ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Tissue for transplants

The reply given by Mr Flynn to my written question no E-1126/97 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 233. )) is not satisfactory, since it does not answer the points raised.

Does the Commission intend, in the near future, to establish a system for registering the checks carried out to monitor the origin and destination of tissue obtained for transplants where such tissue comes from any of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission has no plans to make proposals with regard to the establishment of a register for the traceability of the origin and destination of human tissues. This is the responsibility of the organisations involved in organ transplantation and tissue typing and of the authorities in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2051/97 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (16 June 1997)

Subject: The 4th Framework Programme-Research

In which of the specific programmes are experiments on animals funded?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (14 July 1997)

Under the fourth framework programme the specific programmes using animals for experiments are Biotechnology, Biomedecine & health, Agriculture & fisheries (FAIR), Environment and climate (not in MAST), Industrial and materials technologies (IMT), Standards, measurements and testing (SMI), Radioprotection and cooperation with third countries and international organisations.

These experiments are made with objectives such as the protection of human health, the reduction of risks from chemicals, but also improved animal welfare or the reduction of the use of animals in testing. These experiments are legally prescribed when no alternative methods, such as in vitro tests, are available. In every project it is ensured that only the minimum number of animals are used.

The Commission remains committed to reducing the use of animals in research and to encouraging the use of alternative methods as soon as this is feasible. The support of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) is significant evidence of the Commission's wishes on this important topic.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (11 May 1997)

Subject: Eurostat - Household report

In view of the Guardian newspaper's allegation that the Eurostat report on households has been withheld by the Commission until after the UK elections ((The Guardian, pages 1 and 7, 28.4.1997. )), does the Commission deny that this is the case; does the Commission agree that such behaviour would be contrary to its role as defined in the Treaties and its Decision 97/281/EC ((OJ L 112, 29.4.1997, p. 56. )) of 21 April 1997 regarding the role of Eurostat, (in particular Articles 3 and 11) and, in view of the regular occurrence of elections in the Member States, that such action would set a dangerous precedent for the future work and transparency of the institution?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1997)

Eurostat statistics in focus, population and social conditions No 6/1997, Income distribution and poverty in EU12 - 1993 was published on 14 May 1997 following normal procedures for the publication of Eurostat's reports. This means the report was issued as soon as all three language versions (French, English and German) of the report were ready, i.e. translated, formatted and printed. This process was by no means influenced by the election in the United Kingdom.

Community statistics are produced according to the principles of impartiality which means free from any pressures. Thus elections in Member States never influence the timing of the publication of statistics.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2327/97 by Patrick Cox (ELDR) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Status of substances chitin and chitosan

Is there any EU legislation governing the use of the substances chitin and chitosan?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

There is no Community legislation governing the use of chitin and chitosan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/97 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (5 February 1997)

Subject: Research sponsored by the Commission

What research is currently being sponsored by the Commission into the effects of the cooling of temperatures in parts of Europe as a result of climate change, and in what way have plans for extending trans-European networks taken into account climate change?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1997)

Within the specific programme 'Environment and climate' under the fourth framework programme, the question of climate change and climatic variability - natural and anthropogenic - is a central issue in the climate research projects sponsored by the Commission. This research involves several tens of research groups including the networks of European climate modelling centres. Several Community projects are also investigating the possible impacts of climatic changes on the natural resources in European regions.

While many scientists believe there may be surprises in store from the global warming expected due to the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, some argue at present that the climate change may indeed cause a significant cooling in parts of Europe.

The Commission is currently examining methods to take better account of environmental factors in transport infrastructure planning. The overall scenario will be based on the best forecasts available regarding environmental development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/97 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Structural Funds

Will the Commission explain the procedure to be applied with respect to outstanding amounts from the Structural Funds at the end of the current programming period (1994-1999)?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1997)

Payments related to commitments made in the current programming period will continue to be effected after 1999. The Commission responds to payment requests introduced by Member States, which in turn depend on the progress of programme implementation. The speed with which outstanding commitments are cleared therefore depends mainly on Member States.

In the grant assistance decisions there exist deadlines for final payments. These deadlines can be prolonged on a case-by-case basis upon request and when justified.

Normally, for the structural funds an immediate first advance payment of 50% is made in respect of new commitments. The remainder becomes an outstanding commitment. After the first advance payment, further payments can only be effected in line with the progress of implementation.

With an increasing level of commitments, the volume of outstanding commitments will necessarily increase. A rising level of outstanding commitments, measured in absolute terms, cannot in itself be considered a problem. On the contrary, it seems quite natural that this level would increase in the course of a programming period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Pig protection standards - Directive 91/630/EEC

Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 33. )) has been implemented in Italy by means of Legislative Decree No 534, issued on 30 December 1992. Article 6(2) of the latter stipulates that, every two years, not later than the last working day in April, and, for the first time, not later than 30 April 1996, the Ministry of Health must inform the Commission of the results of the inspections carried out in the two preceding years in accordance with the article in question, specifying the number of inspections conducted in relation to the number of holdings on the national territory.

