ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Legal security of investments in Cuba

Do the negotiations and agreements between the Commission and the US Administration offer businesses which have invested in Cuba the certainty that they will be exempted from any liability resulting from this now and in the future?

Do the negotiations and agreements on the Helms-Burton law offer guarantees of legal security for these investments in Cuba?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3686/97, E-3687/97, E-3688/97, E-3689/97 and E-3690/97 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

The understanding with the United States is not unbalanced. The Commission has brought a World trade organisation(WTO) panel procedure against the Helms-Burton Act. The Commission considers that this legislation is in violation of international law since it intends to influence (or has the effect of influencing) the behaviour of Community companies because of their involvement in Cuba. The understanding of 11 April 1997 reached between the Community and the US on the Helms-Burton Act and the D'Amato Act, by which the Community agreed to suspend its WTO case regarding the former, calls for the development of disciplines which 'should inhibit and deter the future acquisition of investments from any State which has expropriated or nationalised such investments'. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the US to work together to address and resolve through agreed principles the issue of conflicting jurisdictions and secondary boycotts. It is important to note that the discussions between the Community and the US on this point are in symmetry with the discussions on investment disciplines. These talks are currently taking place with a view to finding an acceptable deal which will trigger a waiver under title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, thereby neutralising the extraterritorial effects of this Act.

In addition, the Community made clear that no settlement of the differences over the Helms-Burton Act will be implemented unless the United States has also granted Community companies a waiver under the D'Amato Act.

The Community has reserved all rights to resume the WTO panel procedure, or begin new procedures, if measures are taken against Community companies under Helms Burton or D'Amato as a result of waivers not being granted or continued.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3758/97 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Size of plaice and sustainable development

Will the Commission explain how reducing the size of plaice from 27 to 22 cm is consistent with sustainable development?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

In its proposal for a Council regulation laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources ((OJ C 292, 4.10.1996. )), the Commission proposed to decrease the minimum size for plaice from 27 cm to 17 cm.

The Commission's new proposals for minimum sizes of marine organisms were based on a number of considerations. These include establishment of the correct match between mesh size used and minimum size, marketing issues related to landings of small-sized fish and prevention of targeted fisheries for small-sized fish with nets of too small mesh sizes. In the case of plaice, the Commission's main consideration in formulating the proposal was to establish a high degree of consistency between mesh size predominantly used and minimum size.

The Council, for various reasons, was not able to adopt this proposal and instead adopted a decrease of the minimum size from 27 cm to 22 cm.

As this minimum size maintains a fair consistency with mesh sizes used for catching plaice, this compromise was acceptable to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3810/97 by Luciana Castellina (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Obligations of the Baltic States regarding the acquis communautaire in the audiovisual sector

The Baltic States are currently negotiating their entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) and must in that connection specify any obligations they may have with regard to the audiovisual sector.

In view of the fact that the Baltic States are also bound by association agreements with the European Union and also aspire to join the EU, can the Commission tell us anything about these states' policy in this sensitive sector? Does not the Commission think that they should align themselves, within the WTO, with the Community position on audiovisual matters, which is defined by a lack of sectorial commitments and a derogation from the most - favoured - nation clause?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The negotiations for the accession of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to the World trade organisation (WTO) are continuing. The requests made by the Community to these countries in the context of the General agreement for trade in services (GATS) have focused on the need to balance a high degree of liberalisation with compatibility between the specific commitments that these countries will make and those made by the Community for each services sector as a result of the Uruguay Round and the following WTO negotiations. This policy line responds to the existence of association agreements between the Community and each of those three countries and also to their possible accession in the future to the Community.

This line of ensuring compatibility has also been followed by the Community on audio-visual services. Accordingly, the three Baltic countries have sought to treat audio-visual services in their accession offers in the same way as the Community does in its own WTO schedule of commitments: i.e. no specific market access and national treatment commitments on any audio-visual services and, some exemptions to the GATS most favoured nation (MFN) in order to protect European works and some European programmes such as MEDIA. So far, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia have all indicated that they will follow this approach in their offers for accession which are currently being negotiated within the WTO.

