ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/97 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL), Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Carlos Carnero González (GUE/NGL) to the Council (27 May 1997)

Subject: Negotiations between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Saharauri Arab Republic

At the end of April 1997 Mr Baker, the UN Secretary-General's envoy to the Western Sahara, made a tour of North Africa in order to assess the future development of the conflict between Morocco and the Polisario Front. In connection with this tour the Polisario Front released 85 Moroccan prisoners as a gesture of goodwill.

What action is the Council planning to take in order to rescue the peace plan, to induce the conflicting parties to engage in serious negotiations, to allow a referendum to be held on self-determination for the Sahauri people and to ensure that Morocco respects human rights in the occupied areas and releases the 600 Sahauris who are considered to have 'disappeared'?

Answer (25 September 1997)

The Council welcomes the exploratory mission to the region that the UN Secretary-General Personal Envoy James Baker undertook from 23 to 28 April. It also welcomes the report of the UN Secretary-General on the situation concerning Western Sahara of 5 May and the adoption of the Security Council Resolution 1108(97) on 22 May extending the mandate of Minurso until 30 September 1997.

The Council continues to support the efforts aimed at holding a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in accordance with the Settlement Plan agreed between the two parties and approved by the United Nations Security Council.

The Council fully supports the UN Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy in their efforts to achieve a just and equitable solution to this dispute. In that context the Council welcomes the preliminary negotiations held in London on 11 and 12 June 1997, which enabled an initial round of direct talks to be held between the two sides in Lisbon on 23 and 24 June 1997. The Council urges the parties to cooperate with the Personal Envoy and looks forward to the Secretary-General's recommendations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B4-3200 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.

Supplementary 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 (19 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 5 May 1997 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 28. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B4-3209 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.

Supplementary 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 (19 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 5 May 1997 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 28. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2128/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Reporting

1. Will new or unmodified products which do not have to be authorized, pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )), be subject to a reporting obligation?

2. If not, how will national and EU authorities be informed of the market launch of such products?

3. How can these authorities test whether there is an obligation to label such products pursuant to the novel food regulation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2126/97, E-2128/97 and E-2130/97 (20 October 1997)

Article 3 (4) of Regulation No 258/97 on novel foods and novel food ingredients provides for a derogation form the authorization procedure laid down in that Regulation, where foods or food ingredients, on the basis of the scientific evidence available and generally recognized or on the basis of an opinion delivered by one of the competent bodies, are substantially equivalent to existing foods and food ingredients as regards their composition, nutritional value, etc.

Where necessary, it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13 of the Regulation whether a type of food or food ingredient falls under the derogation in question. The arrangements for notification of these products are laid down in Article 5 of the Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Use of antibiotics in animal feed

The following questions concern the use of antibiotics in feedingstuffs for livestock and fish used in meat and fish production.

1. What kinds of antibiotics does the Commission consider it justified to use in feedingstuffs for livestock and fish used in meat and fish production?

2. What is the Commission willing to do to reduce the use of antibiotics?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

1. The Commission informs the Honourable Member that it there no antibiotics which are permitted in the feeding of the fish. On the other hand, nine antibiotics are permitted as additives in the revenue animal feedingstuffs, namely zinc bacitracin, the spiramycine, the virginiamycin, the flavophospholipol, the tylosin phosphates, the sodium monensine, the sodium salinomycine, the avilamycin and the ardacine. These additives answer the authorization criteria fixed by the Directive 70/524/EEC on the additives in the animal feedingstuffs ((OJ L 270,14.12.1970. )). Some of these antibiotics are during revaluation, at the request of certain Member States, including Finland in particular.

2. The problem of the reduction of the use of the antibiotics is very broad and is not new. Since the adoption in 1970 of the directive on the additives, the Commission has reduced the number of the permitted antibiotics substantially, since half of those which were permitted at that date are no longer currently so, such as for example the tetracyclines which still are however permitted in as much as veterinary medicinal product.

In addition, the Directive 70/524/EEC has been amended several times since its adoption, in order to regulate in particular the channel of distribution of the antibiotics, to connect the authorizations of the additives to the manufacturer, to strengthen the guidelines for the evaluation of the additives in animal feed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Interception of data from the Commission's computer system

According to reports in the Belgium press, no action has been taken following the allegation that data from the Commission's computer system had been intercepted at the very time when negotiations were under way on the signing of the GATT Agreement.

