ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3055/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Waste

In connection with the proposals put forward by the Commission regarding the Community strategy on waste, it should be pointed out that the Commission does not make any assessment of the progress made towards the pre-established goals, particularly that of stabilizing per capita municipal waste production at its 1985 level by the year 2000. According to the figures for 1995 released by the OECD, per capita waste in the EU rose from 330 kg per annum in 1985 to 390 kg in 1990 and 400 kg in 1992.

Would the Commission not agree that, unless the Community devotes considerable additional efforts and funds to reversing the current upward trend, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to attain the goal of stabilization?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1996)

The Commission communication on the review of the Community waste management strategy ((COM(96) 399 final. )) recognizes that 'the Community's achievements in the prevention of waste generation are not satisfactory. Indeed, waste quantities have on average continued to grow' (¶ 33). This is the general assessment which the Commission can make from the limited and non-harmonised waste statistics which are available in the Community.

The Commission therefore considers that further concentrated efforts will have to be made at all levels in order to reverse this trend. The Community waste strategy together with the existing legislation on waste constitutes the appropriate framework for future Community initiatives in the waste sector. Structural funds, Cohesion fund, Life and the research and development programmes constitute the main Community financial instruments which can be used for funding environmental waste measures.

However, they are a relatively small financial complement to funding by Member States in this sector. More initiatives that promote waste prevention and recovery are desirable, such as promotion of clean technologies for products, recycling possibilities for different forms of waste, clean-up means for contaminated sites as well as other demonstration or pilot projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2728/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Structural Funds

The European Union accuses the Italian regions of incompetence in using the Structural Funds. Italy's local authorities rebut this charge by pointing to the inefficiency of the 'Euro snails' working in Brussels, to wit:

the Region of Basilicata sent notification of its plan in 1993. In October 1995, the EU asked for the papers to be resubmitted. After the entire file had been prepared and dispatched for the second time, the EU stated that the documentation should have been sent via the Italian Presidency.

Is the Commission aware of the tortuous progress of this application? What stage has the procedure initiated in 1993 now reached? Is it still at a standstill?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1996)

State aid schemes planned under programmes which are part-financed by the Community's Structural Funds must be vetted by the Commission in accordance with Article 92 et seq. of the EC Treaty. Member States must therefore take the necessary steps to notify the Commission, pursuant to Article 93(3) of the Treaty, in sufficient time and in accordance with the procedures laid down for the purpose, of legislative measures providing for assistance of this kind.

The notification which was made in 1993 and to which the Honourable Member refers concerned transmission of the multifund operational programme (MOP). Full notification, pursuant to Article 93(3), of the regional laws providing for aid schemes part-financed by the MOP over the period 1994-99 was not given until 3 June 1996.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Members attention to the fact that it received the clarifications requested concerning some of the measures in question only on 3 October 1996. It will adopt a decision on the aid measures that were properly notified in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Treaty within two months of receiving the information.

The Commission has also noted that certain aid measures were not properly notified in accordance with Article 93(3). The two-month deadline does not apply in such cases. The measures in question are currently being examined in the light of the competition rules; some of them were the subject of a decision adopted by the Commission on 6 November 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3215/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Valencia: deadline for projects under Article 10 of the ERDF

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published a call for the submission of pilot urban projects, in the context of the innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF. Of the projects submitted, 91 were from Spain.

One of the projects submitted concerns urban renewal in the city of Valencia.

When does the Commission intend to decide whether the Valencia project is eligible for EU funding under Article 10 of the ERDF?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3198/96, E-3199/96, E-3200/96, E-3201/96, E-3203/96, E-3204/96, E-3205/96, E-3206/96, E-3207/96, E-3208/96, E-3209/96, E-3210/96, E-3211/96, E-3212/96, E-3213/96, E-3214/96 and E-3215/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

The Commission received over 500 applications in response to its call for proposals; of these, 97 were from Spain. The available budget of ECU 60 million will enable the Commission to part-finance some 25 projects throughout the Union.

With regard to the selection procedure, the call for proposals states that: 'a team of independent international experts will assist the Commission services to identify the most innovative ideas in order to select those proposals which correspond most closely to the criteria set. The final number of proposals to be part-financed will be decided by the Commission, taking into consideration overall availability of funds, themes of proposals and distribution of appropriate projects within the territory of the Union.'

