ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2657/96 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Structural crisis cartel in the European porcelain industry

Since 1992 the German porcelain industry has lost more than 5000 jobs. The situation is similar in other Member States. Cheap imports from East Asia and the Eastern European countries are largely responsible.

1. Will the Commission approve the imposition of quotas on porcelain imports from China in 1997 as well? If not, why not?

2. What is the Commission's view of the effectiveness of a structural crisis cartel in the European porcelain industry? Would the Commission agree to the temporary creation of a structural crisis cartel? If not, why not?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 ((OJ L 67, 10.3.1994. )) which is currently in force, lays down common rules for imports from certain third countries, including the People's Republic of China. Annex II lays down quotas for certain products originating in China which are applicable, inter alia, to porcelain tableware or kitchenware.

In its December 1995 report to the Council on the quantitative quotas applied under the above Regulation ((COM(95) 614. )), the Commission considered that, in the light of the condition of the Community industries concerned, as well as of the markets for the products in question, the system of quotas on imports from China should be maintained, especially for porcelain and ceramic tableware. After considerable debate on this issue, the Council, in April 1996, decided by Regulation (EC) No 752/96 ((OJ L 103, 26.4.1996. )) on a limited increase in the said quota for these products. The Commission is now in the process of assessing the available data with a view to finalizing this year's report.

The Commission is not aware of the setting up of a 'structural crisis' cartel of the European porcelain industry and is thus not able to comment on it. Should the Honourable Member be able to explain in more detail the scope and activities of such an association, the Commission would of course be prepared to supplement the present answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2542/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: The internal market

Industrial property rights (patents, trade marks, design rights and utility models) play an important role in the Community's internal market in that they promote innovation by smoothing the path between the initial idea and the moment that idea is given concrete form.

Can the Commission guarantee that protection will be afforded only to utility models which meet the (a) absolute novelty, (b) industrial applicability, and (c) inventive step requirements laid down in Article 56 of the Patent Convention, or, should this prove too difficult or impossible to achieve, to models which represent a practical improvement in industrial terms with regard to existing techniques?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2541/96, E-2542/96 and E-2543/96 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (30 October 1996)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that rules which are simple and easily understood by users promote innovation, provide suitable protection for inventions and help to ensure that inventions are published. In July 1995 the Commission published a Green Paper on the protection of utility models in the single market. ((COM(95) 370. )) This was followed by wide-ranging consultations of interested parties and in October 1996 Parliament adopted the Añoveros Trias de Bes report on the subject. Before putting forward a legislative proposal on utility models, the Commission is planning on holding further contacts, in particular with representatives of the industries most closely concerned by technical innovation. It is in this context that the question of the information to be provided to business and industry on utility models will be approached. By virtue of the subsidiarity principle, however, a Community body is not necessarily best placed to meet the needs of businesses, which often voice concerns of a national, regional or local nature.

The Commission is familiar with the suggestions the Honourable Member has put forward regarding the content of a possible future legislative proposal on utility models. It has already expressed its support for those suggestions - in particular before committees of the Parliament - during talks on the adoption of the Añoveros Trias de Bes report.

The Commission notes that the European patents system is, to a large extent, harmonized. The fact that every Member State has acceded to the 1973 Munich Convention on the European patent and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) has led to significant alignment of national patent laws. Nevertheless, as pointed out in the Green Paper on the protection of utility models in the single market, the Commission is looking into the possibility of supplementing the patents system through the introduction of specific legislation on utility models, since these often provide a quick and flexible means of protecting technical inventions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2446/96 by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission (18 September 1996)

Subject: Landfill sites

Has the Commission any plans to put forward proposals for setting minimum standards for existing landfill sites, as opposed to the licensing of new sites, in order to ensure that present-day environmental standards are also applied to existing landfill sites and, if necessary, requiring the closure of unsatisfactory sites such as the Balleally dump near Lusk in Co. Dublin?

