ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/97 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Statements by Commissioner Bonino on UK beef exports

Mrs Bonino made several statements to the media on Wednesday, 2 July 1997 on UK beef exports to various countries.

Has the Commission given any thought to the suitability or otherwise of such statements and their impact on:

1. the credibility of the Commission's activities as regards consumer health and consumer protection;

2. the Community beef markets?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2576/97, E-2577/97, E-2578/97, E-2603/97, E-2604/97 and E-2605/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

On 2 July 1997, the Commission notified the discovery of a fraud involving British meat illegally shipped to other Member States and to third countries.

True to its policy of transparency, and in compliance with the undertakings given to Parliament, the Commission has kept Parliament and the Member States abreast of all developments in this affair.

Initially, a Spanish firm, with the same name as a firm established in Guinea Bissau, was wrongly accused.

Subsequently, however, another Spanish firm was identified as having received 200 tonnes of meat from one of the offending Belgian firms. The Spanish authorities were informed by the Commission and are currently investigating the matter.

The Commission is aware that certain information may have repercussions on the meat market, but it gives priority to informing consumers as required by the principle of transparency.

However, the event referred to by the Honourable Members of Parliament has not influenced the market, since, according to the information provided [on a weekly basis] to the Commission by the Member States, wholesale meat prices have not been affected by the disclosures concerning the illegal exports of meat from the United Kingdom in July.

The Commission continues to believe that it is its duty to keep Parliament and the Member States - and, if necessary, consumers - fully abreast of affairs of this kind. This approach has also been widely approved by the Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2899/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Council Resolution on Integrating Gender in European Development Cooperation, December 1995

In its Resolution of 20 December 1995 on Integrating Gender issues in European Development Cooperation the Council issued the following two statements:

'17. The Council calls on the Commission, after consultation with the gender and development experts from the Community and the Member States, to draft precise proposals for common criteria and indicators for reporting on the implementation of this Resolution ...'

'18. With a view to ensuring a concrete and effective follow-up of the implementation of this Resolution, the Council will review the progress made by the Community and the Member States at its meeting of second half of 1997.'

Further to this Council Resolution, what steps have been taken to agree common criteria and indicators for reporting on the implementation of the Resolution?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1997)

Following the Council Resolution of 20 December 1995, initial proposals for a methodology on the difficult question of drafting common criteria and indicators were presented by the Commission to a meeting of experts from the Member States in 1996. Following the discussions at this meeting, a questionnaire using precise common criteria and indicators was presented by the Commission to a second meeting of experts from the Member States on 11-12 September 1997. This draft was approved with some small revisions, and will come into operation shortly.

In the meantime, a detailed progress report on implementation of the Resolution by the Community and Member States will be completed in time for the meeting of the Development Council in November 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2900/97 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: IPC Directive - integrated environmental pollution control

At the beginning of August it was revealed that a huge soil-pollution incident had happened at Zelzate in Belgium, caused, as shown by test results, by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The PAHs, which are spread through the atmosphere, have been detected in weaker concentrations as far afield as the Zealand-Flanders border area, in particular in the localities of Sas van Gent and Axel in the Netherlands. A chemicals firm is suspected of having caused this pollution.

Can the Commission state whether that firm falls under the IPC Directive on integrated environmental pollution control?

Should the Belgian authorities not have immediately announced, in accordance with the rules, that this serious pollution incident had happened and notified the Netherlands and Zealand authorities forthwith?

If the IPC Directive proves not to be applicable in this case, would the solvents Directive provide a possible basis for appropriate measures to be imposed immediately on the firm concerned?

Can the European Commission ensure that such action will be taken as quickly as possibly, not least on grounds of public health?

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

The Commission has been in contact with the Belgian authorities concerning the alleged 'soil-pollution incident' in August 1997. In fact, the concern has arisen as a result of a survey of soil pollution recently carried out throughout Flanders, which revealed a particularly high amount of pollution near Zelzate.

