ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0225/98 by Pertti Paasio (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Commemoration day for concentration camp victims

In the great changes in world history, it is more and more becoming the role of the European Union to stress the importance of democracy and human rights. To give it credibility in this important area, the European Union must not forget its own history, in which respect for human rights was not always uppermost. The fate of the millions of victims of the Nazi concentration camps is an abiding reminder of this.

Even from within the European Parliament, opinions have been heard describing the concentration camps and the millions of lives lost there as a minor detail. The European Union should oppose in the clearest possible terms the dissemination of this kind of opinion among the people of Europe. For this reason it would be desirable for the European Union to appoint a special commemoration day for the victims of the Nazi concentration camps.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to announce the institution within the EU of a historically-based commemoration day for concentration camp victims?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (16 March 1998)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Ban on drift net fishing in the Baltic Sea

Naturally occurring salmon is an endangered species in the Baltic Sea area. National measures to protect it are not enough. Some 70% of the Baltic salmon catch is taken from the areas in which the salmon feed, in the main Baltic basin where the principal method of fishing is with driftnets.

Driftnet fishing is an indiscriminate method, which traps indigenous as well as cultivated salmon. As a result of the low level of indigenous salmon stocks (only every 10th or 20th salmon is of the indigenous variety), driftnet fishing constitutes a long-term structural threat which may at any moment vitiate any further efforts to boost indigenous salmon stocks.

Does the EU have plans to ban fishing with driftnets in the Baltic Sea as elsewhere?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member for the wild salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea area. While there are indications of improvement, the wild stocks continue to need special protection measures and, on the initiative of the Community, a 'salmon action plan 1997-2010' was adopted by the International Baltic sea fisheries commission in February 1997. The plan offers new possibilities, but in order to meet the objective of achieving a natural production of at least 50% of the potential capacity of wild salmon rivers by the year 2010, all fisheries need to be considered.

Concerning the issue of driftnet fishing by Community vessels, the Commission's proposal of April 1994 included prohibition of the use of drift-nets in the Baltic Sea subject to a transitional phase. The proposal has however not yet been adopted as a qualified majority could not be established in the Fisheries Council.

The proposal is still on the table and the Commission is appreciative of the efforts by the United Kingdom Presidency to establish a compromise solution that will be acceptable to all. The Commission will participate in the discussions in a constructive manner and will continue its effort regarding Community driftnet fishing in the Baltic Sea.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0455/98 by Carlo Secchi (PPE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Change in the delimitation of the mountain areas of the mountain community of Lario Orientale

In 1995 the mountain community of Lario Orientale (Lecco) submitted a request to DG VI through the competent ministry to extend the delimitation of its mountain areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268 ((OJ L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1 )) (superseded by Regulation No 950/97 ((OJ L 142, 2.6.1997, p. 1 ))).

In March 1996 it forwarded the supplementary documentation requested by the Directorate-General.

According to the Commission it has not yet approved the procedure, albeit complete and entirely in conformity with the rules in force, because it is awaiting final consideration of the requests that have meanwhile been submitted by other Italian regions.

When does the Commission intend to take a final decision on requests such as that of the mountain community of Lario Orientale which were submitted a long time ago and have been acknowledged as valid in every respect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

The Commission has received a large number of requests to amend less-favoured areas relating to five Italian regions. For reasons of efficiency and in accordance with the procedures applied to other Member States, a decision was taken to deal with all the dossiers at the same time and to draw up an overall proposal for Italy. Each of the dossiers is being examined by the Commission and the technical analysis should be completed in the coming months. The formal decision will follow immediately afterwards.

The initial requests were frequently not very consistent, so additional information and maps were requested from the Italian authorities. Since the analysis of those dossiers covered technical criteria, its progress depends on the Italian authorities' answer being complete and precise.

With regard to the request relating to the Lecco commune, the requested amendment appears to be an extension of the delimitation of the mountain area. Part of the commune is already classified as mountain area. It is necessary to obtain for this commune and for the adjacent communes maps indicating accurately the areas already classified and those to be classified. This information was requested from the Italian authorities but they have not yet supplied it to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/98 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Council decision on the amended proposal for a directive on the approximation of the legal and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the advertising of tobacco products

1. Is it correct that under the market organization in tobacco in recent years Greece has repeatedly received more than its due in tobacco subsidies?

