ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2939/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Greek 'feta' cheese

It has become known that a number of EU Member States and associations of dairy producers have initiated proceedings with the Court of First Instance of the EU concerning the decision by the Commission of 12 June 1996 under which Greek 'feta' cheese was included in the list of products registered as protected designations.

The Commission decision was taken after an attentive and careful examination of the matter. It was the result of many years of work and, as far as possible, took account of the interest of other producers of 'feta' cheese from other EU Member States, despite the fact that the method of production and the final product bears little resemblance to genuine feta.

The legal proceedings, while calling into question the Commission's methods, in fact contain many inaccuracies concerning the place in which feta is manufactured which, as is universally acknowledged, was originally Greece and not, according to the general and imprecise claims being made, 'the Balkans' or 'certain areas of southern Europe'.

In view of this:

- what steps will the Commission take to prove that the claims being made by certain EU Member States and their producers' associations are unfounded and inaccurate?

- what steps will it take to uphold its decision against the unscientific and distorted reasoning being used to call it into question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1996)

The name Feta has been registered as a protected designation of origin under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin ((OJ L 148, 21.6.1996. )).

As the Honourable Member points out, proceedings have been initiated by a number of Member States and businesses in the competent Community Court for the annulment of the Regulation, and hence the registration of the name,

The Commission has now lodged a statement of defence in the Court of Justice setting out the matters of fact and law that are the basis for its decision to include the name Feta in the list of designations qualifying for protection across the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2921/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Establishment of standards for cigarette filters

It is accepted in international literature on the subject that cigarette tobacco contains harmful substances which produce side-effects, such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema and cardiovascular diseases, and are also carcinogenic.

It is further established that tobacco contains the most harmful substances when in its gaseous state, including carbon monoxide, the toxic derivates of nitrogen monoxide, peroxide, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyls, etc., and carcinogenic compounds proper (nitrous compounds, semi-quinones, etc.,), while in its solid state (tar) it contributes very little to the above side-effects.

British smokers suffering from cancer recently initiated legal proceedings against the tobacco industry, demanding compensation on the grounds that the industry had failed to modify the product so as to reduce the danger of cancer which doctors had warned about.

Will the Commission say:

1. What measures have been taken - or are due to be taken - at EU level to improve the quality of cigarettes by reducing the harmful substances they contain, such as those referred to above, and

2. What measures have been taken to establish standards for cigarette filters, particularly as regards their ability to bind the harmful substances of the gaseous phase of tobacco, thereby making full use of existing technology to protect public health?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

1. Council Directive 90/239/EEC ((OJ L 137, 30.5.1990. )) lays down maximum levels of tar content for cigarettes marketed in the Community. Tar content is identified in the recitals to this Directive as a factor which increases the risks of lung cancer to smokers. Council Directive 89/622/EEC ((OJ L 359, 8.12.1989. )) concerning the labeling of tobacco products, requires the level of tar and nicotine of cigarettes to be displayed, and imposes the use of warning labels for all tobacco products.

2. None.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3156/96 by Christian Rovsing (PPE) to the Commission (14 November 1996)

Subject: Competition in car ferry traffic between Denmark and Sweden and Denmark and Germany

According to press reports, state-owned Danish and Swedish ferry companies are issuing low-price combination tickets for various routes which private companies sailing only one route cannot compete with. Is this in keeping with the EU's rules of competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1996)

It is not in itself contrary to the competition rules for ferry operators to offer combined tickets for different routes, although it is nevertheless possible for such activity to constitute an infringement of the rules, depending on the context. However, considerably more information would be required than is provided by the Honourable Member to enable the Commission to give an opinion on the matter. The Commission has received a complaint concerning the combined tickets mentioned in the question, and is now investigating the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Interim RPI

It is increasingly clear from the media that there are real difficulties in finding universally accepted statistical measurements.

