ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Schiphol considers dropping short-haul flights

Is the Commission aware that Schiphol airport, which risks exceeding the noise limits laid down by the Dutch government, is considering dropping flights between Schiphol and the closest European destinations and instead encouraging rail travel?

Does any EC directive or regulation stand in the way of putting this idea into practice?

Can it give an assurance that, in view of the increasing pollution also entailed by the expansion of air transport, it will do its utmost to promote the implementation of the greenest idea to emanate in recent years from Schiphol's management?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

The Commission is aware of work going on in the Netherlands on implementing measures designed to ensure the respect of the overall noise limitations which are being imposed on Schiphol Airport. However, the Commission has not been officially informed by the Netherlands of any specific measure which may have been elaborated in the context of this work so far, including plans of the kind mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Council Directive 92/14/EEC has established uniform rules for noisy aircraft at Community airports ((OJ L 76, 25.3.1992. )). However, that Directive does not apply to measures such as the exclusion of all flights to certain destinations regardless of the noise emissions from the aircraft used. On the other hand, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes ((OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. )) provides that when environmental problems exist, a Member State may limit access to an airport to address those problems. Any such limitations must, however, respect the procedural and substantive rules of that Regulation. In the absence of a detailed notification, the Commission cannot at this stage take any position on the question whether the specific idea mentioned by the Honourable Member would in fact be compatible with those rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1161/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Future of New Holland Tractor Plant (Basildon, UK)

Given anxieties by trade unionists at the New Holland tractor plant in Basildon in my own constituency (part of the FIAT group), can the Commission confirm that FIAT must consult its works council under the European directive in advance of any major investment or planned closure? Will the Commission monitor this question closely?

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

The European works council directive ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. )) (94/45/CE), adopted on 22 September 1994, aims at improving the right of information and consultation of employees in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings, especially in the case of events with a considerable transnational effect on the employees' interests. This Directive, however, does not cover the United Kingdom, since it was adopted under the Protocol on social policy annexed to the EC Treaty.

Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings had the opportunity, before 21 September 1996, to conclude an agreement providing for the transnational information and consultation of employees. In that case, the obligations of the Directive are not applicable to these undertakings. In the absence of such an agreement, employee representations stemming from at least two Member States covered by the Directive have the opportunity, since 22 September 1996, to request the opening of negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement in conformity with the Directive.

In the case of Fiat, it was reported that a voluntary agreement has been signed on 18 March 1996. Whether Fiat had to inform and consult in advance on events in Basildon depends on the terms of this agreement.

To the extent that the employer in this plant is contemplating collective redundancies, Directive 92/56/EEC on collective redundancies ((OJ L 245, 26.8.1992. )), also applicable to the United Kingdom, provides for consultations with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement. These consultations shall, at least, cover ways of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the numbers of workers affected. These obligations apply irrespective of whether the decision regarding collective redundancies is being taken by the employer or by an undertaking controlling the employer. Member States have to ensure that judicial or administrative procedures for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available for the workers or the workers' representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE), Alessandro Danesin (UPE), Giacomo Leopardi (UPE), Riccardo Garosci (UPE), Antonio Tajani (UPE), Guido Viceconte (UPE), Gian Boniperti (UPE) and Franco Malerba (UPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: The privatization of the STET (the state-owned telephone company)

As part of the process of reducing the debt of the IRI (the Italian state holding company), the Italian Government has promised the European Union that it will go ahead with the transfer and privatization of the STET, inter alia in the light of EU rules on competition and liberalization in the telecommunications sector.

In the exercise of its democratic powers, the Italian Parliament recently rejected the decree law providing for the STET to be separated from the IRI as a preliminary step to subsequent privatization.

However, the 1997 budget law provides for the company in question to be directly controlled by the state.

Given that direct state control over the company is no longer subject to specific procedures or to any kind of time-limit, can this be deemed to be a form of state aid which is contrary to Article 90 of the EEC Treaty and Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome?