Can the Commission say what were the findings of the inspections carried out in Italy, according to the information forwarded by the Ministry of Health? What were the findings of the inspections, if any, conducted by Commission experts on Italian territory or in connection with pig imports for Italian farmers?

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

Italy has not yet informed the Commission of the result of inspections carried out under Article 7 of Council Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as required by paragraph 3 of that Article. The Commission has reminded Italy of its obligations in this connection and will, if these obligations are not met within the near future, open infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Commission veterinary experts have not as yet carried out the checks provided in Article 9 of the above mentioned Directive. Directive 91/630/EEC does not contain any particular provisions for imported pigs.

The welfare of these animals during transport does however fall within the scope of Directive 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )). The Commission has carried out an inspection mission in 1995 on Italian territory to check the enforcement of Directive 91/628/EEC and certain recommendations have been communicated to the Italian authorities.

Most of the journey times for pigs from exporting countries would not exceed 24 hours. However, it appeared at that time, that for pigs in a number of cases of transports from the Netherlands and Belgium to the south of Italy or to Greece via Italy with a time of over 24 hours feeding and watering was not sufficiently secured. The Commission is continuing to monitor the situation in the light of the amendments introduced in the directive in relation to journey times and feeding, watering and resting requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/97 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: State aid

In its fifth report on state aid, the Commission voices its concern at the growth in such aid. It confirms that the volume of state aid is not only not being reduced but has actually increased in four Member States and that the richer and stronger countries are the ones which grant the most aid. This not only distorts competition but also has an adverse impact on economic cohesion, since the most backward economies receive the least aid. In view of this, the Commission plans to make its inspections stricter, tighten up the criteria for authorization and ask the Member States to draw up a timetable for reducing their public aid.

Can the Commission give more details of the measures it plans to carry out?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)

In the conclusions set out in the fifth report on state aid ((COM(97) 170 final. )), the Commission expressed its concern about the ever-growing amount of aid granted to industry and the risks which the current trend poses for cohesion.

The Commission has already stated on several occasions its intention to apply the state aid rules more strictly. The increasing number of negative decisions and repayment orders is already a sign of the stricter monitoring. There are also new draft guidelines for regional aid being prepared which envisage a reduction in the intensity of regional aid. In addition, the Commission plans to adopt stricter rules for the assessment of rescue and restructuring aid to firms in difficulty. In view of the sharp rise in the volume of ad hoc aid, it will also probably be necessary for the Commission to concentrate a larger proportion of its resources on examining the most important cases of distortion-creating ad hoc aid. To that end, it is preparing a draft 'multisectoral' framework which will lay down the criteria for examining such cases. Lastly, a draft Regulation based on Article 94 of the EC Treaty that will empower the Commission to simplify procedures by exempting certain categories of aid from the notification obligation would help to release resources and could therefore play an important role in this respect.

However, despite the efforts being planned by the Commission, it alone clearly does not have the necessary means of action to reduce the volume of aid and to narrow the gap between the 'cohesion' Member States and the other Member States. The feasibility of such action is primarily dependent on the will of the Member States. The Commission will, of course, support any dialogue and any initiative in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1241/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (8 April 1997)

Subject: Compensatory payments and aid for the production of certified rice seed

The deadline for claiming compensatory payments under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3072/95 is 30 April 1997 ((OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18. )). Producers of paddy rice from which seed is obtained ('propagators') are also entitled, subject to certain conditions, to benefit from Community aid for the production of certified seed, payable in the year following production (Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71) ((OJ L 246, 5.11.1971, p. 1. )). It seems that, under the existing legislation, aid may not be granted from both sources at once, and the reasons are apparently due purely to the legal language in which the texts are drafted.

1. Does the Commission believe that there are fundamental grounds for refusing to accept that the two kinds of aid are compatible?

2. Should the incompatibility be finally established, does it not fear that the cost of certified seed would rise immediately because propagators would have to allow for the risk that they might not receive any aid, be it a compensatory payment or seed production aid?

3. Does it not fear that certified seed would be less widely used because of the price increase, cutting the profit margins for the crop and correspondingly reducing the costs incidental to production as well as leading to a decline in quality, the end effect of which would run blatantly counter to the Community's policy of promoting quality, the very basis of the reform?

4. Given the imminence of the deadline, 30 April, does it not believe that it should and indeed must bring certainty to the matter, so as to avert adverse consequences for the producers and sectors concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

The reform of the rice sector introduced in Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 does not affect rice for sowing because this is not covered by the common organization of the market in rice. There are therefore no plans for the compensatory payments designed to offset the reduction in the intervention price to be applied to areas sown to rice for seed.

Seed production qualifies for special aid under the market organisation in seed.

