ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2704/97 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Protection of the Blackcock in Austria

Every two years in the Sulzberg region of Austria a blackcock can be shot for a fee of DM 1000. In Germany, however, the Blackcock is on the red list and is therefore protected throughout the year. While in Germany Black Grouse are protected, they may be shot in Austria.

Why do two neighbouring countries, which are both members of the EU, have such differing provisions with regard to nature protection matters?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

According to Article 7 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, as amended by accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ L 1, 1.1.1995). )), the species listed in Annex II can be hunted under national legislation, as long as Member States ensure that the hunting of these species does not jeopardize conservation efforts in their distribution area. In the case of the black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) mentioned by the Honourable Member, this species may only be hunted in those Member States for which it is indicated in annex II.2. For Austria, hunting of both males and females is allowed whereas for Germany only males may be hunted. Therefore, the different hunting practices are in full accordance with the legal provisions of the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3136/97 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Freedom of religion in Morocco

In its answer to Written Question E-1759/96 by Leen van der Waal on the violation of the rights of religious minorities in Morocco, the Commission stated that it would pass on its misgivings to the Moroccan authorities concerning respect for human rights in Morocco. I should therefore like to draw your attention to the following:

Two Christians, one American (Timothy Lamb) and one South Korean (Joohyun Ahn) were recently arrested in Fez, Morocco, and expelled from the country after a few days' detention on the grounds of proselytizing. This is in spite of the fact that no enticements were used to make any Muslim renounce his religion. When their house was searched all that was found was a number of video cassettes and tapes with Christian messages and a few Arabic Bibles. According to reports, a judge in Fez gave Lamb the option of embracing Islam, in which case he would be acquitted. Lamb was also given no opportunity to consult his embassy or instruct a lawyer.

1. Can the Commission confirm these reports, and does it agree that this action by the courts and judicial authorities in Morocco violates the right to religious freedom and the right to a fair trial?

2. Is the Commission prepared to inform the Moroccan authorities that this incident is in conflict with the association agreement between the EU and Morocco and that it is concerned about the situation of the Christian minority in Morocco?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997)

1. The Commission cannot confirm the information contained in the Honourable Member's question.

2. As for the questions of substance raised by the Honourable Member, he is referred to the Commission's answer to written question E-1759/96 by Mr Van der Waal ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2874/97 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Freedom of movement

Under the Jobseeker's Allowance in the United Kingdom, unemployed people may only continue to claim benefit when they travel 'abroad' elsewhere in the European Economic Area, if they go abroad specifically to seek work. They cannot take a holiday elsewhere, in the EEA, or travel to attend a funeral of a member of their family, and retain their benefit. No such restrictions apply to employed or self-employed persons.

What can the Commission do about this discrimination against unemployed citizens of the European Union residing in the United Kingdom, which fails to conform with the provision 'to guarantee within the Community equality of treatment under the various national legislations ...'?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1997)

Under the Job seeker's allowance regulations 1996, a claimant is permitted two weeks holiday without loss of benefit or sanction, but this holiday is subject to conditions. In order to obtain this benefit, a person must be both actively seeking employment and available for work. Under regulation (19(1)(p) ('Circumstances in which a person is to be treated as actively seeking employment') a claimant must be treated as actively seeking employment for a maximum of two weeks, even if he is not actually seeking employment because he is on holiday, provided he remains available for work. Therefore, the employment officer must decide whether the claimant is still available for work in order to continue to receive the job seeker's allowance and if the claimant spends his holiday outside the United Kingdom he is not considered to be available for work.

The fact that the unemployed person may only claim unemployment benefit while looking for a job in another Member State under the conditions laid down in Article 69 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community ((Updated by Regulation (EC) No L 118/97 - OJ 28, 30.1.1997, lastly amended by Regulation (EC) No 1290/97 - OJ L 176, 1.7.1997. )) is in line with the fundamental right of equal treatment and the freedoms foreseen by the EC Treaty ((Judgement of the ECJ, 16.5.1991. Case C-272/90, Van Noorden, 1991, I, p. 2543. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Analysis and cooperation in the field of employment

The amended proposal for a decision on the EC's activities of analysis and cooperation in the field of employment (the ESSEN programme) does not yet appear to have been adopted despite the efforts of the Dutch Presidency.

Is it likely that the proposal will be adopted before the extraordinary European Council on employment?

What effects will the delay have on the joint report on employment which is due to be debated by the European Council in December at the close of the Luxembourg Presidency?

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

The amended proposal for a Council Decision on Commission activities of analysis, research, cooperation and action in the field of employment ((COM(95) 250, as amended by COM(96) 449. )) is currently still under discussion in the Council.

The Commission can give no formal undertaking as to when this proposal will be adopted, but it would appear that sufficient progress is being made on this matter in the Council to give grounds for hope that it will soon be resolved.