Does the Commission consider that the agreement with the Italian Government on rescheduling the IRI's debt is still valid?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0291/97 and E-0417/97 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1997)

In the context of the undertaking given by Italy to reduce IRI's indebtedness ((OJ C 267, 2.10.1993. )), the transfer of STET to the Treasury satisfies the necessary conditions for complying with that undertaking and its extension.

The Italian authorities have informed the Commission that the Italian Parliament's vote on the STET decree does not call into question the transfer of STET to the Treasury. That transfer has already taken place pursuant to Article 2(182) of the measure linked to the Finance Act which definitively approved the rules allowing purchase by the Treasury.

The transaction does not involve state aid in so far as the Treasury is to purchase IRI's interest in STET at the market price, which is to be determined by independent consultants.

The arrangements for transfer to the Treasury stipulate that the provisional minimum value of the transferred holding is fixed at LIT 14 530 billion, which may be adjusted upwards if the consultants arrive at a higher value.

If the consultants' valuation were to prove lower than the above amount, the transaction would have to be regarded as involving elements of state aid that would have to be examined by the Commission in the light of Article 92 of the EC Treaty.

The validity of the independent consultants' valuation could be confirmed, among other things, by the market price if the Treasury were to place the shares in STET on the market fairly soon after the valuation was made.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1389/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (10 April 1997)

Subject: Rocket launch site on El Hierro in contravention of European directives

The Spanish government and the autonomous government of the Canaries intend to build on the Canaries island El Hierro a civilian rocket launch base for satellites and space probes.

This base will have a major impact on nature and the environment on El Hierro.

1. Does the Commission agree that a launch site on El Hierro is in contravention of directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )), in that irreparable damage will be done to the habitat of Bulwer's petrel (Bulweria bulwerii), Cory's shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), the little shearwater (Puffinus assimilis), the sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus granti), the osprey (Pandion haliaaetus), the common tern (Sterna hirundo) and Fringilla teydea, all of which are listed in Annex 1?

2. Does the Commission agree that the launch site also represents a serious violation of directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )), in that the habitats of a number of plants listed in Annex II, such as Argyranthemum thalassophylum and Cheirolophus duranii will not be maintained, pursuant to Article 3, but risk being destroyed?

3. Does the Commission feel that the toxic emissions from the launch site will be a serious threat to public health, the predominantly agricultural sources of income and the natural environment of the island?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-587/97 by Mrs Sierra González and others ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 215. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Community RESIDER initiative

Can the Commission supply detailed information on the implementation of the Community RESIDER initiative since its commencement in the fifteen Member States, with the budget details, execution and names of projects broken down by Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0493/97, E-0494/97, E-0495/97 and E-0496/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

Under the terms of the guidelines on the Community Initiatives for industrial conversion adopted by the Commission in 1994, Member States were asked to forward draft operational programmes (OPs) to the Commission. 45 OPs were forwarded under Konver, 28 under Resider, 30 under Rechar and 13 under Retex. The Commission approved these operational programmes; their implementation, according to the principle of subsidiarity, is the responsibility of the Member States or regions which choose the projects to be financed on the basis of the OPs.

The tables being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament contain full details of the amounts allocated to each Retex, Rechar, Resider and Konver OP for the period 1994-97, and on the budget implementation of those Community Initiatives up to 1996. The initial allocations are expressed in 1994 prices for the Community of Twelve and in 1995 prices for the new Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1012/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Animal cloning

In view of the concern aroused by recent cases of animal cloning, can the Commission state

1. what scientific and ethical studies are under way to ensure that the issue is not blown up out of proportion?

2. whether it has undertaken any form of collaboration in this matter with the United States and Japan?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1997)

The Commission reacted immediately to the new developments in the animal cloning experiments in Scotland by referring the matter to the group of advisers on the ethical implications of biotechnology, a group of independent figures set up to advise the Commission in this area. The group is due to deliver an opinion in May. It has also decided to organize a round table on the subject, to which Members of Parliament, top researchers and the other interested parties will be invited.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the statement made to the plenary session of Parliament on 12 March 1997 by the Member of the Commission responsible for science, research and development.

