ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/96 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Transport of foodstuffs between Norway and Sweden

Swedish membership of the EU has caused problems as regards the transport of foodstuffs between Norway and Sweden. Since the EU has approved only three inspection points for foodstuffs on the Norwegian/Swedish frontier, one between Narvik and Kiruna, one between Trondheim and Östersund and one in Värmland, it is now not possible to transport fish and meat across the frontier on the E 12. It used to be possible to transport foodstuffs on the E 12 from Mo i Rana in Norway via Tärnaby and Umeå in Sweden and on through Finland to the Russian border.

What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to remedy the above difficulties which have arisen as regards trade between Norway and Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)

When Finland and Sweden joined the EU, transitional measures were adopted governing veterinary inspection of animal products (Commission Decision 94/958/EC ((OJ L 371, 31 December 1994. )), as amended by Decision 95/82/EC, ((OJ L 66, 24 March 1995. )) and Commission Decision 95/157/EC ((OJ L 103, 6 May 1995. ))). As a temporary measure, they designate a number of border crossing points linked to inspection facilities and approve selected frontier inspection posts, the aim being to keep problems arising from Norway's non-membership to a minimum.

Norway is eventually expected to take over the acquis communautaire in the field of veterinary controls, which would effectively do away with these problems. The matter is currently under discussion within the forums of the European Economic Area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Plant-health checks on imports

In view of the need to establish proper checks on imports of certain agricultural products as a consequence of the liberalization of the world market (GATT, preferential agreements, etc.,) and given the widespread impact of pests and diseases which, introduced from other countries, affect certain typical Community products, such as the cancrosis which affects citrus fruits in Mediterranean countries, has the Commission considered increasing plant-health checks on imported products? Does the Commission think that it would be practical (and, if so, worthwhile) for EU technicians and/or experts to be posted to countries from which certain agricultural products with a high risk of contamination are imported? Is the Commission planning to take any action in respect of the various pests and diseases which affect citrus fruit in Mediterranean countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Commission is aware of the risks of pests and diseases being brought in with imports of citrus fruits from non-EC countries.

Measures to protect the Community against the introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plants or plant products are provided for in Council Directive 77/93/EEC, ((OJ L 26, 31 January 1977. )) as amended, Annex III of which lists items - including citrus fruit plants - which may not be brought into any Member State.

Annex IV of the Directive sets out the requirements to be imposed by Member States on the introduction and movement of plants and plant products, particularly those from outside the Community. A number of special requirements apply to citrus fruits, including rules designed to prevent cancrosis (xanthomonas campestris, all citrus pathogens), and Member States have to check consignments of citrus fruits to ensure compliance with these rules.

The Commission recognizes the need to tighten up the rules on citrus fruit entering the Community, particularly with regard to cancrosis, in the light of new scientific knowledge, and is currently reviewing the requirements.

In the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Office it is able to consult experts either employed directly by it or seconded from Member States for a fixed term or on an ad hoc basis, who are mandated by the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, to carry out various tasks which may include visits to non-member countries to assess the health of plants and plant products which are or may be exported to the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Council (26 February 1996)

Subject: Job creation

The Italian Presidency of the European Union has set job creation as one of its priorities, stating that the aim is to provide a European added value.

In what way does the Council consider that it can provide a specific European added value for job creation?

Reply (14 October 1996)

1. As early as 9 and 10 December 1974 in Essen the European Council had devised a strategy to improve the employment situation by identifying five key priority areas:

- improving employment opportunities for the labour force by promoting investment in vocational training;

- increasing the employment-intensiveness of growth;

- reducing non-wage labour costs;

- improving the effectiveness of labour-market policy;

- improving measures to help groups particularly hard hit by unemployment.

2. The medium-term strategy outlined in Essen and confirmed by the European Council in Cannes (26 and 27 June 1995) provided an appropriate framework for the measures which had begun to be applied in the Member States with generally positive results. The Madrid European Council (15 and 16 December 1995) approved a report on the measures taken and progress made by the Member States in implementing the Essen guidelines.

3. The Florence European Council (21 and 22 June 1996) considered that the level of unemployment was unacceptable and that the fight for employment must remain the top priority for the Union and its Member States.

Drawing on the strategy agreed in Essen and on the White Paper, the European Council held a detailed discussion on the subject of growth and employment on the basis of the Commission communication entitled 'Action for employment in Europe: a confidence pact', the joint interim report on employment as well as the other documents before it, particularly the conclusions drawn from the Tripartite Conference on Growth and Employment held in Rome on 14 and 15 June 1996 and the French Memorandum on a European social model.

New impetus must be given to the job-creation strategy and its implementation by making use of the convergent approaches outlined in the contributions submitted. The institutions of the European Union, governments and regional and local authorities, and the social partners must all take practical action in favour of growth and employment as part of an integrated approach.