These data concerned official EU positions on a series of questions connected with GATT and seem somehow to have fallen into the hands of the United States' representatives at the negotiations. Will the Commission say whether it is true that this highly critical information was intercepted, whether those responsible have been identified, and what sanctions have been or will be imposed in respect of an action which seriously undermines the Community's negotiating capacity?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2471/96 by Mrs Maij-Weggen ((OJ C 11, 13.1.1997. )), where it stated the Commission possesses no evidence, apart from press claims, on any of these allegations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulkation No 2587)7 - Submission of proof by applicants

Will it continue to be a requirement that manufacturers are obliged to forward to the monitoring authorities their demonstration systems, including samples, antibodies required for demonstration purposes, gene probes and extraction records etc.?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2188/97, E-2190/97 and E-2194/97 (28 October 1997)

Article 4(4) of the Regulation cited by the Honourable Member, with any supplements adopted in accordance with paragraph 5 or, where applicable, Article 3(4) or Article 9(1) of the Regulation, covers the information to be supplied in support of a request for the placing of products on the market.

This information does not prejudge implementation of the assessment procedures by the assessment bodies referred to in Article 4(3) of that Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Transparency of authorizations of novel food products

1. How will the requisite level of long-term public transparency and information be guaranteed?

2. Are the consumer organizations to be informed of all the products that have been authorized?

3. What guarantees are there that this information will be complete and up-to-date?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2192/97 and E-2204/97 (28 October 1997)

Without prejudice to the national provisions in this field, it is already stipulated - for example, in Article 5 of the Regulation quoted by the Honourable Member - that a summary of the notification should be published. The same applies to the decisions to be taken under Article 7(3) of the same Regulation.

These provisions should make it easier for a Member State to implement Article 12 of the Regulation, if necessary, in order to restrict or suspend trade in or use in its territory of a food or food ingredient which may endanger health.

Finally, without prejudice to Article 10 of the Regulation, the national provisions in this field or - if appropriate - Article 22 of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )), Article 14 provides for a report by the Commission on the implementation of the Regulation and for the monitoring "of its impact on consumer information.¨
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2442/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: EU Milk Availability Scheme

Does the Commission have comparative statistics on the amount of milk provided through the Milk Availability Scheme in all Member States?

How much more or less milk is provided in countries with privatized distribution systems?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

The table below gives the total quantity of milk and milk products distributed under the Community school milk scheme during the 1995/1996 school year in each Member State. These quantities are influenced by several elements, such as the number of eligible pupils, the pro capita consumption of milk in the Member State, the tradition of drinking milk at school, the practical organisation of the scheme, and specific initiatives taken by suppliers or local and school authorities to promote the scheme. Given this wide range of influences, the Commission is not able to assess the impact of privatised distribution systems on the uptake of school milk.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2144/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Labelling requirements

How are the supervisory bodies to check compliance with labelling requirements?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2144/97, E-2146/97 and E-2152/97 (20 October 1997)

Subject to implementation of ARticle 8 (3), Regulation No 258/97 does not specifically provide for setting up supervisory bodies as referred to by the Honourable Member.

The practical arrangements for monitoring the implementation of this Regulation at national level are the responsibility of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/97 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (11 July 1997)

Subject: Outbreaks of swine fever in the region of Lleida

Following the outbreaks of classical swine fever recently detected in the region of Lleida and the subsequent visit by members of the Standing Veterinary Committee, the Commission enacted Decision 97/285/EC ((OJ L 114, 1.5.1997, p. 47. )) laying down the specific conditions for intra-Community trade in pigmeat and live pigs originating exclusively from the areas in question.

The various Member States have accordingly adapted their trade in pigs and pigmeat with Spain in line with the Decision, with the exception of Portugal, which has unilaterally closed its borders to all trade in pigmeat and pigmeat products originating not only from the above-mentioned areas but also from Catalonia as a whole, thereby jeopardizing the free movement of goods.

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to ensure compliance with this fundamental principle on which the European Union is based?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1997)

By Commission Decision 97/285/EC ((OJ L 114, 1.5.1997. )) certain protective measures were adopted to prevent the spread of classical swine fever virus from an area of Spain consisting of Urgell, Noguera, Segrià and Garrigues.

The Commission has recently been informed about unilateral measures adopted by Portugal due to the disease situation in Lerida. The Commission will investigate the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2285/97 by John Iversen (PSE) and Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Pesticides on the positive list

Can the Commission confirm that it is in the process of adding the pesticide Paraquat to the EU's positive list?

If so, will it explain how it assesses such chemical substances?

