ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3746/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Noise pollution and assessment of the environmental impact of the section of the Milan-Naples motorway near Gallicano nel Lazio (Rome)

In 1989 a motorway link-road serving the Milan-Naples motorway was built near the town of Gallicano nel Lazio. The motorway passes close to the town, at some points no more than 20 metres from housing. In view of the sustained level of motor traffic on the motorway, this situation causes considerable nuisance to the inhabitants, who are disturbed every day by a high level of noise pollution.

In view of this and considering the provisions of the Commission's Green Paper 'Future Noise Policy', in particular future measures to reduce traffic noise, can the Commission say:

1. which of the measures referred to in the Green Paper have already been launched by the Commission and with what results;

2. whether, in accordance with the conclusions of the Green Paper, a project aimed at reducing noise pollution on the above-mentioned stretch of motorway might benefit from Community funding;

3. through what channels this funding may be requested;

4. finally, whether, when the road work in question was carried out, the recommendations set out in Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.)) were taken into account?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 February 1998)

Following the publication in November 1996 by the Commission of the Green Paper on Future Noise Policy ((COM(96) 540 final. )), all parties concerned by the issue of noise were consulted.

This consultation was closed in June 1997; the opinions received were analysed and a summary is currently in the process of being finalised.

It is still too early at this stage to talk about implementation of the measures set out in the Green Paper. However, a proposal for a Directive to limit the noise emission of machines is under way, and the Commission is also looking into the best approach to developing a procedure for evaluating and managing ambient noise levels. A proposal for a Directive on limiting noise from tyres is also in preparation. The implementation of the other measures listed has still to be examined in detail.

There is no mention in the Green Paper of a decision to grant Community funding to projects aimed at reducing noise pollution but it does contain a proposal to include noise in the list of criteria to be taken into consideration when granting aid. This is one of the reasons why the Commission is investigating the possibilities of establishing quality objectives for ambient noise levels on a Community level.

Finally, the Commission will contact the Italian authorities to find out if the road work in question was subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4216/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Council (22 January 1998)

Subject: Ban on driftnets - Council's failure to take a decision - Obligation to inform

Official Journal C 367 of 4 December 1997 published two answers by the Council to questions by Members of the European Parliament, on which I should like further information. Question P-1212/97 ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 99. )) sought information on which Member States have spoken in the Council against the Commission's proposal to ban driftnets. However, the Council failed to reply on grounds of 'confidentiality'.

1. I should like to ask the question about Member States' voting behaviour again. How exactly did each Member State vote in Council?

The Council's answer to Question E-0893/97 ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 56. )), published in the same Official Journal, says that measures are 'already in place, particularly those on the disclosure of votes and explanations of vote, on open debates, access by the public to statements and minutes, and on public access to Council documents in general'. In addition to my first question, I should like to know

2. Why does the Council promise transparency and openness while in the same Official Journal (C 367 of 4 December 1997) refusing information on the grounds of confidentiality?

3. How does the Council intend to treat its decisions in future: transparently or secretly?

Answer (7 April 1998)

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that it has not yet adopted any final legislative act as regards the Commission proposal concerning a ban on drift-nets. Therefore, no vote has taken place within the Council on this matter.

The provisions concerning legislative transparency in the Council (the making public of votes, explanations of votes, and statements in the Council's minutes) only apply at the final adoption stage of legislative acts by the Council. This stage has not as yet been reached and accordingly the provisions in question do not apply.

Other transparency measures concerning access to specific Council documents are regulated by Council Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents ((OJ L 340, 31.12.93, p. 43. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3929/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Freight freeways for the transport of goods by road

Is the Commission aware that there are at present 16 European countries with 50 different sets of rules concerning bans on driving and that these bans mean that shipping and transport firms incur considerable costs?

Is the Commission of the opinion that a lot of the existing bans often have a discriminatory effect, and that they may constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of goods in the European Union?

