ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Statements by the Commission President in relation to Spanish-British joint fishing ventures

At Parliament's sitting of 26 June 1997 Mr Santer stated, in relation to the letter sent by the Commission President to the British Prime Minister on the subject of Spanish-British joint fishing ventures, that Mrs Bonino, the Commissioner responsible, and he himself had taken care to ensure that the Spanish authorities were always kept informed of contacts with the British authorities (Verbatim report of proceedings, 26 June 1997, p. 31).

Can the Commission say on what dates, by what means and through whom the Commission has kept the Spanish authorities informed of the contacts between the Commission and the British authorities on the subject of investment from other Member States in the British fishing industry?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

The Commission can confirm that the Spanish authorities have been kept aware of developments in the matter to which the Honourable Member refers, including its contacts with the United Kingdom authorities.

This information has been supplied by the means normally used for contacts between the Commission and the Member States, principally the Office of the Permanent Representative of Spain to the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3087/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (19 September 1997)

Subject: VAT and record sales

Given the European Union's position on anti personnel mines, will the Commission emulate the British Government and ensure all the revenue it receives from VAT on sales from the sale of the record Candle in the Wind will go to the appropriate charities?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The decision of the United Kingdom government concerning VAT receipts from the sale of the recording of Candle in the Wind is praiseworthy. It is not possible under Community VAT legislation to exempt arbitrarily any goods from VAT. The Commission understands that a grant of corresponding value will be made to charity, so formally it will be a donation from the government.

The Commission is very active in the political campaign for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines and is among the world's leading sponsors of mine clearance and related work, including assistance to mine victims. In the past five years over MECU 100 of Community funds have been devoted to this cause. However as the Honourable Member will be aware, Community VAT legislation does not allow the Commission simply to pay VAT revenue over to charities. In any event the Community budget receives only a part of the VAT revenues collected in a Member State (about 1/17th in the case in the United Kingdom).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/97 by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) and Catherine Lalumière (ARE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Allocation of PHARE funds for educational books

The history textbook which was issued to schools in Slovakia by the Ministry of Education at the end of 1996 is openly revisionist. The author was Milan S. Durica, who has acted, inter alia, as an apologist for Fascist Slovakia. The disputed work was withdrawn from schools at the end of August this year. Slovakia has no shortage of reputable historians, and there is a great need for the young generation of the countries of Eastern Europe to re-learn their history.

Is it true, as our information appears to indicate, that PHARE funds were used to support this work? If so, was the Commission aware of the decision to provide funding and of the book's author? Does it not consider that such mistakes are regrettable, to say the least? What steps can the Commission take to ensure that such events, which run counter to its principles, do not happen again?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-2343/97 and E-2469/97 by Mrs d'Ancona ((OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 98. )) and Mrs van Bladel ((OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 114. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2299/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Thousands of years of history under water and mud

The area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, known as Mesopotamia, has an 11 000 year history and records show that the first human villages and cities were built there. The region was also a crossroads where ancient civilizations such as the Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Armenians and Greeks met. Today, the region is populated by the Kurds, the descendants of the Kardouchoi and the Medes.

The ancient city of Haskif (Hasankeyf) was their centre and is in danger of being buried under mud once the dam at Lusu - being built by Turkey to which the region belongs - is completed. Turkey, however, is a signatory to the international UNESCO Conventions (of Granada and Malta) on the protection of antiquities.

What measures will the Commission take to protect the antiquities of this region?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1997)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the threat to the ancient city of Haskif (Hasankeyf) once construction of the dam at Lusu is completed.

The Commission recalls that Turkey, like all signatories of United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization conventions, has specific obligations as to the protection of antiquities. The Commission, therefore, expresses the wish that the Turkish authorities have undertaken all appropriate measures to ensure the protection of this important archaeological site and its preservation for future generations.

Furthermore, the Commission has raised the issue in its regular contacts with the Turkish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Creation of day centres for the care of people with special needs

The pilot programme to combat exclusion from the employment market and in particular Sub-Programme 1 for the 'insertion and reinsertion into the employment market of people with special needs', is intended for people with psychological disorders or mental handicaps in order to help them lead independent lives. This sub-programme, together with the 'health and welfare' pilot programme is concerned with the creation and operation of day centres for the care of people with special needs.

In view of the timetable for Sub-Programme 1 drawn up in 1994, what progress has been made concerning these day centres, how many have been created and where?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

Subprogramme 1 of the operational programme 'Combating exclusion from the labour market' is aimed at people with handicaps, including the mentally ill or mentally retarded. The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that day centres for people with handicaps are referred to in the above-mentioned subprogramme as a valid support and accompanying measure which could help in the socio-economic reintegration of the persons concerned, although no specific provision is made for the creation of this type of centre.

With regard to subprogramme 2 'Welfare' of the operational programme 'Health and welfare', there are three measures in which provision is made for a number of types of centre for people with handicaps.