Since this procedure is now under way, it is not at present possible to assess the chances of a town being selected or the amount of Community part-finance which it might receive. Equally, no other estimate concerning a Member State or region can be made.

With regard to the number and name of projects which could concern municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia other than those expressly referred to in these Written Questions, the Commission cannot derogate from the principle of confidentiality which applies to this stage of the procedure, particularly since proposals for measures involving more than one local authority may be accepted if that cooperation increases the value added.

The time required for the thorough consideration and careful selection of the exceptionally large number of applications received means that the Commission will not be able to take a decision before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2949/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Plutonium in the European Institute for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe

According to the current authorization situation, how much plutonium can be stored at the European Institute for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1996)

The Institute for transuranium elements is a category 1 nuclear facility. Nuclear fuels are stored in agreement with the German surveillance authorities and under the control of the international inspection agencies (Euratom safeguards and the International atomic energy authority).

Data on the stock of fissile materials held at individual facilities are kept confidential for protection reasons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Discovery of a bugging device in Mr Berlusconi's office

A bugging device has been discovered in the Rome office of Mr Silvio Berlusconi, leader of the Forza Italia political party and of the Italian Opposition.

1. Does the Commission think that it should call on the Court of Justice to ensure that the rights of Mr Berlusconi as a citizen, a Member of Parliament and leader of the Opposition are protected?

2. What guarantees does the Commission consider itself able to provide in order to safeguard the right to privacy?

3. Is the Commission aware of any previous incidents similar to those relating to Mr Berlusconi anywhere else in the EU, other than the telephone tapping activities directed at Spanish institutional bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1996)

The Commission has no information other than that available in the press on the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has no power to bring an action on facts of that kind against a Member State in the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2841/96 by Guido Podestà (UPE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Shooting of ptarmigans

Shooting is not just a sport but also a valuable environmental activity, helping to maintain a balance in the animal world.

In Scotland the northern ptarmigan population now needs to be restocked. The shooting of this species should therefore be prohibited until a new balance has been achieved in the region's wildlife.

However, Scottish hunters' federations base their activities on the shooting of this species. To offset the falling bird population they have been obliged systematically to eliminate other types of birds of prey and predatory mammals, thereby disrupting the area's wildlife balance.

Does the Commission intend to grant support to these federations which have asked for financial backing to enable them to cover ever-increasing losses due to administrative costs and a falling membership? If so, what conditions does it intend to attach to these payments with a view to safeguarding efforts to achieve the balance mentioned above?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, of 25.4.1979, p. 1, last amended by Council Directive 94/24/EC, of 8 June 1994; OJ L 164 of 30.6.1994, p. 9. )) provides a comprehensive framework for the protection of birds and their habitats throughout the Community, while allowing for controlled hunting of certain species such as lagopus mutus (ptarmigan). It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that hunting practices are sustainable and are carried out in accordance with the principle of wise use.

The Commission is not aware of an application from the Scottish hunters' federations for Community financial assistance. Even if such support were to be requested, it would need to be fully in accordance with the respect of Community environmental legislation including that concerning nature conservation. In Scotland the authority for nature conservation, Scottish natural heritage, participates in the monitoring committee set up to oversee the use of the structural funds in that region. This should ensure that hunting of ptarmigans accords with the principle of wise use and respects the conservation of other species protected under Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2875/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Thermie 1993

Follow-up question on the answer of 29 April 1996 to E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).

Do projects on the reserve list have priority over new projects previously not classed as eligible for support or which have received support even though they were not on the reserve list?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)

The projects on a priority list have priority over those on a reserve list under the same or any previous Decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2853/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Nuclear industry in thre Slovak Republic

How does the Commission regard the fact that no solution - in terms of funding, choice of location, technology and state of the art - has been found for the short or the long term to the problem of nuclear waste, given that this problem is beyond the technical and financial resources of the Slovak Republic?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1997)

Radioactive waste from reactor operation is the largest quantity produced in terms of volume. Definitive disposal takes place at the repository for short-lived waste located near Mochovce. Long-lived waste is stored at the power plants until a repository in deep geological formations is available. Research for siting and developing such a deep repository is in progress. Spent nuclear fuel is likewise stored at or near the power plants, and a special dry storage facility for long term storage is being prepared.

This situation is quite similar to the situation in a number of Member States. Financing of the management of radioactive waste is provided by charging costs through the price of electricity to the consumer. There is also a provision for later decommissioning. An exception is the dismantling of the old Bohunice A1 reactor, where decommissioning has to be supported by the general budget.