The European Council anticipates that the annual joint report to the Dublin European Council (13 and 14 December 1996) will assess the implementation of national multiannual programmes and set out the benefits deriving from a coordinated approach to structural and economic measures. In addition, the Council will take stock of the President of the Commission's initiative regarding a Confidence Pact.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1401/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Structural assistance in the fisheries sector

Regulation 2719/95 ((OJ L 283, 25.11.1995, p. 3. )) lays down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products. Could the Commission confirm that the measures are optional for Member States?

Which Member States have implemented the measures in the regulation, in particular the socio-economic accompanying measures assisting individuals in the sector?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)

The Commission confirms that the measures laid down in Article 14a of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, ((OJ L 346, 31.12.1993. )) introduced into Community legislation by Regulation (EC) No 2719/95, ((OJ L 283, 25.11.1995. )) are optional for the Member States.

To date three Member States (Denmark, France and Spain) have explicitly stated that they intend to change the programming of structural aid for fisheries in order to introduce socio-economic measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/96 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Protection of the environment in Portman Bay (Spain)

Can the Commission provide information concerning whether the environmental protection rules have been observed or breached in the improvement work at Portman Bay in the municipality of La Unión, near Cartagena (Spain)?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The Commission has, through the Cohesion Fund, financed a project in Portman Bay comprising a study of the situation and characteristics of the polluted area and the formulation of an action plan and initial measures on the ground. The action financed through the Cohesion Fund will comply with Community law, specifically that on the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (26 February 1996)

Subject: Working languages of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ((OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1. )) of 20.12.1993 provides that 'an Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)' shall be set up and that 'the languages of the Office shall be English, French, German, Italian and Spanish'.

Will the Council say on the basis of which criteria it decided that only the abovementioned languages would be used by the Office, rather than all the official languages of the European Union?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The Council asks the Honourable Member to refer to the decisions taken on 29 October 1993 by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government and to the Regulation on the Community trade mark ((OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1. )), adopted by the Council on 20 December 1993, and in particular Article 115, 116 and 117 thereof.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1571/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: French payment to the Netherlands under the Rhine Salt Treaty

1. Is the Commission aware that France has still not made the payment of Fl. 9 711 million to the Netherlands to complete the French contribution to the Rhine Salt Treaty of 25 September 1991?

2. Is it aware that France should have completed this payment by 1 February 1995?

3. Is the Commission, which was present when the treaty was signed, prepared to request clarification from France concerning France's failure to meet its financial obligations and to request it to fulfil them?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

The Commission has been informed that payment was made to the Netherlands in June 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Free movement of notarial acts

The General Organization of Notaries in the European Union, which recently held a meeting in Madrid, has called for the free movement of notarial acts throughout Europe and greater harmony in the activity of notaries in the EU.

At that meeting the Spanish notaries' leader explained the differences between the free movement of notarial acts and freedom for notaries to practise in Europe. In his opinion the latter is neither possible nor appropriate since notaries, although belonging to a liberal profession, are in the employ of the public authorities and under their countries' sovereignty.

Could the Commission say what the current state is of Community rules on the free movement of notarial acts and what its opinion is regarding the possible restriction which could be created by the free movement of notaries within the European Union, taking into account that the principle of the free movement of liberal professionals throughout the Union should also apply to notaries in so far as they are liberal professionals?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

The Commission has already taken a position ((In its report on action taken in response to Parliament's own-initiative resolutions for the period from January to September 1994 (SP(95) 3210/3 of 5.10.1995). )) on the free movement of notaries and notarial acts in connection with Parliament's resolution of 18 January 1994 on the state and organization of the profession of notary in the twelve Member States of the Community, which was adopted following Mr Marinho's report.

With regard to the free movement of notarial acts, dialogue is continuing with the General Organization of Notaries in the European Union. The Council is also continuing its work on the 1968 Brussels Convention and on the transmission of acts.

As regards the free movement of notaries, the nationality condition is, as indicated in the above-mentioned position, the main obstacle to free movement. The notarial profession should first unequivocally renounce this condition. Doing so would not be incompatible with its role as a public authority in view of the increasing opening-up of national civil services to nationals of other Member States. In addition, the nationality condition is increasingly anachronistic since, for example, EU nationals have been granted the right to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal elections in other Member States. ((By Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19.12.1994 (OJ L 368, 30.12.1994). )) The high level of qualifications required to take up and pursue the profession can be safeguarded by the compensation measures provided for by Council Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas. ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Electric and magnetic fields

I have been made aware that there are an unusual number of cases of leukaemia in a particular area of Northampton, the Spencer estate. One possible cause of this high incidence of leukaemia is thought to be the effects of electric and magnetic fields on individuals from high voltage cables, given that an electrified railway line runs close to the edge of this estate.

Could the Commission inform me of the current standards in EC countries, regarding the proximity of high voltage power cables to dwellings and the levels of these fields and gases which are considered acceptable when encountered?

