ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1458/97 by Claude Desama (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Choice of sites for the storage of low-level nuclear waste in Belgium

The Belgian Government has drawn up a list of sites for the storage of low-level waste. Before a final decision is made, should not the Commission check whether Belgium has abided by the provisions of Articles 34 to 36 of the Euratom Treaty regarding the protection of public health?

Furthermore, in the case of those sites which are within close range of the borders of other Member States, such as Bovigny (near Luxembourg) and Faweu in the Verviers area (close to Germany), has the Commission ascertained whether the Belgian Government is in compliance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, and has it set up the group of experts provided for in Article 31 of that Treaty?

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

Member States are required to ensure that they fully respect all obligations arising from Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission would only seek to intervene if it had valid evidence to the effect that a Member State was not meeting such obligations. In the case of sites envisaged by Belgium for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste there is no evidence that such a project would constitute 'a particularly dangerous experiment' within the meaning of Article 34 nor that Belgium might fail to introduce appropriate environmental monitoring facilities and data communication (as required by Articles 35 and 36) in respect of any site which might be exploited for this purpose.

The question of the application of Article 37 of the Treaty to Bovigny has been dealt with in the reply to Written question E-1135/97 by Mr Fayot ((See page 75. )). That reply is equally valid for other such sites whether or not they are close to a frontier.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1026/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Pending marketing applications for genetically modified foods and animal feedingstuffs

Ten applications to market genetically modified products throughout EU are currently pending under Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )). These are mainly applications to market genetically modified foods for human consumption and animal feedingstuffs.

1. Is the the Council going to hold up the applications until the European Parliament and Council regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients (the 'novel food regulation') has entered into force?

2. What are the Council's reasons for its decision?

3. Since a decision will not be taken on most of the applications until the novel food regulation has entered into force, will they automatically come under the novel food regulation as soon as it has entered into force?

4. If the pending applications do not come under the novel food regulation as soon as it enters into force, what is the Council's justification for its action?

Answer (2 July 1997)

As specified in Articles 11 to 13 of Directive 90/220/EEC, the procedure for granting marketing authorizations for products containing genetically modified organisms is a matter for the competent authority of the Member State in which a marketing application has been submitted and for the Commission; other Member States may make comments or raise objections during this procedure.

The conditions for applying Directive 90/220 and Regulation 258/97 are detailed in Articles 1, 3 and 9 of the Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0324/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in Portugal

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure in Portugal?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Completion of the nuclear power plant in Mochovce, Slovak Republic

The pressurized water reactors Mochovce I and II in the Slovak Republic, which would be the first nuclear power plant complexes in central and eastern Europe, are to be brought up to western safety standards with EU assistance. This is a project which the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has refused to finance because it regards the plan as unrealistic. Now the European Mochovce Consortium (EUCOM), consisting of Siemens and Framatom, has been commissioned by the Slovak energy supply company Slovenske Elektrame (SE) to complete the partly-built plant. In this connection, Siemens has applied to the German Government for a guarantee under the Hermes scheme.

1. Does the Commission agree that supporting a nuclear energy policy in the Slovak Republic will impede the development of an efficient, environmentally sound energy supply system and that as a result energy consumption levels will remain high?

2. Does it agree that Austria's interests are being harmed by the involvement of France and Germany in the Slovak Republic? What kind of discussions, if any, are being conducted on this matter?

3. Does the Commission know how and where the radioactive waste produced if the Mochovce plant is brought into service will be processed and stored?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is not involved in financing the Mochovce nuclear power plant, consequently it cannot comment on matters which are the concern of specific Member States, in this case Germany, France and Austria.

With regard to the storage of radioactive waste, the situation in the Slovak Republic is identical to that described in the answer given by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Question No E-2853/96 ((OJ C 96, 24.3.1997. )). The Slovak authorities are currently studying long-term solutions for the storage of this waste.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/97 by Patrick Cox (ELDR) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Structural funds - plant relocations

Under the current round of EU structural funds (1994 to today), can the Commission specify and name by plant the number of industrial relocations which received any direct assistance under the structural funds; can it also specify by plant and by state the amount of structural fund grant aid received?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1997)

The Commission is not able to provide the detailed information asked for by the Honourable Member.

The reason for this is that, when applications for assistance from the Structural Funds are being considered which relate to investment in productive capacity, where that plant may have come from is not included as a criterion for appraising the request. Nor is this information required when Member States come to draw up their interim and final reports on implementation of aid from the Funds.