2. Is it correct that, as a result, Greece now owes as much as ECU 200 million in reimbursements?

3. Is it correct that, in connection with the proposed directive on the approximation of the legal and administrative provisions of the Member States with regard to the advertising of tobacco products, there are now plans to waive either a large proportion or the full amount of Greece's debt?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1998)

1. The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that since the 1992 reform of the market organisation in tobacco, Greece has only received those premiums it has been entitled to under Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/97 of 22 July 1997 fixing, for the 1997 harvest, the premiums for leaf tobacco by group of tobacco varieties ((OJ L 196, 24.7.1997. )), which have remained unchanged since 1995.

2. In recent years, Greece has been subject to financial corrections of ECU 82 million owing to irregular exports to Albania and Bulgaria between 1986 and 1991. These sums have been paid in full. No other financial corrections have been applied to Greece in the tobacco sector, and nor have any measures been adopted to recover undue payments as checks carried out so far have shown that Greece has complied with the substance of the rules adopted subsequent to the reform of the market organisation in tobacco.

3. No. There is no connection between Council discussions on the proposed directive on the advertising of tobacco products ((OJ C 129, 21.5.1992. )) and the common organisation of the market in tobacco.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0254/98 by John Corrie (PPE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Cattle deaths

The British Press has reported that 12 cattle imported into the United Kingdom have died from BSE.

Can the Commission say from which countries these cattle came and where they were born?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

The Commission has contacted the British authorities as a result of the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member, and has received the following information.

At 30 January 1998 bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) had been diagnosed in 13 cattle imported into the United Kingdom. The countries from which they came were Belgium (1), France (5), Ireland (1), Italy (3), Netherlands (2) and Canada (1). No information is available on their countries of birth.

The British authorities have indicated that if the period of time between importation and diagnosis suggests that an animal could have been infected at the time of importation, they would pursue the matter with the authorities of the exporting country. So far, they have not found this to be necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/98 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds 1994-1995

Can the Commission provide information on:

- the implementation, by country and by objective, of the Community support frameworks with respect to programming in 1997, and a summary of the period 1994-1997 by country (in line with the replies to my questions 1877/96 and 1991/97);

- the implementation with respect to the programming of Community initiatives in the period 1994-1997?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0128/98 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (22 January 1998)

Subject: Transport of calves and maximum weights

In the Commission's answer P-3757/97 ((OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 120. )) it is asserted, without documentary backing, that the best slaughter-calves with a live weight of 300 kg can yield a carcass weight above 160 kg.

Even if this is were correct, it would still be mathematically impossible to obtain an average of 162 kg for all calves of live weights below 300 kg.

On page 12 of the Commission's report, COM(97)165, there is a breakdown of calves for slaughter in the Netherlands from December 1996 to 1997 week/12. Column II shows calves which, regardless of the early marketing premium, would have been delivered in those weight groups, i.e. the breakdown for 1995. These 84 464 calves had an average weight of 118.7 kg.

If Column II is extrapolated to include weight groups up to 165 kg, it is mathematically impossible to distribute the remaining 284 150 calves delivered in the Netherlands over a sixteen week period among these weight groups so as to end up with a weighted average of 162 kg for these 368 614 calves. Even if the remaining 284 150 calves are assumed each to weigh 162 kg, the weighted average will still only be 154 kg.

As of course all other calves will not be delivered at 300 kg live weight and with 'good to excellent conformation' there must have been errors in the Dutch and Belgian returns to Eurostat.

1. Will the Commission give documentary evidence of the average carcass weight for calves whose live weight is less than 300 kg?

2. Will the Commission show the distribution of calves slaughtered in 1995 in the Netherlands and Belgium, broken down by weight groups?

3. If this is claimed to be impossible, will the Commission state the estimated distribution among the weight groups for the Netherlands and Belgium of slaughter calves which can produce an average weight of 162 kg?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1998)

Further to its answer of 13 February 1998 ((OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 120. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission takes note of the analysis provided by the Honourable Member in respect of weight references for calves.

