ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: The Cumulative Recovery System and the United States

The proposals regarding the introduction of the Cumulative Recovery System for the importation of husked rice into the Community seem to have originated in the Commission's concern to meet the demands of the United States.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it agrees that this is so?

2. whether it does not consider that the demands made by the United States in fact mean that conditions are set on the Union's decisions, thereby seriously compromising the possibility of Community policy operating smoothly?

3. why it is not, on the other hand, showing any interest in ensuring full compliance with Article 39 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 May 1997)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 703/97 of 18 April 1997 introduces a cumulative recovery system for determining certain import duties on rice for a trial period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998 ((OJ L 104, 22.4.1997. )).

The obligation to introduce such a system arises from the agreement concluded between the Community and the government of the United States in the form of an exchange of letters following the results of negotiations with certain third countries under Article XXIV.6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Indeed, the first paragraph of Annex II to Council Decision 95/591/CE of 22 December 1995 ((OJ L 334, 30.12.1995. )), which approves the above-mentioned agreement, stipulates that 'for the 1996/97 marketing year a cumulative recovery system for husked rice will be developed by the Commission in consultation with the United States Government and introduced on a trial basis'.

The Commission therefore adopted the Regulation in question to enable the Community to fulfil the obligations contracted under the above-mentioned international agreement.

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that it never forgets, in the exercise of its activities, to uphold the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1890/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 June 1997)

Subject: Food additives other than colours and sweeteners

The 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners' (COM(96) 0303 final - 96/0166 COD) ((OJ C 76, 11.3.1997, p. 34. )) is intended to introduce certain new categories of foodstuffs in which additives that are already permitted may be used. In fact, by the time the deadlines set for transposing the directive have expired these categories, though already on the market, could have been banned, while the Member States would have lost the opportunity of altering the lists or the rules on the use of additives on their own initiative.

The proposal also takes account of the recent evaluations of the Scientific Committee for Food, which supported the use of certain new additives.

Will the Commission ensure that amendments which only involve alterations at the level of implementation are adopted by means of a committee procedure, with the participation of the Scientific Committee for Food, after prior consultations with the different socio-economic groups represented on the Scientific Committee for Food?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1889/97 and E-1890/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)

In accordance with Directive 89/107/EEC, the framework directive on food additives, the list of additives the use of which is authorized to the exclusion of all others and the list of foodstuffs to which these additives may be added, the conditions under which they may be added and where appropriate, a limit on the technological purpose of their use must be adopted by the Parliament and the Council in accordance with the co-decision procedure laid down by Article 189b of the EC Treaty.

In its recent green paper on the general principles of food law in the European Union ((COM(97) 176. )), the Commission has explicitly drawn attention to the difficulties in updating the rules on additives to take account of technical and scientific progress, and has invited comments from all interested parties on this question. These comments will be considered in the light of the institutional and intergovernmental discussions in progress and may lead the Commission to bring forward proposals to simplify the relevant procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1805/97 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: EU levy on Cassava products

Would the Commission explain the somewhat high levy that is placed upon the cassava products listed below.

- Cassava dough 1901909999 / additional code 7010

- Cassava flour 1901909975 / additional code 7015?

Companies operating in my constituency are confused as to why the rate should be so high for these products.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

Processed agricultural products not covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty are subject to a trade regime established by Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 ((OJ L 318, 20.12.1993. )) laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products. The regime aims to safeguard the commercial and agricultural policies of the Community.

At import and like numerous other processed agricultural products subject to the regime, food preparations containing cassava falling under code 1901 90 99 of the combined nomenclature are subject to a duty comprising two parts - an ad valorem rate corresponding to industrial protection and a specific amount corresponding to the protection necessary for agricultural reasons.

In accordance with the objectives of the common agricultural policy the specific amount takes account of the quantities of agricultural raw materials used in manufacture. It is based upon the duties applied to imports of the relevant raw materials in the natural state. The raw material import duties for cassava flour, cassava starch, potato starch and maize starch are identical.

All the specific amounts which form part of the duty applied to processed agricultural products including food preparations containing cassava falling under code 1901 90 99 of the combined nomenclature were bound in the General agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay Round settlement. These bindings were based upon the average of the levies applied over the period 1986 to 1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1279/97 by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Council (10 April 1997)

Subject: Implementing provisions and the intergovernmental conference

Is it possible that changes to the Treaty arising from the intergovernmental conference will affect the current formulation of implementing provisions governing restrictions on travel and residence within the Community for nationals of the Member States?

Would the existing directives on residence then be automatically repealed, or, if not, will the Court of Justice be able to make the provisions directly applicable and thus repeal the implementing directives?

Answer (6 August 1997)

The Council is not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member's question regarding the course taken by the Intergovernmental Conference, since it does not fall within the Council's competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B4-3201 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/97 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Use of EAGGF budgets

In 1996 the Valencia Region programmed a series of measures on the basis of Programme 714.50 - EAGGF intervention and agricultural guarantee.