The Commission evaluates the convergence of prices on the basis of the interim retail price index. Does this index coincide with or diverge from the retail price index used by France?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3259/96, E-3260/96, E-3261/96, E-3262/96, E-3263/96, E-3264/96, E-3265/96, E-3266/96, E-3267/96, E-3268/96, E-3269/96, E-3270/96, E-3271/96, E-3272/96, E-3273/96 and E-3274/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

Under Protocol No 6 on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of the EC Treaty 'Inflation shall be measured by means of the consumer price index on a comparable basis, taking into account national differences.' This requirement is currently met through a process of harmonization based on the national consumer price indices (CPIs).

According to Council Regulation No 2494/95 on harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs) ((OJ L 257, 27.10.1995. )), harmonization should be considered as a stepwise approach in two stages. Stage I established in February 1996 a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs). The IICPs are in fact the national CPIs with the coverage of goods and services adjusted to reduce non-comparability, particularly by excluding certain non-market services, such as health, education and owner occupied housing.

National CPIs can thus be seen as coincident with the corresponding IICPs regarding methods, concepts and definitions, apart from the coverage of goods and services. Numerically, the indices differ as a result of these differences in the coverage ((COM(96) 560. )). For most of the Member States, the differences in the inflation rates measured as a twelve month change, whether on an annual or monthly basis, are small, ranging from 0,0 to ±0,2 percentage points. For some Member States (Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) the differences are bigger, mainly because of housing costs, particularly where interest payments are used in the national CPIs.

Though not strictly comparable, IICPs provide for the time being the most comparable basis for the assessment of inflation convergence among Member States. The Commission will, however, assess inflation convergence during the period before the start of stage three of economic and monetary union, as required by the Treaty, on the basis of comparable HICPs. These will be launched with Stage II of the harmonization of CPIs in February 1997 and will be based on appropriately designed definitions, concepts and methods.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2834/96 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Return flow of EU assistance to the donor countries

According to the July 1996 edition of EU-Informationen published by the Commission's office in Germany, ECU 48 of every ECU 100 of European assistance paid to Portugal from 1986 to 1990 benefited the donor countries in the form of return flows.

1. Is there any information on the return flow from Portugal to Germany?

2. Is there any information on return flows to Germany from other EU recipient countries?

3. Is there any information on return flows to Germany from recipient countries in Central and Eastern Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

Available studies and evaluations, such as the cohesion report ((COM(96) 388. )), suggest that indirect benefits derived from structural assistance, in the form of imports from Member States which are net payers, are very substantial. However, they do not provide figures concerning the relative share for Germany and other individual Member States for these imports.

It is estimated that more than a quarter of the amount transferred via the structural funds to the four cohesion Member States (Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal) over the period 1989-1993 returned to the other Member States in the form of imports, and that by 1999 this figure could rise to almost 35%. Concerning Portugal, induced imports from structural assistance represented about a third of the amount transferred in 1993. It is estimated that this will rise to 44% by the end of the 1994-1999 programming period.

The Commission does not possess any precise figures concerning return flows to Germany from beneficiary countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3171/96 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Carlos Carnero González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Aid to Cuba for damage caused by Hurricane Lily

On 17 and 18 October 1996, the eastern and central regions of Cuba were hit by Hurricane Lily. Housing was destroyed or damaged and infrastructure, services and social institutions (schools and medical centres) wrecked. Thousands of hectares of farmland, mainly banana and sugar-cane plantations, were also hit, causing massive economic losses.

The authorities' foresight in evacuating thousands of people meant that no lives were lost, but the population is now at risk because of the damage done to water and electricity supplies in the region affected.

The scale of the disaster means that emergency food and medical aid is required, as well as aid for repairing houses, services and infrastructure and for getting industry, agriculture and livestock farming back on their feet.

Does the Commission have any assessment of the damage? Has it put in hand the humanitarian, financial and technical aid required to ensure the prompt recovery of the area affected?

Does the Commission intend to step up its humanitarian aid to Cuba in order to meet these new requirements?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1997)

The extent of the damage caused by this hurricane is not yet fully known, since it made some areas inaccessible. Communications are cut, water supplies were cut off for several days in most of the towns affected, and a large amount of public infrastructure (schools, hospitals) has been destroyed. The latest estimates show 56 000 homes destroyed and 270 000 people evacuated to the capital. Damage to agriculture is also worrying, especially as regards plantations of bananas, other fruit, tobacco and coffee, as well as sugar-cane for which 43% of the cultivated area has been destroyed.