Since the Council opted for Eurostat references in designing the general rules for the early marketing premium the Commission had to rely on information from Member States to its Statistical office. Within the category of calves, i.e. animal up to a maximum of 300 kilogrammes liveweight, information is provided on the total number of veal calves slaughtered and the total carcase weight of those calves.

The reported 1995 figures for the Netherlands were 1 198 000 calves equal to 193 900 tonnes while the corresponding figures in Belgium were 336 000 calves and 53 800 tonnes, equalling averages of 162 kilogrammes and 160 kilogrammes respectively.

In respect of the last two questions raised, the Commission does not receive statistical details from Member States which would enable it to establish the weight distributions requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/98 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Council (3 April 1998)

Subject: Abolition of border controls and derogations

How should Article 14 and Article 62 be construed in relation to each other and how does the Schengen Agreement's timetable for abolishing border controls take effect in relation to Articles 14 and 62?

What is the difference between the Danish derogation and the UK and Irish derogation from Article 14?

Does Denmark also have derogations from the provision concerning the abolition of border controls?

Does the derogation from Article 14 also apply to the Kingdom of Denmark?

Answer (4 June 1998)

As long as the Treaty of Amsterdam has not entered into force, the Council considers itself not a position to make statements concerning the meaning of articles introduced by that Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/98 by André Laignel (PSE) to the Council (16 March 1998)

Subject: Applying the 35-hour-week initiative throughout the European Union

Throughout the European Union, a reduction of the working week to 35 hours would clearly have a beneficial effect on employment, the quality of life of European citizens and equality of access to employment.

To that end, a clear and spontaneous undertaking by the Commission is essential. In what form and on what time scale does the Commission propose to act to harmonize social legislation in line with the best practice, particularly by establishing a legal working week of 35 hours in all countries of the European Union?

Answer (4 June 1998)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that the 1998 Employment Guidelines it adopted on 15 December 1997 ((OJ C 30, 28.1.1998, p. 1. )) include among their objectives encouraging adaptability in businesses and their employees, in particular by modernizing work organization. In that context the Council invites the social partners to negotiate, at the appropriate levels, agreements to help make undertakings productive and competitive so as to achieve the required balance between flexibility and security. The Guidelines specify that: 'Such agreements may, for example, cover the expression of working time as an annual figure, the reduction of working hours, the reduction of overtime, the development of part-time, lifelong training and career breaks.'

The Honourable Member will be aware that Article 118b of the Amsterdam Treaty, currently before Member States for ratification, provides that 'should management and labour so desire, the dialogue between them at Community level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements' and that such agreements are to be implemented at Community level at the joint request of the signatory parties by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission.

With respect to the issue to which the Honourable Member refers, concerning a reduction of the working week in the European Union to 35 hours, the Council would point out that it has received no proposal from the Commission on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0735/98 by Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Second request for an agreement on social security between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco

Following Written Question E-4012/96 ((OJ C 138, 5.5.1997, p. 165. )) requesting an agreement on social security between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco, the Commission stated its commitment to seeking the conclusion of such an agreement.

Although more than a year has passed, the agreement still has to be initialled and EU citizens working in the Principality of Monaco are encountering more and more obstacles. A particular problem is that faced by frontier workers who, after working in Italy, France and the Principality, are not able to aggregate their periods of contribution when claiming their pensions.

Italian frontier workers are further penalized in that, thanks to an agreement between France and the Principality, residents of the neighbouring communes in France are hired first, along with Monegasque citizens.

Does the Commission intend, in the near future, to conclude a cooperation or association agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco which includes arrangements in the social sector applying the Community coordinating rules laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. ))? What are the reasons for the delay?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1998)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties in obtaining social security benefits encountered by Community citizens moving to Monaco, taking account of the particular status of that country.

The Commission has studied the possibility of proposing an agreement of the same type as that envisaged in the case of San Marino. However, an agreement of this nature would go well beyond the framework of social security, and it has not yet been possible to draw up a proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0080/98 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Incineration of domestic waste

When will the Commission be publishing the draft directive on dioxin emissions from the incineration of domestic waste?

Can the Commission give details of the main proposals which will be contained in the draft directive?

