ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1632/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Project proposal for disability-friendly cities and localities

What was the total number of people present at the planning conferences for this project held at Barcelona last year and Bologna this year, and what proportion and number of those were people with disabilities?

Of the organisations represented at each event, what number and proportion were organisations of disabled people (i.e. with management boards comprising at least 51% disabled people or parents of disabled children)? In determining any EU financial support for this initiative, will the Commission ensure that 75% of all monies are paid to such representative organisations of disabled people at the local level?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission was not responsible for organising the Barcelona and Bologna conferences and therefore does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member. In accordance with the principles underlying the Helios II programme, the Commission strongly encourages participation by disabled people in all measures receiving Community support. However, the Commission does not require the registration of disabled people for this purpose.

The Commission representative at the Barcelona and Bologna events noted that local-level organisations of disabled people were very well represented.

Finally, the Commission has not yet drawn up a proposal with a view to supporting measures for the disabled adopted by towns or cities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1535/96 by Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Crystalline lactulose and the proposal to lower quality requirements for the European Pharmacopoeia

Is the Commission aware that some pharmaceutical companies are attempting to lower the quality requirements established for lactulose in the European Pharmacopoeia? The high degree of purity currently required for lactulose ensures that it is tolerated by patients of all ages suffering from disorders such as chronic hepatic encephalopathy, intestinal bacterial infections (where it is used as an adjuvant), syndromes caused by alimentary disorders in newborn babies and children, endogenous hyperproduction of ammonia and intestinal stasis occurring after an operation or prolonged confinement to bed.

Lactulose is given inter alia to children, newborn babies and elderly persons suffering from chronic disorders, which explains why stringent quality requirements were originally set for substance, which is currently manufactured to an extremely high degree of purity (98 to 99% pure), with water being used as the sole solvent.

Some European pharmaceutical companies are currently campaigning for the European Pharmacopoeia to require a lower degree of purity than that hitherto held to be the optimum level, and for the use of methanol or boron in the production process to be made admissible.

Were these changes accepted, not only would lactulose be manufactured to a lower degree of purity, but the impurities it contained would be made up of methanol and boron, both of which are notoriously toxic.

Would the Commission agree therefore that it should without delay approach the committees responsible with a view to ensuring that the above changes are rejected?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (21 June 1996)

A new European Pharmacopoeia monograph for anhydrous lactulose (crystalline powder) is currently being drafted, on the basis of one previously adopted for lactulose solution. The question therefore refers to a draft monograph submitted for public enquiry in September 1995. The results of the enquiry will be taken into account in the drafting of the final text, which should be adopted by the European Pharmacopoeia Committee in November 1996.

The Community accepted the Convention on the European Pharmacopoeia in June 1994 ((Council Decision 94/358/EC of 16 June 1994, OJ L 158, 25.6.1994. )) and the Commission votes on non-technical matters on behalf of the Member States. For technical matters, such as the adoption of a monograph, the national delegations themselves take the vote, but unanimity is required. Therefore, the Commission is not competent in the matter at hand, but it has drawn the attention of the secretariat of the European Pharmacopoeia Commission to the concerns raised in this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/96 by Olli Rehn (ELDR) to the Commission (15 February 1996)

Subject: Support for the construction of a motorway on the Costa del Sol

A toll motorway is under construction on the Costa del Sol in Spain which I understand the EU is helping to fund. According to my information the Spanish transport ministry has adopted a route which will bisect Calahonda, a community of 18 000 people belonging to the town of Mijas. The planned route will devastate the value of the community, damage the countryside and the municipal infrastructure and cause additional noise and pollution. There are many inhabitants of Calahonda who come from other parts of Europe who are seriously worried about the Spanish transport ministry's obstinacy. The Mijas town authorities have proposed an alternative route which is just as good in terms of the operation of the motorway and would avoid dispersing a community of people and causing significant environmental problems.

Given that the EU is contributing to the funding of the motorway through Calahonda, I would ask the Commission whether an environmental impact assessment has been carried out on the motorway and whether it indeed conforms with the purposes of the EU to participate in a scheme which does not meet the objectives of the structural funds such as the protection of communities and environmentally sustainable development.

