ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2259/96 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: The problem of the burial of nuclear and toxic waste in the FYROM

European nuclear scientists and the relevant scientific periodicals suggest that, in response to a request by the German Government, a site in the FYROM (Mavrovo) may be used for the burial of nuclear and toxic waste. Apart from the consequences the burial of such waste will have for the FYROM itself, it will pose very serious dangers for its neighbour, Greece, given that the two countries have common rivers, lakes and groundwater supplies. The very strong seismic activity in the region aggravates these dangers.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it have any knowledge of this matter and, if not, does it intend to verify this information?

2. How does it view the problem of the uncontrolled burial of nuclear and toxic waste in non-Community European countries which lie on the borders of EU countries, and what pressure does it intend to exert on the former, and particularly those which receive Community funds, such as the FYROM (PHARE)?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

The Commission does not possess any information on a plan for waste disposal at the Mavrovo site in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The export of toxic waste is regulated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community ((OJ L 30, 6.2.1993. )). This Regulation does not cover radioactive wastes. In accordance with Article 14 of this Regulation, export of hazardous as well as non-hazardous waste for disposal to third countries is prohibited, except to the European free trade association (EFTA) countries which are a party to the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movement of hazardous waste and their disposal ((OJ L 39, 16.2.1993. )). Consequently, irrespective of any link with the Phare programme, export of hazardous waste destined for final disposal (e.g. landfilling, incineration) from a Member State to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is prohibited under Community law.

As regards radioactive waste, Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community ((OJ L 35, 12.2.1992. )) requires that, where radioactive waste is to be exported from the Community to a third country, the shipment has to be authorised by the authorities of the Member State of origin (Article 12.2). Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Directive requires that the Member State concerned shall not authorize shipments of radioactive waste to a third country which, in the opinion of the authorities of the country of origin, does not have the technical, legal and administrative resources to manage the radioactive waste safely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2062/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment criteria

Can the Commission provide details of the new guidelines for the environmental assessment directive?

In particular, what is the scale criteria under the terms of the new directive for a building or public works project for it to be deemed necessary for an environmental impact assessment to be carried out?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

Projects listed in Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment have to be assessed under the Directive when Member States consider that they are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposal for a directive to amend Directive 85/337/EEC will insert a new annex into the 1985 Directive containing a list of selection criteria which Member States will have to take into account when determining which Annex II projects have to be assessed. The list does not contain, however, specific size thresholds for Annex II projects. The Council adopted a common position on this proposal on 25 July 1996 and this common position has been transmitted to the Parliament for the second reading.

In addition to these legislative developments the Commission has also published some informal guides providing practical information for competent authorities involved in screening Annex II projects and scoping and reviewing environmental statements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1682/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Council (24 June 1996)

Subject: Catalan

What measures has the Council taken in the light of the European Parliament's resolution of 11 December 1990 on languages in the Community and the situation of Catalan (A3-0169/90 ((OJ C 19, 28.1.1991, p.42.)) as regards:

1. the publication in Catalan of the treaty texts,

2. the use of Catalan for disseminating information on the European institutions,

3. the inclusion of Catalan in programmes set up for teaching European languages?

Reply (7 November 1996)

1. As with all acts adopted by the European Parliament, it goes without saying that the Council has noted carefully the Resolution of 11 December 1990. However, it has to be recalled that according to Article 217 to the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 190 of the EURATOM Treaty, the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Communities are determined by the Council acting unanimously. These rules are laid down in Regulation No 1 of the Council of 15 April 1958, last amended when new Member States joined the Community in 1995, which enumerates the eleven official languages of the Communities.

Furthermore, publication in the Catalan language has not been foreseen in Article S of the Treaty on the European Union nor in Article 248 TEC or Article 225 EURATOM Treaty.

2. As in the reply given by the Presidency-in-Office of the Council to a previous question on the same subject raised by the Honourable Member, the Council reminds the Honourable Member that all matters relating to the publication or dissemination of Community texts of any kind - whether official texts or information texts - are the responsibility of the Commission.

3. Catalan is not among the languages referred to in the Annex (Chapter III, Action 1, paragraph 1) to the Decision establishing the Community action programme "Socrates" ((Decision No 819/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 1995 (OJ L 87, 20.4.1995). )) as for teaching as a foreign language in the context of that programme. However, in line with the eleventh recital of the preamble to the Decision, Catalan may be regarded as a language which, without being an official language of the European Union, is recognized at national level and used to a significant extent as a teaching language in universities. It is specified that "teaching in these languages should offer possibilities for access to parts of the programme concerning higher education."

Finally, it can also be mentioned that, following the subsidiarity principle, the common rules concerning the official languages of the Communities do not prevent Member States from taking any kind of measures on a national level to disseminate information on the European institutions in the official languages of their respective territories.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Certification of genetically engineered seed varieties

1. Is the Commission aware that transgenic plants are showing no evidence of stability?

2. Is it aware, for instance, that in the case of the herbicide-resistant maize produced by the Agrevo company, more than half the test plants show no evidence of stability within a year and the herbicide-resistant property is lost?