Some trading partners have requested the Baltic countries to undertake commitments on audio-visual services and depart from the MFN exemption approach. However the Commission understands that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are resisting these requests.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4231/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: EU subsidies to an extreme right-wing organization in southern Sweden

German newspapers have reported that a 'Society for biological anthropology, eugenics and behavioural research' has received DM 225 000 from the EU Agricultural Fund. This organization is reportedly led by Jürgen Rieger, a right-wing Hamburg lawyer said to be one of the leading figures of the extreme right in Europe. The subsidies were paid to the racist 'Society for biological anthropology, eugenics and behavioural research' because it claimed to be running an organic farm at Moholm in southern Sweden.

1. What is the Commission's view of the fact that racist organizations are receiving support from the EU's budget?

2. Can the Commission rule out the possibility that racist and/or extreme right-wing organizations are receiving support from the EU's agriculture budget or other budget headings?

3. What control mechanisms does the Commission have to make it more difficult for front organizations to obtain subsidies under false pretences? Did the controls fail in the case of the Moholm subsidies and will the Commission now scrutinize this case in greater detail to reclaim any subsidies paid in error?

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

The aid to which the Honourable Member refers was presumably granted in the framework of the Swedish agri-environment programme 'Miljöprogrammet'. This programme includes a measure to support organic farming, if beneficiaries agree to fulfil certain undertakings, such as not to use pesticides.

The 'Miljöprogrammet' implements Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the country ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )) in Sweden and is co-financed by the Community.

Member States implement the programmes, receive applications from individual farmers, check if the applicants fulfil the objective conditions as set out in the Regulation, make necessary controls and carry out sanctions if needed. The Commission is therefore not directly responsible for the administrative implementation of the scheme and is not systematically informed on individual aid files.

The programme was prepared and put forward by Sweden for approval and the Commission examined it to ensure its conformity with the agri-environment regulation (Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4013/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Dublin's light railway system, Luas

What amount of EU funds has been allocated to financing preparatory work on the Ballymun line of the Luas, Dublin's planned light railway system?

How much has the EU allocated so far on preparatory work on the entire Luas project?

Does it intend to allocate any further funding for such preparatory work in the foreseeable future?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 February 1998)

Under the Transport operational programme (1994-1999) it is proposed to cofinance 216 MECU of expenditure on the LUAS project at an aid rate of 65% (i.e. a European regional development fund grant of 140 MECU). Furthermore, following the recent mid term review (MTR) of the Irish Community support framework (CSF) it was agreed to allocate an additional 10 MECU towards financing preparatory work on the third LUAS line to Ballymun.

The most recent figures available on this project relate to expenditure up to 5 October 1997. Up to this date, total cofinanced expenditure of 20.471 MECU has been incurred with respect to preparatory work on the entire LUAS project, of which 0.045 MECU relates to the Ballymun line. An additional figure of 0.082 MECU non cofinanced expenditure relates to preparatory work on the extension to Sandyford.

Following the MTR, it has been agreed that the CSF monitoring committee will make a definitive decision on this project in the spring of 1998. Until this time therefore, when the project is to be reviewed and a decision taken, preparatory planning and design work on the LUAS project will continue to be financed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Proposed multilateral agreement on investment

What are the Commission's views on the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment which is currently being considered by the OECD?

Does the Commission agree that such an agreement could pose a threat to the environment and human welfare worldwide and represent a threat to sovereignty over economic and social affairs?