The chemicals firm believed to be responsible has been in production for more than a hundred years. In recent years the environmental performance of the installation has improved dramatically so that there are no longer significant emissions. The pollution is not therefore the result of a 'serious pollution incident' but rather, since pollution can persist in soil for many decades, the result of a gradual build-up over the many years of operation.

The installation is covered by Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. )). However it should be noted that the provisions of this Directive do not have to be implemented by Member States before 30 October 1999. The Commission is already engaged in a number of activities designed to ensure that the Directive will be successfully implemented. In particular, the provisions on transboundary impact have already been identified as an issue requiring close attention.

Information concerning other relevant Community legislation is contained in the Commission reply to written question P-2879/97 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak ((See page 90. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/97 by José Torres Couto (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Swedish multinational wants to bring proceedings against the Portuguese pharmaceutical industry

The Swedish pharmaceutical group Astra has lodged a complaint with the European Commission against Portugal, because of an alleged infringement of Community Directive 65/65/EEC ((OJ 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369. )). The Astra group has brought proceedings against various Portuguese laboratories, in particular Medinfar, which is based in Amadora, and it lost. The group's aim is to eliminate competition from Portuguese pharmaceuticals in the treatment of gastric and intestinal ulcers and to protect Astra's monopoly, which is worth around Esc. 5 billion per year.

Various reports suggest that the Commission might be involved in the proceedings against the Portuguese Government, although the Astra group's sole objective is to protect its market.

Can the Commission therefore say what its position is on this case and whether under the pretext of competition policy it is possible to carry out actions of this kind, whose only purpose is to perpetuate monopolistic positions and prevent Southern European countries from maintaining their pharmaceutical industry?

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

The matter raised by the Honourable Member seems to refer to a complaint which has been lodged with the Commission concerning an alleged infringement of Community pharmaceutical legislation by Portugal.

According to the complainant, the Portuguese competent authorities have granted marketing authorisations for medicinal products that are based on evidently false pharmaceutical quality documentation or on insufficient scientific documentation. The Commission is carefully investigating the issue and a letter asking for clarification on the issue was sent to Portugal recently.

The sole aim of the infringement procedure is to ensure that Community pharmaceutical legislation is fully respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1969/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Investment in clean coal technology

How much money has been invested by the Commission in clean coal technology demonstration projects since 1985?

What proportion of this investment has been spent in each member country of the EU?

What is the current cost per tonne of output of deep-mined coal in each of those member countries which still have a deep-mined coal industry?

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

The total amount committed by the Commission to clean coal technology demonstration projects from 1985 to 1996 inclusive is MECU 212,4 and the breakdown is as follows:

>TABLE>

It should be noted that many projects are of a collaborative nature, involving partners from two or more Member States (indeed, this is an absolute requirement under the present rules for the Thermie programme). In the above table, the total project funding is attributed to the Member State of the lead contractor in such cases, since it is virtually impossible to give a precise breakdown among the individual partners.

For example, a large part of the figure for Spain is accounted for by the Puertollano IGCC project, for which the aid of over MECU 50 is shared in varying proportions by several other countries.

The production cost of deep-mined coal in the Member States which have this type of industry is as follows:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2627/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Morocco's nuclear energy programme

Is the Commission aware of Morocco's nuclear energy programmes which, according to an article which appeared in 1993 in the US publication National Trade Data Bank Market Reports, are aimed at producing 3 000 MW of nuclear energy in 2000 and 4 700 MW in 2010?

Is the EU involved, through its cooperation programmes, in Morocco's nuclear energy policy, which plans to use French nuclear technology?

If so, what are the Commission's views on Morocco's energy future and its nuclear safety?

Will the high-tension electricity conduit between Spain and Morocco that is currently under construction be used to transport electricity to Africa or instead to transport electricity to Spain following the development of Morocco's nuclear energy programmes?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

As far as the Commission is aware, no nuclear power plant is foreseen in Morocco before the year 2010.