Measure 2.1 provides for the creation of a number of preventive-care and education centres for handicapped persons, and a large number of centres (25) are under consideration or have been built in the capitals of the various 'prefectures' which were regarded as lacking in this type of infrastructure.

Under measure 2.2, a limited number of welfare centres (9-10) are in the process of being modernised and repaired in order to be able to provide better rehabilitation facilities. In addition, a limited number of centres for persons suffering from autism are in the process of being set up.

Measure 2.3 makes arrangements for a network of centres which are in the process of being set up in Attica and Thessaloniki for primary provision and ongoing care of persons with handicaps and other excluded groups.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/97 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Distribution of German-language films in South Tyrol

Bearing in mind that minorities need special protection, that their culture (including films in their mother tongue) should receive special promotion but that these are disadvantaged by the fact that film rights are distributed on a national basis, and that free competition across national frontiers is a basic principle of the single market, would the Commission explain why Austrian and German film distributors cannot expect to distribute films to South Tyrol without legal difficulties?

Is a special arrangement for the distribution of film rights for linguistic minorities feasible? If so, is it being actively pursued?

Is the Italian Law No 1213 of 4 November 1965 governing the allocation of film distribution rights (Nuovo ordinamento dei provvedimenti a favore della cinematografia) contrary to EU law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1997)

The Commission cannot comment on the legal difficulties experienced by Austrian and German film distributors, as described by the Honourable Member.

In respect of the promotion of films for linguistic minorities, Member States may encourage such distribution provided that the schemes are compatible with EC Treaty rules.

Film distribution is governed by Article 59 of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services (Case C17/92). Restrictions on this activity must pursue a general interest objective at Community law and be proportional to that objective. The issue of whether the Italian law cited is compatible with Community law cannot be assessed from the details given by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/97 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Mission to Colombia

In October 1995, during the Spanish Presidency, a Council troika visited Columbia in connection with the state of human rights in that country. On its return the troika called for support for projects to do with human rights, education, health care and infrastructure. It was recently decided during the Dutch Presidency, to send another mission to Colombia.

1. a) What action has the Council taken since October 1995 to implement the support called for at that time, and what results has this produced in Colombia?

b) If there was no follow-up to the troika visit in 1995, can the Council explain why?

2. a) When will the new mission be departing for Colombia?

b) What will its terms of reference be?

c) How is its programme being drawn up?

3. Is the Council prepared, once the mission has been completed, to send a report of its findings and the policy implications to the European Parliament?

Answer (4 December 1997)

The Council has always followed the situation in Colombia very closely and will continue to do so, encouraging all sides to follow the path of dialogue and reconciliation to put an end to the internal conflict which rages in Colombia and its tragic and frequent outbreaks of violence. The opening in Bogota of an office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - which receives EU funding - is an important event for cooperation with Colombia.

With particular reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that the Troika as such did not visit Colombia in October 1995. The Deputy Heads of Mission of the Troika Embassies in Bogota visited Uraba and Medellin on 27 and 28 October 1995 to take stock of the human rights situation.

After that fact-finding mission, the plan was for the European Commission's office in Bogota to send a technical mission to Uraba to identify potential cooperation projects. Owing to staff shortages and for security reasons, that mission to investigate the local situation could not be carried out until 1997. The Commission has recently decided to provide ECU 400 000 to finance a project for the Uraba region, the aim of which is to support local NGOs working in the area of human rights.

The Commission will be able to give the Honourable Member more detailed information on these initiatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: EC aid granted to Bath and North East Somerset since June 1994

What is the total amount of Community aid granted to the area of Bath and North East Somerset, since June 1994, under:

1. the European Social Fund

2. the Fourth Research Framework Programme

3. Community programmes in the environment and energy fields

4. the EAGGF, Guidance and Guarantee sections

5. other Community Programmes?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (22 October 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 E-3124/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Ban on Cypriot vessels calling at Turkish ports

The Turkish Government has announced a ban henceforth on vessels flying the Cypriot flag from calling at Turkish ports. As you will be aware, Cyprus is a country associated with the EU and already preparing for membership.

What are the Commission's views on this situation and how will it respond to this unprecedented act by Turkey, which is obstructing international trade and provoking a country in the process of becoming a member of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Commission was recently informed of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

As sea transport is not covered by the bilateral agreements between the Community and Turkey the Commission is currently studying Turkey's multilateral obligations in this sphere.

In a resolution of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 6 March 1995 the two parties agreed to start cooperating on transport, notably sea transport. It has not been possible to implement cooperation between the Community and Turkey in that field owing to the situation as regards financial cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3166/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Definition of liquid waste in context of proposed Landfill Directive

In the context of the Commission's proposal for a Landfill Directive (COM(97) 105), can the Commission state how it defines the term 'liquid waste'? How does the Commission propose to distinguish between 'liquid waste' and 'sludge'?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 October 1997)

Article 2 of the Commission proposal for a Council directive on the landfill of waste states that 'liquid waste shall mean any waste in liquid form including waste waters but excluding sludge'.