However, the Commission is looking into ways of identifying relocations of industrial plant better in the future, especially where they are likely to receive assistance from the Structural Funds. In this connection, the Commission would like to point out that cases of a straight transfer of activities by a company are rare since relocations are more usually carried out as part of a restructuring exercise or a rationalization of activities. Any relocations which may have qualified for Fund assistance in the past would for the most part have been of the second kind.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in France

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, production aid accounted for ECU 566.5 million and ECU 1547 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the total figure for expenditure on production aid for olive oil in France?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Chlorine content of water in swimming pools

1. How does the Commission asssess the health risk posed by trihalogenmethane - (THM) - levels in swimming pools?

2. When does it intend to introduce common limit values at EU level for the chlorine content of swimming pools, and how high will these limit values be set?

3. How does it intend to combat the health risk facing the staff of swimming pools due to chloroform pollution at the surface of water in swimming pools?

4. How does it view the use of anti-mould products based on chlorine to remove mould from walls?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

1. The disinfection of water supplies by chlorination offers substantial benefits to human health. Untreated raw water, in particular surface waters, can contain a large number of organic compounds which will react with

chlorine to form (volatile) halogenated compounds, such as trihalomethane (THM). In experimental animal studies exposure to THM by inhalation was suspected to be carcinogenic. However, according to the monograph No 52 on the 'Evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, chlorination by-products and some other halogenated compounds' published by the International agency for research on cancer, no direct observations of carcinogenic effects in human population could be made. The Commission is not aware of peer-reviewed studies which contest this assessment.

2. The Commission does not intend to propose harmonised standards for the chlorination of bathing waters in swimming pools.

3. Workers working in swimming pool establishments are covered by the measures provided by the Community legislation on health and safety at work, such as the Council Directives 80/1107/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work ((OJ L 327, 3.12.1980. )) and 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work ((OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. )). These lay down minimum requirements under Article 118A EC Treaty which are to be applied in the workplace.

4. The most common anti-mould products contain sodium hypochlorite (NaOCI) solutions. The risks associated with these products are due to chlorine release in cases where products are accidentally mixed with acidic or other cleaning products. The gases formed are irritant to the respiratory system. The packages are labelled according to Community legislation giving information about this effect. The Commission is presently examining possibilities to improve further the safety of these products.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1431/97 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (16 April 1997)

Subject: Crosse and Blackwell closure in Peterhead, Scotland

Will the Commission confirm whether the provisions of the Social Chapter, or any other European legislation in force or planned, would empower workers' access to information on the financial reasoning behind a decision to close one operation and transfer its activities to another plant elsewhere within a European Union or EEA Member State?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The agreement on social policy annexed to the social protocol does not impose on employers any obligations to inform and consult their employees. Article 2 of this agreement empowers the Council to adopt, by means of directives, minimum requirements on information and consultation of workers (Article 2(1) third indent) and on co-determination (Article 2(3) third indent).

Article 2 of Council Directive 92/56/EEC ((OJ L 245, 2.8.1992. )) on collective redundancies obliges the employer to provide all relevant information to the workers' representatives in good time during the course of consultations and in any case to notify them in writing of the reasons for the redundancies which are envisaged.

Council Directive 77/187/EEC ((OJ L 61, 5.3.1977. )) on transfers of undertakings imposes upon the transferor and the transferee the obligation to inform the representatives of their employees on the reasons of transfer. Such information must be given in good time before the transfer is carried out.

Points 2 and 3 of the Annex to Council Directive 94/45/EC ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. )) on the European works council (EWC) lay down the information and consultation requirements, applicable in the case of absence of agreements, including the obligation to inform the EWC on the progress of the business and its prospects including its economic and financial situation.

In the amended proposals for Council directives supplementing the statutes for a European company ((OJ C 176, 8.7.1991. )), a European association ((OJ C 236, 31.8.1993. )), a European co-operative5, a European mutual society5 and the amended proposal for a fifth directive concerning the structure of public limited companies and the powers and obligations of their organs ((OJ C 240, 9.9.1983. )), the procedures regarding the involvement of employees depend on the option of workers' involvement that would be chosen by the Member State concerned.

The Commission will launch in the coming weeks the first stage consultation of the social partners at European level provided in article 3 of the agreement on social policy, on information and consultation of workers at national level. One of the main discussion points in this context is the reinforcement of the link between the economic or strategic aspects and the social aspects of management decisions within the existing procedures for informing and consulting employees' representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/97 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (10 March 1997)

Subject: Human rights in Russia

Aleksander Nikitin, a former Russian naval officer, is being held in custody because of his activities on behalf of the Norwegian environmental organization Bellona. He is the subject of a resolution of the European Parliament (B4-0179/96 ((OJ C 65, 4.3.1996, p. 162. ))) and an inquiry by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Mr Nikitin has been adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.