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

Following its answer of 9 April 1996, ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 20. )) the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Spanish authorities have replied to the request for information on the matter raised in this question.

The 'Costa del Sol' toll motorway project (Málaga-Estepona section) has undergone environmental impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) In view of the many assertions made during the public consultation required by the Directive, a further study was made of the project. The public was also given an opportunity to express opinions on this additional study. An environmental impact statement, along with adjusting measures, was published in the Spanish official journal (BOE) of 28 September 1994.

On the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission can find no infringement of Directive 85/337/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1917/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Animal consignments - Bavaria

1. At what locations are there loading or dispatching points for consignments of animals for slaughter?

2. On what days is the main activity dispatching and on what days is it loading?

3. What animal species are concerned?

4. What are the places of origin and of destination of the animals for slaughter?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1917/96, E-1918/96, E-1920/96 and E-1922/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The Commission does not have sufficient, up-to-date information and is therefore unable to answer the questions put. This being the case, the Commission recommends that the Honourable Member approach the German authorities, including those of the Free State of Bavaria, which are more competent to answer this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1301/96 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)

Subject: German citizens may not own summer houses in Denmark

According to a press report ((Article in the Rheinische Post of 1 May 1996. )), the Danish judicial authorities intend to force German citizens to sell their summer houses in Denmark. This is the authorities' reaction to growing complaints from several municipalities. Evidently, foreigners resident in Denmark - including EU citizens - are forbidden to purchase summer houses in the country. Many purchasers evade this prohibition by claiming that they intend to use the house as their permanent residence. Local residents and politicians are afraid that such purchases will result in municipalities becoming excessively foreign and in property prices rising to the disadvantage of Danish nationals.

In recent weeks 13 summer houses not occupied all year round are reported to have been detected. It is said that even the refuse of the occupants of summer houses has been checked in this context. In all 13 cases the persons concerned may be prosecuted and forced to sell their houses.

Does the Danish law contravene the EU Treaty, and especially the prohibition of discrimination?

Is the Commission aware of this law? Will it be taking any action to prevent discrimination against EU citizens in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

In accordance with Protocol No 1 to the EC Treaty, Denmark may maintain the existing legislation on the acquisition of second homes.

That legislation does not limit the purchase of second homes, and in particular summer houses, to Danish citizens but to any person living in Denmark at the moment of purchase or having lived there for at least five years, regardless of nationality.

As regards the particular problem raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is carrying out a detailed study and will inform him of the result of its research as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)

Subject: Funding of SMU

The Commission recently proposed to the Council that a new instrument (ELISE) be set up to finance loan guarantees for SMU.

Does the Council intend to approve the creation of this or a similar instrument, bearing in mind that SMU are the main source of employment in the Union and are at a disadvantage because banks generally feel that they represent a higher risk and can provide fewer guarantees?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The Commission proposal in question has just been forwarded to the Council and will be examined by a Working Party as soon as possible, pending the Opinion of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Council (1 April 1996)

Subject: Public health information

One of my constituents has complained that he was exposed to the risk of catching Legionnaires' disease because of lack of proper public health communication between Turkey and the UK. This is a matter that may also concern other EU countries.

He states that Legionnaires' disease was contracted at a hotel in Kusadisi in May 1995. There were eleven cases in total. However, it was only in late September that tourists were removed from this hotel and during this time four and a half thousand British holidaymakers had been exposed to the risk of Legionnaires' disease.

What arrangements exist between the EU and Turkey for the exchange of vital public health information? Does the Council think the present methods of communicating public health hazards are satisfactory? If not, what can be done to improve them?

Reply (14 October 1996)

1. At present no specific arrangements exist between the European Union and Turkey for the exchange of public health information. However, as part of the overall solution of 6 March 1995 implementing the final phase of the Customs Union, provision was made for cooperation with Turkey to be expanded in the scientific sector and as regards information and communication in order to promote the mutual exchange of information.

2. The occurrence of a case of Legionnaires' disease in Turkey mentioned by the Honourable Member concerns the whole problem of infectious diseases and their spread across borders.