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

The Commission submitted to the Council in 1991 ((COM(91) 102 as amended by COM(93) 275. )) a proposal for a directive on the landfill of waste. The objective was to ensure that the Member States adopted a homogenous policy related to landfills and that standards were harmonized throughout the Community. The Council adopted its common position on this proposal in 1995.

However, the Parliament did not find the level of environmental protection sufficient and therefore, in May 1996, rejected the common position. Consequently, the proposal lapsed in August 1996, and the Commission is now preparing a new proposal.

The common position had provisions for existing landfill sites. It provided that existing landfill sites were not allowed to continue to operate, unless certain steps were taken. The first step was the preparation by the operator of a conditioning plan for the site, including certain information and corrective measures needed to comply with the directive. The authorities were supposed to assess the plan, and the sites that could not be granted a permit to continue to operate were to be closed down as soon as possible. Sites that could continue to operate had to implement the conditioning plan within 10 years.

The new proposal for a directive on the landfill of waste is likely to contain provisions which are similar or possibly stricter. As regards the specific landfill site 'Balleally dump', it will be up to the Irish authorities to assess whether it can continue to operate or not.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3040/96 by Guido Podestà (UPE) to the Commission (6 November 1996)

Subject: Human rights violations in Afghanistan

Since taking control of two-thirds of Afghanistan, including the capital, Kabul, the Taliban (also referred to as 'the theology students'), an army of Islamic militants, have embarked on a reign of terror, imposing the strictest form of Islamic law yet to be seen in the Muslim world, based on a literal interpretation of the Koran, and thus establishing a rigid, orthodox system which takes no account of modern-day realities.

In addition to cutting off the hands of thieves and preventing women from going to school or working, thus effectively obliging them to stay at home, these Islamic extremists are using prisoners of war to clear paths through minefields.

The international organizations have threatened to leave Kabul since female staff, teachers and nurses no longer have the right to work, female children to go to school or women to attend vocational training courses.

According to the latest figures released by UNICEF, during the 16 year-old civil war, 1 500 000 people - one third of them children - have died, 1 000 000 have been disabled, very many of them children injured by mines, more than 2 500 000 have been obliged to leave their homes and over 3 000 000 children are suffering from hunger, war and poverty.

Given the above, will the Commission state whether, and under what conditions, it intends to make a financial contribution to reconstruction in Afghanistan and support for humanitarian organizations as long as human rights continue to be disregarded in that country?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern for the violation of human rights especially those of women and girls in Afghanistan under the Taleban regime.

The Commission has been providing yearly contributions of approximately 40 MECU in food aid as well as programmes dealing with resettlement of returning refugees (de-mining, basic infrastructure, basic education and health care, agriculture) and drug control.

Without a peace agreement, aid to significant rehabilitation and reconstruction is premature. Concerning the continuation of humanitarian aid and the possible introduction of a strong conditionality of aid, which has been demanded by some donors, the Commission is of the opinion that this aid should be continued as the needs of the vulnerable groups remain unchanged or have increased in some areas.

The policy of gender-based-discrimination impedes effective work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Considering that aid has to be delivered irrespective of the gender or ethnic background and in order to achieve effective delivery and reception of it, the Commission supports efforts to find a common donor position to strengthen the position of NGOs in their dealings with the Taleban and the other factions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 1, Attica, Measure 4 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare'

Measure 1.4 of the regional operational programme for Attica provides for funding of health and welfare facilities, primarily in Western Attica. The breakdown of funding was ECU 15 500 000 for 1994 and ECU 15 190 000 for 1995.

1. What specific projects have been included in 1.4? Can the Commission provide details of the progress made?

2. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

Supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1484/96 and E-1485/96 given by Mme Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 June 1996 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 126. )), the Commission can now provide the following details.

Funding in 1994 and 1995 for the 'Health and Welfare' measure of the operational programmes (OP) referred to totalled ECU 72.1 million. The take-up over the same period was ECU 10.13 million. As the programmes started at the end of 1994, the funds were actually taken up in 1995.

Most of the financing under this measure goes on projects to build large hospitals. These require major planning, study and preparatory work before construction or equipment purchases can go ahead, hence the take-up delay in 1995.