Can the Commission supply information about the use of these resources in 1996?

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

No 'Programme 714.50 - EAGGF intervention and agricultural guarantee' appears in the 1996 budget against either the Guarantee or Guidance Sections of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. The Commission is therefore unable to reply to the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/97 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Review of anti-dumping measures concerning imports of potassium chloride from the CIS states

In 1995 the Commission began the inquiry provided for as part of the interim review of anti-dumping duties on imports of potassium chloride from the CIS. These duties were originally scheduled to expire in 1999. The Alsatian potassium carbonate industry and the European potassium carbonate industry as a whole are concerned that, if the five-year time limit is not adhered to, prices will stagnate or even fall.

In the light of the discussions initiated by Sir Leon Brittan with a view to ensuring that greater account is taken of the 'Community interest' during anti-dumping inquiries, what steps does the Commission intend to take with regard to potassium chloride?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The review of anti-dumping measures affecting imports of potassium chloride from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine was initiated on 5 August 1995 in response to a request from the Russian exporter, the International Potash Company, which is a joint venture between Russian and Belarusian mining companies.

The review is confined to the issues of dumping and Community interest. On-the-spot inquiries into both have been completed and the Commission is now finalising its calculations and conclusions.

As regards the timetable, a proposal should be presented to the Council at the beginning of September.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2292/97 by Giacomo Santini (UPE) to the Commission (26 June 1997)

Subject: Market concentration in the industrial batteries sector

On 31 May 1997 the EXIDE Verwaltungs GmbH Group of Buedingen, a company descended from the EXIDE Corporation based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, which is a world leader in the industrial batteries sector, accounting for 35% of the market, acquired a 100% stake in the lead battery maker DETA Akkumulatorenwerk GmbH of Bad Lauterberg and MAREG Akkumulatoren GmbH of Duisburg.

This acquisition will lead to a further concentration of the market in this sector, with the result that the (already unacceptable) oligopoly will now verge on a monopoly. In 1996 the EXIDE Group had a turnover of around $2.3 billion, of which $1.6 billion was in the EU, and recently acquired two of the leading European battery producers, TUDOR and CEAG, as well as acquiring many other companies in the past few years.

Does the Commission not believe that it should investigate whether this operation is creating a dominant market position and inform the supervisory authority in Germany, the competent Community institutions and the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

The operation mentioned by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Commission's jurisdiction under the Community competition rules, in particular Council Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )). The acquired companies do not achieve the turnover threshold of 250 MECU at Community level as established by the Regulation, thus the concentration does not have the dimension required to fall under the Community merger rules.

Consequently, the national antitrust authorities, and in particular for the present case the Bundeskartellamt in Germany, have jurisdiction on the concentration. The Commission is aware that the Bundeskartellamt has started an examination procedure, now in progress, whereby customers and competitors of the companies concerned have been requested to submit their comments on the operation. If the Honourable Member wishes to pursue his request further, the Commission suggests that he contacts the German authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1952/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Information campaigns - the EURO

What amount of funding has the United Kingdom received for use in developing public information campaigns surrounding Economic and Monetary Union? How and why does this amount differ to that received by other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

Over ECU 200 000 has been authorised for specific economic and monetary union (EMU) euro-related projects in the United Kingdom, mainly in response to requests from the non-governmental sector. However, the former British government decided that a national information campaign on this subject was inappropriate in advance of a decision by the United Kingdom to join EMU, and the Commission has been careful to respect that decision. In other Member States, however, the Commission has been pleased to enter into joint actions with governments to provide information.

This accounts for the difference in size of the funding allocated to the United Kingdom and the other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/97 by Manuel Porto (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Unilateral deviation from the Uruguay Round Agreement

International trade must be based on clearly established rules which are complied with. This is the only way that economic operators can safely plan their activities.

In particular, the countries of the European Union made a great effort, during the Uruguay Round, to be open to textile and clothing imports, despite being aware that hundreds of thousands of jobs were at stake. It therefore agreed on a gradual process which would allow for the planning of the necessary restructuring and conversion.

How is it now conceivable to go back on what was agreed? In particular, how is it conceivable to decide unilaterally whether to comply with an agreement, to the detriment of poorer countries and regions, for the purpose of gaining certain advantages for the exports of richer countries and regions?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)

The Commission has had difficulties in determining the specific instances of alleged non-compliance with the Uruguay Round agreement to which the Honourable Member refers. If, however, the question concerns Council Regulation (EC) Nr. 824/97 of 29 April 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) Nr. 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries ((OJ L 119/97 of 8.5.1997. )), and the reasons that have led the Commission to propose that regulation, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the reply it has given to written question nr. 218/97 by Mr. Novo ((OJ C 217 of 17.7.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Charitable status

Has the Commission any plans to introduce EU-wide legislation on the criteria for charitable status?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2041/97 and E-2043/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1997)

The Commission does not intend to promote Community legislation concerning specifically the creation of a Europe wide register of charitable organisations or the establishment of common criteria for the registration of these organisations in the Member States.

