ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3483/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: The need (?) for further studies on the Alqueva project

During the meeting of Parliament's Committee on the Environment of 19 November 1996, in a debate on an oral question concerning rivers in Spain and Portugal, the Commission representative said that the studies carried out on the Alqueva project were unsatisfactory or inadequate and that others were being carried out.

At the time I made a remark and asked a question which I now wish to reformulate as a written question.

The Alqueva dam must be the most studied project ever. In view of the ongoing depopulation process, I would therefore ask the Commission whether it should not accept that the project has already been sufficiently studied and whether the decision to go ahead with the project - which has been taken and then deferred so many times - should not be confirmed, and all the studies made in the past and any which might be carried out in future overridden by the reality of the environmental and other consequences of not building the Alqueva dam for the Alentejo region, which has slowly and gradually become one of the poorest, if not the poorest, region in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0930/96 by Mr Barros Moura during question time at Parliament's December 1996 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (December 1996). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3264/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Interim RPI

It is increasingly clear from the media that there are real difficulties in finding universally accepted statistical measurements.

The Commission evaluates the convergence of prices on the basis of the interim retail price index. Does this index coincide with or diverge from the retail price index used by Spain?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3259/96, E-3260/96, E-3261/96, E-3262/96, E-3263/96, E-3264/96, E-3265/96, E-3266/96, E-3267/96, E-3268/96, E-3269/96, E-3270/96, E-3271/96, E-3272/96, E-3273/96 and E-3274/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

Under Protocol No 6 on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of the EC Treaty 'Inflation shall be measured by means of the consumer price index on a comparable basis, taking into account national differences.' This requirement is currently met through a process of harmonization based on the national consumer price indices (CPIs).

According to Council Regulation No 2494/95 on harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs) ((OJ L 257, 27.10.1995. )), harmonization should be considered as a stepwise approach in two stages. Stage I established in February 1996 a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs). The IICPs are in fact the national CPIs with the coverage of goods and services adjusted to reduce non-comparability, particularly by excluding certain non-market services, such as health, education and owner occupied housing.

National CPIs can thus be seen as coincident with the corresponding IICPs regarding methods, concepts and definitions, apart from the coverage of goods and services. Numerically, the indices differ as a result of these differences in the coverage ((COM(96) 560. )). For most of the Member States, the differences in the inflation rates measured as a twelve month change, whether on an annual or monthly basis, are small, ranging from 0,0 to ±0,2 percentage points. For some Member States (Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) the differences are bigger, mainly because of housing costs, particularly where interest payments are used in the national CPIs.

Though not strictly comparable, IICPs provide for the time being the most comparable basis for the assessment of inflation convergence among Member States. The Commission will, however, assess inflation convergence during the period before the start of stage three of economic and monetary union, as required by the Treaty, on the basis of comparable HICPs. These will be launched with Stage II of the harmonization of CPIs in February 1997 and will be based on appropriately designed definitions, concepts and methods.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Current situation regarding Germany's failure to comply with the directive on water intended for human consumption

Serious shortcomings have been noted in Germany's implementation of Directive 80/778/EEC ((OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11. )) relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. What is the current situation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2680/96, E-2681/96 and E-2682/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

It is not possible to report on the current situation regarding the implementation of Directive 80/778/EEC until the Commission receives and checks national reports on the implementation of the drinking water Directive for the three year period 1993-1995. The report on the implementation of the Directive is expected to be published in 1997.

However, with respect to infringements, it should be noted that there has been one infringement procedure against each of Belgium Germany and the United Kingdom concerning the Directive which reached the Court of Justice as identified in the table included in the draft report by Mr Collin on behalf of the environment committee of Parliament on the proposed revision of the drinking water Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3438/96 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission (27 November 1996)

Subject: List of SMUs involved in EU research programmes

The Commission services and the IRDAC Consultative Committee have repeatedly referred to a list of small and medium-sized undertakings (SMUs) which have been involved in EU research programmes.

Has this list been published yet?

Could the Commission send me a copy?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1997)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2634/96.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question ((See page 39. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2398/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - Annex

1. Does the Annex to Decision 94/730/EC ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31 )) apply to all genetically modified plants?

2. If not, to what genetically modified plants does it apply?

3. Does the Annex to Decision 94/730/EC apply to all genetic modifications carried out on plants?

4. If not, to which modifications does it apply?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3006/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Dioxins in soil

Does the Commission have any comparative information about the growth of dioxin concentrations in soil in Member States and is any action being taken to tackle the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1996)

Comparative information concerning the growth of dioxin concentration in soil within the Community is currently very scarce, although the Commission is aware of data concerning parts of Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom.

