ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Answers to Question E-0451/96 on the possible authorization of the fat substitute 'Olestra' in the EU

In its answer to the questions on the fat substitute 'Olestra' (E-0451/96 ((OJ C 183, 24.6.1996, p. 32.))) the Commission stated that it could not give appropriate answers to questions 2 to 6 because an application for authorization to market the fat substitute in the Community had not yet been submitted. As such an application has meanwhile been submitted in the United Kingdom, the Commission is this time asked to answer the following questions:

1. What is the Commission's view of the eight-year study of 'Olestra' by the US authorizing body and of the labelling of the product?

2. In the event of imports and/or authorization of marketing throughout the EU, would the Commission also seek appropriate warnings on the labelling?

3. Has the Commission had studies of its own carried out on 'Olestra' or does it intend to do so?

4. What is the Commission's view of the technological necessity of 'Olestra' in view of the health hazards, taking into account Proctor & Gamble's studies which showed that laboratory animals did not lose any weight as a result of consuming 'Olestra'?

5. In view of the dubious effects of 'Olestra', as referred to in question 4, is there any point in permitting the marketing of the product in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

Until the proposal for a regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients ((COM(96) 229 amending COM(93) 631 and COM(92) 295. )) has been adopted by the Parliament and the Council and has entered into force, applications to place novel foods on the market will continue to be dealt with by Member States in accordance with national procedures.

Since no dossier concerning this product has been submitted to the Commission, it remains inappropriate for the Commission to comment on the issues raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Financial provision for veterinary inspectors

On the occasion of the Council agreement on Directive 95/29/EC ((OJ L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 52 )) on the transport of animals in June 1995, reference was made to the importance of extra veterinary inspectors to be taken on by the Commission for the purpose of monitoring the implementation and enforcement of this Directive.

Would the Commission confirm that proper financial provision has been made in the budget for these additional inspectors and, if so, how many have alrady been appointed and how many will be employed in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)

The Commission has not decided, within the framework of the means foreseen in the 1996 budget, to increase the staff of the directorate general for agriculture including the veterinary units. The restrictions on recruitment of additional personnel faced by the Commission also make it difficult to get extra staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1659/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Formulation and use of Commission sectorial guidelines in the transport sector

It would appear that the framers of the Treaty of Rome intended these sectoral guidelines to be drawn up under Article 94, which, since Maastricht, would enable Parliament to be involved in their formulation and give some democratic input into the process. It could be argued that, by basing its powers on Article 93, the Commission has excluded democratic accountability.

The guidelines for the civil aviation sector lay down no stated legal basis for the guidelines, no period of validity and no stated date for review.

Can the Commission indicate how far these guidelines are 'political' statements of policy and how far they create legal effects? To what degree do the guidelines themselves impose new obligations on the Member States or other affected parties?

With respect to the civil aviation sector, could the Commission state which new legal obligation the guideline imposes? It would seem to be a statement of position by the Commission that air transport is covered by the same rules as other sectors. If this is so, it contracts sharply with the motor vehicle industry framework which has been the subject of a legal challenge.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The document published in the Official journal ((OJ C 350, 10.12.1994. )) is a general statement of the approach that the Commission intends to adopt when examining a state aid case in the air transport sector. It aims at making the Commission's policy more transparent, at making its decisions more foreseeable and at ensuring an equal treatment between Member States. It does not, in itself, give rise to legal consequences since the Commission decides each individual case on the basis of the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty and applicable Community legislation. Neither does it in itself impose new legal obligations on Member States or other parties.

Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty apply to all economic sectors, including transport and air transport. It is up to the Commission to apply these provisions taking into account the characteristics of particular sectors. In the air transport sector, one of the main factors used by the Commission to define its policy is the liberalisation process which will be fully implemented by April 1997.