There is no collaboration with the United States or Japan on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (20 February 1997)

Subject: GMO foods

How soon does the Commission plan to produce the urgently needed revision to Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )) on the release of genetically modified organisms?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

The Commission intends to produce in 1997 preferably before the summer holidays a proposal for an amendment to Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms in the light of the conclusion drawn in the report on the review of Directive 90/220/EEC in the context of the Commission's communication on biotechnology ((COM(96) 630 final. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/97 by Kirsten Jensen (PSE), Lone Dybkjær (ELDR) and Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Assessment of dental amalgam as part of EU product certification

Does the Commission consider that the working party set up to assess the possibility of product certification for dental amalgam reflects a broad spectrum of views on the subject?

To what extent are consumers, amalgam-free dentists or exponents of the scientific point of view that amalgam damages health represented in the working party?

How does the Commission plan to provide a balanced assessment without such representatives?

Can the Commission confirm that it does not intend to use product certification to place obstacles in the way of national provisions that guarantee the possibility of amalgam-free dentistry?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1997)

The Working Party instructed to analyse the regulatory situation as regards the certification of dental amalgams is made up of experts who cover a broad range of the aspects involved in the analysis. These experts are from the health authorities, the test and certification bodies, the dental industry, the medical profession and include scientific experts in dentistry, toxicology, biocompatibility and risk analysis. The Working Party has based its work on the objective analysis of risks with reference to the scientific literature currently available.

The Commission was first contacted by organizations representing patients in November 1996. At the time, the Working Party, after nearly two years of work, had already begun drafting the report which had to be finalized by about April or May 1997. The Commission consequently undertook to consult the patients' representatives as far as the draft report was concerned and to take their comments into consideration. It therefore carried out broad consultation of the experts in the field concerned.

In the light of the report's findings, the Commission will try to find a Community solution in the framework of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 on medical devices ((OJ L 169, 12.7.1993. )). All national provisions on the use of amalgam will then have to be considered in terms of the solution adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Competitiveness of the chemical industry

The Commission believes that, although it is one of the most modern and competitive in the world, the European chemical industry will have to respond to a number of challenges in order to maintain and, where necessary, strengthen its international competitiveness. These challenges have to do with:

- the health and environmental implications of chemicals;

- the European and world scale of the markets involved;

- dependence on imported raw materials and energy;

- extreme dependence on capital and RTD.

The various steps which the industry, the Commission, and the Member States will accordingly have to take are being worked out and grouped together in line with the four priority areas identified in the communication on industrial competitiveness, namely:

- measures to improve regulation;

- measures to make for genuine competition;

- measures to boost investment in intangible assets;

- measures to develop industrial cooperation.

Will the Commission:

1. carry out a scientifically based in-depth cost-benefit analysis of the new rules on the classification, labelling, and use of chemicals;

2. allow genuine liberalization of trade with economically emergent nations and seek alternative solutions to correct distortions caused by differing degrees of environmental protection?

In addition, will it lay down programmes or encourage the chemical industry to conclude voluntary agreements aimed at filling the gaps or going beyond the minimum standards required in existing regulations?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0460/97 and E-0462/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

The Commission agrees to the importance of the matters raised by the Honourable Member. They in fact concern the much wider area of the activities pinpointed by the Commission in its communication entitled 'An industrial competitiveness policy for the European Chemicals Industry' ((COM(96) 187 final. )): which aims, for example, to improve the competitiveness of the Community's chemicals industries.

In this connection the Commission is taking account of Parliament's report on said communication that was adopted during its plenary session on 13 March 1997, together with the Industry Council's conclusions of 14 November 1996 and the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 31 October 1996.

