ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1320/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Limit of liability for nuclear power stations

Under paragraph 13(3) of the German Atomic Energy Law, prudential reserves to cover liability for damages incurred by nuclear power station operators are limited to DM 500 million. The damage caused by a serious accident in a nuclear power station would be far higher, and the state would therefore have to provide compensation for damage exceeding this sum.

1. Does this provision constitute indirect state aid which would require approval?

2. Does this provision constitute a distortion of competition vis-à-vis other electricity producers?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1997)

The provisions on liability for nuclear damage of the German atomic energy law are not at variance with existing international nuclear third party liability conventions, as far as it provides for partial compensation for damage by the state. Under the Vienna Convention on civil liability for nuclear damage as well as the Paris Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy, the operator of a nuclear installation is required to provide financial security covering liability for nuclear damage in such amounts as specified by the installation state. Such security can be provided by insurance or other financial security, i.e. a state guarantee. The Brussels Convention, supplementary to the Paris Convention, to which Germany, like most Member States is a party, specifically requires that, as of a certain amount and up to a fixed ceiling, compensation for nuclear damage be provided out of public funds to be made available in first instance by the contracting party where the nuclear installation of the operator is situated and on top of that by contracting parties to that Convention according to an agreed formula.

Therefore, the provision in question does not seem to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty. It is based on an international agreement aiming at establishing a generally applicable security framework for risks from nuclear activities. Each energy sector is subject to certain rules regarding safety or environmental protection which correspond to the distinctive nature of the various energy resources. However, even if considered as state aid the provisions would probably fall under the derogation of Article 92(2)(b) as they intend to make good the damage caused by exceptional occurrences.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2322/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: The single currency and reduction in undertakings' costs

On 27 February 1997, while discussing the preparations for the single currency, Mr Yves-Thibault de Silguy told the French Senate's Delegation for European Affairs that the Commission estimated that the abolition of currency exchange costs alone would result in savings to Europe of something to the order of 200 billion (French) francs per year.

However, when talking to the French National Assembly's Delegation for the European Union on 26 October 1995, Mr de Silguy had estimated those costs at 150 billion francs per year.

How does the Commission account for the sharp rise in expected savings over a period of barely eighteen months, when the possibility that some Member States will not participate, as has been officially accepted since the Madrid Summit (December 1995), should result rather in such costs being lower? Can the Commission explain how it arrived at these figures?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1997)

Commission studies have shown that the costs to businesses of having to conduct transactions in several European currencies amount to some 0.5% of Community GDP. Since the latter was put at FF 4 391 billion in 1996, expected savings would total FF 220 billion.

Consequently, even if all the Member States did not adopt the common currency, savings would still amount to some FF 200 billion a year, the figure quoted in February 1997. The October 1995 figure was based on estimates of GDP at the time that were subsequently revised.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the figure of 0.5% of Community GDP could be understated. According to a recent study by the IFO Institute ('Dismantling of barriers, intra-EU multicurrency costs', Munich, 1997), transaction costs amount to 1% of GDP, in which case the savings expected to accrue from their elimination would total FF 400 billion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Sugar subsidies granted to pharmaceutical companies

Why does the EU grant subsidies to pharmaceutical companies for the use of sugar in their products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 June 1997)

The arrangements introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986, laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry ((OJ L 94, 9.4.1986. )), reinforced the production refund rules which have applied in the Community in various forms throughout the period since the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector was set up in 1968.

Among the various improvements introduced by this Regulation was one to extend the scope of the rules to include all of the pharmaceutical products covered by Chapter 30 of the combined nomenclature. In doing so, the Council recognized the important outlet that the pharmaceutical industry represents for the Community's sugar markets which, as the Honourable Member is aware, are in surplus. For the latest 1995/1996 marketing year, for example, this outlet was responsible for 52 873 tonnes out of the total of 246 382 tonnes of sugar sector products on which production refunds were granted.

The production refunds enable, in particular, the pharmaceutical undertakings concerned to remain competitive with their counterparts located outside the Community. It should furthermore be borne in mind that sugar, because of its purity and other special properties, remains virtually the only possible raw material for use in the majority of pharmaceutical industry applications.

The Commission would also like to emphasize that the expenditure on the production refunds is borne by the beet growers and the manufacturers of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, through the twice-yearly payment of production levies which are collected in accordance with the self-financing rules applicable in the sugar sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Authorization for varieties

1. Is it true that if genetically modified plants are registered in the common list of varieties for agricultural plant varieties (70/457/EEC) ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1. )) (FN) and for seeds (70/458/EEC) ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. )) (FN) no further approval is required for these plants under the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) (FN)?