Will the Commission be making any proposals to encourage more environmentally sustainable forms of waste management, especially recycling, reduction and reuse, over incineration and landfill?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission discussed with Member States experts a working paper on incineration of waste twice last year and on 26 February 1998. The adoption of a proposal for a Council directive on waste incineration is foreseen for autumn this year.

The aim of the envisaged directive on incineration of waste is to set strict emission limit values and operational conditions for installations which incinerate waste in dedicated incinerators or co-incinerate waste in plants with the main purpose of the generation of energy or production of material products.

In general the proposal would provide for the same requirements as Council Directive 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )), such as an emission limit value for dioxins of 0.1 nanogramme (ng) toxic equivalent (TEQ)/m3 and 0.05mg/m3 for mercury. Moreover, the proposal would apply an integrated approach. It could aim to prevent diversion of emissions from one media to the other. Therefore, it could set stringent emission limit values (ELVs) for waste water.

The policy of the Commission is that only waste that cannot be prevented or recovered by means of reuse or recycling should be incinerated. When waste is incinerated a high level of environmental protection should be assured.

In the communication from the Commission on the review of the Community strategy for waste management ((COM(96) 399 final. )), the hierarchy of principles of waste management policy, as established by the strategy document of 1989, was reconfirmed. In this hierarchy the first priority is given to prevention of the generation of waste, followed by the recovery of waste and finally by the safe disposal of waste. Implementation of this hierarchy is taken into account in all Commission initiatives in the field of waste policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0054/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Dramatic reduction in Community olive oil subsidies

Olive oil producers in Greece are in a very difficult economic position, following the decision to cut the Community support price from Drachma 457 a kilo to Drachma 301 a kilo.

This decision has driven producers to despair, since they will lose a total of some Drachma 180 billion in 1998, a loss which comes at a time when they are suffering an unprecedented fall in income, owing to the repeated austerity programmes implemented by Greek governments over the last few years. Their objective inability to replace olive oil production with some other product makes the situation even more complicated, and they increasingly feel that they are producing a product which does not enjoy the substantive support of the EU.

Will the Commission say precisely what measures it intends to take to support long-suffering Greek olive oil producers whose future will obviously be in jeopardy if the decision to cut the Community support price for olive oil is implemented?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

The common organisation of the market in olive oil lays down a system of production aid for olive oil, as follows:

- producers who exceed an average 500 kilograms of olive oil per marketing year are granted aid of ECU 142.20 per 100 kilograms, subject to reduction if there is an overrun of the maximum guaranteed quantity (MGQ), which is 1 350 000 tonnes;

- producers with average annual production under 500 kilograms are granted aid of ECU 151.48 per 100 kilograms and supplementary aid of ECU 3.574 per 100 kilograms. Small producers are not penalised by an overrun of the MGQ.

Clawbacks on are made on both types of production aid and allocated to work on establishing the olive cultivation register (2.4%), improving the quality of olive oil (1.4%) and running recognised producer organisations and associations of them (0.8%).

The cut in production aid to which the Honourable Member refers involves aid received by large-scale producers for output in the 1996/97 marketing year. According to the information in the Commission's possession, such producers represent around 25% of all olive growers in Greece.

Finally, we should not forget that this aid makes up only part of olive growers' incomes, since they are in fact paid for the olive oil that they sell.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0124/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Follow-up question on the school milk programme

Commissioner Fischler's answer of 17 December 1997 to my question (E-3130/97) ((OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 40. )), on the school milk scheme, is illogical. He states that the Commission does not wish its current scheme of subsidising full-fat milk products 'to influence those who benefit from the scheme in their choice of one dairy product as against another'.

To enable me to understand the Commissioner's reasoning, I should like to ask him a follow-up question:

On what does the Commission base its claim that subsidising full-fat milk products at the expense of low-fat products does not influence those who benefit from the scheme in favour of the former?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1998)

The amount of aid for different dairy products distributed under the Community school milk scheme is fixed taking into account the milk content of the products concerned. This results in a lower amount of aid for semi-skimmed milk compared with whole milk. However, in view of the higher retail price of the latter, the net price to be paid by the pupil is about the same for both types of products and should therefore, not influence the choice in favour of one or the other.