What precautions does the Commission expect to be taken when Paraquat is used, in particular in relation to problems concerning the environment and health and safety at work?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1997)

Paraquat is indeed one of the active substances which are currently being evaluated under the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC ((Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market - OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. )) and Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 ((Commission Regulation (EEC) 3600/92 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market -OJ L 366, 15.12.1992. )) with a view to possible inclusion in a Community positive list.

As stated in Article 5 of the Directive an active substance may only be included in Annex I to that Directive where in the light of the current scientific and technical knowledge, it may be expected that plant protection products containing the active substance will, consequent on application consistent with good plant protection practice, not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

Moreover, after inclusion of an active substance in Annex I of the Directive, Member States will have to review the authorizations of the plant protection products containing that active substance in accordance with the conditions of the inclusion and in accordance with the uniform principles (Annex VI) within a deadline to be determined.

The evaluation of paraquat continues and reports on the conclusions concerning paraquat are still in preparation. It will therefore be some time before a draft decision can be discussed with the Member States in the standing committee on plant health and consequently a decision taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2801/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Temelin nuclear power station in the Czech Republic

In Temelin, in the Czech Republic near the Austrian border, two pressurized-water nuclear reactors (type-VVER-1000) are currently under construction. Their completion has been plagued by enormous technical, financial, organizational and legal problems. The original commissioning deadline of 1992 has been officially postponed several times and has now been put forward to 1999/2000. The original overall construction cost of Kc 26 billion is now calculated as at least Kc 85 billion (about DM 5 billion). The cost overruns are primarily attributable to the retrospective decision to commission the US firm Westinghouse to install a control and fuel-rod system which, owing to the absence of Russian design blueprints and numerous demonstrable compatibility and quality deficiencies, gives cause for concern that safety standards might well be reduced rather than improved.

1. How does the Commission assess the circumstances that, despite fundamental retroactive design changes to the Temelin nuclear power station and the resultant emergence of a globally untested VVER-1000 mixed reactor prototype in immediate proximity to the EU's borders, no new approval procedure, no environmental impact assessment, no least-cost studies, no probabilistic safety analysis and no public participation process were carried out?

2. What importance does the Commission assign to the above circumstances in relation to the Czech Republic's anticipated accession to the EU?

3. Is the Commission aware of the unanimous decisions adopted by the Austrian Parliament on 9 July 1997 and urging, in connection with the forthcoming EU accession negotiations with Central and Eastern Europe in particular, the devising of new approaches to opting out of nuclear energy and the establishment of EU financing instruments to that end, and how does it assess that initiative in general and in relation to the Temelin nuclear power plant and the Czech Republic in particular?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

1. The Community does not finance any of the modifications being carried out at present in the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP) and therefore has no information about details of work being performed in this plant. Moreover and more in general, it would like to indicate that through the Phare programme it provides support to the Czech nuclear safety authority, the State office for nuclear safety (SONS). This support includes general methodology transfer and, in the case of the Temelin NPP, a contract is under preparation in order to support the SONS during the licensing process.

2. The Commission will continue the support to SONS, in order to ensure that an independent and competent body is responsible for the licensing of the plant.

3. The Commission is aware of the vote of the Austrian parliament. In this connection, it refers to the relevant part of the Commission's opinion on the Czech Republic of 16 July 1997 ((COM(97) 2009. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1722/97 by Ana Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE) to the Council (22 May 1997)

Subject: Public access to Council documents

According to recent press reports, the Council has sent a reply to the Ombudsman in connection with an alleged case of maladministration reported by a Mr Bunyan, a journalist, relating to the application of Decision 93/371/EEC ((OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43, as last amended by Decision 96/705 (OJ L 325, 14.12.1996, p. 19). )) on public access to Council documents. The Council apparently believes that, since the documents in question pertain purely to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, the Ombudsman has no powers to investigate the complaint. As this is a matter of interest to the European Parliament, could the Council forward to me a copy of its reply to the Ombudsman?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1722/97 and E-1813/97 (28 October 1997)

The sphere of competence of the European Ombudsman is laid down in Article 138e of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). That Treaty is applicable to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) insofar as Article K.8 of the TEU so provides. However, Article 138e is not cited in the list of TEC provisions made applicable to Title VI of the TEU.

The new Amsterdam Treaty lays down that the provisions referred to in Article 138e of the TEC are to apply to provisions relating to the fields referred to in Title VI of the TEU.

By letters dated 26 March and 20 June 1997 the Council sent a detailed reply to the Ombudsman concerning Mr Bunyan's complaints. The Honourable Members will receive directly a copy of the two letters sent by the Council to the Ombudsman ((The explanations of vote given by members of the Council on the matter have been released to the public. )).