On 25 October 1996 the Commission adopted an ad hoc decision to provide urgent humanitarian aid totalling ECU 600 000. This involved sending purification equipment (chlorine tablets and calcium hypochlorite) intended to purify drinking water and prevent epidemics, and medicines and syringes to halt diseases affecting the digestive and respiratory system and to combat leptospirosis. These products are currently being distributed.

In addition, the third overall plan for humanitarian aid to Cuba, just approved by the Commission, with funding of ECU 8 million and covering one year, is targeted at the priority needs of the most vulnerable part of the Cuban population. No supplementary budget for humanitarian aid is planned at this stage. However, a team has just been sent to identify the needs arising from this natural disaster with a view to rehabilitation measures under budget heading B7-6410.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2830/96 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)

Subject: UK Private Finance Initiative and its relationship with structural funds

Is the Commission aware that a scheme known as the Private Finance Initiative is being considered as matching resources for the European Regional Development Fund? The implications of this would be the transfer of ownership of assets part-financed through the ERDF from the public to the private sector and a dislocating impact that private-sector matching may have on public sector capacity to resource projects and programmes. Under the scope of the single programming documents to include private-sector matching funding are the necessary eligibility checks carried out?

Has the Commission fully investigated the use of the Private Finance Initiative as a matching resource to ERDF and what guidelines if any it has produced?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)

The Commission is aware that the private finance initiative (PFI) in the United Kingdom might be considered as matching funding for the European regional development fund (ERDF). The question of transfer of ownership seems not to arise in this case, as the asset part-financed by the ERDF would begin and remain in private sector ownership. This is not inconsistent with the principles of the structural funds, where the private sector has the possibility to be involved. Nevertheless, the circumstances need to be carefully examined when approving the project, defining the grant rate and issuing the offer letter. In particular, compliance with the structural funds regulations and Community policies (e.g. competition) has to be ensured. Moreover, eligibility checks have to be carried out for each project presented for cofinancing by the ERDF.

Private sector matching funding cannot result in a modification of the programme (strategy, objectives, priorities, measures, financial plans and conditions of additionality) agreed between the Commission and the Member State and defined in the single programming document.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Hygienic disposal of waste on Aegina

One of the problems of the island of Aegina is the management of its waste. To the present day, the waste has to be transported by the ferry linking the island with Athens to be buried on landfill sites in Attica. The situation is unsavoury, particularly during the summer months, and there are a great many complaints both from the residents themselves and from tourists travelling with the refuse.

1. Do the Commission's plans for funding hygienic landfill sites for waste disposal include such a site for Aegina? and

2. if so, has a location been chosen for the site which meets all the necessary criteria?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)

The Greek authorities have not submitted any scheme under the Structural Funds, or more particularly the regional programme for Attica, to include financing of hygienic landfill sites on Aegina. No funding can be provided in the absence of such a proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Phare democracy programme ref No 95/0453 and 95/3262

Can the Commission explain the reason for the failure to implement Programme 95/3062 within the PHARE Democracy Programme?

Is the Commission satisfied that the principles of natural justice were applied when responding to the numerous complaints and representations of Mr Sean Hillen?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

With reference to the implementation of programme no 95/3062 within the Phare democracy programme, the Commission underlines that the application was unsuccessful because it did not satisfy one of the basic conditions of the programme, namely that projects must involve both local and Community based organisations acting in partnership.

