ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2878/97 by Wayne David (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: German coal subsidies

The continued practice of allowing state aid to be paid to certain sections of the German coal industry is resulting in below-cost pricing and the subsidizing of less efficient producers of anthracite; it is also against the specific conditions of aid approval and the fundamental principles of the ECSC and the EC. The result is that anthracite producers in the UK, for example, are facing unfair competition.

Can the Commission inform the Parliament what action it is planning to take on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1997)

By letter addressed to the German Government on 1 August 1997 and published in the Official Journal ((OJ C 258, 23.8.1997. )), the Commission informed that Government of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty. The letter concerned sales of anthracite by the German coal undertakings Sophia-Jacoba GmbH and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH on Community territory.

Upholding the right of defence, the Commission asked Germany to submit, within one month, various reports explaining the circumstances of these sales with regard to competition law.

The Commission also allowed the other Member States and interested third parties to submit their comments on this matter within one month from the date of publication in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1144/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Surinam and international drug trafficking

The Netherlands Presidency recently summoned the Brazilian and the Chinese ambassadors to express its displeasure at Brazil and China receiving a diplomatic mission from Surinam led by the former dictator Desi Bouterse. The Presidency's view is that this enhances Bouterse's standing. The Presidency is clearly referring to Bouterse's heavy involvement in the international trade in cocaine and the problems that the Netherlands and France, in particular, have suffered as a result.

1. Has the Netherlands Presidency also expressed its displeasure to Surinam's ambassador in The Hague at Bouterse's diplomatic missions to Surinam's ambassador and, if not, why not?

2. Is the international action undertaken by the Netherlands Presidency actually justified, given that the Netherlands Ministry of Justice is clearly reluctant to issue an international arrest or search warrant notice for Bouterse?

3. Would it not be more sensible, given the enormous problems which Bouterse's drug trafficking has caused for northern France and the city of Lille, in particular, if the Netherlands Presidency were to undertake this and future diplomatic action jointly with France?

Answer (7 November 1997)

The Presidency of the Council was assumed by Luxembourg on 1 July 1997. In addition, questions of extradition between a Member State and a third country fall outside the Council's sphere of competence. Finally, the Council was not informed of the demarches to which the Honourable Member's question refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2862/97 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Investments in the Rovno and Kmelnitsky nuclear power stations in the Ukraine

The EBRD decided some time ago not to participate in the completion of the Rovno 4 and Kmelnitsky 2 nuclear power stations in the Ukraine as investigations had shown that the investment did not meet the 'least-cost' criterion with which the Bank must comply. At present the EBRD has commissioned a second study to show whether the completion of one of the plants would in fact satisfy the 'least-cost' criterion.

Does the Commission consider that following the EBRD decision, Euratom's loan for the completion of the two power stations should also be dropped?

Does it share my view that no new investment in one of the two power stations should be made until the EBRD has decided whether it will provide a loan for its completion?

If the EBRD also withdraws from the part-financing of the completion of one of the two power stations, will the Commission then follow that decision?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1997)

The information available to the Commission does not confirm that the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) has decided against participating in the completion of the Rovno 4 and Khmelnitsky 2 nuclear power plants. The EBRD is still investigating the economic aspects of the project. The Commission for its part is also continuing the preparation of the Euratom loan for the project.

The Commission remains committed to the full implementation of the memorandum of understanding aimed at the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000 and obviously will take into account all relevant aspects in its decision on the project financing. This will include the availability of the necessary complementary financing by the other financial institutions, such as the EBRD, the need to seek guarantees for completion of the two reactors to international acceptable safety standards and the overall need to obtain closure of Chernobyl, especially in the light of a recent report from independent experts confirming the unsafe state of Unit 3 which at present is still in operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/97 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Euratom loan for the Russian NPP Kalinin Unit 3

What is the current status of the proposed Euratom loan for the Russian NPP Kalinin Unit 3? Has the application been approved by the PHARE/TACIS Nuclear Safety Expert Group, and if so, under what criteria and with what conditions attached? Is the proposed loan being reviewed by the European Investment Bank, and if so, under which criteria?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1997)

On the basis of a request for a Euratom loan from the Russian state electricity concern Rosenergoatom, the Commission is preparing all the studies required to enable it to make a decision on such a loan.