Two French companies were awarded a contract by the Moroccan government to build a nuclear research centre at Maamora, just outside Rabat, in collaboration with France's Commission de l'énergie atomique (CEA).

A separate by the Moroccan government contract with General Atomics from the United States covers the turnkey supply of a fully-equipped research reactor building, including a 2 Megawatt Triga Mark II research reactor.

The Commission does not finance any programme related to nuclear power under its technical and financial cooperation with Morocco.

The high voltage electricity line near to completion between Spain and Morocco will allow the transport of electricity from and into both countries with the aim to facilitate network management and peak-shaving.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Finland and limits to the cadmium content of fertilizers

Finnish soil has a different acidity level from the calcaneous soils of Central Europe. For this reason cadmium and other heavy metals have a more destructive effect on our ground water.

Is the Commission aware of this problem, and what is it doing to ensure that the limits currently applicable in Finland to the cadmium content in fertilizers are upheld?

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

The Commission is reviewing the Community legislation on fertilizers, in so far as it concerns cadmium, in the framework of the Accession treaties of Finland, Sweden and Austria. In carrying out this review the Commission has agreed to look very closely at the situation in these three Member States.

A special study has been launched on the regional problems posed by the use of fertilizers containing cadmium in particular Member States, notably in Finland. The objective of the study is to determine whether there are special conditions in these Member States such as high cadmium deposition through acid rain, high cadmium content of soils, high availability of cadmium in soils, evidence of high content of cadmium in crops, evidence of damage to the aquatic environment, or evidence of damage to health, especially among vulnerable groups.

The Finnish authorities have already provided the Commission and its consultant with detailed reports on local circumstances and on the risks to health and the environment from the cadmium content of fertilizers in Finland. This information is being taken into account in the study. The Commission will discuss the results of this study with all Member States before the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2985/97 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (15 September 1997)

Subject: Human rights violations in Iran

A number of Iranian newspapers have carried reports in recent months of strikes in Iranian industrial concerns in the course of which strikers have been arrested by the secret service. There are also reports that inmates of the Shiraz, Tabriz and Esfahan prisons have been going on hunger strike since June 1997 and have been tortured and placed in solitary confinement as a result.

1. Is the Commission aware of these events? What recent instances of repression in Iranian jails are known to the Commission? How has it responded? What further action is it planning?

2. What information does the Commission have about the start and the nature of the trial of the author, Faradj Sarkuhi, who has disappeared?

3. What action will the Commission be taking in the light of these human rights violations in Iran as regards the resumption of diplomatic relations with that country?

4. Does the Commission concur with the British author, Salman Rushdie, that the EU Member States should not return their ambassadors to Iran until the Iranian Government has given a formal, written guarantee of its renouncement of the fatwa?

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

The Commission has no diplomatic representation in Iran and therefore no first-hand knowledge of the wave of strikes in Iranian industrial factories reported in the press.

The Commission's view is that the European Union should seek a constructive approach with Iran but that progress can be made only if Iran respects the norms of international law and refrains from acts of terrorism. This is consistent with the Union's decision to suspend the critical dialogue with Iran after the April 1997 finding of the Berlin court on the Mykonos case.

The Union has unequivocally condemned the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. This issue, as well as the trial of Faradj Sarkouhi and the return of the Member States' ambassadors to Tehran, are currently being discussed in the framework of the common foreign and security policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/97 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Seminars of experts

Can the Council state which particular seminars of experts - and how many - were held under the third pillar during 1995, 1996 and 1997, giving details of the participation of the various Member States in each one?

Could the Council also provide Parliament on a regular basis with the information derived from these seminars on issues on which Parliament must be consulted or draw up a report, so as to facilitate Parliament's work?

