ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3743/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Chemicals which disrupt reproduction

What is the view of the Commission about alkyl phenol ethoxylates (APEs) [oestrogenic chemicals known to disrupt fish reproduction] which are used in cleaners, dehumidifiers, corrosion inhibitors and de-oilers; is the use of these products regulated in any way?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

Alkyl phenol ethoxylates, including their degradation product nonyl phenol, belong to a group of chemicals which has given cause for concern due to its effects in the aquatic environment. Lately, the alkyl phenyl ethoxylates have also been discussed in relation to endocrine disruption.

The Commission is currently forming its view on the risks posed by the alkyl phenyl ethoxylates. Nonyl phenol has been given priority for risk assessment under Regulation (EEC) No 93/793 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risk of existing substance ((OJ L 84, 5.4.1993. )). The outcome of the risk assessment, carried out by the competent authority in the United Kingdom, will include, if appropriate, a strategy for limiting the risks. The result of the risk evaluation and a recommended strategy will be adopted at Community level and published by the Commission. The Commission may then decide to propose Community measures within the framework of relevant legislation.

The Commission is examining the use of alkyl phenyl ethoxylates in detergent formulations as part of its review of the Community legislation on detergents.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Postponement of the ban on drift nets

For what reasons has the Commission postponed submission of a new proposal to ban drift nets or gill nets for catching tuna?

Why has Commissioner Bonino gone back on her promise to submit a proposal before the end of 1997?

Is the Commission aware that its 1994 proposal is being stonewalled by the Commission?

Why has the Commission accepted and concurred with the Council's opposition?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1998)

The Commission has undertaken to find the best way of unblocking the driftnet issue in the Council, together with the Presidency of the Council and the Member States concerned.

The proposal has not been blocked in the Council by the Commission - which has indicated its wish to find a solution on several occasions - but because a qualified majority has not so far emerged. The UK Presidency has said that it will submit a compromise proposal to the Council and the Commission hopes that a fair and lasting solution can be found on this basis. It will lend the Presidency all its support in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/97 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Council (22 May 1997)

Subject: UN Declaration on indigenous people

Parliament adopted a resolution on the draft UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples in November 1995 (B4-1415/95) ((OJ C 323, 4.12.1995, p. 117. )). Since then, two sessions of the special Human Rights Commission's working group on the Declaration have taken place.

1. Have EU Member States participated in the work of this working group?

2. If so, has there been a common EU position?

3. If not, why not?

4. Is the Council considering discussion of a common position with regard to the Declaration, and/or with regard to the issue of indigenous peoples in general?

Answer (30 March 1998)

There has been no common EU position on the subject matter of the Honourable Member of Parliament's question. The Council is not in a position to indicate which EU Member States have participated in the work of the special Human Rights Commission's working group on the Declaration. This is a matter of national competence of individual EU Member States.

At present, the Council is not considering a common position neither with regard to the Declaration nor with regard to the issue of indigenous peoples in general.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3533/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (14 November 1997)

Subject: Turkish aggressiveness towards Greece

On 16 October 1997 the continuous acts of provocation by Turkey towards Greece, an EU Member State, reached a hitherto unprecedented level when a C-130 aircraft transporting the Greek Minister of Defence and his entourage from Cyprus to Crete was intercepted by Turkish warplanes in Greek airspace.

This action constitutes a threat to peace in the south-east Mediterranean, infringes all EU rules and shows total disregard for the Madrid Agreement (now a dead letter in any case) and for Council and Commission admonitions regarding peaceful co-existence between the two countries. In addition, it constitutes a violation of all international treaties.

Furthermore, Turkey displayed total disregard for the lives and safety of the passengers on board the aircraft.

What measures will the Council take with regard to Turkey, a country associated with the EU, in view of its repeated provocations?

Will the President-in-Office raise this matter for discussion in the Council of Foreign Ministers or at the summit meeting in December?

