ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2939/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Reduced rate of VAT for property renovation

The Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. ))) of 17 May 1977 restricts application of the reduced rate of VAT, as regards the housing sector, to dwellings built or renovated within the framework of the social policy.

Does not the Commission think that the reduced-rate option should be extended to all housing renovation programmes given that, firstly, this type of activity is much more labour-intensive than new housing construction and, secondly, the renovation of old properties could help to facilitate the maintenance of rural areas?

Seen from these two points of view, might not housing renovation contribute to the implementation of the Agenda 2000 priorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1997)

The Commission will shortly present a report to the Council and to the Parliament which will - among other things - explain in detail its views on the use of reduced VAT rates as a targeted policy instrument (report from the Commission to the Council and to the Parliament in accordance with Article 12(4) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-over taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment). The report makes also explicit reference to the question put forward by the Honourable Member.

Generally speaking, the Commission is sceptical on the suitability of VAT as an instrument of labour or other policy, especially if compared to other, more direct and targeted policy measures. However, the suggestion put forward by the Honourable Member is currently re-examined by the Commission for application to specific test cases, against the background of its plan for a new common system of VAT.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3594/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: The umpteenth example of discrimination against an Italian citizen

The mayor of Aiseau/Presles has been treating an Italian citizen in an overbearing and racist way. The Italian has been living and working in the town since 1957 and has made a significant contribution to social life and sports there, as well as the integration of all residents of different nationalities, not just the Italian community.

The mayor has abused his authority by expropriating a piece of land belonging to Mr Scanderberg, which had been used free of charge by young footballers in the town. Without going into detail about the serious nature of the actions carried out by the mayor and the judicial authorities, I should mention that Mr Scanderberg has said on several occasions that he wanted the land to be used to build a sports centre which would enable all the young people in the town to find in sport and athletics a source of balanced cultural and social development.

In view of the judgment handed down by the Charleroi Court of First Instance on 14 July 1997, which satisfied Mr Scanderberg's requests, can the Commission prevail upon the Belgian authorities to safeguard the rights of Community citizens resident in the Kingdom of Belgium against any abuse?

Can the Commission also ask the Minister of the Interior to request clarification of the behaviour of the mayor of Aiseau/Presles vis-à-vis a Community citizen, ask the Ministry of Justice to ascertain whether there have been infringements in the procedure followed by the judicial authorities in backing the mayor's action and to check whether he actually resorted to coercion to prevent Mr Scanderberg from regaining possession of an asset which rightly belongs to him?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3322/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Threat posed to the unique natural salmon stock in the Teno-joki (Tana) river by the Norwegians' proposals for salmon farms

The Norwegian State has granted licences, against the recommendations of the regional environmental authorities and the Finnish-Norwegian border waters commission, for the rearing of significant quantities of salmon in bag-shaped enclosures in the Tana Fjord.

By permitting the rearing of salmon in such enclosures in the Tana Fjord the Norwegian State has shown great irresponsibility. The farming of salmon in these enclosures in the Tana Fjord increases the risk of spreading salmon diseases and impairing the quality of the genome of the naturally occurring Teno-joki salmon. The destruction of the natural salmon stock would have incalculable consequences for the whole of the Teno-joki valley.

What measures does the Commission propose taking to prevent the environmental risk posed by Norwegian salmon - whose market share is after all the largest in the EU - to the valley of the Teno-joki flowing into the Tana Fjord?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-2907/97 by Mrs Hautala ((See page 35. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (16 September 1997)

Subject: Harassment of the 'European Peace Train' in Turkey

There have been numerous reports that those participating in the Musa Anser 'European Peace Train', which is campaigning for an end to the oppression of the Kurdish people by the Turkish authorities, have faced police harassment and intimidation.

Hundreds were detained after a recent peace rally in Istanbul, a peace convoy of seven coaches has been stopped in Urfa while en route to Diyarbakir, and delegates who alighted from the convoy to go to a service station near Birecik were reportedly attacked by the police, with three of them requiring treatment for injuries.