Much of the preparatory work has been completed this year and work has started on building some hospitals. Consequently, an increase in the take-up of funding can now be expected. The Commission is closely monitoring this measure in both the regional and 'Health and Welfare' operational programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2415/96 by Leen van der Waal (I-EDN) to the Council (5 September 1996)

Subject: Possible visit by the EU troika to Orient House in Jerusalem

1. Press reports lead us to understand that the EU troika intends to visit the Middle East in September possibly including a visit to the Palestinian representation at Orient House in Jerusalem. Is the Council able to confirm the accuracy of these reports?

2. According to the reports, the Israeli Government strongly objects to this and has hinted that it will not receive foreign representatives who call there. Is this correct?

3. Does the Council think it desirable, in view of the continuing sensitivity of visits to Orient House and the care called for by the peace process, to stand by its decision to refrain from visiting Orient House until after this year's Israeli elections?

4. Do the Israeli objections justify meeting the Palestinian representatives during the Middle East visit at a location in the autonomous Palestinian territories?

Answer (16 December 1996)

As part of the process of dialogue with all parties to the Middle East Peace Process, and in accordance with the decision of the special meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 5 October, the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers, Mr Spring, visited the region on 6-7 October to convey messages to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat.

In meetings with both leaders, Mr Spring stressed the importance attached by the EU to the urgent revitalisation of the Peace Process and emphasised the Union's intention to make an enhanced commitment to the search for progress in the Middle East commensurate with its economic contribution and involvement in the Peace Process so far. The meeting with Mr Netanyahu was friendly and constructive and the Prime Minister clearly indicated his appreciation of the efforts of the Union in support of the Peace Process.

EU Policy on the status of Jerusalem is based on the view that East Jerusalem is under military occupation and is thus subject to the principles set out in Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 242, notably the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, and other UNSCRFs pertinent to Jerusalem.

As an expression of this policy EU representatives have had a long standing practice of making calls on Orient House in Jerusalem. When they do so they respect the undertstanding between the parties that there should be no discussion of Palestinian Authority matters in Orient House.

Meetings with the Palestinian Authority take place in Gaza, the West-Bank or in Europe as appropriate.

Although Mr Spring did not visit Orient-House on this occasion, the Union has made it clear that this decision should not be seen as establishing a precedent and was completely without prejudice to the future application of the Union's policy on visits to Orient-House.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3167/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (14 November 1996)

Subject: Storage of nuclear materials at Dounreay

In 1992 the Commission issued a warning to the operators of the Dounreay nuclear plant after ascertaining that a number of serious breaches of the Euratom Treaty had been committed. Recently further information has been published concerning dubious storage facilities for unstable radioactive waste, with particular reference to a shaft in the precincts of the Dounreay nuclear plant. This information had been classified as secret by the plant operators.

1. Can the Commission supply any information about the materials stored in the Dounreay shaft?

a) If so:

- exactly what materials are involved?

- when were they deposited there?

- was their storage recorded in the Dounreay plant's accounting system?

- do these storage facilities comply with the applicable safety requirements?

- is the Commission considering taking legal action against the operators?

b) If not:

- what is the Commission's opinion of this method of storing extremely dangerous radioactive materials, with particular reference to the provisions of Article 37 of the EAEC Treaty (concerning the potential contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State) and compliance with basic Euratom standards?

2. How often, when and with what results have Euratom inspectors inspected the Dounreay nuclear plant and, in particular, its facilities for storing nuclear materials?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

1. a) Less than 3000 m3 of mainly intermediate-level waste are stored at the Dounreay shaft facility. Detailed information on waste streams, quantities and radionuclide inventories is publicly available ((Report DOE/RAS/96.001, UK Nirex Report no 695 of May 1996. )). It is United Kingdom policy to remove waste from the shaft and to decontaminate the facility. Conditioning of retrieved waste should be performed to highest industrial standards and in accordance with radiation protection safety standards.

1. b) The operation of the Dounreay waste disposal shaft was terminated prior to the United Kingdom joining the Community and Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty is not applied retrospectively. However, the Community basic safety standard for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation are applicable.