2. If this is the case, will only the labelling of such plants bed covered by the novel food regulation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2312/97 by Jorge Hernandez Mollar (PPE) to the Commission (3 July 1997)

Subject: Inclusion of Ceuta and Melilla in the euro design

Does the Commission intend to propose changing the design of the euro notes to ensure that the map includes not only the Canary Islands but also the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, which, as the Commission is aware, are Community territories marking the land borders of the Union in north Africa?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The proposed designs of the common face of the future euro coins, which were announced recently by the Council, are not definitive blueprints, but rather artistic impressions of the coins. The working group of mint directors has studied the technical aspects of the designs and concluded that the winning series is technically feasible. However, it will need certain slight modifications in order to be produced in line with the technical specifications for the coins which are being proposed. In addition, the map of Europe will be adjusted to ensure that all Member States are happy with the image of Europe on the coins.

A very similar procedure has been followed for the notes. The EMI Council presented the winning series of designs at the Dublin European Council in December 1996. However, certain technical specifications and the design of the map of Europe have been adjusted and the final form was accepted by the EMI Council in May 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Sport in Europe

With regard to budget heading B3-305: Sport in Europe for financial year 1995, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2248/97 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Reform of fine arts academies

Students at fine arts academies in Italy have formed a national committee in order to lobby vigorously for their diplomas to be granted degree status so that on completion of their studies they may attend special schools or enter the teaching profession as their counterparts elsewhere in Europe are able to do.

Given that the Italian Government has not yet replied to their demands, will the Commission press the Italian Government to implement the decree adopted two years ago by the Committee on Culture of the Chamber of Deputies dealing with university reforms for Italian academies and conservatories and designed to remove the conditions effectively penalizing Italian students vis-à-vis their counterparts in other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

Under Article 126 of the EC Treaty, the Community contributes to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.

Consequently, the Member States are wholly responsible for dealing with such matters as levels of study and the recognition or academic equivalence of diplomas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/97 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: EU subsidies for British whisky

How does the Commission justify EU subsidies of ECU 40 million per annum to the whisky industry in Great Britain?

Were any subsidies granted in 1996?

If so, how much?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992. )) provides for refunds to be granted so that cereals can be exported, either unprocessed or in the form of certain goods not covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty. These refunds make up the difference between the price of cereals on the Community market and on the world market respectively. The criteria for granting the refunds are adjusted to the extent necessary to take account of the processes involved in manufacturing certain spirits made from cereals which require a long ageing period. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93 lays down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks ((OJ L 258, 16.12.1993. )).

The export refunds on barley in the form of whisky produced in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain have fallen considerably and in 1996 amounted to only ECU 8.27 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Imports of protected animal species from Poland to Belgium

On 12 February 1997 German frontier police discovered an illegal consignment of animals en route from Poland via Germany to Belgium. The consignment mainly concerned Siberian goldfinches (Carduelis carduelis major), a subspecies of the European finches. The carrier of the birds was employed by a Belgian dealer.

1. Is the Commission aware of the case described above?

Is it aware of comparable cases? Are such cases automatically referred to the Commission and does it keep statistics?

If not, will the Commission take steps to obtain such information in future so that it can bring actions against the Member State concerned if necessary, in relation to complaints or infringements of the Treaty?

2. Does the Commission consider that the checks undertaken at the external and internal frontiers of the European Union or its Member States are sufficient to ensure success in preventing illegal movements of protected animals?

If not, what practical steps will the Commission take to prevent such illegal trade in the future?

What steps has the Commission already taken or will it take to assist states bordering on the EU which are not yet members, or which are soon to become members, to establish and/or implement effective species protection legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 August 1997)

1. The Commission learned of this matter through the press. It has received no official communication on the subject. Indeed, Community law does not require the Member States to inform the Commission of this type of situation. Therefore no particular statistics have been kept by the Commission in this area.

2. (a) The Commission has no specific information in its possession on the checks actively carried out in this connection by the Member States at the Community's external frontiers. It should be pointed out that systematic checks of this type at the internal frontiers became unacceptable on completion of the internal market on 1 January 1993. However, the national authorities remain free to carry out checks on a random or spot basis.

