ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3609/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Improving the position of general linguistic research in EU research funding

In the future, a growing proportion of the funds spent on European linguistic research will come direct from the EU. In the EU's research programmes, linguistic research is divided into four main categories:

- information-gathering systems and programmes which develop and exploit computerized language analysis,

- general cultural research programmes,

- programmes focusing on research and technological development in the former Soviet Union, former socialist countries and developing countries,

- programmes to promote cooperation between researchers and training.

At present, however, the EU's language research programmes comprise very few sectors concerned with fundamental or theoretical research.

The problems associated with the funding of fundamental linguistic research arise primarily from the fact that it is generally a long time before the findings can be exploited. Nonetheless, in two individual Member States for example - the Netherlands and Germany - funding of theoretical linguistic research has been regarded as an economic investment. In both countries, theoretical research into language is being pursued at a very advanced level.

What possible measures has the Commission considered with a view to improving the position of general linguistic research? Would it be possible, for instance, to link linguistic research to the work of the JRC (Joint Research Centre) or to institute a special fundamental linguistic research programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (23 January 1998)

The Commission's proposed 5th Framework Programme for research ((COM(97) 142 final. )) does not include a specific programme concerning basic linguistic research. However, within the specific programme entitled 'Developing a user-friendly information society' there is a plan to conduct activities on new language technologies in order to make information and communication systems more user friendly, more particularly as part of key-activity III 'Content and multimedia tools'. These activities will, inter alia, be aimed at certain aspects of basic research.

The activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) do not at the moment include any linguistic research.

Moreover, at least in the short term, the JRC would be in no position to begin work in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3815/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Net transfers to the EU budget

According to the Economist of 18 October 1997, the European Commission was unable, at a recent meeting of Ecofin, to give figures for net contributions to the EU budget for each Member State. Given the importance of this subject, and the high degree of public interest in it, will the Commission now take the opportunity to publish the list of net contributions to the EU budget for each Member State, using the latest available figures?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1998)

In a paper forwarded to the EcoFin Council (a copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat) the Commission explained the reasons why it does not produce estimates of budgetary positions for the Member States.

To recapitulate, the Commission contends that budgetary flows do not capture all the benefits from membership of the Community. Community membership, which gives rise to financial and non-financial advantages as well as obligations, has a non-budgetary dimension the importance of which dwarfs the budgetary dimension. For example, the benefits from the pursuit of common objectives, such as trade liberalisation and European economic integration, cannot be evaluated in terms of budgetary flows alone. Moreover, flows from the Community budget invariably benefit not only the recipients but other Member States in the form of return flows. Typical examples are structural funds and external expenditure, where the implementation of projects often gives rise to purchases of goods and services from other Member States.

Furthermore, there is no single definition of a budgetary balance. This inevitably makes possible the design of various methods of approximating the net budgetary benefits from membership of the Community, and the choice of particular method often reflects the desire to highlight a particular point of view or to defend a specific issue. In view of these difficulties, the Commission neither produces nor does it endorse any particular method of calculating the Member States' budgetary positions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Council (15 December 1997)

Subject: OECD agreement to combat bribery and corruption

An agreement to combat bribery and corruption has been reached in the OECD. However, it concerns only the bribing of public officials.

To what extent does the European Union advocate wider-ranging proscription of and legal action against bribery and corruption?

Answer (30 March 1998)

The Council has adopted already a number of measures to combat bribery. The following instruments may be mentioned:

1. Convention of 26 May 1997 on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of the Member States of the European Union ((OJ C 195/01, 25.06.1997. )).

2. Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and its protocol of 27 September 1996 which deals specifically with corruption ((OJ C 316/48, 27.11.1995 and C 313/01, 23.10.1996. )).

3. Common Positions of 6 October and of 13 November 1997, both on the negotiations in the Council of Europe and the OECD on the fight against corruption ((OJ L 279/01, 13.10.1997 and L 320/01, 21.11.1997. )).

