ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/97 by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Bull bars

A survey carried out by the British transport research laboratory (TRL) has examined a series of police reports of accidents involving cars fitted with bull bars and pedestrians or two-wheeled road- users. It was clear from some of these accidents that injuries and deaths were directly related to the bull bars. Bull bars are a feature of four-wheel drive vehicles and are specifically intended to provide protection in special off-road driving conditions although in our part of the world it is difficult to see that there is a need for them.

Has the Commission started to look into this problem?

Does it intend to ban this kind of pointless decoration on four-wheel-drive vehicles?

Has it contemplated tabling a proposal requiring these special bars to be approved prior to fitting?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (29 October 1997)

In 1996 the Commission consulted its panel of experts on motor vehicles with regard to the suitability of introducing requirements concerning the component type-approval of bull bars into Directive 74/483/EEC of 17 September 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to external projections from motor vehicles ((OJ L 266, 2.10.1974. )). The intended aim was to ensure that only non-aggressive 'bull bars' were placed on the market.

Following that consultation the Commission felt that the introduction of specific requirements relating solely to bull bars was not enough. Action taken at Community level to prevent the fitting of any bull bars that were likely to be dangerous would have to follow on from the application of more general rules that were intended to reduce the aggressiveness of vehicle front ends towards vulnerable road users, and in particular pedestrians, in the event of impact. In accordance with law-making practice the intention would be to define minimum performance rules rather than propose a ban on specific devices.

The Commission has been working in this area and hopes to be able to take action during 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3436/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Measures to combat usury

The phenomenon of usury, fuelled by the economic crisis and neediness, is today assuming significant proportions and expanding constantly.

In many cases usury has penetrated vital economic sectors such as financial broking and employs complex company forms for its operations.

Will the Commission set up a permanent monitoring centre to keep track of usury and economic crime and issue a Directive to prevent usury in order to help firms denied access to traditional credit?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

Although usury is a recognised phenomenon in the area of consumer credit, it is not generally considered to be a problem which affects firms. Owners and managers of businesses are deemed to be sophisticated economic operators who understand and accept the obligations into which they enter when taking out credit. Moreover, they benefit from a competitive market, especially now that interest rates and economic conditions have been generally stable for some time. They can usually change credit supplier if they are dissatisfied with the service they are receiving.

The interest rates paid by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for their credit typically fall in the range of 2% to 5% above the base lending rate and are thus far lower than the rates which typically characterise cases of usury. Rates may, however, be higher under certain circumstances, usually when the borrower is considered more risky than average and the lender therefore adds a risk premium to the normal lending rate. This is entirely normal business practice and partly reflects the increasing sophistication and accuracy of the risk assessment systems used by lenders. It is also true that, in some southern Member States, margins on lending to firms are higher than the European average, but this is largely an historical phenomenon and reflects local financing practices.

The Commission is committed to improving access to finance for Europe's SMEs, as demonstrated by its support for the second round table of bankers and SMEs, which published its final report in February 1997. This initiative, which brought together representatives from both banks and European SME organisations over a period of eighteen months, examined in considerable detail many of the issues involved in SME financing. The problem of usury, however, was not mentioned at any time and has not been brought to the Commission's attention as a major concern for the members of SME representative organisations.

For this reason, the Commission does not feel that it is appropriate or necessary either to establish a permanent observatory on usury or to prepare a directive on the subject. It is, nonetheless, committed to continuing its efforts to facilitate SMEs' access to the many established sources of finance and, to this effect, will be launching a third round table of bankers and SMEs in 1998 to build on the work of its predecessors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Nicotine dependency caused by tobacco

The nicotine contained in tobacco products is a substance which acts upon the central nervous system creating a dependency comparable to that caused by, say, heroin or cocaine. The limits on toxicity levels of tobacco products have concentrated on the quantity of tar, but no common European limit value for nicotine has been set. At present the standards merely require the nicotine content of the product to be stated on the packet. This is a distortion of the situation, because it is precisely nicotine dependency which keeps tobacco consumption going.

What concrete measures, on what timescale, does the Commission intend to take to define the maximum nicotine content of tobacco products in Community law?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The Commission adopted a communication on smoking prevention on 18 December 1996 ((COM(96) 609 final. )). This identifies several policy options at Community level, including that nicotine addiction be considered as a dependency, thus allowing it to be tackled through the relevant Community public health programmes. It is furthermore suggested that a maximum level of nicotine in cigarettes could also be considered. As regards options for improving cooperation between Member States, the Commission's communication proposes the provision of smoking cessation medications (nicotine chewing gums, nicotine 'patches') at minimal or no cost to smokers.