A report dated 2 September 1997 indicated that the peace convoy had been forced to return to Istanbul, that the participants are not being allowed to stop at service points and that they have to follow the police escort at all times.

Additionally, there have been reports of harassment of human rights activists in Diyarbakir. Two British activists, including Michael Feeney, the adviser to Cardinal Basil Hume on refugees, have effectively been held under house arrest in their hotel.

Has the Council been in contact with the Turkish authorities about the incidents referred to above? What action does it propose to take?

Answer (22 December 1997)

The Council regrets the incidents referred to by the Honourable Member and would stress that it attaches the greatest importance to respect for human rights and democracy in Turkey and has no hesitation about condemning any abuses in this area in its contacts with the Turkish authorities.

In the case of the peace envoy, the President of the Council brought up the matter of the treatment of this convoy, on 1 September 1997 in Ankara. The Turkish Government justified such treatment, including the refusal to allow the convoy access to Ankara, on grounds of public order. There is no doubt that the Turkish authorities have handled this whole affair badly. They are aware of the legitimate consternation which their action has prompted in the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3192/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

Is the Commission aware of the Turkish Interior Ministry document (number BO50HID0000073/472), dated January 1997, which sets forth a programme for impeding the activities of NGOs reporting on human rights?

This document suggests: 'Parliamentarians, men of religion, representatives of the press and in particular members of NGOs such as International Human Rights and Amnesty International who may come from abroad with the aim of collecting progaganda material should be steered appropriately and followed, and advantage should be taken of the Diyarbakir Press Office to this end.'

In the light of its recent communication calling for cooperation with Turkish NGOs working for improvements in human rights, what assurances does the Commission have that this is no longer the policy of the Turkish government?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2998/97 ((OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 124. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3194/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Road tax harmonization

Can the Commission confirm whether or not it has any plans to introduce EU-wide toad taxes using harmonization powers?

Can it also confirm reports that the funds raised from such a tax would be channelled into road improvements?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1997)

In July 1996 the Commission made a proposal for a directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures ((OJ C 59, 26.2.1997. )) laying down a more refined and harmonised road charging system (including vehicle taxes, road tolls and user charges) than that currently applying under the Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures ((OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )). The 1996 proposal is currently being examined in the Council and in the Parliament.

The Commission has considered that the use of the revenue from vehicle taxes and charges, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, is for the Member States to decide and need not be earmarked for investment in transport infrastructure. However, given the need to find adequate resources for the development of an efficient and environmentally friendly transport system and to better link charges with costs, the Commission is reflecting on whether new pricing instruments should gradually replace existing taxes and charges and on how resulting revenues might be reserved for infrastructure development. Any changes that were proposed as a result of these deliberations would, of course, still have to conform to the principle of subsidiarity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3092/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Medical treatment options for persons severely injured by chemicals

1. Are research funds made available in the individual countries of the EU to investigate illnesses caused by chemicals?

If not, why not, particularly in view of the fact that such research is being stepped up in the United States?

If so, what is the amount of research funding being made available?

2. Are these research funds allocated to independent institutes?

3. Does industrial funding reach these research projects?

4. In which European country is sensitivity to chemicals recognized as a severe disability, as in the United States?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

1. - 3. The Commission is not informed whether, beyond the matching funds provided by the participants in Community research projects, research funds are being made available by public or private bodies in the Member States to investigate illnesses caused by chemicals. Nor is it in a position, therefore, to provide answers as to the sources and allocation of such funding in the Member States.

Under the Community research programme on biomedicine and health ((OJ L 361, 31.12.1994. )), and particularly in the area of occupational and environmental health, projects are being funded which relate to illness caused by chemical products. The Biomed 2 occupational health budget totals ECU 11 million.

Since Community funds cover only a part of project costs, the remaining funding is provided by the participants. Such research is supported following open calls for proposals and evaluation by independent experts. All legal entities (undertakings, research centres and universities) ((Council Decision of 21.11.1994 concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in RTD and demonstration activities of the EC (OJ L 306, 30.11.1994). )) in the Community and associated states may apply.