The 1994 document in question does not define new rules. It only confirms and clarifies the position of the Commission vis-à-vis aids in the air transport sector in conformity with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

In the automobile sector, the guidelines impose on Member States an obligation to notify significant cases in respect of schemes which have already been approved by the Commission. That is the reason why, unlike the guidelines in the air transport sector, those guidelines were proposed to the Member States as appropriate measures in the context of Article 93.1 EC Treaty. The explicit agreement of all Member States was consequently requested and obtained.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Marketing in Spain of guaranteed pension funds

The Spanish insurers' association has expressed emphatic opposition to the marketing in Spain of guaranteed pension funds by credit companies. Its stance has received unreserved support from the secretariat of the European Insurance Committee (EIC), which has written to the Spanish Finance Minister to express the insurance sector's concern at the marketing in Spain of guaranteed pension funds.

In the EIC's letter it is stated that schemes such as guaranteed pension funds traditionally fall within the scope of insurance activity, as an EU directive makes clear.

Can the Commission state its position on the matter, in the light of the relevant Community provisions and with a view to mediating in what has been called the 'guaranteed-fund war' in Spain?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

Generally speaking, both insurance companies and other financial institutions (e.g. credit institutions) traditionally supply supplementary pension products in the Community that include certain guarantees or arrangements concerning the interest or benefits offered. Where they market such products, insurance companies, credit institutions and other financial institutions must always comply with the rules applicable to them regarding the taking-up and pursuit of their activities.

In the case of insurance companies, for example, Community law specifically recognizes the possibility that life assurance companies may manage group pension funds and that such management may be accompanied by insurance covering either conservation of capital or payment of a minimum level of interest (Article 1(2)(c) and (d) of Directive 79/267/EEC ((OJ L 63, 13.3.1979. ))). Community legislation stipulates that life assurance companies carrying on such activities must have adequate financial resources, particularly in the form of technical reserves, and must also have a sufficient solvency margin that is calculated according to the rules laid down by Community legislation.

In this context, if such a guarantee regarding the interest accruing from the investment of pension fund assets is covered by insurance, Community law stipulates that such insurance may be provided only by life assurance companies that are licensed by the Member States of their head office, in accordance with the third life assurance Directive 92/96/EEC, ((OJ L 360, 9.12.1992. )) to carry on such insurance activities. However, if such guarantees are provided by means of other financial techniques used by other financial institutions, Community law permits such activities to be carried on by those institutions provided that the prudential rules relating specifically to them are consistently observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)

Subject: Political dialogue with Mercosur

The Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement with Mercosur, signed in Madrid on 15 December 1995, included a Joint Declaration on political dialogue between the European Union and Mercosur. The declaration is fairly specific in establishing the mechanisms for this dialogue, as regards both their nature and structure and their content and the participants involved. This is commendable.

Can the Council say what were or will be the first meetings constituting this dialogue, what subjects were examined, who was involved in each dialogue and the dates and places of the meetings?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The Foreign Ministers of the Member States of Mercosur, the Foreign Ministers of the European Union Troika and the Vice-President of the European Commission held an informal meeting on the occasion of the 6th Ministerial Meeting between the European Union and the Rio Group in Cochabamba, Bolivia, on 16 April 1996.

The Ministers issued a joint communiqué expressing their firm resolve to hold the first institutionalized meeting of the Mercosur-European Union political dialogue, provided for in the Joint Declaration on Political Dialogue, in June 1996.

The first annual Ministerial Meeting in the context of the European Union-Mercosur political dialogue was held in Luxembourg on 10 June 1996, under the Interregional Framework Agreement signed by the European Union and Mercosur in Madrid in December 1995. The Ministers reaffirmed their mutual interest in regional integration. The two parties noted that they had common interests in many fields. The European Union and Mercosur emphasized that it was important for their activities of mutual interest to be coordinated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1594/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Council (24 June 1996)

Subject: Racist border controls

A group from East Birmingham College were recently subject to border controls and searches in France which were clearly targeted at black students and of an obvious racist nature.

What action will the Council take to ensure that no country carries out border controls of a racist nature?