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that, in the past, it has been able to fund its research, analysis and cooperation measures in the area of employment, albeit out of limited resources. This delay will therefore have only minor repercussions on the work concerning the joint report to be presented to the European Council in December. If the Council were not to adopt the Decision, the situation would become far more difficult from 1998 onwards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/97 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: EU policy in the former Yugoslavia

Can the Commission provide the exact administration cost of EU programmes in former Yugoslavia since 1995, including costs of Commission services in Brussels, in delegations/representative offices as well as subcontracted administrative tasks(monitoring, evaluation, projects identification, procurement, ...)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2850/97 and E-2851/97 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 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-2354/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Role of Angolan government troops in the conquest of Zaire by Kabila

What is the Council's evaluation of the fact that Angolan government troops, with effective military support from the official Angolan army, gave assistance to Kabila's troops in conquering the territory of Zaire?

Has the Council made known its opposition to such military support, the funding for which comes from the sale of existing stocks of oil - money which should have been used for developing Angola in general and for humanitarian purposes in particular?

How can the Council explain to the people of Europe that Angola's oil reserves for the next three years have already been sold and that the profits are being used in part to purchase offensive military equipment, mainly from a country involved in the peace agreement, i.e. Russia, while the EU donates funds for the general development of the country?

Answer (13 november 1997)

According to reports which have reached the Council, it would appear that while Angolan army units gave assistance to Kabila's troops, UNITA units at the same time supported the former President MOBUTU.

Recently, the Rwandan Government publicly acknowledged the role its troops had played in the struggle for control of the country. Clearly, troops form other countries of the region were also engaged in this conflict.

The Council has condemned any external military intervention in the conflict in former Zaire and has called upon the Congolese parties to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.

Through diplomatic channels and its Special Envoy to the Great Lakes region, Mr Ajello, the Council has appealed to the governments of the countries in that region to refrain from intervening in any way.

The question of the purchase of military equipment by the Angolan Government falls outside the Council's sphere of competence. That being said, the Council certainly considers it desirable that the Angolan authorities, as well as UNITA, should allocate as much as possible of their revenue to the common development objectives identified in the Lomé Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Emissions of organic compounds

The proposal for a Council directive on limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities (COM(96) 538 final - 96/0276 SYN) ((OJ C 99, 26.3.1997, p. 32. )) fully respects the principle of subsidiarity and sets the objective of reducing VOC emissions to levels that are technically and economically feasible in each sector.

Will the Commission ensure that the directive is correctly transposed into the laws of all the Member States and will it simplify the criteria for monitoring compliance with the directive given its highly technical nature and complexity?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1997)

The provisions of the proposal for a Directive mentioned by the Honourable Member on the reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds caused by the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities is fully covered by the principle of subsidiarity. More particularly Member States have the option of meeting the requirements of the Directive either by applying the emission limit values provided for each sector of industry covered by the Directive or by preparing and implementing a national reduction programme enabling the same results to be achieved by other means. The flexibility offered by these national plans enables the necessary emission reductions to be tailored to the industrial profile of each Member State and thus to optimise the cost-effectiveness of the legislation. Conversely, if the content and the means of applying such plans are left to the judgment of each Member State, the final aim of reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is binding. Failure to comply would be equivalent to an infringement on the same basis as failure to implement any other provision of any other Community Regulation.

As required by the EC Treaty the Commission will ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are properly transposed into the national law of each Member State. The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the legal basis for the proposal (Article 130 s of the EC Treaty) which enables the Member States to adopt enhanced protective measures that are more stringent than those provided for in the Directive.

When the proposal for a Directive referred to above was being written the Commission, which was well aware of the relatively technical nature of its wording, had already taken steps to simplify this in order to make it easier to read and understand.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/97 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Health risks of silicone implants

According to recent research silicone implants inserted to increase the size of women's breasts may leak silicone into the body, which can result in serious damage to health. Silicone is also thought to migrate to the foetus in pregnant women, with serious consequences. In the USA a number of court cases with far-reaching implications are under way against the manufacturers of silicone implants, which may result in the authorities banning such implants.

Is the Council aware of the serious damage to health caused by silicone, and in particular of the claims that silicone may migrate to other parts of the body and to the foetus? Is the Council considering measures to tighten the product liability of silicone implant manufacturers? Does the Council intend to ban them?

Answer (17 November 1997)

The question to which the Honourable Member refers has not yet been submitted to the Council.

At this stage, the Honourable Member could apply to the Commission to ascertain whether it intends to take up that question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2655/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: EU support for renewable energy

On 27 June 1997 the Council adopted a resolution on renewable sources of energy ((OJ C 210, 11.7.1997, p. 1. )). It stated that renewables were important in the fight against climate change, in securing future energy supplies, creating employment and strengthening the economic structure of isolated regions.

It also said that 'in order to stimulate the market for renewables, appropriate regulatory measures encouraging market participants to buy energy produced from renewable resources may be introduced'.

Will the Commission give details of any plans which it may have to introduce any such regulatory measures on the basis of this resolution?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997)

The Council Resolution ((OJ C 210, 11.7.1997. )) the Honourable Member is referring to concerns the 'Energy for the future: Renewable sources of energy' Green Paper for a Community strategy ((Doc. COM(96) 576. )). The communication also looks at several regulatory measures which could be introduced to encourage market operators to buy energy produced from renewable sources. The measures which the Commission actually intends to select will be set out in the white paper and the renewable energy action plan which it will be presenting before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2892/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Harmonization of vitamin and health supplements

Is the Commission aware that plans to harmonize vitamin and health supplements could result in these supplements having a limited amount of vitamin content?