The Commission is looking at the question of combining the compensatory payment with aid for seed production while at the same time taking into account the possible effects of such a measure on the seed market and on the rice market in general.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1833/97 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission (21 May 1997)

Subject: Basis for the Commission's appeal against the WTO's final report

From the very start the COM in bananas contained in Regulation 404/93 ((OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1. )) has been constantly opposed in all areas and by means of every conceivable stratagem. The sector is once again under threat on account of a complaint made to the WTO by the USA, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. The WTO's final report was issued on 30 April 1997. What basis will the Commission select for its appeal against that report?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)

The report of the panel of the World trade organization (WTO) on the Community's banana regime was circulated to WTO members on 22 May 1997. It is likely to come up for adoption at the WTO dispute settlement body in June. On that occasion, the Community will notify its intention to appeal the panel report to the WTO appellate body.

The Commission is examining the panel report very closely. It would be premature at this stage to indicate the basis for the Community's appeal. All that can be said at present is that the Commission is deeply dissatisfied with the panel's conclusions, both as regards the more specific findings on the banana regime, and as regards the broader implications of the panel's interpretation of the General agreement on tariffs and trade and WTO provisions, and will take all appropriate steps to ensure that such issues are considered by the WTO appellate body.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1412/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: High-speed trains at Lunghezza

Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )), as recently amended by Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. )), provides (in Article 4) that an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 must be carried out in the event of the construction of 'lines' for long-distance railway traffic (Annex I).

Contrary to the above provision, the Municipality of Rome, together with the Region of Lazio and Iricav, drew up a works project in January 1996 for a stretch of high-speed line between Rome and Naples at Lunghezza, Rome.

That plan did not provide for consultation of the area's inhabitants, even though this is required by Directive 85/337.

It should also be stressed that the plan envisages numerous existing buildings in very close proximity to the high-speed railway line in a area which is, among other things, already badly affected by the presence of the A24 motorway, that divides Lunghezza right down the middle. It is therefore clear that the construction of the high-speed line will have a significant environmental impact.

1. What is the Commission's opinion of this matter?

2. Does it consider that it should intervene to ensure that the competent Italian authorities respect Community legislation?

Answer given by Ms Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1997)

The Commission took up this matter with the Italian authorities in February 1997, requesting information on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 )) in connection with the plan to construct a stretch of high-speed railway line between Rome and Naples at Lunghezza, Rome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Construction of Rome Underground line 'C' and the Casaletto to Largo Argentina high-speed tramway

In her answer to Written Question E-1273/97 ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 109. )) Mrs Bjerregaard stated, on behalf of the Commission, that both the matters dealt with in that question, namely the construction of Rome Underground line 'C' and the Casaletto to Largo Argentina high-speed tramway, came under Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and that, owing to the failure to transpose that Directive, the Commission had approached the Italian authorities in connection with both of the above projects.

Can the Commission state exactly what approaches were made and to which authorities?

Can it say what effect such approaches have had?

Lastly, should Rome City Council continue to disregard the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC and proceed with work on the above projects, how would the Commission react?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 July 1997)

The Honourable Member is referring to the building projects involving the 'Castelletto-Largo Argentina' tram route and metro line C in Rome.

These projects are included in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC. In pursuance of Article 2 of the Directive any project that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, in particular owing to its nature, dimensions or locations, shall be subjected to an assessment of those impacts. The projects falling within the classes listed in Annex II shall be subjected to an assessment where the Member States feel that their characteristics so require.

The Commission has asked the Italian authorities to send it information on the implementation, in this instance, of Directive 85/337/EEC. So far no reply has been received from the Italian authorities. The Commission will thus again contact the authorities in question in order to obtain the necessary information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/97 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: European Union office in Pretoria, South Africa

I have been contacted by organizations dealing with the EU office in Pretoria to report on the ineffectiveness and disorganization bordering on chaos there.

I would be grateful if the Commission could investigate the matter with some urgency in the hope of providing additional support to the workers there to provide a professional contact for businesses and individuals in South Africa with the European Union.

Can the Commission indicate that this will or has indeed been done?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1997)

The Commission considers that, since its establishment in 1994, the Commission delegation in South Africa has been performing well under very heavy pressure, with limited staff resources. This has been recognized by many official visitors to South Africa. The delegation is responsible, inter alia, for managing the largest co-operation programme in Africa (125 MECU of new commitments each year), and the carry over of some 700 projects initiated before May 1994, under the special programme for the victims of apartheid. It also has important responsibilities in the area of political dialogue and economic co-operation, including support for the negotiations between South Africa and the Union.

As a result, the delegation has had to respond to many individual requests and to accommodate a continuous flow of visits which are stretching its resources.

Notwithstanding the budgetary and staffing constraints with which the Unified External Services of the Commission are faced and the demands for redeployment and recomposition of its overseas delegations, the Commission has nevertheless taken steps to reinforce the delegation in Pretoria. It now numbers eight Commission officials, supported by a qualified and dedicated local staff. Following this reinforcement of the delegation, a process of internal reorganisation was launched, under the authority of the head of delegation, aimed at rationalising the allocation of tasks between the delegation staff and facilitating the daily work of the delegation.