In line with Council Decision 94/179/Euratom of 21 March 1994 amending Decision 77/270/Euratom, to authorize the Commission to contract Euratom borrowings in order to contribute to the financing required for improving the degree of safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in certain non-member countries ((OJ L 84, 29.3.1994. )) and its attached guidelines, the Phare Tacis nuclear safety expert group has already discussed the technical details of the project and submitted in July 1997 a statement to the Commission. The statement indicates that the implementation of the proposed modernisation programme and of the measures recommended by Riskaudit would achieve an internationally acceptable safety level. It also insists on the adequate involvement of the Russian nuclear safety authorities and technical safety organisations in the licensing process and recommends that Community support should continue to be extended to the Russian nuclear regulator during the licensing process. The opinion is given subject to a satisfactory conclusion of the assessment of the environmental impact of the project.

As part of the Euratom loan procedure, the European investment bank (EIB) is required to deliver a recommendation on the financial aspects of the project to be financed, for example on whether the project is suitable for loan financing or whether the borrower is likely to be in a position to service and reimburse the Euratom loan envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3326/97 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1997)

Subject: Greek Community Support Framework: the Egnatia Road and Thessaloniki Underground projects

Among the projects included in the Second Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece (1994-1999) are the construction of the Egnatia Road, a project of key strategic importance for the development of trans-European networks in Greece and the European Union, and the Thessaloniki Underground, a major project intended to alleviate the serious traffic and environmental problems facing this city of over a million people. In view of the delay in the take-up by Greece of CSF funds in respect of many development projects and programmes, the Greek Government has put forward proposals for the transfer of appropriations from some programmes to others. Inter alia, it has proposed transferring over Drs. 100 billion from the Egnatia Road project and Drs. 27 billion from the Thessaloniki Underground project.

Does the Commission intend to transfer funds earmarked for the important projects in question, and if so, on what grounds?

Given Greece's bitter experience that a project which is delayed is never implemented, how does the Commission view the Greek Government's intention to transfer funds which will essentially mean an end to the Thessaloniki Underground project?

Given that the Egnatia Road project has already begun and is currently under way, how does the Commission view the request for a transfer of appropriations which will delay its implementation?

Does it not agree that the proposal for the transfer of appropriations will essentially cancel out the strategic and economic benefit which would have resulted from the completion of the Egnatia Road during the five-year period 1994-1999, which will thus be put off indefinitely?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Commission can confirm that it has received from the Greek authorities proposals which include the transfer to other projects of DRA 100 billion (approximately ECU 330 million) allocated under the second Community support framework (CSF) for the Egnatia main road and DRA 27 billion (approximately ECU 90 million) earmarked for the Thessaloniki underground railway. These proposals are currently being considered by the Commission and will then be discussed at the next meeting of the Monitoring Committee for the CSF.

The Commission set out its position on this transfer of appropriations from the Thessaloniki underground railway project in its reply to Oral Question H-741/97 during the Question Time of Parliament's part-session in October 1997 ((Debates of the European Parliament (October 1997). )).

With regard to the reduction in appropriations proposed for Egnatia, the Commission has already notified the Greek authorities of its serious reservations. The information available to the Commission suggests that this project could be completed under the current CSF and absorb the appropriations allocated to it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2766/97 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: State aid from the Kingdom of Belgium to the Forges de Clabecq steel company

1. On 18 December 1996 the Commission ruled that subsidies amounting to BEF 3 billion from the Kingdom of Belgium to the Forges de Clabecq steel company were incompatible with the common market. Belgium was required to reclaim the subsidies within two months of the decision. Does the Commission know whether repayment has duly taken place? If repayment of the subsidies should prove unenforceable, is the Commission prepared to examine whether the distortion of competition caused by subsidies must not be alleviated by a reduction in capacity?