Does the Commission accept that high dosages of vitamins have in some cases proved tremendously successful in improving patient health?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1997)

A discussion document on the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods and on food supplements prepared by the Commission was made available to the public and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat. The document raised a number of issues and requested comments by 30 September 1997. The Commission will carefully evaluate the comments received before taking any steps towards harmonisation. At this stage the Commission cannot foresee the results of such possibile harmonisation on any possible issue such as vitamin content.

The Commission will consider evidence, substantiated by generally acceptable scientific data, as to the dose related benefits of vitamins for consumer health.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/97 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft

In view of the fact that:

- it is technically possible to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft by up to 60%,

- there is no Directive on exhaust emission limits for aircraft,

- the issue of nitrogen oxide emissions is of particular interest to the Union in terms of environmental protection and the competitiveness of industry,

- the Commission stated its intention in the communication on the way forward for civil aviation in Europe (COM(94) 218 final) to cultivate a stronger role for Europe on exhaust and noise emissions within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),

will the Commission say whether a Commission proposal on reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future and, if not, whether the Commission intends to submit such a proposal?

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

The Commission has been working closely with the Member States within the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO) to promote the adoption of more stringent, yet technically feasible, global standards on the limitation of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from aircraft engines. However, faced with the lack of progress in that forum, the Commission will shortly decide whether to propose a directive which would require a substantial reduction in those emissions compared to the current international standard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/97 by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Promoting children 7s theatre

Drama can play an important part in the personal development of children. It encourages self-confidence, team spirit and creativity in a very special way. For this reason, the promotion of children's theatre takes on particular significance.

What has the Commission done in the past three years to promote children's theatre in the European Community?

What projects has it supported through the various directorates-general, under which promotional programmes?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1997)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that artistic disciplines, and in particular the theatre, can foster the development of the individual from a very early age.

The Commission recalls that, within the framework of its cultural activities, cooperation projects in the theatre, including children's theatre, have been supported in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Community programme in support of cultural cooperation projects - the Kaleidoscope programme (Decision 719/96/EC ((OJ L 99, 20.4.1996. ))) - and under the pilot project of the same name which preceded it.

Alarge number of projects in the theatre have been supported in the last three years, including performances, further training projects and European network projects to strengthen and improve the quality of cooperation and exchanges between European theatres and professionals in the theatre. Six projects ((Successful projects of a pluridisciplinary nature (for example a festival or a network extending to projects in children's theatre), are not included in this total. )) centred mainly around children's theatre (a list of these projects is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat).

European educational projects supported by the Commission under the Socrates programme, Chapter II (School Education (Comenius)), also attach much importance to the theatre. Several European educational projects which involve at least three schools in three different Member States, gave rise to performances by their pupils and teachers, sometimes in several languages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Genetically modified swede-rape

On 6 June 1997 the Commission authorized the placing on the market of a genetically modified swede-rape.

Commission Decision (97/392/EC) ((OJ L 164, 21.6.1997, p. 38. )) stated that 'there is no reason to believe that there will be any adverse effects on human health and the environment from the introduction into swede-rape of the genes coding for phosphinotricin acetyl transferase and for neomycin phosphotransferase II'. It also stated 'that there are no safety reasons for labelling which states that the product has been obtained by genetic modification techniques'.

Can the Commission give details of the scientific studies undertaken to help it reach those conclusions? Who undertook those studies? Are they available to the public for scrutiny and/or will they be made available?

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

As already outlined in the Commission reply to written question E-2286/97 by the Honourable Member, Commission Decision 97/392/EC concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified swede rape was based on a number of studies and data which were submitted by the notifier as evidence of the safety of the GMOs concerned for human health and the environment.

A table contaning the titles of the studies and the respective authors is under preparation by the Directorate-General for the Environment, Biotechnology Sector. It will soon be made available to the Honourable Member and, upon request, to any other interested party. Full references will be given so that the public may trace the studies already published in scientific journals. In any case, the notifier (contact person: Dr Rüdelsheim, Plant Genetic Systems N.V., J. Plateaustraat 22, B-9000 Gent) has offered public access to the information included in their dossier.

At the time of the submission of the notifications in question Directive 90/220/EEC did not foresee, in the absence of safety reasons, the imposition of labelling which would state that the product had been obtained by genetic modification ((OJ L 169, 27.6.1997.)). However, it should be noted that in anticipation of the amendment of the labelling provisions of the Directive, the notifier wrote to the Commission indicating its commitment to

- mention on the seed packages which will be sold to the farmers that the product has been genetically modified,

- indicate to the farmers either on the label of such seed packages or in the accompanying documentation that because of the original genetic modification specific labelling requirements may be applicable for the harvested material and

- provide those companies which are known to import the genetically modified product into the Community for processing with information relating to the genetically modified product produced by or under licence from Plant Genetic Systems.