2. In 1995, the Commission safeguards inspection effort invested in the Dounreay site was 619 man/days. Except for the issues covered by the sanctions mentioned in this question and which were resolved subsequently, there were no anomalies detected with regard to safeguards at the Dounreay site.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3558/96 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1996)

Subject: Application of Community directives in Gibraltar

Can the Commission report on what progress has been made in the application by the United Kingdom of Community directives in the territory of Gibraltar?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: UK Government Meat Hygiene Service

Given current concerns regarding the safety of meat and the recent agreement to begin lifting the beef ban, can the Commission investigate an incident in Birmingham, where a survey of bone-in beef in butchers shops carried out by the City Council's Department of the Environment discovered cases - overlooked by the Meat Hygiene Service - in which the Specified Bovine Material had not been completely removed?

Can the Commission also explain how it monitors the work of the Meat Hygiene Service in the UK and similar organizations in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

The agreement reached at the European Council in Florence concerns the conditions for progressive lifting of the ban on live animals, beef and beef products. It is foreseen that any proposal to lift the ban can only be presented to the Commission when the preconditions set out in the Florence agreement are met. This has not yet been the case. Therefore Commission Decision 96/239 is still in place.

The Commission receives regular fortnightly reports from the British authorities on the implementation of measures to control bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The United Kingdom has informed the Commission that the reported incident in Birmingham, has been investigated but insufficient evidence was found to support the allegations reported in the press.

The Commission monitors the work of the British meat hygiene service, and similar bodies in the other Member States, by means of regular inspection visits. In addition, the Commission has sent several inspection missions to the United Kingdom to monitor the application of the rules concerning BSE.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (17 July 1996)

Subject: BSE

1. Is it true that the decision to relax the export ban was based on a non-impartial study by the gelatin industry?

2. Who drew up the study?

3. Who financed the study?

4. What is the Council's view of the scandal that a study evidently financed by the industry as a favour was taken as the basis for the relaxation of the export ban without regard for the serious health implications?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1928/96, E-1947/96 and E-1949/96 (17 January 1997)

The Honourable Member's questions relate to Commission Decision 96/362/EC of 11 June 1996 ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996, p. 17. )).

The Decision was finally adopted by the Commission after a III(b) committee procedure as provided for in Article 18 of Directive 89/662/EEC ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1996, p. 13. )).

Under this procedure the Commission submitted draft measures to the Standing Veterinary Committee. As a qualified majority did not exist within the Committee, the Commission submitted the draft to the Council on 23 May 1996. The Council had fifteen days in which to take a decision. Unless the Council decided against the measures by a simple majority, the Commission was free to adopt them after that period.

The draft Decision submitted by the Commission was voted on by the Council at its meeting on 3 and 4 June 1996. The Council was unable to establish a qualified majority in favour of the draft and noted that a simple majority against the proposed measures did not exist.

In these circumstances, the draft was adopted by the Commission on 11 June 1996 in accordance with the procedure.

Any questions concerning the substance of the Decision, including its scientific basis and the various language versions, should therefore be addressed to the Commission. Questions relating to the financial aspects are the responsibility of the budgetary authority.

Moreover, the attribution of implementing powers to the Commission on public health matters is subject to prior receipt of scientific advice from the competent scientific committee. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the scientific advice provided for by Community legislation is properly given and is taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: The Aviano air-base - the need for an environmental impact assessment

Near the village of Aviano (PN) there is a military air-base used by the United States, and the Pentagon has decided to finance work to double the size of the existing facilities.

Without entering into the political merits of the question, it has to be admitted that there are serious environmental problems, such as local planning constraints and noise pollution. Whilst historic and political agreements between the United States and Italy allow the former to use the land on which the air base is situated, it is hard to understand why it is possible to circumvent the requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment concerning the doubling the size of the base, in accordance with Community parameters, not least because the effects go beyond the boundaries of the base itself.

Is the Commission aware of the facts outlined above and does it consider it necessary or at least appropriate to carry out an environmental impact assessment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.