If so, will the Commission make efforts to ensure the creation of harmonized rules concerning driving bans at EU and European level, with agreements to prevent the undesirable proliferation of regional and national schemes?

Does the Commission also agree that the driving bans, and the recent blockades, may have a very detrimental effect on European industry and that this is why it is necessary to establish a network of European freeways for road transport (E-ways) by analogy with the European freeways for the transport of goods by rail?

If so, does the Commission intend to submit, in the near future, proposals for European freeways for the transport of goods by road?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 January 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problems resulting from uncoordinated driving bans affecting road haulage on trucks throughout the Union as highlighted in the Honourable Member's question and has reported its concerns to the Council.

The Commission, consequently intends to bring forward a legislative proposal in the spring of this year with the purpose of setting clear and common rules that should be respected when Member States apply driving bans.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3806/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (17 November 1997)

Subject: Construction of the Messina Bridge

Is the Commission in a position to report on the future construction of the bridge across the Strait of Messina, and indicate in particular:

1. how much funding the EU has allocated to it and for how many years;

2. whether a project has been drawn up and, if so, by which consultancy; the cost of the project and the project's financial backers;

3. whether the project carries proper guarantees for the construction of the bridge, from the environmental and geological points of view and from the point of view of links between the continent and Sicily;

4. whether the instructions issued by the EU have been complied with;

5. which firms will take part in the competition for tenders to carry out the project?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Community has not committed any funds for the development of the Messina Strait bridge.

Concerning the procedures for the awarding of the design and execution of the work, the Italian authorities have informed the Commission that they are subject to the approval of a new law. The preliminary design have been awarded to the company called Stretto di Messina S.p.A; according to law No 1158 of 17 December 1971 and to interministry decree No 3437 of 27 December 1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3970/97 by James Nicholson (I-EDN) to the Council (15 December 1997)

Subject: Ahn Jae-Ku

Ahn Jae-Ku was arrested in June 1994 and charged under South Korea's National Security Law. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in November 1994. Human Rights groups claim that Ahn Jae-Ku has been imprisoned for the non-violent exercise of freedom of expression and association and that he is being held in below standard conditions.

Given that South Korea has ratified several international treaties and conventions guaranteeing human rights, what is the Council's opinion on the imprisonment of Ahn Jae Ku?

Answer (17 March 1998)

The Council attaches great importance to the strict adherence to human rights by all countries. Those countries which have signed international conventions and treaties guaranteeing human rights have publicly committed themselves to uphold these rights.

The Council is aware that arrests are made under the National Security Law of South Korea. The Council has repeatedly raised its objections to this law which can be seen as a reflection of the historically tense situation on the Korean Peninsula. The Council hopes that a solution may be found following the start of the Four-Party talks in Geneva.

The Council has no specific opinion regarding the imprisonment of Ahn Jae Ku, given that it has not received information about charges or about the conditions of his imprisonment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3555/97 by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission (4 November 1997)

Subject: EU measures to counter Russian border tolls

Russia has once again announced new barriers to trade and traffic with Finland. Russian customs officials are set to impose a 44-ton weight limit on cross-border traffic. The restriction will bring cross-border movements of Finnish commercial vehicles, for example timber shipments, virtually to a standstill.

As on the previous occasions, news of the new rules reached the authorities and haulage contractors at the last minute and came as a complete surprise. The situation on the border between the EU and Russia thus remains confused and subject to arbitrary decisions.

1. How does the Commission intend to ensure that Russia does not discriminate against the Union and its Member States by means of its own rules and requirements?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to bring pressure to bear on the Russian customs authorities and force them to carry out their work in accordance with proper international trading practice?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1997)

The Commission is aware of the difficult situation at the Finnish Russian border.

Unpredictable changes, at short notice, of Russian legislation and procedures covering cross-border transport, customs operation and border controls clearly have a negative influence on transport flows between Russia and the neighbouring countries, particularly Finland.