The Commission is satisfied that the principles of natural justice were applied when responding to the numerous complaints and representations cited by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2893/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Control of hormones in meat

What plans does the Commission have to resolve the difficulties which UK Port Health Authorities have experienced, due to their new responsibility, under Directive 90/675/EEC ((OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1. )), to check 1% of all imported meat and meat products for banned growth promotion substances?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

The UK authorities have not informed the Commission about the difficulties to which the Honourable Member alludes. The question appears to refer to the transitional measures to facilitate the changeover to the new veterinary checks under Council Directive 90/675/EEC laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries ((OJ L 373, 31.12.1990. )). These checks are detailed in Commission Decision 96/105/EC ((OJ L 24, 31.1.1996. )) of 29 January 1996. This Decision will apply until 1 January 1997. From that date, Commission Decision 94/360/EC ((OJ L 158, 25.6.1994. )) on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries under Council Directive 90/675/EEC will apply. This latter Decision will be reviewed by the Commission and the Council when the time comes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2660/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Framework Convention on the Protection of National Authorities

The Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities was opened for signature on 1 February 1995, having been elaborated under the auspices of the Council of Europe. To date it has been signed by some 32 countries, but it has not yet entered into force as only four states have ratified the Convention. Twelve EU Member States have signed the Convention, though none have ratified it.

Will the Council state why no EU Member State has yet ratified the Convention? Does it agree that the entry into force of this Convention is desirable, in order to reinforce protection of vulnerable minorities in many European States? Will it state whether the Member States intend to ratify the Convention in the foreseeable future?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)

The Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities is open for signing by states which are members of the Council of Europe. Until its entry into force, it may also be signed by any other country invited to do so by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers.

It is therefore up to the countries concerned to explain why they have not yet ratified the Convention, or when they plan to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3500/96 by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Infringement of the law on the Valencian language

Having regard to the importance in the sphere of European development and integration of the minority languages in the various Member States of the Union, and having regard to the constant disrespect shown, even at official level, towards the various legal provisions recognizing that the native language of the region of Valencia is Valencian, is the Commission aware of the legal provisions and rulings which, without any doubt, recognize that the language spoken in the Autonomous Community of Valencia, which is different from Spanish, is called Valencian?

Is the Commission aware that, in various publications produced by itself and other institutions which are also funded by the executive body of the Union, the legal provisions enacted by both the Spanish State and the Valencian Autonomous Community are constantly and flagrantly infringed in that they do not recognize that the native language of the region of Valencia is Valencian?

Does the Commission plan to take any measures to prevent the constant violation of the letter and the spirit of Spanish national and Valencian regional legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (17 January 1997)

The Commission, mindful of the fact that cultural heritage is a key element in the building of Europe, is actively involved in the promotion of regional or minority languages and cultures.

Languages which come into this category are those native tongues which are traditionally spoken by a section of the population of a Member State.

With regard to Valencian, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given to the written question P-1325/95 by Mr Garcia-Margallo y Marfil ((OJ C 190, 24.7.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: EU assistance for the 'chicken map' project at the University of Edinburgh

Genetic engineering is currently being carried out on chickens at the University of Edinburgh with the support of EU resources.

1. Since when has the 'chicken map' project been directly or indirectly assisted by the EU, and how long will such assistance continue?

2. How much assistance in all has been provided?

3. Under what headings has the assistance been provided?

4. What is the aim of the 'chicken map' project?

5. What groups of researchers are involved in this project?

6. Are there any direct or indirect links with other research projects being assisted with EU resources?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

Contrary to the assumption of the Honourable Member, the 'chicken map' research project does not involve genetic manipulations but is aimed at improving the knowledge of the chicken genome which will provide new methods for selecting chicken for quality traits such as identification of genetic mechanisms that prevent the infection of chickens and thus the spread of pathogens (e.g. salmonella).

The project is funded under the Biotech II programme for 1.6 MECU, started on 1 December 1995 and will run for 3 years. The project is coordinated by the Roslin Institute of Edinburgh.

The participating laboratories are the Department of animal breeding, Wageningen agricultural university, Netherlands; the Division of molecular biology, Institute for animal health, Campton, UK; the Department of zoology, University of Leicester, UK; the Laboratoire de génétique cellulaire, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France; the Laboratoire de génétique factorielle, INRA, Jouy en Josas, France; the Lehrstuhl fuer Tierzucht, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany.

The project is interacting with the Farm animal industrial platform.