3. Does a certified variety yet exist which has been shown to be stable?

4. If so, which?

5. In which Member State is this variety certified?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

1. The Commission has no evidence that varieties of transgenic plants are any less stable than those obtained by conventional breeding. However, it should be said that all varieties, the seed of which is marketed pursuant to the relevant Community legislation (in this case, Council Directives 66/402/EEC ((OJ 125, 11.5.1966. )) and 70/457/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970. ))), must in principle be stable.

2. Under current legislation, the Commission does not have to be informed of the results of particular trials. In the case of all hybrids the characteristics of the genealogical components are different (these characteristics may include herbicide resistance). The behaviour of test plants in such programmes should not be confused with the stability of the variety which may eventually be accepted for marketing. As a consequence, a plant variety, whether obtained by conventional or transgenic breeding, has to satisfy the stability requirement before it can be accepted for marketing. Moreover, if after such acceptance it is shown that the stability requirement is no longer fulfilled, the variety will be removed from the Member State's catalogue and will no longer be eligible for marketing.

3, 4 and 5. According to the information available to the Commission, no genetically modified plant varieties derived from material authorised to be placed on the market under Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) have yet been accepted in any Member State's catalogue of agricultural varieties. The Commission proposal ((COM(93) 598 final. )) to amend the seven basic seeds directives puts forward provisions in order to implement the 'one door, one key' policy in the seeds area, which would allow genetically modified plant varieties to undergo all the necessary assessments under the seed legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2189/96 by Ole Krarup (NI) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment directive

I regret that the Commission's answer to question E-0771/96 ((OJ C 322, 20.10.1996, p. 6. )) does not deal with all the points raised. I would therefore ask the Commission to consider whether a developer can be considered entitled to proceed with a

project so long as permission has not been given by all the competent authorities under national legislation; in Article 1(2), development consent is defined as 'the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project'.

Can a national authority legitimately grant a developer such consent when the approval of one or more other national authorities, required under the environmental impact assessment directive and/or national legislation, has not been granted?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

Under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the affects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) there is only a requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) before development consent is granted. It follows from the principle laid down in the definition of development consent that the EIA shall be carried out before the developer is entitled to proceed with the project. The Directive leaves it to the Member States to integrate the EIA into existing planning procedures or into procedures to be established.

The Directive does not require that the developer can only proceed with the project when all authorizations under national law concerning the project have been granted. This is a matter of national competence. The matter raised therefore only relates to national law and the Commission has no comments on the precise question asked.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2026/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: UK Nationality Act 1981

Prior to the UK Nationality Act of 1981, which came into effect in 1983, a child could only get British nationality from his father and not his mother. This Act is not retrospective.

I have become aware of a case in which a female British national, who is married to a Sudanese national is unable to get British citizenship or a British Passport for her son, who was born in 1962, because she failed to apply for a British passport for him before he was 16.

Hence the British law prior to 1981 still directly applies to her. If her son had been born after 1981 or she had been a 'male' British citizen married to a foreign spouse, her son would be entitled to have British citizenship in spite of the fact that she failed to apply for a British passport for him before he was 16 years of age.

Does the Commission not consider this an instance of direct sexual discrimination?

Is the Commission aware of similar cases to this? Do European safeguards or measures exist to protect people against this type of discrimination, arising from the non-retrospective element of the UK Nationality Act of 1981 or has the Commission any plans to introduce such safeguards?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The rules governing the granting of nationality of a Member State do not fall within the competence of the Community.

According to Declaration No 2 annexed to the EC Treaty, whenever a reference is made to nationals of a Member State in the Treaty, the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned. It would not therefore be appropriate for the Commission to intervene in the way proposed by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Commission representatives at national Structural Fund monitoring committees

How would the Commission describe the role of its representatives at Structural Fund monitoring committees within individual Member States, and precisely which regulations and policy guidelines (with reference numbers) govern the conduct of Commission staff in this capacity?

In accordance with the principles of parliamentary accountability, will the Commission ensure its representatives provide full information regarding project selection, selection criteria as well as the effective use of the funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

Article 25 of Council Regulation (EEC) n° 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) n° 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different structural funds between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments (as amended) ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) provides for the setting up of monitoring committees, within the framework of the partnership, by agreement between the Commission and the Member States.

The composition, duties, procedures and responsibilities of these committees are detailed in the provisions forming an integral part of each Commission decision approving the individual operational programmes. These provisions include the participation of the Commission as a full member of such committees.

Apart from this formal participation, the Commission representatives also have an important role to play in providing regular help and guidance to the authorities concerned, notably where questions of project eligibility or the respect for Community legislation and policies are concerned.