The Commission is also aware of the underlying importance of cooperation between the representatives of industry, labour, scientific and university circles, and other partners in the chemicals sector. It has already secured, and will continue to secure, their involvement as part of the communication's follow-up programme, more particularly within the working parties set up in order to expand the various activities. The internal market, environmental aspects, research and development (education in training) and external industrial cooperation groups are covering the areas mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0601/97 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1997)

Subject: Outcome of the European Environmental Bureau meeting

What matters were discussed and what was decided at the meeting with the European Environmental Bureau in Brussels held by the President of the Commission in January 1997? What further plans are there for Commissioners to meet with environmental non-governmental organizations to discuss matters of mutual interest?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

The subjects discussed at the meeting on 17 January 1997 between the President of the Commission and representatives of the European environment bureau included the integration of environmental considerations into other Community policies, the stabilisation and reduction of CO2 emissions, the amendment of the Treaty in the context of the Intergovernmental conference, employment and environment and in general the environment strategy of the Commission and the way it responds to citizens' concerns. The President of the Commission explained Commission policy and detailed the action being taken on the subjects discussed, and took note of non-governmental organisation (NGO) suggestions thereon. He underlined the important liaison role played by NGOs in increasing public awareness on the one hand and in representing public opinion on the other.

In view of this important liaison role, the Commission is open in principle to requests from NGOs for contacts or meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various other bodies

With regard to heading B7-707 (Support for rehabilitation centres for torture victims and for organizations offering concrete help to victims of human rights abuses), can the Commission provide a complete list of associations, NGOs and other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies and the exact amount of these subsidies for the last completed budgetary year, i.e. 1996?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0825/97 and E-0826/97 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

The Commission aims to ensure the greatest possible openness in the use made of the Community budget, and especially of those financial instruments directly linked to human rights.

For headings B7-7040 and B7-7070, specific information is always given at the end of the financial year, when the President of Parliament and Chairman of the relevant committee are sent a report with a breakdown of how monies have been spent, a complete list of the associations, NGOs and other bodies which have received grants, and the exact amount of these grants.

The details requested by the Honourable Member will be sent as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: 1994 Cohesion Fund

With regard to the Cohesion Fund for 1994 can the Commission say what projects were approved and subsidized in Italy and the amount of appropriations allocated to each of them? In particular can it specify which projects concerned the environment and transport?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0872/97, E-0873/97 and E-0874/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

According to Article 2.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) setting up the Cohesion fund, only Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are eligible for Cohesion fund financing until the end of 1999. Italy is therefore not eligible and no projects in Italy have been financed by the fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0809/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various other bodies

With regard to heading B7-420 (Community operations connected with the Israel/PLO peace agreement), can the Commission provide a complete list of associations, NGOs and other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies and the exact amount of these subsidies for the last completed budgetary year, i.e. 1996?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

No commitments were made under budget heading B7-420 (Community actions connected with the peace agreement between the Palestine liberation organization (PLO) and Israel) for the benefit of any association, non-governmental organisation or other non-government body during the 1996 budgetary exercice.

At the October 1993 conference of donors following the signature of the Declaration of Principles between Israel and the PLO, the Community pledged 500 mecu for the long-term social and economic development of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, of which 250 mecu in loans and 250 mecu in grants. The grants were to be committed at the rate of 50 mecu every year between 1994-1998, on a budget line specially created for this purpose - B7-420.

Not only is it indispensable to the process of development that the governing authorities be fully associated with the programming and implementation of donor funds, but the policy of the Commission has been to support the Palestinian Authority in its assumption of domestic governmental functions. Therefore funds made available on B7-420 have been programmed with the Palestinian Authority.

This notwithstanding, the Commission recognises the vital role played by non-governmental organisations in the social, economic and indeed political life of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That is why the Commission is currently supporting some 50 European and Palestinian non-governmental organisations, on various other Budget articles. A list of these organisations is available from the Commission.