Attention is drawn to two recent initiatives which take account of the hazards resulting from the emergence of new epidemiological phenomena and the resurgence of known infectious diseases.

At Community level the European Parliament and the Council have before them a proposal for a Decision, the aim of which is to create a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases.

Moreover, in the context of the new Transatlantic action plan signed on 3 December 1995, the European Union and the United States proposed to create an EU-US task force responsible for developing and implementing an effective global early warning system and response network for communicable diseases. The task force held its first meeting in Rome on 16 and 17 May 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1193/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Monitoring of air quality by affected residents

Is the Commission aware of, and does it provide any financial support for, the monitoring of air quality (and industrial air pollution) by affected residents themselves, rather than technical specialists, in any of the Member States? Could the Commission state precisely which European funding programmes are available which might finance such innovatory, community-based action in the field of environmental concern?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

Between 1992 and 1995 the Financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) supported numerous innovatory and demonstration projects to monitor air quality. The second phase of LIFE activity, still to be approved by the Council, encompasses measures to assist local authorities and could include demonstration projects in this area.

Within the structural fund programmes, the Community has co-financed measures to combat air pollution which were linked to regional development and business competitiveness. The final beneficiaries could be either residents or technical specialists. Only investment costs are eligible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Experiments involving animals

In reply to my written question E-0713/96 ((OJ C 183 of 24.6.1996, p. 48. )), the Commission did not explain what its policies on the frequency of meetings but simply explained how many have taken place since 1990 and when the next one takes place. Will the Commission explain if there is any policy on frequency of these meetings and what it is?

Is it true that the last meeting between the competent authorities and the Commission took place as long ago as October 1994?

Does the Commission know that the competent authorities are concerned about the irregularity of their formal contacts with the Commission and do not regard ad hoc meetings as substitutes for formal meetings?

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

The Commission does not have a special policy on the frequency of its meetings with the competent authorities for Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )). The frequency of these meetings is guided by the amount of work to be carried out as well as the situation of the projects which require the guidance of these authorities. The Commission is aware of the concern of certain Member States and has organised a competent authorities meeting for the end of this year in order to address this and other issues.

Ad hoc meetings on statistics in October 1994 and June 1995 were attended by representatives of the competent authorities. These ad hoc meetings were organised to conclude on the reporting of statistical data on the number of animals used in experiments and to respond in particular to the request of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/96 by Elena Marinucci (PSE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)

Subject: Difference between aid for alcohol distilled from grape marc and alcohol distilled from wine lees

According to Article 18 of EC Regulation 2046/89, ((OJ L 202, 17.7.1989, p. 14.)) Member States may decide to apply differentiated prices where the application of the standard price would or could make it impossible to have one or more of the by-products of wine-making distilled in certain regions of the Community.

Since the price of products distilled from grape marc is on average three times the price of products distilled from wine lees, the application of the standard price in all regions of Italy could act to the disadvantage of those who distil from wine lees.

This has created a crisis for the various companies which distil only from wine lees with serious social and employment consequences and the possibility that wine lees products will end up in the adulteration market.

In view of the above consideration, will the Commission say:

1. what is meant by 'would or could make it impossible to have one or more of the by-products of wine-making distilled'?

2. why such a state of affairs should occur in certain regions in particular?

3. which system is applied in the European States and their regions (standard or differentiated)?

4. whether it feels it should clarify the matter, possibly through an appropriate decision of recommendation which would ensure the equal application of the directives in force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

Under Article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2046/89, the Commission sets standard aid levels for each marketing year along with assistance that varies according to the basic product distilled.

Under subparagraph 3 of Article 18(2), Member States may decide to apply the differentiated price if the flat-rate price could, because of the difference in distilling costs, lead distillers in certain areas to opt for a particular wine-making by-product instead of processing all of them.

1-2. The phrase 'could make it impossible to have one or more of the by-products of wine-making distilled' refers to the economic viability of the distilled by-products -the lower the demand for such products, the greater the risk. The transfer cost of wine-making by-products may make the alcohol produced by such distillation uneconomic.

