigs, a consortium based in Great Yarmouth in my constituency of Norfolk in the United Kingdom is pursuing the possibility of re-commissioning oil rigs with the help of a company specializing in new lifting systems, researchers from a local university and other local partners to look at both the economic and environmental impact of this project.

Is the Commission aware of work being done in Great Yarmouth? If so, what plans does the Commission have to analyze the usefulness of the project and communicate its lessons?

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

The question raised by the Honourable Member concerns a matter which is of considerable interest to the Commission.

The Commission has recently received the results of a major study on the subject of decommissioning offshore oil and gas installations which concluded that it is technically feasible to remove all but a few of the existing steel installations. It is therefore particularly interesting to see how industry is constantly developing new and more efficient technologies in this field.

The Commission is aware of the 'Great Yarmouth solution' project and is keen to explore all opportunities for the reuse of these installations. The Commission is active within the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention, which is seeking to agree a policy on the whole subject of decommissioning and disposal of offshore installations, and is closely monitoring developments across Europe in the whole field which includes recommissioning or reuse of facilities. In this respect the Great Yarmouth project is important as it involves a new method of heavy lifting and the results are of interest in these ongoing discussions in OSPAR.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: European fire-fighting practices

Does the Commission have any jurisdiction over the methods used in Member States to prepare fire-fighters for rescue operations?

Does the Commission have any data on the practices adopted in Member States when an individual fire-fighter is endeavouring to rescue an unconscious victim and remove him/her to a place of safety?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission does not have any legal competence in the field of training within the national rescue services.

However, the Commission has in the past supported training activities organised by Member States at Community level using budget line B4-3300. In this framework, an exchange of experience and information among the participants took place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3016/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union

With reference to the Commission's Communication on the nuclear industries in the European Union (an illustrative nuclear programm according to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty) (COM(96) 339 final - CES 470/97) and given the potential hazards associated with nuclear power stations in the CEECs and the CIS, should concerns not be voiced regarding the extremely damaging impact which another large-scale nuclear accident would have on public opinion? The PHARE and TACIS programmes have proved valuable but are now the target of mounting criticism. Given that these programmes deal with nuclear safety, will the Commission review them urgently and then publish their findings?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (20 October 1997)

The Commission is well aware of the danger of nuclear incidents in the Central and eastern European countries (CEEC) and the New independent states (NIS). Accordingly, some MECU 700 have been committed (1990-1997) to the Phare and Tacis nuclear safety programmes.

An interim evaluation of the Phare and Tacis programmes by independent interim consultants has recently been completed and transmitted to the Parliament in June, 1997. This evaluation indicates that despite undeniable implementation difficulties, a majority of nuclear safety projects are achieving their objectives.

The Commission is presently engaged in an examination of the changes that might be brought to the policy orientations and the implementation mechanisms in the nuclear safety sector, in order to improve the effectiveness of the programmes. Initial discussions have also taken place with Member States, in the PHARE and TACIS committees, and with relevant committees of the Parliament (committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection, committee on research, technological development and energy, committee on budgetary control). The Commission is finalizing its position on this matter on the basis of the reactions it has received. The results will be fed into the new programming cycle 1998 which will start shortly.