Moreover, the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council proposed a Joint Action to combat corruption within the private sector. This proposal, on which the European Parliament has given an opinion, is currently being examined by the competent working group of the Council with a view to making good progress during the coming months. The UK Presidency hopes to reach an agreement before the end of the current semester.

In this context it should be mentioned that the Action Plan against organized crime, approved by the European Council at Amsterdam in June 1997, contains a specific recommendation (nr 6) aiming at the development of a comprehensive EU policy to fight corruption in order to enhance transparency in public administration and in business and to prevent the use by organised crime of corrupt practices. This is also the objective of the Commission's communication of 21 May 1997 to the European Parliament and the Council on a Union policy against corruption.

The Council will pursue action against fraud and corruption vigorously.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4177/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Cohesion policy and culture

In its communication COM(96) 512 final, Cohesion Policy and Culture: A contribution to employment (page 4), the Commission states that cultural activities are only eligible for funding under the Structural Funds if they contribute to sustainable employment and form an integral part of local or regional development strategies.

Can the Commission supply data concerning the contribution made to employment and regional or local development by the cultural projects cofinanced by the Structural Funds in the programming period 1989-1993 and the current programming period 1994-1999?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

The Commission emphasised in the communication that there is still a lack of precise knowledge of the link between culture and regional or local employment creation. This is mainly due to the fact that the cultural sector is not homogeneous and is contained within different programme priorities or statistical categories. Moreover, there are significant variations of definition and statistical classification of culture between the Member States. The communication therefore instead gives examples of successful initiatives and their estimated employment effects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3966/97 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Limit values for baby food

Can the Commission state whether there are any new scientific findings and assessments at EU and international level with regard to defining limit values for baby food such as lindane? If so, what are they?

What conclusions does the Commission draw from the current state of scientific discussion?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (6 February 1998)

The scientific committee for food (SCF) was asked to re-examine its earlier 'opinion on Lindane in baby foods' expressed on 23 September 1994. At its meeting on 10 November 1997, the SCF was informed orally that the 'Joint food and agricultural organization/ world health organization (FAO/WHO) meeting on pesticide residues' (JMPR) had re-evaluated lindane at its meeting of 22 September - 1 October 1997 and had substantially lowered the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The committee arrived at a consensus that its previous opinion could no longer be assumed to be valid but was unable to draft a new opinion since the underlying data for the reduction of the ADI were not available. Meanwhile the secretariat of the SCF has been informed that the JMPR opinion on lindane will be published in February or March 1998. The Commission has recently requested the SCF to advise it whether, in the light of the data presented to the JMPR, the presence of lindane at a level of 0.03 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) of baby food poses a risk to public health and on the maximum level of lindane in such products that could be considered to be acceptable from the public health point of view. The committee concluded on 15 January 1998 that 'a maximum level of lindane of 0.02 mg/kg in foods intended for infants and young children could be considered to be acceptable from the public health point of view'. The SCF's opinion of 15 January 1998 is available via Internet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3830/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Urban development in the wetlands of Gandía - Xeresa - Xeraco

These Gandía - Xeresa - Xeraco Wetlands (Inventory of Wetlands in the Community of Valencia) are currently being threatened by the development project being promoted by Rusticas, S.A. under Article 20 of Law 4/92, of 5 June, on land deemed not for development. The project involves the construction of a hotel complex and a golf course.

The petition (EXPE.662/97) sent to COPUT (Department of Public Works, Urban Development and Transport) was considered by the Municipal Council in Gandía which, in a letter dated 12 September 1997, asked this Department to suspend temporarily the hearing to enable the claims to be put forward regarding the lack of necessary documentation in this case.

Despite the irregularities of the case, the project infringes Articles 6 and 9 of Law 4/92 mentioned above, which establish, respectively, the authority and duties of the owners of land deemed not for development subject to special protection, and the regulation of construction, development and exploitation carried out. It also infringes Law 11/94, of 27 December, on the Protected Natural Areas of the Valencian Generalitat and Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) on the conservation of natural habitats, and, specifically, wetlands.