(b) In the wake of Poland's request for accession the Commission has acquired a certain amount of information on the extent of approximation of Polish law to its Community counterpart. It would seem, as regards the 'birds' directive, that Polish law is very close to Community law. The LIFE assistance programme would seem to be the most appropriate in supporting that country's efforts towards the protection of nature.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2030/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Information task force - actions targeted towards women

Of the total 1996 expenditure on information actions targeted at women, what amount and what percentage of total expenditure was received by each of the fifteen Member States?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1997)

The total expenditure on information actions targeted at women in 1996 was ECU 1 579 367. ECU 1 420 862 (89,96%) were spent on the financing of central activities benefiting all Member States, and therefore it is impossible to calculate individual spending for each Member State.

The remaining ECU 158 505 were spent by representations of the Commission in the Member States for specific information for women, in the following ways:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Varieties directive

1. In the event of authorization for a plant variety pursuant to the varieties directive which does not require approval pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )), is labelling of this variety - which is required pursuant to the novel food directive - guaranteed in the case of sale of seeds?

2. How is this labelling maintained if the seed is passed on or if seedlings are sold (e.g. special packages or stickers in the case of sale to private or commercial users)?

3. Is the intention to revise the varieties directive so as to guarantee labelling pursuant to the novel food regulation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 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-2046/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Community financial assistance for ECAS

On 5 and 6 May 1997, ECAS (Euro Citizen Action Service) organized a seminar in Brussels on European citizenship.

Did the Commission provide any financial assistance for the organization of this seminar, and if so, what amount was involved?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (8 September 1997)

The Commission made a financial contribution of ECU 26 200 to the organisation of the Conference on EU Citizenship by the Euro Citizen Action Service (ECAS) on 5 and 6 May 1997. This Commission contribution covered 50% of the total cost of the seminar, which focused on the central role of the citizen, one of the Community's information priorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Form and content of labelling

1. What form will the labelling take for goods sold loose (e.g. fruit and vegetables)?

2. What form will the labelling take for processed goods, which consist largely of products for which labelling is obligatory (e.g. preserved products and tomato concentrate)?

3. What form will the labelling take for processed goods which consist only to a limited extent of products for which labelling is obligatory (e.g. ready meals with many additives)?

4. Have any proposals already been made for the form of labelling for the products under 1, 2 and 3, and what information is to be provided in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2617/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (18 July 1997)

Subject: Commission anti-dumping investigations into unbleached cotton (greycloth) imports

In light of the uncertainty created by repeated anti-dumping investigations into greycloth imports, which has undoubtedly contributed to the loss of jobs in the Greater Manchester area, will the Commission indicate why it is again investigating essentially the same complaints as have already been rejected by the Council of Ministers' anti-dumping committee?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

Although the Commission realises the burden of an investigation for the interested parties, it is bound by Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Communities ((OJ L 56, 6.3.1996. )) to open an investigation when there is sufficient evidence to justify initiating a proceeding. Due to the objective criteria set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 for the initiation of anti-dumping

proceedings, the Commission is limited to assessing the evidence contained in the complaint. In the present case, since facts reported in the complaint constituted evidence of injurious dumping, the Commission was obliged to open a new proceeding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2279/97 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Informing the elderly about the arrival of the euro

The elderly are more concerned than others about the euro. There are two reasons for this: firstly, there are the many changes concerning methods of payment which have already occurred over recent years (for example, the rapid spread of electronic payment); secondly, the fear that the arrival of the euro will have a negative effect on provisions for old age, such as pensions.

1. Is the Commission of the opinion that the elderly are a group eligible for specific targeting concerning the introduction of the euro?

2. If so, does the Commission's information policy on the euro already take account of this? If not, does the Commission feel that it should?

3. Is the Commission also of the opinion that such information can best be provided in cooperation with organizations for elderly people in the Member States?

4. Finally, does the Commission have any plans to conduct such an information policy in future in cooperation with organizations for elderly people?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

1. Yes. The Commission feels that the elderly are a sensitive target group for information about the changeover to the euro. For that reason, following the round table which it organised on the practical aspects of the introduction of the euro, it instructed a specific working party to consider the tangible effects of the changeover to the euro on 'fragile categories', in particular, the elderly. The results of this work will be published next spring and will be submitted to Parliament.

2. Accordingly, a specific approach to information, training and communication will be implemented from 1998 onwards in order to allay fears and answer the questions which the elderly are asking themselves about the replacement of their national currency by a European currency.

3. As part of its decentralised information policy, it goes without saying that a partnership should be established with organisations for the elderly in the Member States.

4. Member States should involve partners in national projects. For its part, the Commission, with Parliament's support, will try to work in partnership with organisations and associations for the elderly which present eligible transnational projects with a European dimension.