What action has the Council, or the Presidency of the Council, taken to secure the release of Aleksander Nikitin?

Answer (1 July 1997)

The Council has followed the Nikitin case from the outset and has raised the matter with the Russian side at a high level. On 14 December 1996 Nikitin was released on condition that he did not leave St Petersburg for the time being; this can undoubtedly be attributed to the great interest the case has received at international level, in particular the question of whether proceedings had been conducted fairly. As yet no action has been brought against Nikitin. The Council will continue to follow the matter closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1511/97 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Nuclear industry

Have any discussions taken place with the relevant Member State about the incident on Wednesday 26 March 1997 when the nuclear reactors at Hunterston B nuclear power station were shut down, causing considerable alarm and distress to many of the workforce?

Will the Commission obtain assurances from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Instalments Inspectorate that action will be taken to prevent such recurrences?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

The Commission has not received any particular information regarding an incident which might have taken place on 26 March 1997 at Hunterston B nuclear power station.

A priori, a shut down is not an incident and, indeed, the shut down in question has not to date been declared under the International nuclear event scale (INES) system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1513/97 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Transfer and payment of social security benefits in other Member States

1. Is the Commission aware that entitlements acquired in Germany - nursing insurance - are not paid out in other Member States of the European Union?

2. Does the Commission believe that this failure to make payments abroad complies with European law?

3. Are preparations being made for the harmonization of payments of national social security benefits in other EU Member States?

4. Are any actions relating to this matter pending before the European Court of Justice or national courts?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

1. The Honourable Member refers to the problems arising from the fact that German legislation has recently introduced a new branch of social security in order to protect people needing long-term-care (dependence insurance 'Pflegeversicherung'). This insurance is financed by contributions to be paid by those either living or working in Germany. In case of necessity, it provides the insured with a number of benefits and services such as special homes. In addition people preferring to remain in their own homes and organise the services needed themselves with the help of family or friends are entitled to a monthly sum in order to compensate for the cost of the care. The German authorities are of the opinion that none of these dependence insurance benefits are exportable to other Member States.

2. The Commission is of the opinion that the benefits in cash provided for those who choose to organise their care informally could be exported to other Member States as long as the person is insured with the German dependence insurance. Under the terms of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 those benefits should be regarded as sickness benefits in cash ((Council regulation (EC) No 118/97 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/92 - OJ L 28, 30.1.1997. )).

3. It must be noted, however, that the Regulation aims to co-ordinate but not to harmonise the different social security schemes of the Member States. Based on Article 51 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 only co-ordinates the social security systems in order to guarantee freedom of movement of people. This is done by special methods and one of them is to export sickness benefits in cash.

4. There are two preliminary rulings pending before the Court of justice regarding the export of the German dependence benefits ((RS C-160/96 MOLENAAR; Abl. Nr. C 197/13 vom 6.7.1997 und RS C 40/97 JORDY; Abl. C Nr. 94/11 vom 22.3.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1094/97 by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

Article 8(2) of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. )) states 'To facilitate collection, reuse and recovery including recycling, packaging shall indicate for purposes of its identification and classification by the industry concerned the nature of the packaging material(s) used.'

The directive laid down that within a year the Commission was to determine, on the basis of Annex I, the numbering and abbreviations on which the identification system was to be based and specify the materials to be subject to the identification system.

On 28 January 1997, the Commission adopted a decision establishing an identification system for packaging. However, the decision states that its provisions are to be voluntary. It is thus ineffective as a means of establishing an environmentally effective approach to the management of packaging waste and promoting responsible consumer practices.

1. Why was it decided that the packaging identification system should be voluntary?

2. Does the Commission plan to adopt measures to establish a mandatory identification system whose use would encounter public opposition?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste recognizes the role played by the identification of packaging material in the facilitation of collection, reuse and recovery including recycling of packaging.

The identification system established by Commission Decision 97/129/EC ((OJ L 50, 20.2.1997. )) is to be voluntary initially, subject to revision to establish whether to introduce it on a binding basis at a later stage. This is considered a reasonable and appropriate solution in order to gain experience in a sensitive area subject to important technological progress. The solution is considered to be legally sound and the possibility to introduce it on a binding basis is always open.

The Commission does not expect that this system will encounter public opposition, but it will follow closely and review the practical implementation of this Decision in order to present, when appropriate, proposals for revision with particular attention to public reactions to the system.