4. Chemical hyper-reactivity is an unexplained heightened response to chemicals at levels far lower than those at which most people respond and is often called (or associated with) multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), sick building syndrome (SBS) or chemical hypersensitivity. There is a lack of compelling scientific evidence concerning the relationship between exposure to specific agents and health effects.

The Commission is aware that some Member States keep exposure or event-specific information for industrial, occupational and domestic environments or consumer product-based cases. Other Member States have patient-specific information which is not published, but can be used to stimulate discussion or suggest hypotheses for scientific work.

The Commission is not aware of Member States assigning the status of disability to conditions described with terms such as MCS.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3370/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Opening of a quarry in the Pittolo area

Is the Commission aware that a quarry is due to be opened in the Pittolo area, in the province of Piacenza, right next to houses and food shops?

This will have obvious environmental repercussions, in addition to the inconvenience it will cause to the local population, and its adverse effects in terms of noise pollution and traffic disruption.

Does the Commission intend to check that these plans do not contravene the relevant European legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

The Commission was not aware of the matters referred to by the Honourable Member.

It will approach the Italian authorities for their comments and ensure that Community law is observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2426/97 by José Happart (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Follow up concerning the responsibilities attributed in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE

It was shown that Mr Marchant, Mr Bradley and Mr Hoelgaard had responsibility in various ways for the spread of this disease.

Are these people still in their original jobs at the Commission?

What is their current situation (grade, job and responsibilities)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

Since 1 September 1997, Mr Hoelgaard, of Danish nationality, has been the Director for the organisation of markets in crop products in the Directorate-General for Agriculture.

Since 1 October 1997, Mr Marchant, of British nationality, an A/4 member of the temporary staff with a contract of unspecified duration, has been working in unit D-2 of the Directorate-General for the Environment.

Mr Bradley is a British scientist who works in the pathological department of the central veterinary laboratory in New Haw (United Kingdom) and who was a member of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. Mr Bradley was never employed by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Grape juice promotion campaign in the European Union

It is common knowledge that the European Commission is to finance a new campaign to promote grape juice in five Member States, with a total budget of ECU 6.4 million (ECU 2 million for Germany, 1.7 million for France, 1.5 million for Spain, 0.6 million for Austria and the same amount for the Netherlands).

This funding will provide additional income for the grape and wine producers in those five countries, allowing them to use up any production surpluses and thus reduce the quantities sent for distillation.

No information was given about extending this campaign to other Member States, particularly Portugal.

This being so, can the Commission say whether the funding for this new campaign to promote grape juice is designed to support those five countries only or whether it may be extended to other Member States?

If so, does the Commission know whether Portugal has submitted any actual applications?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1997)

According to Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3461/85 of 9 December 1985 on the organisation of campaigns to promote the consumption of grape juice ((OJ L 332, 10.12.1985. )), Community campaigns to promote grape juice may be organised in those Member States in which:

- the prospects of increasing the disposal of grape juice are the most favourable;

- the existing marketing conditions allow swift adjustment of supply to the expansion of demand engendered by the campaigns.

Article 1(2) stipulates that the management committee procedure is to be followed each year to determine:

- the Member States in which the campaigns will be carried out;

- the total amounts allocated for the financing of the campaigns in each of the said Member States.

Until now, Portugal has never expressed an interest in carrying out promotional campaigns in this sector. Of course, if Portugal meets the above-mentioned conditions and if it so requests, it can benefit from Community financing in future marketing years.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3402/97 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Activities not covered by the working time Directive

1. The Commission White Paper (COM(97) 334) on sectors and activities excluded from the working time directive (93/104/EC) ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18. )) makes it clear that non-mobile staff in the transport sector are not covered by the general directive. Is the Commission aware that this distorts competition between the transport sector as such and companies dealing with transport matters?