Answer (17 March 1998)

Turkey features regularly on the Council's agenda. The Council attaches great importance to the promotion of relations between Greece and Turkey and the settlement of issues between them in accordance with international law, including means such as the International Court of Justice, as well as to the promotion of good-neighbourly relations and rejection of the threat or use of force in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The Council emphasizes the importance of refraining from any unilateral action which might run counter to that spirit.

The Council welcomes the decision taken by Mr Simitis and Mr Yilmaz in the margins of the Balkan Summit in Crete in early November 1997 to resume the process of normalizing relations between their countries. It hopes that the informal agreement in principle concluded in Madrid will be applied to that end. In the same spirit, the Council will do all it can to facilitate relations. In particular, the Presidency will cooperate with the experts from the Eminent Persons Working Party in their task of preparing procedural suggestions to solve the problems in the Aegean.

The Luxembourg European Council confirmed that the strengthening of the Union's relations with Turkey depended, among other factors, on the establishment of satisfactory and stable relations between Greece and Turkey.

Following the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council, the Council is now working on the European Union's strategy vis-à-vis Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: HEU supplies for FRM II

1. Can the Commission confirm that the Euratom Supply Agency is negotiating with Russian organizations for the supply of highly enriched uranium for European research reactors? Do those negotiations involve supplies for the controversial FRM II reactor in Munich?

2. What stage have the negotiations reached? What has been agreed, and what issues are still outstanding? By what date are the negotiations likely to be completed?

3. Can the Commission confirm that the Euratom Supply Agency has drawn up the draft of an agreement for supplies for the FRM II reactor of highly-enriched uranium from Russia?

4. Does the Commission not have any misgivings that the involvement of the FRM II reactor will constitute a severe blow to the campaign to prevent the non-proliferation of highly-enriched uranium? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to her written question E-2903/97 ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 33. )).

Since then those in charge of certain research reactors in the Community have entered into negotiations with the Russian authorities. Any supplies of highly enriched uranium resulting from this would be made in compliance with the strict safeguard rules and the policy of non-proliferation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3714/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of doctors in the United Kingdom

Various Community citizens whose medical or surgical degrees are in order, are certified qualified to practise medicine or have a medical specialization have been the victims of blatant discrimination by the UK authorities as regards access to the medical profession.

In particular, in many cases doctors trained in other Community countries are required to have the MRCP certificate, which can be obtained only in the UK following two years' general practice, in order to have access to professional or training activities, when it is not necessary in other European countries.

This situation clearly conflicts with the principles of freedom of movement for workers and the horizontal and vertical directives on access to the regulated professions.

1. Is the Commission aware of this discrimination?

2. Has the Commission taken or will it take action against the UK authorities to resolve these problems?

3. What recourse is open to Community citizens who are discriminated against by these rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

1. and 2. Since the Commission does not have the information necessary to investigate the problem raised, it regrets that it is at present unable to give an answer. It therefore requests the Honourable Member to provide further particulars.

3. Community citizens who consider themselves to have been discriminated against through a decision of the authorities of a Member State concerning access to training or to the taking-up or pursuit of a profession may apply to the courts of the country in question. If there is doubt whether a provision of national law is compatible with Community law, the national court may, where necessary, submit a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on one or more questions. The individuals in question may also make a complaint to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4028/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Landmines and EU aid

Does the Commission welcome the UK decision to review the levels of its development funding to recipient countries which do not 'sign up' to the Ottawa agreement on landmines?

Would it, therefore, not be appropriate for the Commission to recommend that the EU should adopt similar discrimination against recipients of EU development assistance which continue to produce and export landmines?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

The Commission welcomes measures by Member States that help overcome the tragic consequences of the irresponsible and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines in many developing countries, and which encourage adherence to the Convention to ban anti-personnel landmines which was opened for signature in Ottawa on 3 December 1997.

It was delighted to see so many developing countries sign the Convention on 3 and 4 December 1997.

It must, however, stress that the Community's development policies do not make aid conditional on a country's stance on anti-personnel landmines.