The communication has been sent for the opinion of the Parliament. The Commission will examine the reactions to the text and in the light of this examination may bring forward appropriate proposals for actions and measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/97 by Helwin Peter (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Planned factory outlet mall in Zweibrücken

Does the Commission intend to initiate a formal investigation and/or call for an opinion from the authorities involved in response to the information it has received that the sale of land to investors in a planned factory outlet mall on the former military airfield in Zweibrücken was unlawfully subsidized by the public authorities?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

The Commission has asked the German authorities for their comments. It will decide what action to take in the light of their reply.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3665/97 by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Directive on package travel, package holidays and package tours

1. Does the Commission plan to amend the Directive on package travel, package holidays and package tours so that hoteliers too are obliged to take out appropriate cancellation insurance or insurance against loss incurred through insolvency, which is said to be already possible in all the Member States on a voluntary basis? Practices such as withholding passports or luggage do not seem to be appropriate measures to settle problems and are surely not in accordance with the intentions of the directive.

2. Does the Commission plan to define more closely in the directive the 'necessary costs for the return journey' so as to prevent a situation in which for example hotel guests have to pay tourist taxes and their hotel bill twice just in order to be able to leave the hotel?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

1. Under Article 2(1) of the Directive on package travel, package holidays and package tours, a 'package' must consist of at least two components - in most cases the provision of transport and the stay at a hotel. The cost of the hotel accommodation is paid by the holidaymaker to the tour operator, which means that consumers do not have any special obligations towards hotel operators in this respect. As far as we know, tour operators also usually transfer the payments concerned to the hotels in advance, and there is thus no justification for passports or luggage being withheld. However, we are aware of a number of cases in which problems have arisen and hotel operators have tried to, and in fact succeeded in, pressurising holidaymakers into paying outstanding accommodation charges. This is not normally permissible under civil law and could, depending on the legal position in the Member States concerned, also constitute a criminal offence.

The Commission has up to now only been informed of a small number of incidents of this kind, which can thus hardly be said to be widespread. Nor would insolvency insurance taken out by hotel operators directly cover the financial risk to the consumer, which means that it would probably not fall within the scope of the Directive. There are thus no plans to amend the Directive to make provision for this.

2. Nor are there any plans to broaden the definition of 'necessary costs for the return journey', as referred to in Article 7 of the Directive, in order to take account of the situation mentioned above. It is not permissible for hotel operators to force onto the consumer the responsibility for reimbursing accommodation expenses. Individual instances of misconduct by hotels should not be dealt with by means of a general obligation to take out appropriate insurance, which would be likely to result in an increase in the cost of package holidays. This question is also the subject of referral proceedings before the European Court of Justice (Case C-364/96).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Creation of a Task Force on Sport

In its report on the role of the European Union in the field of sport (the Pack report) Parliament proposed that the Commission set up a Task Force on sport and draw up a Green Paper with a view to the elaboration of a proper full-scale action plan in the field of sport. In considering the matter the Commission took a positive attitude to these projects, but as yet nothing has happened.

In view of the above, what measures does the Commission propose taking, on what timescale, to set up a Sports Task Force and to draw up an action plan?

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

The Commission takes a positive attitude to the projects put forward in the report on the role of the Community in the field of sport. One of those projects was a request to set up a task force on sport and to draw up a green paper.

Since the adoption of the Pack report by the Parliament a unit has been created to respond positively to the proposals made in the report. The unit will continue the work of the former sport sector and will intensify contacts with the world of sport.

A communication on sport is under preparation; it might be followed by a green paper. The communication should be adopted by the Commission before August 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Projects funded by LIFE II

In July 1997 the Commission selected 188 new projects to be co-funded by Life II, the Community's financial instrument for the environment.

Will it say whether the selected projects include any Portuguese projects, and, if so, which ones?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1997)

Out of a total of 188 new projects to be co-funded by the Community's financial instrument for the environment (LIFE II), 112 are measures related to the implementation of Community policies and legislation on the environment, 60 relate to nature conservation and the 16 remaining projects are 'third country' projects. Within the first two areas, there are six and two Portuguese projects respectively, of which the details have been sent directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

The full list of selected projects will be published in the Official Journal in due time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3543/97 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Konver initiative

In July 1994, in connection with the Konver military conversion initiative, the Commission invited the governments of the Member States to propose regions which might be eligible to receive funds from Konver, before the Commission itself subsequently decided exactly which regions would receive these Community funds.

Will the Commission provide a list of the regions in Spain which have reveived funds under the Konver initiative, giving details of the amount of the subsidies granted?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1997)

The list of areas in Spain eligible under the Konver II Community Initiative (1995-99) has been published in the Official Journal ((OJ C 402, 31.12.1994. )).

As the proposed Spanish operational programme under this Initiative is at present under examination the Commission cannot provide information on the measures to be financed and amounts assigned to these.

This will be passed to the Honourable Member when the programme has been approved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3763/97 by Edward Kellett-Bowman (PPE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: PHARE fund payments to Romania

Will the Commission please indicate:

1. what sums under PHARE have been committed to Romania, and

2. of those commitments, how much has actually been paid?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

Under the Phare programme, to date 741 MECU have been committed to Romania. Out of these, 434 MECU have been paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Damage to the environment due to destruction of surplus fruit and vegetables

In its answer to my Question E-1705/97 ((OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 43. )) the Commission asked for further details as it was unaware of the situation. The Commission obviously does not examine very carefully the reports of the Court of Auditors, since the annual report for the year 1994 (dated 14 November 1995) has a long passage on this in paragraph 2.118 et seq 'Environmental impact of withdrawn produce' (p.79):

'In general 60% of the produce withdrawn is destroyed. The method used is that the products are tipped into trenches and covered with earth or denatured with oil and crushed. The repetition of this practice for many years and the enormous quantities of produce buried have caused a problem of environmental pollution in the areas where destruction of withdrawn produce has regularly taken place.