1. Can the Commission ask the COPUT for the case file and, subject to its findings, ask that the project be cancelled if it infringes Directive 92/43/EEC?

2. Can the Commission, within its powers, and taking into account the problems caused by declassifying a number of wetlands of major ecological importance, ask the Valencian Department of the Environment to complete a list of wetlands for special protection areas, as provided for in the Community of Valencia's own legislation, in Law 11/94?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

1. Given that the Xeraco Wetlands is one of the areas included in the 'Conservation of wetlands and creation of a reserve network for Valencia hispanica' project, which receives Community funding within the framework of the Life Nature programme, the Commission has approached the Valencian Generalitat administration, beneficiaries of the contract, requesting more information on this subject.

The Department of the Environment informed the Commission that it only had official news on the subject. Final approval of this project must be preceeded by a positive assessment of its impact by that Department. This procedure has not yet begun.

2. The Commission does not have the authority to request the Valencian Department of the Environment to compile a list of wetlands.

The Department of the Environment has, however, informed the Commission that the procedure for approving this list, by the Valencian administration, is to begin shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3917/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Measures eligible for funding under INTERREG II C

Following the resolution which was unanimously adopted by Parliament at its sitting of 20 November 1997 (resolution B4-0932/97) and the Commission's answer to my question H-853/97 ((European Parliament debates (November 1997). )), which is clearly a purely technical answer, is the Commission considering submitting an amendment to the eligibility criteria for expenditure under the INTERREG II C initiative so as to allow for intervention in Spain and Portugal in the event of storms and floods (as is possible in certain EU Member States) and not just in respect of drought?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1998)

The Commission does not envisage amending the eligibility criteria for expenditure under the Community initiative Interreg II C, for three reasons.

Firstly, the objective of the Interreg II C initiative is to support transnational cooperation in the field of spatial planning. Measures and actions to be promoted must have a structural or preventive character and be justified by the economic development of the area concerned. It has not been envisaged to use funding under Interreg II C to provide support in the case of natural hazards or catastrophes.

Secondly, Interreg II C was adopted by the Commission in May 1996 and its guidelines were published in July 1996 ((OJ C 200, 10.7.1996. )). For the period 1997-1999 no allocation was made for either Spain or Portugal for flood prevention since no such request was made by those Member States. The proposals for operational programmes were submitted to the Commission in the first half of 1997. The Portuguese drought programme was approved on 29 September 1997 and the Spanish programme should be approved in the coming months. It should be noted that, whereas the flood programmes are joint transnational programmes, the drought programmes have a national character.

Finally, existing drought programmes can contribute (although only indirectly) to improving water management and therefore also to flood prevention to the extent that they support, among other actions, the hydrological study of river catchment areas, studies on water resources and the ecological balance of specific areas, the development of strategies, planning actions and measures on land use and sustainable hydrological management.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4112/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Restrictions on Spanish investment in French-registered fishing vessels

On 18 November 1997 the French Parliament adopted a new law to regulate fishing at sea which imposes requirements relating to the residence of crew members on French soil and the landing of catches at French ports, from which the majority of fishing voyages must originate.

Is the Commission officially aware of this new French law?

Does it consider the law in question to be compatible with the basic principles of Community law, in particular those relating to the freedom of establishment and the free movement of persons and goods?

In any event, could it state its opinion regarding this law in the light of recent ECJ judgments on this subject?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 February 1998)

The Honourable Member is probably referring to France's Law No 97-1051 of 18 November 1997 on marine fishing and seafood cultivation.

Article 6 of this Law stipulates that a fishing vessel flying the French flag is not permitted to fish on national quotas or to apply for a fishing licence unless it has a genuine economic link with the territory of the French Republic and that it is managed and controlled by a permanent undertaking located in French territory.