That being said, the Development Ministers, in the Council resolution of 22 November 1996 concerning an integrated and coordinated approach to tackling anti-personnel landmines, naturally excluded countries selling, producing and stockpiling anti-personnel landmines from mine-clearance programmes, except for research projects in the anti-personnel landmines field, relief activities and measures directly benefiting vulnerable communities.

Extending this resolution to the whole of the Community's development policy could be discussed at the talks on future relations with the developing countries to encourage them to stop producing, stockpiling, trading in and laying anti-personnel landmines.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3827/97 by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Exemption for the funding of a confectionery cooperative

The Cooperativa Dolciaria Toscana,a limited-liability confectionery cooperative in Tuscany, which was set up in Empoli (Fi) on 26 July 1995 and employs 43 people, submitted on 28 February 1996 a request for the Compagnia Finanziaria Industriale to contribute to its registered capital pursuant to Law No 49 of 1985 (the Marcora Law), which request was approved by the Conferenza dei Servizi (services council) on 29 July 1996 in respect of a payment of Lire 1.069 billion.

The authorization in question has been suspended- thus freezing the entire sum -pending receipt of the necessary European Union exemption. However, as it obtained in March 1997 an instalment of Lire 189.986 million, i.e the 'de minimis' payment, the Ministry of Industry has repeatedly requested the European Union for the exemption available for cooperatives that have obtained the 'de minimis'.

The funds provided under the Marcora Law have been granted to only some of those who have applied for them, while other applicants -including the Cooperativa Dolciaria Toscana- are still waiting for payment.

Could the Commision state the criteria on the basis of which priority is awarded for the allocation of funds, and above all why the European Union has not yet authorized the exemption required to render the authorization operative and release the sum in question; have the conditions been met and does the will exist to release the funds; and, finally, whether the relevant Italian authorities have taken the necessary procedural steps to request the exemption?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The Commission decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of certain provisions of Law No 49/85 (Marcora Law), for which the Italian authorities had submitted the refinancing arrangements.

The decision was notified to the Italian authorities by letter dated 11 June 1997, to which they replied on 31 July.

As stipulated in the rules governing initiation of the procedure, the decision must be published in the Official Journal in the eleven Community languages. That having been done ((OJ C 309, 9.10.1997. )), Member States and interested third parties have one month in which to present their observations.

The Commission can subsequently terminate the procedure by taking a decision on the compatibility or otherwise of the notified scheme with the state aid rules.

In the meantime the Italian authorities, as they have done, may apply the scheme subject to the de minimis threshold.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3640/97 by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Experimentation on wild animals

Would the Commission please detail the steps which it, and Member States, are currently taking to ensure that wild-caught primates are not used for experimentation when other animals would 'suffice for the aims of the experiment'?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that the provisions of Directive 86/609/EEC concerning the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) are adhered to in their territory. An exemption to use non-purpose bred animals can be obtained 'under arrangements determined by the authority' (Article 19(4) of the Directive) and it is at the discretion of the Member States that the applicant sufficiently justifies that 'other animals would not suffice for the aims of the experiment' (Article 7(3)).

The responsibility of the Commission is to examine that the Directive has been correctly transposed and applied by the Member States. With regard to the provisions relating to the use of non-purpose bred animals, defined in Articles 7(3), 19(4) and 21, the Commission has opened four infringement proceedings which partly cover either one or more of the above mentioned Articles. Only one of these relates to a wrong application, the others concern technical aspects of the implementation in national legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3906/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Structural Funds for Tuscany and breach of anti-seismic legislation

Tuscany is widely believed to be a region which receives generous Community funding. Nevertheless, there are major failures in the efforts to combat unemployment and stimulate industrial development - two of the objectives receiving funding. One example of this is a factory (for making high-precision machinery) on which construction began 14 years ago but which is still not able to begin production because the Regional Civil Engineer has not certified it as being in breach of anti-seismic legislation. For the past 14 years, political and bureaucratic posturing by the Regional President, who refuses to order the firm constructing the factory to comply with the legislation, and the Mayor of the Commune of Pisa, who has declared the factory a danger to the public and to private individuals, has made it impossible to begin production and hire labour.