Is the Commission investigating the possible link between leukaemia and the close proximity to high voltage cables with a view to proposing new legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1996)

The Danish ministry of health convened, in 1992, an expert group on non-ionising radiation to perform a comprehensive scientific review and assessment of the exposure of the general population to non-ionising radiation, including the associated health risks. The expert group considered the regulations in force and the recommendations followed in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and United States. The group also considered the evaluations and activities originated by the World health organisation (WHO), the International radiation protection association (IRPA) and the Commission. The conclusions ((SEIIS Report No 1 'Report on the risks of cancer living in homes exposed to 50 Hz magnetic fields from high voltage lines'. Danish National Board of Heath, January 1994. )) support the hypotheses of previous studies that children living near high-current plants have an increased frequency of cancer, but the results do not exclude the possibility that the association might be due to chance. The group found no scientific justification for establishing standards with respect to high current plants. New research results must be followed closely in the future.

Currently the Commission supports an epidemiological study, the title of which is 'Electro-magnetic fields and other risk factors in the etiology of childhood leukaemia in Greece'. The conclusions, expected for 1997, will improve knowledge on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1530/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Protective measures in the event of nuclear accidents

1. Is the Commission aware that only France distributes iodine tablets to people who live near nuclear power stations?

2. How is the supply of iodine tablets to the population ensured in the other Member States, in view of the fact that the tablets must be taken within one hour after a nuclear accident in order to protect the thyroid gland, which is sensitive to radiation, from cancer?

3. Can the Commission guarantee that in the event of a nuclear accident the population would be supplied with iodine tablets within one hour?

4. How is the supply ensured across borders, for example the border between France and Germany in the event of an accident at Cattenom?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

1 - 4. A number of Community provisions refer to measures to be implemented by the Member States in relation to nuclear accidents and radiological emergencies. However, although emergency plans have to be drawn up and approved by the individual Member States, in general measures specified in these plans and their practical implementation are not detailed in the Community provisions. Thus it is for Member States to decide such matters as the approach to be taken to the distribution of iodine tablets.

In practice the approaches adopted may well vary, since the choice will depend on a number of factors which differ from country to country - although it is correct that for maximum efficiency iodine tablets should be taken just before or shortly after exposure to radioactive iodine. These factors include:

- any risk which the iodine tablets may themselves present, more especially in areas with iodine-deficient diets;

- an appreciation of individuals' ability to locate rapidly tablets issued perhaps a few years previously;

- the time predicted to be available between a precautionary decision to use the tablets and a threatened exposure to radioactive iodine;

- how quickly the tablets could be distributed from one or more centralized locations, which will itself depend on local conditions and resources.

Any criterion used as to the maximum acceptable delay in making tablets available to individuals is again a matter for the Member States but rapid and efficient distribution is obviously a primary goal.

As regards cross-border planning, each Member State is responsible for its own territory and such planning would have to be by bilateral agreement.

While all such matters are, therefore, clearly in the competence of the Member States, the Commission does, nevertheless, seek to provide guidance and facilitate exchanges of information. Thus a 1982 guide on accident reference doses, prepared by the experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, is now under revision and, in the context of mutual assistance, a meeting of Member States has been arranged which will allow an exchange of information on iodine prophylaxis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Testing of cosmetics on animals

Recent reports in the UK press have suggested that the Commission is considering proposing an indefinite postponement of the ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals currently scheduled for 1998

Is there any truth in these suggestions and, if so, what possible justification can there be for such a postponement?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

The Commission attaches the highest importance to the development of alternative methods to animal testing in the field of cosmetics.

The situation and the progress made in this field in 1995, as well as the perspectives for validation, the funding of research and the actions of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods will be described in the 1995 report on the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods, which should be adopted by the Commission in the course of the coming days.

The Commission has, by 1 January 1997, to submit draft measures to postpone the date of implementation of the ban on animal testing in those fields where satisfactory methods to replace animal testing are not expected to be ready by 1 January 1998, according to the latest information available in the autumn of 1996.

The Commission supports all efforts to reduce and suppress animal suffering, but also has to ensure the safety of products offered to the consumer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Imports of non-Community oranges into the United Kingdom

In January 1996 the Commission authorized, exceptionally, the importation of 12 000 tonnes of non-Community oranges for the production of fresh juice. The measure was to be valid only until the end of March and was based on an apparent shortage of Community oranges.

Can the Commission say how this authorization was applied and whether it does not consider that it may have prejudiced orange producers in the Member States, whom the principle of Community preference is supposed to benefit?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1996)

On 11 January the Commission adopted a temporary derogating measure allowing 12 000 tonnes of oranges intended for processing to be imported at a reduced entry price.

This measure, which was essential to ensure the immediate supply of freshly squeezed orange juice to the Community industry, was based on the specifications for oranges used to produce juice of this type and in particular on their limonin content (a bitter substance) and degree Brix (sugar content).

The Commission has undertaken an enquiry to ascertain whether oranges produced in the Community during the period 1 December to 31 March possessed the appropriate technical qualities to make them suitable for the manufacture of freshly squeezed juice.

As the industry concerned is a traditional importer of oranges from third countries, no substitution of Community oranges by imported oranges has in fact occurred.