It is widely assumed that the presence of dioxins in the environment, including soil, is largely due to emissions to air. There are a number of Community legislative measures on dioxin emissions to air and water, which can be considered as a tool for implementation of the objective to reduce by 90% dioxin emissions by the year 2005 on the basis of 1985 levels.

There has been a considerable reduction in dioxin emissions from Member States in recent years, especially as a result of waste incineration techniques adopted in compliance with Community directives on municipal and hazardous waste incineration. The Commission is currently developing a strategy to investigate possible ways of reducing emissions from other sources, taking into account the need to protect all the environmental media in an integrated manner in accordance with the recent Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (96/61/EC) ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: EDF

Does the Commission intend to request the budgetization of the EDF (incorporation into the Community budget) before the revision of the financial perspectives in 1999?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1996)

On a regular basis since 1973, the Commission has proposed budgetization of the European Development Fund (EDF); it last did so on 8 April 1994, when it transmitted a report to the budgetary authorities on arrangements and possibilities for budgetizing the EDF. ((SEC (94) 640. )) At a meeting on 19 and 20 December that year, the Council advised against amending regulations then in force for EDF financing.

The 8th European Development Fund will enter into force when the signatory countries ratify the agreement amending the Lomé IV Convention, according to procedures laid down. The 8th EDF will expire - along with the Convention - on 1 March 2000. Member States have already endorsed the internal agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid and the 8th EDF Financial Regulation should shortly be submitted to the Council.

Although the Commission would like budgetization in time for the 8th EDF, such a change will not be possible until amendment of the EC Treaty, given the annexed Declaration No 12 stating that 'the European Development Fund will continue to be financed by national contributions in accordance with the current provisions'.

Member States are, however, welcome to discuss the issue under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Conference; should the issue arise, the Commission will willingly deliver its opinion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - differences between sites of relevance to safety

1. In the seventh recital of the preamble to Decision 93/584/EEC ((OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 42. )) the Commission stressed that the safety of releases depends on the characteristics of the recipient plant species, the characteristics of inserted sequences and the characteristics of the receiving ecosystems.

What criteria has the Commission established to ascertain for which receiving ecosystems simplified procedures are to be allowed and for which they are not to be allowed?

2. In the procedure referred to in point 6.1. of the Annex to Decision 94/730/EC ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31. )) how is it to be ascertained whether the indication and description of the notified site of release are true or not?

3. How are the individual characteristics of the receiving ecosystems on the notified sites taken into account in the evaluation of risk?

4. Who carries out the evaluation of risk for the notified sites?

5. Who ascertains, and how, whether the individual characteristics of the receiving ecosystem are taken into account in an unbiased way in the evaluation of risk?

6. How can the general public monitor this?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3436/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (27 November 1996)

Subject: Greenham Common nuclear accident in the 1950s

Is the Commission aware that a higher incidence of childhood leukaemia and clusters of cancer incidences have been reported to have been recorded by the United Kingdom Defence and Radiological Protection Service and the Nuclear Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, UK, around the area of the Greenham Common nuclear base in the United Kingdom?

Is the Commission aware that these readings are understood to have not been released to the public?

Can the Commission authorize an inquiry under the terms of the EURATOM Treaty which will establish whether information has been suppressed by HM Government, will give public access to all documents and monitoring relating to the Greenham Common nuclear base, and provide free health checks for any person who, by visiting or inhabiting the area, may have cause to fear a health rise due to exposure to leaked radiation, or by biological descent of persons visiting or inhabiting the area around Greenham Common?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

The allegations to which reference have been made relate to events which occurred before the United Kingdom became a signatory to the Euratom Treaty. However, to the extent that the alleged events may have led to

continuing contamination of the environment, the Commission requested information from the United Kingdom authorities to request information. The reply confirmed that there was an accident, involving a United States B47 aircraft, at the Greenham common airbase in 1958. However, no nuclear weapons were involved. The United States authorities confirmed this to be the case in a statement issued, with the authority of the United States defence secretary, as recently as 23 July 1996.

Moreover, environmental surveys carried out in the vicinity of the airbase in 1961 showed slightly higher than normal levels of uranium-235. The radiological impact of those levels of radioactivity has been shown to be insignificant. Subsequent surveys, in 1986 and in 1994, used more advanced and sensitive techniques than those which were available at the time of the 1961 study. Those later studies revealed no evidence of contamination, either on or around the base.