Does the Commission further agree that the proposals could eliminate all flexibility for flexible investment and could result in investment in inappropriate areas?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

The Community, by decision of the Council of 22 May 1995, participates in the negotiations on a Multilateral agreement on investment (MAI) which are held in the framework of the Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD). Negotiating guidelines for the Community and Member States participation in the negotiations were adopted by the Council on 27 November 1995. In May 1997, the OECD ministerial meeting decided that negotiations on the MAI should be finalized by the time of its next meeting in early May 1998

The objective of the Community and its Member States in the negotiations is to achieve a legally binding agreement applying to all levels of government, creating a transparent non-discriminatory and liberal investment environment, covering the pre- and post investment phase restricted by only limited narrowly defined, either horizontal, sectoral or country specific exceptions and supported by effective investor to state and state to state dispute settlement procedures. The result of the negotiations should be in conformity with the EC Treaty and ensure that the Community's integration process can be continued in the future.

It is the Commission's view that, if this objective is achieved, the MAI will fill a gap in international rules for a globalizing economy and will be to the benefit of European investors, jobs and competitiveness. Concerning the possible threat of the agreement to environmental and human welfare and the ability of governments to develop and implement affective environmental policies domestically, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions No E-3289/97 ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 131. )) and No E-3291/97 ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 132. )) by Mr Kreissl-Dörfler. It is also worth noting that the MAI negotiating group decided in October 1997 to undertake an environmental review of the agreement which should be finalized in January 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3198/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Second company law Directive

Does the Commission think there is sufficient basis in Directive 77/91 ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 1 )) to take action against any government for actions taken which were in breach of this Directive, in the period between the coming into force of the Directive and amendment of national legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

The Commission can initiate infringement proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil any of its obligations under Community law. This principle naturally applies in the case of the legislation mentioned by the Honourable Member, namely Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. The question of whether or not infringement proceedings should be initiated, and what should be their scope, can however be addressed only in relation to a specific infringement by a particular Member State and in relation to that Member State's national legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3932/97 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 December 1997)

Subject: Catchment area of the rivers Lis and Sciça (Portugal)/Cohesion Fund

Cleaning up the catchment area for the rivers Lis, Lena, Sciça and others is a high priority in a region with serious environmental problems.

This has been recognized by the local authorities and central government, and an application has therefore been submitted to the Cohesion Fund for investment totalling Esc 7 billion to be used to clean up this complex hydrological network.

Can the Commission say when the application was submitted, what stage has been reached and if it is possible to give some indication as to the timetable for evaluating the application and reaching a decision?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

On 20 November 1997 the Commission received a request for part-financing by the Cohesion Fund of the first phase of an integrated pollution control project for the catchment area of the Lis and Seiça rivers, promoted by the association of municipalities of Alta Estremadura, in the regions of Pinhal Litoral and Médio Tejo (districts of Leiria and Santarém).

The application includes several subprojects which involve building or adapting six waste-water treatment plants and approximately 200 km outfall pipeline before 31 December 1999.

The Commission will examine this application on the basis of the technical and economic assessment of the project, the amounts available from the Cohesion Fund for Portugal and the priorities defined by the Commission and the Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4053/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (15 December 1997)

Subject: Imports of dangerous Chinese fireworks

In an answer to Written Question E-0102/95 ((OJ C 145, 12.6.1995, p. 28. )) the Commission dismissed the possibility of a European proposal addressing the issue of firework safety. The argument was that public safety could be efficiently ensured through the General Product Safety Directive. Since that time, there has been an increase in the incidence of accidents and casualties associated with the use of the explosive Chinese mortar fireworks. This suggests that the Product Safety Directive is failing to guarantee consumers the level of safety which they may reasonably expect (that the product is safe for the purpose it can reasonable be expected to perform).

Does the Commission believe that the entry of these fireworks into the Community represents:

1. a failure of controls at the point of entry to ensure conformity of products to basic safety standards? If so, what action does the Commission propose to take to improve the safety checks on imports?

or

2. a more general inadequacy of the General Product Safety Directive to ensure firework safety? If so, would the Commission reconsider its position on legislation to ensure the safety of fireworks?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1998)

The Commission remains of the opinion that it is not necessary to propose any action for specific regulation of fireworks at Community level.

The Commission is concerned about accidents arising from the use of fireworks, particularly if these have increased recently? but the level and seriousness of accidents depends largely on the local customs for public use of fireworks, which differ widely among Member States. All Member States enforce safety regulations on fireworks which fit their local customs. The Commission considers that a Directive on fireworks would not be more effective in preventing accidents than these national safety regulations.