For this reason, there have been frequent contacts and meetings at all levels between the Commission and various Russian ministries, as well as the Russian transport minister, and other authorities on such issues. In June 1997, the responsible member of the Commission visited together with the Finnish and Russian transport ministers the new road border-crossing at Vaalimaa.

As regards the issue of the weight limits, the Commission is aware of the difficulties caused by the latest change in the regulations operating in Russia. Regrettably however this particular issue cannot be appropriately addressed under the Community's partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia, which leaves issues affecting road transport operations between the Community and Russia to future negotiations.

Although the Commission tabled a recommendation in 1992 for such transport negotiations with a number of countries, including Russia, the Council has so far not authorised negotiations. The matter of the weight limit applying in Russia to Finnish commercial vehicles remains therefore one which must be addressed by the Finnish authorities.

It should be noted that the weight limit for third country vehicles entering the Community is forty tonnes, although individual Member States may, on a non-discriminatory basis, authorise vehicles with a higher limit to circulate on their own territory.

The Commission will naturally continue to press the Russian authorities, on every possible occasion, to ensure that any changes to regulations are introduced with sufficient notice and on an acceptable and non-discriminatory basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/97 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Warning on Swedish snuff

Research shows unequivocally that Link whatever can be established between the use of Swedish snuff and cancer. Despite this fact, EU Directive 92/41/EEC ((OJ L 158, 11.6.1992, p. 30. )) stipulates that snuff packets must be marked with the

words 'Causes cancer'. Obviously, confidence in both the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare and the EU is undermined by the fact that this erroneous claim is printed on every packet of snuff sold. Now that the claim has again been proved false by fresh research reports, the directive must clearly be amended. It is not a question of whether or not that should happen but of when.

Will the Commission, therefore, say when it will take the initiative to amend the current directive with regard to the warning on Swedish snuff?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

The health warnings on smokeless tobacco products were required by Community legislation taking account of the opinion of scientific experts that all tobacco products carry health risks, and that these products in particular are a major risk factor as regards cancer.

The Commission, in its communication to the Council and the Parliament on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption ((COM(96) 609 final. )) proposes to review the implementation of the existing labelling directive with a view to the evaluation of its efficacity in informing consumers on the dangers of smoking and whether improvements in the content and form of warnings should be introduced. The possibility of requiring bigger and more visible health warnings already exists in the labelling directive and the Commission could examine this possibility with the Member States.

The Commission will examine the reactions to the above-mentioned communication and in the light of this examination may bring forward appropriate proposals for actions and measures. In the light of current investigations and the future research in this particular field, the Commission will carefully look at any elements that can help to determine the link between snuff and cancer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4215/97 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Respect for consumer law and the rules of free competition in Italy

For more than seventeen years an Italian citizen, Gaetano Di Bari, has been bringing legal proceedings against an Italian branch of a large-scale international firm which produces office machinery. Mr Di Bari was a sales agent in an area of Central Italy for the machinery produced by this firm.

This lengthy dispute was initially caused by failure to distribute large quantities of spare parts which should have been supplied to purchasers free of charge to replace defective parts. Above all, this distorted the conditions of free competition on the market and caused undoubted damage to retailers and consumers, who for several years had to pay for hundreds of thousands of repairs to remedy problems which in actual fact had already been solved by head office. Mr Di Bari thought it appropriate to report this fact. The resulting judicial saga, which has not yet come to an end, has clearly caused Mr Di Bari material, economic and moral damage, and led to personal and professional problems. Among other things, when the firm cancelled his retailing contract he was forced to give up his business activity and sustained heavy financial losses.

Does the European Commission not consider that the international firm in question, by failing to inform retailers and consumers about the defects in parts of office machinery and to replace them free of charge, caused objective damage to those consumers and retailers?

Does the Commission not consider that the behaviour of the firm was contrary to the rules concerning accurate and timely consumer information, thereby clearly infringing the rights of consumers?