Nevertheless, in order to help organisations to operate outside their own national borders, without making a distinction on whether they have a charitable or any other objective of general or special interest, the Commission has submitted to the Council a proposal for a regulation on the statute for a European non-profit volunteer association ((Ammended proposal for a Council regulation (EEC) on the statute for a European association non-profit or voluntary organisation, OJ C 236, 31.8.1993 )). This requires Member States to ensure first that a full legal capacity is granted to all European non-profit organisations incorporated pursuant to the regulation and second that a notice is published in the Official journal stating that a European association has been incorporated in a Member State and giving information on its identity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Standby consumption

1. What is the standby consumption of electronic equipment in the EU?

2. What possible improvements can the Commission envisage?

3. Does the Commission consider that projects for technical improvement deserve support?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (4 August 1997)

1. The Commission has carried out several studies to estimate the annual standby energy consumption of electronic equipment in the domestic and commercial sectors. The annual standby electricity consumption of electronic equipment in gigawatt hours (GWh) is as follows:

>TABLE>

(1) This is about 3.5% of the total Community annual electricity consumption.

2. The standby consumption of electronic equipment can be considerably reduced. The technology to reduce standby consumption for each of the above products is well known and in some cases already used, although it represents an extra manufacturing cost. The Commission has concentrated its initial efforts on TVs and VCRs as these are responsible for a large part of this consumption in the domestic sector. The average standby consumption of a TV set is 8 watts and of a VCR is 10 Watts. The Commission has therefore negotiated with TV and VCR manufacturers a voluntary commitment to reduce progressively the average stand-by consumption to less than 3 Watts. For the other electronic equipment the Commission is evaluating the technical and economic potential for reduction of the standby consumption and the best measures to achieve this. For office equipment the Commission is also considering a voluntary labelling programme on a world-wide basis.

3. The Commission considers a priority area of action the reduction of standby consumption of electronic equipment. However technologies to achieve low standby consumption are already available for electronics equipment. Therefore, the Commission does not believe that technical projects in this area need to be supported. However, the Commission believes that policies aimed to promote the penetration into the market of more energy efficient appliances need to be supported.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Projects funded in Spain under the EEA financial mechanism

What projects have been funded in Spain under the financial mechanism of the European Economic Area?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Honourable Member will find in the following table the list as at 15 May 1997 of projects part-financed by the financial mechanism of the European Economic Area (EEA) in Spain.

GRANTS

>TABLE>

INTEREST REBATES ON EIB LOANS

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2037/97 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission (16 June 1997)

Subject: Interreg II Programme for the Central and Southern Upper Rhine

In July 1996 the Commission approved the Southern Upper Rhine programme relating to six areas of action. Each of these areas was provided with an initial budget established by the Interreg II programme.

As certain areas generate more projects than others, some exceed their budgets while others are left with surplus resources.

Will the Commission approve an amendment to the programme to allow appropriations to be transferred between areas of action on the basis of currently established requirements?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

The rules on assistance under the Structural Funds provide for the possibility of making changes to such assistance on condition that the changes are justified and accepted by the monitoring committee concerned.

At its meeting on 2 June 1997 the Monitoring Committee for the Interreg II programme for the central and southern Upper Rhine decided to propose to the Commission a change involving the transfer of Community funds between areas of activity. The Commission is currently studying this proposal and will take a decision on it when the time comes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2027/97 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission (5 June 1997)

Subject: Drought and the grass premium

In areas of extensive stock-rearing in France, many livestock farmers have signed five-year agreements, which expire this year, under the 'grass premium' agro-environmental measure.

Under these agreements, farmers are prohibited from reducing any acreage covered by them which is still under grass.

Would it be possible, by way of exception, to authorize livestock farmers who are suffering from drought to withdraw some acreage from their agreements in 1997 so as to plant it with fodder crops to feed their livestock?

Acreage thus withdrawn would not, of course, be eligible for 1997 premiums under agro-environmental measures.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )) specifies that farmers who sign agri-environmental contracts have to do so for at least five years.

While Article 12 of its implementing Regulation (EC) No 746/96 ((OJ L 102, 25.4.1996. )) provides for the existence of cases of force majeure, it is up to the Member States to evaluate them and note the specific cases of force majeure. These cases of force majeure thus recognized by the Member States have to be communicated to the Commission. In the case of France, the drought situations referred to were not included in the communication to the Commission.

It thus does not appear possible to exempt all the farmers in a region from the obligation to fulfil their obligations for the stipulated five-year period solely on the grounds of this weather phenomenon and without examination of the concrete circumstances of each recipient.

It should be noted that an agri-environmental commitment of at least five years is an essential condition of this scheme, which can be derogated from only exceptionally and in duly justified cases.