1. Can the Commission state the total amount of Community funding allocated to Tuscany for industrial development and job creation?

2. Does the Commission not agree that the public authorities should cooperate in pursuing the sole aim of serving the public interest by promoting compliance with anti-seismic legislation and boosting employment?

3. Can the Commission say what procedures are followed to carry out checks on the use of Community funds in Tuscany, in view of the fact that, for apparently incomprehensible reasons, the Region of Tuscany has, for the past 14 years, failed to open a factory which could immediately recruit workers and begin production?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1998)

The region of Tuscany should receive over 500 MECU in aid from the Community's structural funds during the period 1994-1999 to assist its declining industrial areas, rural areas and the development of human resources.

Implementation of the programmes concerned is followed up by monitoring committees on which there are Commission representatives. With regard to financial control, Member States are required to verify on a regular basis that the operations financed have been properly carried out. Commission officials may carry out on-the-spot sample checks.

As for the factory in Pisa mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have specific knowledge of the matter. It seems highly unlikely, however, given that Pisa only became eligible for Community assistance in January 1994, that the project in question would have received Community funding. In any case the political and bureaucratic problems mentioned by the Honourable Member are essentially a matter for the relevant Italian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Gastone Parigi (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Safety standards in European legislation

A number of Member States, including Italy, do not observe current Community provisions on safety standards, not just with regard to workplaces, but above all where treatment and rehabilitation centres are concerned. The provisions governing safety standards are contradictory in some Member States, Italy being one example. Will the Commission therefore open an investigation in all the Member States, in order to ascertain that European safety legislation is being implemented, and formal notice on countries which are failing wholly or in part to fulfil their obligations?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

Monitoring the implementation of Community law is an ongoing activity of the Commission which, in the case of the directives on health and safety at work, is still developing since it was only fairly recently that the time limit for transposing the directives expired.

For more information on the Commission's monitoring activities, the Honourable Member is referred to the 14th annual Commission report to the Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law ((OJ C 332, 3.11.1997. )) and, in particular, to its annex entitled 'Report on the application of directives'.

In addition, the Member States are required to report to the Commission at regular intervals on the practical implementation of the directives' provisions. As soon as these reports become available, copies will be sent to the Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, together with the Commission report based on the information contained in them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/97 by Carlo Ripa di Meana (V) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Contract for planned new eastern by-pass

A question by Councillor Adriana Spera to the Mayor of Rome, Francesco Rutelli, indicates that when awarding the contract (amounting to more than LIT 6 billion) for the planned new eastern by-pass to Ferrovie dello Stato Rome town council infringed the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. )) which was transposed into Italian law by decree law No 157/95. Rome town council awarded the contract by private negotiated procedure without using the European tendering procedure, wrongly assuming that the contract in question was one of those 'excluded'. Since both Councillor Spera and Usicons (consumers' association) brought the matter to the Commission's attention has the Commission done anything and, if so, with what result?

Does the Commission consider that the Mayor of Rome overturned the decision to award the contract to Ferrovie dello Stato by assigning it, again by private negotiated procedure, to S.T.A., a company entirely controlled by Rome town council, which deals with the removal of illegally parked cars but not with planning and cannot therefore enter into private negotiations as a body with exclusive rights in the area covered by the contract?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

On 17 March 1997 the Commission sent the Italian authorities a request for information in which it expressed its concern regarding the compatibility with Community legislation of the contract for the design of the bypass awarded to Ferrovie dello Stato S.p.A. The Italian authorities gave their observations on 2 October, indicating that they were now looking into alternative solutions.

The Commission had meanwhile been informed that the Rome town council had taken a new decision on 1 August repealing the earlier decision. On 24 October it sent the Italian authorities a further request for information concerning the new decision in which it pointed out that it also entertained misgivings as to the compatibility of the new contract, which had been awarded to STA S.p.A., with Community public procurement legislation, and in particular Directive 92/50/EEC coordinating award procedures for public service contracts.