The rotten fruit has polluted the surface and underground waters in the regions concerned. Heavy investment is required for remedying the problem by building special plants. In addition, some regions have introduced environmental taxes to be used to assist disposal. Furthermore, the rotten fruit is, in itself, a source of pollution as it attracts various insects which infest and damage the surrounding crops.'

With this additional information, can the Commission answer my questions about the distribution of this environmental damage among municipalities, regions and countries and the cost of remedying such damage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1997)

In its Reply to the Court of Auditors' annual report for 1994 ((OJ C 303, 14.11.1995. )) the Commission stated that it was 'aware of the serious environmental problems caused by the destruction of fruit and vegetables'.

This was why the Commission's proposal to the Council on reform of the common organisation for the fruit and vegetable markets contained a number of environmental constraints, in particular an obligation on producer organisations and Member States to draw up specifications for environmentally sound methods of market withdrawal (Articles 23 and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 2200/96 on common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables ((OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. ))).

This is not inconsistent with the fact that the Commission, as stated in its Reply to written question E-1705/97 by the Honourable Member, was unaware of the specific facts behind the Court's statements in the 1994 annual report. These facts (regions involved, Member States' measures and details of actual damage) were not notified to the Commission, which has asked the Court to provide concrete information (damage, regions, municipalities) on the points raised in written questions E-1901/96 and E-1902/96 ((OJ C 60, 26.7.1997. )). It will pass this information directly to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3178/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Guarding of unused radioactive materials

The theft of hazardous radioactive material in Greece from a long-since disused plastics factory is causing serious concern about the insecure storage and safekeeping of such materials.

1. What measures should have been taken to ensure secure guarding and storage of hazardous radioactive materials,

2. what bodies are responsible for guarding those materials, and

3. are the distribution and use of radioactive materials by private individuals subject to checks on their use and safekeeping?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 november 1997)

1. Health protection with respect to any practice which involves a risk arising from ionizing radiation is the subject of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation ((OJ L 159, 29. 6.1996. )). This directive is the latest revision of the directives laying down basic safety standards for radiation protection, established for the first time in 1959 in compliance with Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty.

In particular, the directive (Articles 3 to 5) requires Member States to establish a system of reporting prior authorization for the above-mentioned practices. It also requires (Article 46) Member States to establish a system of inspection to enforce the provisions introduced in compliance with the directive.

2. Apparently, the question refers to the specific problem of disused sealed radioactive sources, formerly used in a factory. At the present time, the issue of disused sealed sources is not the subject of specific Community legislation. The general principle is that 'each Member State is responsible for ensuring that the radioactive waste produced on its territory is properly managed' as stated in the Council Resolution of 19 December 1994 ((OJ C 379, 31.12.1994. )). The Commission is aware that there might be a need to improve management practices concerning disused sealed sources in the Community, and intends to prepare a communication on this subject.

3. If the radioactive materials represent ores, source materials or special fissile materials as defined in Article 197 of the Euratom Treaty, the materials are subject to Euratom safeguards. This means that, in line with Articles 77 to 85 Euratom Treaty, the Commission has to satisfy itself that, in the territories of Member States, these materials are not diverted from their intended uses as declared by the users.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3703/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Banning the use of asbestos

International studies show that asbestos is a really dangerous substance. In the 2000s as many as 10 000 a year people will die of diseases caused by asbestos, mainly lung cancer. Asbestos can be completely replaced by other materials, which have the same properties and are considerably safer.

The new use of asbestos is already prohibited in the Nordic countries, Germany, the Netherlands and France. The Commission has, however, for some reason or other delayed taking the decision to ban the use of asbestos. If the Commission allows the new use of asbestos to continue, it will no longer be possible to use national legislation to prevent the import of equipment and machinery containing asbestos.

What stage of preparation has the directive banning the new use of asbestos reached? These decisions are starting to become urgent, particularly in view of the dangers presented by asbestos. Moreover, some manufacturers use asbestos as a cheap competition tool in place of less dangerous but more expensive replacement substances. Do not the Commission's own bad experiences of the dangers of asbestos argue for a speedy decision?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Periodic Annual Report on the implementation of Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation

In response to my Question E-0850/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 32. )) the Commission announced that a report on the implementation of Article 10 of the ERDF would be published by the end of the summer. Has it been published yet?

If not, when is it due to be published?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1997)

The Commission published in June 1997 an Inforegio on the mid-term assessment of operations under Article 10 of the European regional development fund regulation ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). A copy is forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Detailed information on innovative actions under Article 10 in 1996 is presented in the 8th annual report on the implementation of the structural funds ((COM(97) 526 final. )), which was recently published and forwarded to the Parliament.