Reply (14 October 1996)

Under Article F(23) of the Treaty on European Union, the European Union honours those fundamental rights which are guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and which derive from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, in that they are general principles of Community law. In addition, the Member States of the Union have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, signed in New York on 7 March 1966. Account must be taken of these legal provisions in carrying out frontier controls.

Furthermore, the Florence European Council of 21 and 22 June 1996 reaffirmed the Union's determination to combat racism and xenophobia with the utmost resolve. It approved the principle underlying the establishment of a European Centre for monitoring racism and xenophobia, and asked the Council to examine the legal and budgetary conditions of the future Monitoring Centre.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1641/96 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Alternatives to over-fishing of small fry in the North Sea

What steps are being taken by the Commission and EU Member States regarding over-fishing of small fry in the North Sea? In the light of evidence from Greenpeace and others that this is causing severe ecological damage and that alternatives are available for the processes in which such small fish are used, will the Commission give priority to conservation and act firmly to eradicate this practice?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

A number of legitimate fisheries can only be executed by using nets with very small mesh sizes. In the North sea these so-called small-mesh fisheries are targeted at sprat, Norway pout and sand eel. In practice it appears inevitable that in these fisheries, particularly for sprat and Norway pout, quantities of juvenile specimens of non-target species are caught. Both the Commission and the Member States have been aware of this state of affairs for a number of years. Handling this situation has proven to be refractory, but a number of partial solutions have been put into effect.

Since 1986 there exists a so-called Norway pout box in the North sea. Within this area, which is quite large, it is not permitted to execute a directed Norway pout fishery. The aim of this measure is to specifically protect juvenile whiting and haddock, which are relatively more abundant within that area.

Similarly, there exist in the North sea a number of areas where it is not permitted to execute a directed sprat fishery. Here the aim is to protect large concentrations of juvenile herring.

For a number of years now, has Denmark operated a sampling scheme aimed at monitoring the bycatches of juvenile herring in the small-mesh fisheries. So far, the results of this sampling scheme are satisfactory. In the near future a similar sampling scheme will become operational in Sweden.

Because of the current alarming state of the North sea herring stock, the Commission has taken measures to reduce significantly the 1996 catch quantities of herring, both adults caught in the directed herring fisheries and juveniles caught as bycatches in the small-mesh fisheries.

The fact remains that if catches of juveniles were to be eradicated, all fisheries for sprat, Norway pout and sand eel would have to be terminated. The Commission does not intend to put a complete stop to these economically important fisheries, nor will this be necessary when these fisheries are adequately managed and controlled.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Fishing issues in Essex and Kent

Why are decommissioning monies paid to owners on resale of boats not on retirement, when many take the money and use it to purchase another boat with an allocation? Is this not contrary to a proper use of public money to assist people to leave the industry, rather than to subsidize their increasing profitability with a newer vessel?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1071/96, E-1072/96 and E-1073/96 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1996)

Community aid is provided for measures adopted in Community programmes for fisheries within the framework of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 ((OJ L 346, 31.12.1993. )). Individual fisheries projects, including construction or modernisation of fishing vessels cited by the Honourable Member are considered by the Member State in accordance with the programme indicated above and having regard to the capacity reduction targets fixed in the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

The Commission does not feel that the above-mentioned measures favour construction or modernisation of vessels of a particular length, design or type of fishing gear. Also, it is not correct to say that incentives are used to finance new constructions under 10 metres in length to avoid conservation or territorial limits.