Answer (17 November 1997)

The Council does not have the list of seminars of experts organized in the field of Justice and Home Affairs since these are organized under the direct responsibility of the Member States and in particular by the respective Presidencies. The follow-up to such seminars is also administered entirely by the organizing Member States even if some proceedings are subsequently included in the programme of cooperation priorities in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3106/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Rome-Naples high-speed railway line

The construction of the Rome-Naples high-speed railway line, and its disastrous impact on the built-up areas which will be affected (La Rustica, Casal Bertone, Tor Sapienza, Lunghezza) have already been the subject of two questions, E-0508/97 ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 261 and OJ C 391, 23.12.1997, p. 15.)) and E-1412/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 28.)).

In reply, the Commission announced its intention of taking appropriate measures to ensure compliance with Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40)) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Since proceedings in connection with the construction work are still in progress:

1. Would the Commission state, in as much detail as possible, the measures it has taken or is preparing to take with regard to this matter?

2. What effects might such measures have on current construction plans?

3. What steps will the Commission take if the Italian authorities ignore those measures?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3000/97 and E-3106/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-2351/97 ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 62. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3055/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Reform of the COM in olive oil

The Commission has submitted a note to the Council of Ministers and to the European Parliament on the olive and olive oil sector (including economic, cultural, regional, social and environmental aspects), the current common market organization, the need for a reform and the alternatives envisaged (COM(97) 57 final).

From the point of view of quality, the Commission should take the initiative and submit to the Council a proposal on standards to ensure that olive oil is genuine. Will the Commission introduce a labelling system to inform consumers and avoid any possible confusion caused by blends? In addition, in order to prevent fraud, will it provide the current COM with mechanisms to enable more effective checks to be made?

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

In addition to an analysis of its impact on the olive oil market, the vexed issue of blends of olive oil and seed oil (covered by the note referred to by the Honourable Member) requires that solutions also be found to the problems arising in connection with the free movement of goods, controls and the labelling of such blends.

As part of its work to reform the common organisation of the market in olive oil, the Commission will analyse the various facets of the issue of blends and will carefully weigh up the ideas put forward by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Unification of the economic professions

Following a detailed study in the countries of the European Union it has been ascertained that Italy is the only country which has not yet created a unified professional body consisting of chartered accountants and business consultants, of whom there are nearly 100 000 in Italy at present.

Until this happens, can the Commission try to persuade the Italian Government to undertake a legislative initiative to unify the economic professions?

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

There is no Community rule requiring Italy to create a unified professional body for the professions exercised in Italy under the titles 'dottore commercialista', 'ragioniere' and 'consulente del lavoro'. It is not for the Commission, therefore, to exert pressure on the Italian Government in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3444/97 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (21 October 1997)

Subject: Nepal

As part of the 1997 budgetary procedure, Parliament inserted remarks under Budgetary Lines B7-300 'Financial and technical cooperation with Asian developing countries' and B7-301 'Economic cooperation with Asian developing countries' which stipulate that the appropriations earmarked for Nepal must be subject to guarantees from the Nepalese authorities not to expel Tibetan refugees. What action has the Commission taken in respect of these remarks?

Has the Commission initiated discussions with the Nepalese Government? Has it obtained the guarantees demanded by the European Parliament? If not, what initiatives does it intend to take to obtain these guarantees? Does it have specific information about the situation of Tibetan refugees in Nepal, on fresh influxes of refugees and on the manner in which they are treated by the Nepalese authorities?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1997)

The problem of refugees in general was examined with the Nepalese Government at the first EC-Nepal Joint Committee meeting in November as part of the discussions on human rights. On that occasion the Nepalese Government gave precise assurances about its commitment to upholding human rights. Since then the Commission has continued its dialogue with the Government on this matter via its delegation in Nepal and is keeping a weather eye on developments.

There seem to be a decline in the influx of refugees and indications are that the situation has not deteriorated, either in the form of fresh expulsions or in the Nepalese authorities' handling of Tibetan refugees. It goes without saying that should any deterioration occur the Commission will draw this to the attention of the Nepalese Government and take the appropriate steps.

Last year the Commission helped improve the situation for Tibetan refugees coming through Nepal by funding a project to expand and restructure the reception centres in the Kathmandu valley and at Pokhara.