However, according to the rules governing structural funds interventions, and reflecting the principle of subsidiarity, it is the Member States responsible for programme implementation which have primary responsibility for assuring project eligibility and for defining criteria to prioritise their choice of projects for approval. In establishing these criteria they are assisted by the Commission, which seeks to ensure thereby that the projects selected will be compatible with the overall objectives of the programme and that Community resources will be used effectively and efficiently, Community law respected and financial errors and irregularities avoided.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Defrauding of persons covered under sickness or accident insurance policies

Is it true that many companies which offer policies providing cover in the event of illness or accident refuse to pay policyholders suffering from Aids when they contract diseases such as tumours and maintain instead that the latter are not eligible to receive payment unless they have been pronounced cured?

If the above practice does indeed occur, does not the Commission believe it to constitute fraud at the expense of policyholders? What steps will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1996)

The question whether policyholders suffering from Aids are eligible to receive payment when they contract diseases such as tumours depends on the content of the contracts concluded with the respective illness or accident insurers.

As there is no Community legislation with respect to the insurance cover to be granted by sickness insurers, insurance conditions are in principle free (Article 29 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)).

The content of such contracts may, however, be appreciated on the basis of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts (93/13/EEC) ((OJ L 95, 21.4.1993. )). It would be the task of national civil courts to do so. The Commission has no powers to interpret the wording of existing private contracts or to investigate punishable acts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Women and men sharing the same ward at Milan General Hospital

Owing to staff shortages on account of holdiay leave, the management of Milan General Hospital has temporarily combined the general surgical wards to form a single unit by installing five women's beds in two small rooms adjoining the men's area.

The patients being treated there are forced to share washing and toilet facilities with the men, resulting in obviously unwelcome personal embarrassment.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that health problems are not reduced to a mere mockery by the lamentable failure to distinguish between pressing human needs and absurd organizational considerations, bearing in mind that holidays are scheduled irrationally, more often than not to accommodate the pleasure of the persons concerned, a fact which contrasts all the more crassly with its consequences? Does it not believe that it should lay down rules in the form of a Directive to prevent medical and paramedical staff from causing situations such as the one described above?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

Questions relating to the organisation of services and personnel in individual hospitals in the Member States are for the relevant local, regional or national health authorities to consider. The Commission has no mandate to intervene in such matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Gastone Parigi (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Slovenian law banning the repurchase of houses formerly belonging to Istrian exiles

The Slovenian Parliament has rejected the proposal to allow Istrian exiles to repurchase the houses they abandoned after the Second World War, without respecting the Solana plan approved on 11 April last, which was to allow them to do so if they had lived in Slovenia for at least three years.

The Government established the liberalization of the property market for foreigners who had lived in Slovenia for at least three years following Ljubljana's declaration of independence from Belgrade on 25 June 1991, thereby automatically excluding the Istrian exiles who had lived there before, during or after the Second World War.

In view of the Association Agreement between Slovenia and the European Union, can the Commission ascertain whether Slovenia is acting in accordance with the Solana plan and with European legislation on property?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The conclusion of the Europe Agreement was deferred on several occasions by the Council, before it was finally signed on 10 June 1996.

This Agreement includes an exchange of letters with the Slovenian government which specifies the compromise agreed upon to solve the last outstanding issue. This exchange of letters is fully in line with the proposal tabled jointly by the Commission and the Council under the Spanish Presidency.

Through this exchange of letters the Slovenian government committed itself to liberalize the Slovenian property market four years after the ratification of the Europe Agreement and, with the entry into force of the Europe Agreement, to grant all Union citizens (including former Italian residents) with three years of residence in Slovenia the right to purchase property.

In addition, the Slovenian government committed itself to introduce the necessary constitutional changes and legal provisions, in accordance with the above mentioned exchange of letters, before ratification of the Europe Agreement. This legislation is currently before Parliament and the Slovenian government has undertaken to include the necessary modifications for the second reading. The above liberalization of the property market would be in accordance with the 'acquis communautaire'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2151/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Article 10 Programme

Is it true that Danish local authorities have written to the Commission complaining that they are unable to make applications for interregional cooperation under the Article 10 Programme because of the high amount of match-funding required, and that they prefer smaller interregional cooperation projects of the type supported by the PACTE Programme?

What has been the Commission's response to this comment? And why in these circumstances is the Commission seeking to merge the PACTE Programme into the Article 10 Budget line for 1997?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2093/96, E-2149/96 and E-2151/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1996)

The Commission appreciates the Parliament's concern about the financing of projects for initiating interregional cooperation, and in view of the budgetary situation it is studying the possibility of funding these projects under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended, which relates to the European Regional Development Fund. ((OJ L 193, 31 July 1993. )) These projects could involve a Community contribution of ECU 150 000 to 300 000.

The Commission will not fail to inform Parliament at the appropriate time of the results of its study, which must take account in particular of the Court of Auditors' criticisms of partially delegated management of Community appropriations.