The Commission has no reason to believe that the United Kingdom authorities are withholding information in respect of radiation hazards to the public associated with Greenham common airbase, and has no grounds, therefore, to pursue this matter further. Health checks of the type proposed are a matter for the United Kingdom authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3168/96 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Report of the International Commission on the Balkans

On 5 November 1996, Commissioner Hans van den Broek took part in a press conference at which a report was presented by an 'International Commission on the Balkans'. His presence was construed by the journalists present as an indication that the Commission endorses the report's conclusions. The report contains a number of inaccuracies and judgments which could create serious problems in relations between a Member State - Greece - and countries in the broader region of the Balkans.

1. Was the report discussed at any of the regular weekly meetings of the full Commission?

2. Does the Commission endorse the report's conclusions as the presence of Mr van den Broek seems to imply?

3. If the Commission does not endorse all or any of those conclusions, what does the President of the Commission intend to do to make this absolutely clear, immediately and publicly, to the people of Europe?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1996)

The report of the International commission on the Balkans called 'Unfinished peace', was officially presented to the member of the Commission in charge of relations with the Central and Eastern European countries by the chairman of the International commission, Mr Leo Tindemans, on 5 November 1996.

After this presentation a press conference was organised with the chairman of the International commission on the Balkans and some of its members, including Mrs Simone Veil. The press conference was introduced by the member of the Commission who congratulated the International commission on the Balkans on its work.

The member of the Commission stated that he could support in general terms most of the conclusions contained in the report with respect to the peace process in Bosnia Herzegovina. At the same time he made it clear that the full content of the report and all its recommendations were the exclusive responsibility of the International commission on the Balkans and could not be attributed to the Commission. No statement has been made indicating that the Commission endorsed the conclusions of the report of the International commission of the Balkans.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3435/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (27 November 1996)

Subject: Environment-friendly cars

The Swedish environmental authorities are planning to introduce a new tax system designed to promote the use of environment-friendly cars. However, according to the persons responsible, EU rules do not permit tax breaks for motor vehicles which are more environment-friendly in the case of 'voluntary environmental requirements' (Dagens Nyheter, 20 November 1996).

Is it true that EU rules stand in the way of the planned Swedish environmental classification system for cars? Does the Commission intend to take steps to prevent EU rules from blocking planned environmental improvements in a Member State?

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

Community policy towards the granting of fiscal incentives by Member States to encourage the early marketing of clean vehicles has been set down in successive directives on vehicle emissions, the latest of which is Directive 94/12/EC relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Directive 70/220/EEC ((OJ L 100, 19.4.1994. )). The framework provided therein balances the environmental benefits resulting from a faster renewal of vehicles against the need to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market.

The Swedish system of environmental classification of vehicles used to determine the fiscal incentives applicable in the Member States is based in part on American and not Community emission standards. For this reason the Commission considers that the current environmental classification system in Sweden is not consistent with Community rules. Discussions are continuing with the Swedish authorities with a view to amending the current system in order to ensure its compatibility with Community rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Production aid under the COM for olive oil

Is the Commission aware that, should the reform of the COM for olive oil involve aid not linked to production, this would give rise to a passive attitude on the part of producers, the neglect of cultivation techniques and a decline in product quality?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2953/96, E-2954/96, E-2955/96, E-2956/96, E-2957/96, E-2958/96, E-2959/96, E-2960/96, E-2961/96, E-2962/96 and E-2964/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)

The Commission will be discussing the different options for the reform of the olive oil common market organization (CMO) in the very near future. A document will then be transmitted speedily to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.

The Commission will certainly take into account the Honourable Members' remarks and questions concerning employment, intervention aid to real production, aid per tree, consumption aid, quality, impact on the environment and the specific problems of Spain and some of its producer regions.

It would not be correct to comment in detail at this stage on the various options for reforms except to repeat that the new common market organisation should be transparent, simple, easy to control and should target producers efficiently.

The Commission attaches great importance to quality and believes that, whatever option is chosen, there will be an important role for Member States and regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: EU citizen's eligibility to vote in France

Subsequent to its reply of 2 April 1996 to Written Question E-0452/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 45. )) what steps has the Commission now taken to ensure that the French government implements Article 8b of the Maastricht Treaty as regards the right of all EU citizens to vote and stand in local government elections?

If the French government continues to do nothing, what can the Commission do to ensure that this article of the Treaty is implemented? Is it, perhaps, ultimately directly applicable?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 December 1996)

The Commission has instituted Article 169 proceedings against France by sending a reasoned opinion. This is because France has still not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 concerning the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals ((OJ L 368, 31.12.1994. )).

A draft law transposing the Directive has been submitted by the French Government to the national parliament ((Projet de loi organique no 2210. )). According to the French authorities, the text will be among those tabled for debate at the beginning of next year.