How does the Commission intend to ensure, in this case and in other present or future cases, definite respect for Community directives on free competition?

Does the Commission not consider that Mr Di Bari has been penalized, suffering economic and moral damage?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Commission would first point out that, before any decision can be taken as to whether the Community competition rules apply, the legal and economic context of the case in question has to be looked at closely.

In the light of the particulars given by the Honourable Member, there is good reason to ask whether the case referred to does not concern a dispute which should, in the first instance, be dealt with under Italian private law. The administrative procedure that the Commission could, in principle, initiate could not result in a finding against the party in question, with damages being awarded. The Commission would note that the matter has already been referred to the Italian courts and that several sets of legal proceedings are still under way.

Intervention by the Commission is thus neither expedient nor appropriate when it comes to satisfying the objectives being pursued by the person to whom the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4229/97 by Ulf Holm (V) to the Council (15 January 1998)

Subject: Treaty of Amsterdam publicity campaign

In the autumn, Sweden's Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched a large-scale propaganda campaign costing about SKR 9 million to promote the Treaty of Amsterdam. The material used in the campaign contains many factual errors, however, and the text is mainly devoted to examples of what are referred to as Swedish 'successes' on employment, the environment and equal opportunities. Yet the German Foreign Affairs Ministry's publication 'Der Abschluss der Regierungskonferenz - eine Gesamtwertung', for instance, does not even mention the issues highlighted in the Swedish campaign. Instead, it sets out in detail the aim of the Treaty of Amsterdam, namely further development of the common foreign and security policy, greater police and judicial cooperation and making the Union more effective by increasing its supranational dimension and curbing Member States' rights of veto, so as to make enlargement possible. The differences in the content of the material are so great that readers cannot help wondering if these texts refer to the same Treaty of Amsterdam. Instead of a public debate, we have thus got one-way communication, in which the authorities tell the public how things stand. In view of this, will the Council state: it is possible for information material produced by the governments of two Member States to differ so much? Whether it considers it ethically correct for governments to use their powers and for taxpayers' money to be spent to run 'politically' very biased information campaigns about the EU which also contain factual errors?

Answer (30 March 1998)

The Honourable Member will kindly note that it is not for the Council to express an opinion on the information supplied by Member States in connection with the Amsterdam Treaty, which is currently subject to ratification by the Member States.

Through the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities the General Secretariat of the Council contributed to the publication of the texts of the Treaty of Amsterdam and of the consolidated versions of the Treaties. These publications may be consulted free of charge on the Internet via the General Secretariat of the Council's website (http://ue.eu.int). The texts are accompanied by descriptive summaries involving the liability of neither the Community institutions nor the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes - distinctive national symbols

At its meeting on 3 December 1996 the Council of the European Monetary Institute (EMI) decided that both sides of Euro bank notes were to be identical in all countries and were to be devoid of any distinctive national symbols. This position amounts to settling, in a roundabout way, a crucial question: if the bank notes are indistinguishable from one country to another, it will be virtually impossible to 'uncouple' a country in the event of a serious crisis threatening the survival of the system. In certain borderline cases, therefore, the risks of complete collapse would be increased.

Does the Council not agree that in adopting this political position - which is frequently presented as a definitive decision in European documents - the EMI Council has exceeded the terms of Article 109f(3) of the Treaty which only gives it the power to supervise the 'technical preparation' of the future bank notes?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3986/97, E-3987/97, E-3988/97, E-3989/97 and E-3990/97 (19 March 1998)

It ensues from the allocation of powers provided for under the Treaty that the European Central Bank alone is empowered to authorize the issue of banknotes in euro, also as regards aspects relating to their presentation (Article 105(a) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Protocol to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank).

At its meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996, the European Council welcomed the designs for the euro banknotes presented to it by the European Monetary Institute.

The final decisions on the matter will be taken by the European Central Bank once it has been set up in accordance with the Treaty.