This means that the safety of fireworks originating in a third country (such as China) should be controlled by Member States, according to their own regulations, before they can be marketed in the Community. The enforcement of these controls is a matter for Member States RATHER than the Commission.

The Commission does not believe that the General product safety Directive ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) is failing consumers in this regard. This Directive does not specifically regulate fireworks, but does contain guidance for national authorities aimed at the prevention of accidents. There is evidence that prevention and information campaigns by national or local authorities can also play an effective role in reducing the number of accidents, particularly if these precede a period when fireworks are heavily used (such as New Year).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3894/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Commission promotion of specific studies

Specific studies are extremely important in providing back-up for individual Community policies, based as the latter are on their results. Such studies, are frequently drawn up, on the basis of specific selection criteria, by bodies or groups outwith the Commission.

There is a need for a guide to the studies drawn up on behalf of the Commission and their availability so that commercial undertakings and individuals can make use of their results.

What are the criteria for having studies of specific subjects drawn up by bodies or persons from outwith the Commission? Who can make use of the results of such studies? Does the Commission think it would be appropriate to centralize the carrying out, archiving and availability of such studies in a European Institute for Community Studies?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Honourable Member is right in saying that many studies are produced outside the Commission. The main reason for this is the need to draw on outside experts in specific areas requiring a high level of technical or scientific knowhow which the Commission does not possess.

Up to now, there has been no inventory of studies produced by the Commission. However, since September 1997 the ADAM database has provided a certain amount of information concerning the studies undertaken by the Commission. This base, which is accessible to all European (and other) citizens via the Europa server, gives the title and a summary of each study followed by the conclusions reached, the name of the department responsible and other useful information. The data contained in the base relate to studies produced after 1987.

On 8 February 1994, in its concern to show openness to the European public, the Commission adopted Decision 94/90/ECSC/EEC/Euratom on public access to Commission documents ((OJ L 46, 18.2.1994. )). According to that decision, any natural or legal person may apply to the Commission for access to any of its documents, including any study it may have commissioned. Access will be granted unless the document concerned is covered by one of the exceptions made to protect certain public or private interests or to ensure the confidentiality of the Commission's proceedings.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission does not see any need for a 'European Institute for Community Studies' at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Sale of unsafe foodstuffs in supermarkets

According to recent studies by consumer protection organizations and statements made by the government agency for quality control of food in Greece, an urgent problem has arisen in the public health sector owing to the sale of adulterated, spoiled and contaminated foodstuffs covering the entire range of foodstuffs from drinking water and olive oil to meat, cooked pork meats and packaged products. The problem is aggravated by responsibility for foodstuffs being divided between 8 ministries and around 50 directorates, as a single food monitoring body has yet to be set up.

Will the Commission say what it intends to do to ensure compliance with Community legislation on foodstuffs in Greece, and uphold the right to health of Greek citizens?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 February 1998)

Directive 89/397/EEC on the official control of foodstuffs ((OJ L 186, 30.6.1989. )) requires Member States to inspect and control foodstuffs effectively at the most appropriate stage from production to distribution and trade. Included in the concept of control within this Directive is a requirement for the inspection of food businesses and the sampling, examination and analysis of foodstuffs, to ensure that the supply of foodstuffs to the European consumer complies with national and European foodstuffs legislation.

Article 5 of Directive 93/99/EEC on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )) requests the Commission to monitor and evaluate the equivalence and effectiveness of the official food control systems operated by the authorities of Member States. To this end an initial mission was made to Greece as well as to other Member States by the Commission during 1996 and 1997. The mission to Greece indicated that improvements in communication and co-ordination between the authorities in Greece would enhance the overall effectiveness of the system for the official control of foodstuffs. This and other points were brought to the attention of the Greek authorities in the assessment report from the Commission. Further visits are planned in 1998 to Greece and the other Member States to assess progress.