The Commission has not included a specific definition of sludge in the landfill proposal as sludge is defined in Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture ((OJ L 181, 4.7.1986. )) which states that 'sludge' means:

- residual sludge from sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and from other sewage plants treating waste waters of a composition similar to domestic and urban waste waters;

- residual sludge from septic tanks and other similar installations for the treatment of sewage;

- residual sludge from sewage plants other than those referred to above.

At present, the Commission therefore proposes to distinguish between liquid waste and sludge according to the above mentioned definitions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/97 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Economic and Monetary Union

1. What are the predicted costs to national mints

(a) of licensing technology for Nordic Gold?

(b) of converting production to a non-traditional material?

(c) of reduced or lost exports to non-EU countries?

2. Why, among the many nickel-free or low-nickel alloys available, was only a trade-marked product - Nordic Gold - selected?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2596/97 and E-2650/97 (10 November 1997)

On 5 June 1997 the Commission submitted to the Council a formal proposal for a Council Regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins. That proposal essentially incorporates the technical elements suggested by the Mint Directors of the Member States whom the Council had previously briefed to research and draw up a complete proposal for a single European coin system. As for the materials to be used to produce euro coins, the Mint Directors' study was based on the most recent technical expertise, from both the economic and public-health points of view.

During its meeting on 7 July 1997 the Council gave its political agreement on the Commission proposal, subject to possible subsequent amendment to be adopted by the Council after examining any amendments suggested by the European Parliament at first and/or second reading. It should in fact be emphasized first that this proposal, which is based on Article 105a of the EC Treaty, is subject to the cooperation procedure with the European Parliament and secondly that the Regulation in question cannot be formally adopted by the Council until the Member States adopting the euro as their single currency are known (Articles 105a and 109k of the Treaty).

The Council has meanwhile consulted the European Parliament on the proposal at first reading and is currently awaiting its Opinion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Treaty infringement procedings - wild birds directive

In its answer to Question E-1963/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 130. )) the Commission draws attention to Member States which have not or not yet fully respected their obligations for implementation of Directive 79/409 ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )).

1. Exactly which Member States are involved and what stage have proceedings reached in each case?

2. In which exact areas are there shortcomings in the implementation of the wild birds directive in the individual Member States, how many special protection areas have already been designated in which locations and what does the Commission think future developments will be?

3. What practical actions to improve the situation of wild birds in Europe are proposed in the 'action plans for globally threatened bird species' referred to in the Commission answer?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

For information on infringement procedures concerning Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, the Honourable Member is referred to the fourteenth annual report on monitoring Community law (1996) ((COM(97) 299 final. )).

There are now more than 1600 special protection areas, covering a surface area greater than 100 000 km2, which have been classified by the Member States. However, the Commission is of the view that only Denmark and Belgium have largely fulfilled this obligation under the Directive. The other Member States still need to classify further areas in order to ensure a coherent network of protected areas for the bird species listed in Annex I of the Directive as well as for migratory bird species. The Commission continues to monitor progress in this regard and regularly produces an updated inventory of the special protection areas notified to it by the Member States. The most recent inventory, published in June 1997 and available to the public, is sent separately to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The action plans for globally threatened bird species are European framework plans which provide an up to date scientific assessment of their status, ecology, threats and the current conservation measures for them. They define objectives and recommend conservation actions for each Member State where these species occur. These measures differ considerably from one species to another. They relate to actions under policy and legislation, species and habitat protection, monitoring and research, public awareness and training.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2678/97 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) and Edgar Schiedermeier (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Damage to the environment due to the use of molasses in the yeast industry, at breweries and in the chemical industry

Molasses is a production residue (waste product) of the sugar industry, which is used as a raw material both in the chemical industry and in the production of yeast and by distillers. The residues (waste) are then disposed of by these industries.

1. What waste is generated by the use of molasses as a raw material:

(a) in production in the yeast industry?

(b) at breweries?

(c) in the chemical industry?

2. How many of the approximately 30 yeast production plants in the EU Member States have their own effluent treatment plants?

3. What damage is caused to the environment by this waste?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 October 1997)

Community legislation on waste does not require Member States to provide the Commission with the information requested by the Honourable Members.

Nevertheless, both the chemical industry and treatment and processing intended for the production of food products are covered by Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive) ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.)). IPPC sets out the general principles governing the basic obligations of industrial operators, and these include the avoidance, recovery or disposal of waste while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment.

Three provisions of the IPPC Directive could potentially be relevant for the provision of information such as that requested:

- Member States will be required, starting from 30 April 2001, to provide to the Commission representative data on limit values set by the authorities as conditions contained in operating permits;

- the Commission is required to publish every three years an inventory of the principal polluting emissions to air, water and land as well as the sources responsible;

- the Commission is also required to organise an exchange of information on the best available techniques for each sector covered by the Directive, and to publish the results every three years. The published results should contain information on all techniques relevant for the protection of the environment as a whole, including for example on-site effluent treatment plants.