2. On 13 June 1997 the Belgian daily Le Soir reported that in the possible sale of Forges de Clabecq to a private company the Walloon Region was prepared to grant the company an extra BEF 1.8 billion. Does the Commission find this further subsidy incompatible with the steel aid code, and what steps does it intend to take to bring about the necessary reduction in capacity?

3. Will the Commission be treating the most recent events concerning Forges de Clabecq as a reason for requiring the Kingdom of Belgium to suspend payment of all funds to that company?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1997)

1. On 19 December 1996, Forges de Clabecq went into bankruptcy. Therefore, when requested to recover the aid paid to the company, the Belgian authorities registered with the bankruptcy authorities a claim corresponding to the amount to be recovered.

2. The Commission has not yet received notification of the joint participation of the Walloon Region in the acquisition of Forges de Clabecq. If such information is received, the Commission will assess it thoroughly in order to ensure that no new aid is involved in any possible form. As for an eventual reduction in capacity, there is no situation in which aid could be considered compatible with the steel aid code against a reduction in capacity unless such aid aimed at facilitating the partial or total closure of a company.

3. The Commission has no reason to believe that the Belgian authorities will not comply with their notification obligations. It will however take all appropriate measures to ensure that the Community rules are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2320/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Fighting international crime and guarding the European external borders against the transit of cocaine via the Netherlands by the Surinamese drugs cartel

1. Can the Netherlands Presidency of the Council explain why the former Secretary-General of the Ministry of General Affairs, R.J. Hoekstra, despite his misconduct in having ordered the unlawful destruction of all the files of the former Netherlands Foreign Intelligence Service, is to be retained as a member of the highest advisory body in the Netherlands, the Council of State, and why Mr van der Voort, who is suspected of complicity in a similar act of misconduct - destruction of a file - is being suspended?

2. Can the Presidency explain how it is possible that on 14 September 1997 the former head of the Netherlands Foreign Intelligence Service, K.M. Meulmeester, in his capacity as an advisor to the Prime Minister, is to be a guest speaker at the Europa 2000 conference on fighting international crime in Bucharest, despite having committed an act of misconduct in unlawfully destroying the files of the former Netherlands Foreign Intelligence Service, and why Mr Van der Voort, who is suspected of complicity in a similar act of misconduct - destruction of a file - is being suspended?

3. Does not the Presidency agree that the expediency principle should be applied in respect of the suspicions against Mr Van der Voort, in view of the far greater public interest of Europe as a whole in combating the Surinamese drugs mafia, and bearing in mind that the suspicions against Mr Van der Voort are based purely on his complicity in an act of misconduct consisting of destruction of a file, an act which has been excused in the public interest in many previous, far more serious cases, such as those of K.M. Meulmeester and R.J.Hoekstra?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2251/97, E-2319/97 and E-2320/97 (7 November 1997)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member fall out with the Council's sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2398/97 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Environmental damage in the Oliva-Pego marsh

The Oliva-Pego marsh in the Valencia Region has suffered considerable damage in the last few weeks as a result of fires, ploughing and the drying up of the wetland. All this constitutes a serious environmental problem which is supposed to be solved by the execution of the project for a national park in the area.

Is the Commission aware of the current situation concerning the project for the national park in the Oliva-Pego marsh? Can it supply information about the European aid requested by the Valencian authorities to finance the purchase of land from farmers?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1997)

The Commission is aware of what has been happening in the Pego-Oliva marshes, since conservation of this area is one of the objectives of the Life-Nature project 'Programa de acciones para la conservación de humedales valencianos y creación de áreas de reserva para el samaruc (Valencia hispanica)', the contract for which (B4-3200/92/15183 and B4-3200/95/525) was established in December 1992 between the Commission and the Government of Valencia.

The Commission has asked the beneficiary to forward regular information on the action taken to ensure the conservation of this wetland area in the face of activity by certain farmers. The following measures have been taken:

- lodging of a complaint by the Director of the reserve against the Mayor of Pego (alleged violation against natural resources and the environment, serious dereliction of duty, illegal possession);

- order from the Consejería de medio ambiente freezing all forms of activity in the marshes;

- order from the competent judge prohibiting all activity in the marshes and asking the civil guard to monitor potential infringements;

- action taken in defiance of this ban has been reported to the competent national court.