The purpose of a measure such as decommissioning is to reduce fishing capacity in line with MAGP targets. The United Kingdom decommissioning scheme requires the surrender and suppression of the licence attached to the decommissioned vessel. The fleet capacity is, therefore, reduced irrespective of whether the owner purchases another existing licence or not. The measure satisfies the purpose for which it was introduced by reducing the size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

Provided that national legislation does not contravene the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty, in particular the prohibition of discrimination, and provided that exemptions from taxation do not amount to unlawful state aids, Community law cannot interfere with the autonomy of a Member State in matters of taxation. Member States can apply their own social and fiscal law in relation to matters of income, as long as they are in conformity with the Treaty and the aims of the common fisheries policy are not impeded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2327/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: The system of compensation for beef and veal

In its circular No 18 of 16 July 1996 AIMA (Italian authority for agricultural market intervention) laid down the rules for implementing the system of compensation which amounts to Lit 125 billion, combining Community and national funding, allocated to beef and veal producers for animals slaughtered between 1 May 1996 and 15 August 1996.

Does the Commission consider the terms of this circular to be compatible with European guidelines?

In particular, does the Commission consider the Italian decision to distribute additional compensation for animals weighing more than 470 kg, i.e. more than the 400-410 kg envisaged by the Union, to be legitimate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1996)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/96 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Prospects for air traffic control in the European Union

The data which appear in the White Paper on air traffic control show that the action undertaken by the various bodies responsible (European Civil Aviation Conference, Eurocontrol and ICAO) is inadequate, and the situation is steadily worsening. One result is that air traffic control delays are causing losses to airlines amounting to almost ECU 2000 m per year.

1. Does the Commission believe that the solution could be to strengthen Eurocontrol's regulatory powers, to the extent of making it the sole European body competent to regulate air traffic?

2. Would it be essential for the European Union as such to become a member of Eurocontrol?

3. When does the Commission think that these objectives will be achieved?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission considers that good results have been obtained in the context of the European civil aviation conference strategy for improving the performance of European air traffic management systems. Despite this, a new institutional framework must be put in place at European level if we are to be able to deal properly with expected developments in air traffic in the coming years.

The Commission considers that this requires a strengthening of the powers of Eurocontrol, in order to bring about a single management of European airspace while leaving States to organise the actual provision of air navigation services according to their own national practices in conformity with specifications set down by Eurocontrol.

In order to have the authority and the means necessary to fulfil the proposed new role, the 'new Eurocontrol' must have competence which would overlap to a large extent with that of the Community. It is essential, therefore, that the Community should become a full member of that organisation. This would also enable the aeronautical community to benefit from the numerous contributions which the Community can bring to the improvement of the European air traffic management system.

The Commission considers that the objective set out in its White Paper 'Freeing Europe's airspace' ((COM(96) 57. )) could be attained rapidly if there is sufficient political will, as this could be achieved by making appropriate changes to the proposed amendments to the Eurocontrol convention which are currently being developed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1520/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Mad cows

The events surrounding the epidemic of BSE in the United Kingdom show that the EU must provide guarantees regarding the effective and efficient application of veterinary policy measures and, more generally, regarding proper checks on origin.

Hence, in view of the need for EU inspections in the interests of more effective control measures, can the Commission say whether such controls have actually been carried out and, if so, by whom and whether it is true that in the United Kingdom arrangements are being made only to slaughter and destroy the animals suffering from the disease rather than all the animals on affected farms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1520/96 and E-1521/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The inspections in the United Kingdom concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) were performed by the Office of veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and control with the participation of experts from the Commission and Member States. The missions also examined the controls performed in the United Kingdom on the destruction of meat and other by-products in order to avoid their incorporation into the human and animal food chains.

In the United Kingdom, before 29 March 1996 only animals which were suspected of BSE because of clinical signs were killed and destroyed. After 28 March 1996 the sale of meat of bovine animals over the age of 30 months was prohibited. On 3 May 1996 a programme to slaughter and destroy bovine animals over the age of 30 months was started in order to exclude them from the human food and animal feed chains and from use for cosmetic and pharmaceutical products.

At the request of the Community bodies, the United Kingdom presented a plan to the Commission on 3 June 1996 laying down supplementary measures to control and eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom. After the United Kingdom had agreed to modify the plan, it was adopted by Commission Decision 96/385/EC of 25 June 1996 ((OJ L 151, 26.6.1996. )).