The Slovak Republic receives assistance for developing a full regulatory framework and for decommissioning of the A1 reactor, mainly through the Commission Phare programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/96 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)

Subject: Noise level in discos

1. Is the noise level in discos covered by European directives on health and safety at work?

2. What is the permitted noise level (in decibels)?

3. Do these directives apply only to employees of discos, or to they apply to persons visiting discos, too?

4. If not, are there any other directives on noise level which are applicable to persons visiting discos?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)

1. - 3. Council Directive 86/188/EEC ((OJ L 137, 24.5.1986. )) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work has as one of its aims the protection of workers against risks to their hearing, including the prevention of such risks.

This Directive applies to anyone employed by an employer with the exception of workers engaged in sea and air transport.

When the daily personal exposure of a worker to noise is likely to exceed 85 decibel (A), appropriate measures have to be taken according to Articles 4-6 of the Directive.

4. There is no Community legislation dealing with noise levels applicable to people visiting discos.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/96 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)

Subject: Spanish shipping register

The Spanish 'State and merchant navy ports act' enacted on 24 November 1992, governed the ordinary law on shipping and shipping companies (the 'First Register'). The 15th supplementary provision to this law now sets up a Second Register on the Canary Islands, and its Art. 6 imposes particular requirements concerning the nationality of ships' crews. Under this provision a ship's captain and first officer must always have Spanish nationality. This regulation restricts the free access of workers from other EU Member States to jobs on Spain's Second Register ships.

To what extent is this restriction compatible with EC law, and in particular Art. 48 of the EEC Treaty in the case law of the European Court of Justice (the 'Seafarers' judgment)?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

On ships flying the flag of a Member State the posts of ship's Nos One and Two (in other words, master or chief officer insofar as he replaces the master) raise special considerations.

On-board functions at this level require the exercise of public authority in the sense of the provisions of Article 48 paragraph 3 EC Treaty which lay down that, on grounds of public policy and public security, a limitation to employment may apply in the Member States. The responsibility of the ship's master or his deputy for the exercise of public authority on board ships is directly related to crew and passengers and their life and property at sea, as well as protection of the marine environment.

The Commission believes that the Spanish provisions cannot be considered to be in contradiction with Community legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/96 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 the United Kingdom?

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-2401/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - criteria

1. What criteria have been used to ascertain whether genetically modified plants are safe for public health and the environment?

2. What are these criteria based on?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3417/96 by Jutta Haug (PSE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Revision of the Basic Regulation of the Medicines Evaluation Agency

In the debate on the Regulation on the fees payable to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, held on 18 January 1995 in Strasbourg ((Debates of the European Parliament no. 4-456 (January 1995). )), Commissioner Martin Bangemann replied as follows to the assertion by the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets that the Basic Regulation disregarded the budgetary rights of the European Parliament:

'...The basic regulation provides for a review in 1997. In 1996, i.e. next year, we will make a proposal on the matter. Then, in the light of any changes or the decision of principle on how such revenue is to be treated, we will be able to draw up a completely new regulation with all the proposals and possibilities to which the rapporteur has referred, as also with a quite different comitology...'

At the end of the debate the rapporteur asked for clarification:

'...but you are agreeing that the basic regulation will be revised.';

to which Commissioner Bangemann replied:

'In 1997, to be quite precise. To ensure that this can be done on time, we will be submitting a proposal in 1996.'

We are now approaching the end of 1996, and the Commission has not yet fulfilled its promise.

1. When does the Commission now propose to submit its proposal for a revision to Parliament?

2. Will the Commission make a special effort to ensure that this is done before the end of 1996, as promised by Commissioner Bangemann?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products ((OJ L 35, 15.2.1995. )) is based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty and entered into force on 15 February 1995.

Under Article 10, the Commission will submit, within two years at the latest of the entry into force of this Regulation, a report on its implementation and, in the light of that experience, propose a definitive regulation to the Council. The Council, acting by a qualified majority after consulting the Parliament, will adopt provisions on the amounts of the fees and the conditions governing them, to apply as from 1 January 1998.

When drafting this proposal, the Commission has to take account in particular of the practical experiences of the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products. The Commission has therefore asked the Agency to provide it with the necessary information and a report of the Agency to the Commission is expected for December 1996. Based on this report, the Commission will finalise its proposal and forward it to the Council in February 1997.