The Commission takes the view that this provision is compatible with Community law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, provided that the practical application of the Law complies fully with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

The Commission is not aware of any restrictions on the residence of crew members or the unloading of fishing vessels flying the French flag as referred to by the Honourable Member in his written question.

The new Law No 97-1051 on marine fishing and seafood cultivation contains no such restrictions.

If supplementary provisions were to be introduced by the French authorities, the Commission would check to ensure that they comply with Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/97 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Films with the biggest box office receipts in Spain

I should like to be provided with a list of the films, by nationality, which achieved the biggest box office receipts in Spain in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.

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

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4194/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Computer-chip genetic diagnosis

1. Is the Commission aware that, in the USA, computer-chip genetic diagnosis systems are now commercially available? These enable complex genetic information necessary for the diagnosis of genetic diseases and susceptibility to be obtained in a very short space of time, without the need for extensive laboratory facilities and with a hitherto unmatched degree of accuracy.

2. Is the Commission aware that this technology enables genetic profiles to be drawn up even without detailed knowledge of molecular genetics and without qualified medical or psychological advice?

3. Is the Commission aware that, in 1997, several large European pharmaceutical companies concluded agreements with the US company Affymetrix Inc., of Santa Clara, California, relating to the use of this technology?

4. Is the Commission aware that one of these agreements also provides for the use, for research purposes, of genetic polymorphs which are linked to sensitivity to certain chemicals in the workplace?

5. Does the Commission consider that this sensitive technology should be introduced into Europe without any rules on authorization and application or on the protection of genetic information?

6. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to prevent, in particular, genetic discrimination against certain groups of people, for instance through the use of such technology by employers or insurance companies?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

1. and 2. The Commission is aware of scientific publications concerning the chip-bound diagnostic system and its possible uses. It is also aware of the ethical implications arising from such device. The importance of the issue has been enhanced by the Opinion No 6 ((Doc. of 20.2.96 'Ethical aspects of PND'. )) of the group of advisers on the ethical implications of biotechnology (GAEIB) as far as the specific case of prenatal diagnosis (PND) is concerned.

3. The Commission has no information on European pharmaceutical companies which may have concluded agreements with American companies for the use of this technology.

4. This technology can be used not only to detect sensitivity to certain chemicals and therefore prevent exposing workers to risks of toxic contamination, but also to screen out patients who are less likely to respond to drugs in order better to target patients and reduce side effects.

5. and 6. Relevant diagnostic systems may be covered by the forthcoming directive relating to in vitro diagnostic medical devices. This proposal ((OJ C 87, 18.3.1997. )) is currently at the stage of first reading following the co-decision procedure. The directive will regulate the performance required for such medical devices in view of their intended medical purpose. However, it will not stipulate conditions of use and possible restrictions. These aspects remain covered by national legislation.

The Commission will, however, closely follow the legal and ethical aspects of potential genetic discrimination through its research programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/97 by María Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Used tyres

Article 5(2)(d) of the proposal for a Council Directive on the landfill of waste (COM(97) 0105) stipulates that whole used tyres may not be accepted in a landfill with effect from two years from the date of entry into force of the Directive and shredded used tyres may not be accepted with effect from five years from that date ((OJ C 156, 24.5.1997, p. 10. )).

Can the Commission say what measures and procedures it has laid down to ensure compliance with the requirements of the above proposal for a Directive?

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

A priority waste stream working group on used tyres, which was set up by the Commission in 1991, proposed a ban on landfilling of tyres in its final conclusions of September 1993. As mentioned by the Honourable Member, this has been taken into account in the new proposal on landfill of waste in order to prevent landfilled tyres from making the sites unstable and to reduce the risk of fire. Furthermore, the ban on landfilling of whole tyres and shredded tyres aims to encourage the recovery of tyres and thus to save resources.

When the time for implementation of the landfill directive expires Member States will communicate to the Commission their national implementing measures, which the Commission will examine in the usual way.