3. Producer states apply one or other aid system depending on the above criteria and their own administrative structure.

4. The Commission is considering whether a draft regulation amending Article 18 could usefully be proposed to the Council in order to take account of the economic requirements of businesses in the sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0077/96 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Council (30 January 1996)

Subject: Greek ban on television advertising for toys

Is the Council aware of the ban on advertising toys on Greek television before 10 p.m.? If so, can the Council confirm that

1. this ban can be regarded as a protectionist measure on the part of the Greek government to protect its own toy industry at the expense of other European toy manufacturers?

2. this runs counter to completion of the internal market and freedom of movement of goods and services, with particular regard to Articles 30 and 59 of the Treaty?

3. this violates the spirit of the Directive on television without frontiers which permits television advertising for children by including minimum rules for the protection of children?

If so, can the Council indicate whether it will take action in the immediate future to put an end to this ban?

Reply (10 October 1996)

It is not for the Council to pass judgment on the consistency of Member States' actions with the provisions of the Treaty or other Community legislation.

The Honourable Member is invited to address herself to the Commission in its capacity as the guardian of the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1525/96 by Blaise Aldo (UPE) to the Commission (5 June 1996)

Subject: Demarcation of the sea fishing areas of extremely remote EU territories and neighbouring ACP countries

On 22 March 1996, during its last meeting, held in Windhoek, the ACP-EU Joint Assembly adopted a joint resolution on fisheries. The resolution, which was adopted pursuant to Title III ('Development of Fisheries') of the Fourth Lomé Convention, as amended by the agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995, with particular regard to Articles 58 to 68 of that title, pointed to the enormous difficulties arising between coastal fishing vessels from Guadeloupe and Martinique and local fishermen in the zone, in particular those from the island of Saba.

The resolution therefore called for negotiations between the EU and the ACP countries concerned to be commenced as soon as possible, pursuant to the above articles, with a view to concluding a fisheries agreement taking account of their specific situation within the region.

It also called on the Commission to take the necessary steps to ensure that the maritime zones of each of the parties are finally established.

What action does the Commission intend to take in response to the above requests?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Community has no competence in relation to the delimitation of maritime zones, which is a matter for the relevant coastal states concerned. As regards the possibility of the conclusion of fisheries agreements, the Council mandated the Commission to negotiate agreements with certain Caribbean countries in whose waters the fishermen of Guadeloupe and Martinique traditionally operated. However, to date, the Commission has not been requested to initiate negotiations in relation to Saba.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/96 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: State aid to Bremer Vulkan in Germany

Will the Commission, considering the fact that it is already inquiring into the misuse of approved state aid to Bremer Vulkan, inform Parliament fully on the outcome of this investigation?

Which other 'state aid cases' in Germany are under investigation by the Commission?

What steps will the Commission take to increase and improve controls on possible misuse of approved state aid?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

It is current practice that the Commission informs the public on all state aid cases on which a formal investigation procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty is opened by publication of the decision in the Official journal. At the end of the formal investigation the Commission takes a final decision either to authorize the Member State to grant the aid or to prohibit it from doing so. The final decision is again published in the Official journal. This practice will be applied in the Bremer Vulkan case (case n° C 7/96).

In addition, the Commission informed on 20 March 1996 the budget committee of the Parliament on the case and answered questions. If the Parliament requests further information after conclusion of the formal investigation the Commission will be happy to give it, within the limits set by the necessity to respect the confidentiality of commercial information.

The review of state aid cases is a constant obligation of the Commission under Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and the Bremer Vulkan case has to be seen in this context. In 1995 the Commission was engaged in handling of 1279 state aid cases concerning all Member States. Statistics by Member State are not established. The Commission would like to clarify that the review of state aid cases and the opening of formal investigations cannot be considered in general as an indication of suspected illegal practices of a Member State or an enterprise.

As the Bremer Vulkan case is still in an early phase of investigation, it is too early to indicate whether the Commission will take steps to intensify the controls on the correct use of approved state aid. The German government informed the Commission that the enterprise violated its reporting obligations by providing incorrect data and, therefore, the Commission was misinformed as well. Consequently, the German authorities have started investigations under the German penal law.