2. Can the Commission explain in detail whether it takes the view that it is reasonable for example for a shipping clerk in the transport department of an industrial concern to be covered by the working time Directive while a shipping clerk employed in the transport department of a company in the transport sector is not?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take to remedy this situation by putting competition on an equal footing and improving conditions for employees in the transport sector?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1997)

In the white paper on sectors and activities excluded from Council Directive 93/104/EC of 22 February 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Commission does indeed state (paragraph 14) that 'the way in which the exclusions are drafted has been interpreted as implying that all workers in the transport ... sectors are excluded from the scope of the Directive, even those who perform sedentary tasks'. The white paper goes on to say that the Commission considers that this should be clarified, as there is no objective reason why 'non-mobile' employees should be treated differently from employees carrying out similar tasks in other industries.

The white paper states (paragraph 17) that 'while the objective is to protect health and safety, the Commission is sensitive to the effect of possible distortions of competition and the imperatives of ensuring transport safety, and this is why an integrated approach to the implementation of the Community's transport and social policies is favoured in this white paper'.

In order to remedy this situation, the Commission is proposing, inter alia, to extend the full provisions of Directive 93/104/EC to all non-mobile workers, while making any appropriate adjustments to the derogations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3015/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union

With reference to the Commission Communication on the nuclear industries in the European Union (an illustrative nuclear programme according to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty) (COM(96) 0339 final) (CES 470/97), nuclear energy, which today provides a third of the EU's electricity supplies, has a number of major environmental advantages over fossil fuels for the production of electricity, for example the lack of CO2 emissions. However, extensive systems are needed to ensure the safety of nuclear operations.

Widespread public fears, the deregulation and exposure to competition of markets which had enjoyed protection in most Member States (resulting in long-term, high-level capital investment) and the availability of natural gas at competitive prices for use in smaller, more efficient and less costly power stations, are decisive factors making it highly unlikely, on the basis of current information, that nuclear energy will continue to be produced after 2005-2010, when the existing nuclear power plants in most Member States will cease to operate. This prospect raises serious strategic questions for the EU's energy policy.

The failure to illustrate the importance of these strategic questions in the document and to make an adequate assessment of the probable impact on the EU's energy policy are serious omissions.

Will the Commission specifically address these questions in the final version of its illustrative nuclear programme, produce clear conclusions and provide an indication of the future situation for the interested parties and the public?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The Commission adopted the definitive version of the illustrative nuclear programme on 25 September 1997 ((COM(97) 401 final. )).

The Commission notes that natural gas now seems to be an attractive means of producing electricity and, as a result, apart from two nuclear plants under construction in France, there are no further known plans to build nuclear power plants in the Community.

In the current illustrative nuclear programme, the Commission felt that it was inappropriate to put forward long-term investment programmes given the uncertainties concerning the future of nuclear power in some Member States.

However, if there is renewed political agreement within the Community in favour of nuclear power, it may be necessary to re-establish longer-term objectives.

It should be pointed out that after 2010, replacement programmes for existing nuclear stations may be established by Member States which wish to replace power plants due to be decommissioned by new advanced reactors or new reactor systems. However, such decisions are not foreseeable at the present time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3307/97 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Budget item on growth and employment

In the 1997 budget (heading B-040), the amount of ECU 25 000 000 is being held in reserve for the ELISE programme, the European loan guarantee scheme for employment. The Council has not however as yet succeeded in reaching common agreement on the ELISE programme, mainly because the Austrian, Netherlands and German governments consider that the scheme conflicts with the subsidiarity principle and exposes their own schemes to unfair competition.

What will happen to the ECU 25 000 000 held in the reserve? Will the money be used for initiatives in the spirit of the growth and employment budget item (B5-322)? Or will it go to combat swine fever, as has been claimed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1997)

The ECU 25 million entered in the reserve for the Growth and employment budget heading was included in the omnibus transfer (transfer No 47/97) intended to rebalance appropriations at the end of this year. It is proposed that a total amount of ECU 65.5 million be transfered within heading 3 (Internal policies) without there being an individual link between the reductions and increases of the different headings. However, ECU 26 million from the omnibus transfer has been allocated to absorb the negative reserve of the Fourth Framework Research Programme.