In 1996 the Valencian authorities purchased, or took steps towards purchasing, 569 'anegadas' (approximately 50 hectares) of the Pego-Oliva marshes for a total of PTA 111 million. Steps are being taken to purchase a similar surface area in 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Deterioration of the river Segura

The grave deterioration of the river Segura as it passes through Orihuela, the Vega Baja, Murcia and its mouth at Guardamar in Alicante is causing serious environmental and health problems. The stagnant water and putrefying mud produce insalubrious smells, and cause respiratory and gastro-intestinal problems amongst the population.

For several years, various political parties and citizens' organizations have been denouncing this situation, without the relevant authorities producing a comprehensive solution to the problem, although a purifying plant is going to be constructed for one of the stretches of river in question.

A quality report on the state of the river Segura as it passes through the city of Orihuela produced a general quality index of less than 70, which was stated to be 'inadmissible'. This report highlights the total absence of aquatic life.

The state of neglect of the river could presumably constitute an ecological crime.

1. In view of the situation, does the Commission not believe that Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna requires the implementation of a comprehensive programme for collecting and treating the stagnant water of these stretches of the river with a view to restoring natural life and making it possible to use the water for irrigation purposes, once it has been purified, without its indirect consumption posing any threat to human health?

2. To what extent would the Commission be prepared to consider the possibility of co-funding a plan for reclaiming these stretches of the river, in conjunction with the local authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1997)

1. The site concerned is neither a special protection area under the terms of Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )) on the conservation of wild birds, nor a proposed site of Community importance under the terms of Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.07.92, p. 7. )) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Commission has no information about the presence of any species or habitat types of Community interest in the area. For these reasons Directive 92/43/EEC is not applicable.

2. It is up to the national authorities to submit projects for Community financing within the existing Community support framework for Spain. Should this occur, the Commission would carefully assess all aspects before taking any decision with respect to financing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/97 by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Cancellation of agricultural subsidies for Valencia

On 30 June 1997 the Valencian regional government officially announced that PTA 808 million of Community funding were being cancelled, of which PTA 115.4 million corresponded to the co-financing by the Ministry of Agriculture of aid from the EAGGF-Guarantee Fund, while the remaining PTA 692.6 million came directly from subsidies granted by the European Union. These funds were mainly earmarked for the 'afforestation of agricultural land'. The resolution setting out the loss of these subsidies, which was announced on 30 June 1997 by the Commission for Economy and Finance of the Generalitat of Valencia, is dated 31 December 1996 and affects last year's budget.

Is the Commission aware that this line of credit providing aid for agriculture in Valencia, and more specifically for the reafforestation of agricultural land, has been cancelled?

If so, what exactly are the reasons why it has been cancelled?

Can the Commission state to what use the cancelled funds will now be put?

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

According to information from the national and regional authorities, the funds referred to by the Honourable Member were not cancelled in 1996 but will be used under the 1997 budget. Intended to cover the set of measures accompanying the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the funds in question were not utilised in 1996 since there were fewer applications than anticipated.

This failure to utilise the funds should not affect the overall implementation of programmes according to those authorities, who expect demand to rise in 1997 and subsequent financial years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Authorization for varieties

1. Is it true that if genetically modified plants are registered in the common list of varieties for agricultural plant varieties (70/457/EEC) ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1. )) (FN) and for seeds (70/458/EEC) ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. )) (FN) no further approval is required for these plants under the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) (FN)?

2. If this is the case, will only the labelling of such plants be covered by the novel food regulation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2112/97, E-2116/97, E-2124/97 and E-2142/97 (31 October 1997)

The conditions for implementing Directives 70/457/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1. )) and 70/458/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. )) and Regulation No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty, as regards authorization and labelling procedures are specified in Article 3(2) of that Regulation.