ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2070/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Payment of an indemnity for Portuguese fishermen

By its Decision 95/451/EC ((OJ L 264, 7.11.1995, p. 28. )) of 26 October 1995 the Council approved a Commission proposal to grant an indemnity to fishermen who had had to suspend their fishing activities in the waters of Morocco (COM(95) 69 final).

In accordance with that Decision, all fishermen affected in this way were to receive an indemnity as follows:

- from 1.5.1995 to 31.8.1995: ECU 454 per month (around Esc 90 000 per month)

- from 1.9.1995 to 31.12.1995: ECU 620 per month (around Esc 120 000 per month).

During the debate on the new fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco at the part-session in Strasbourg in April 1996 I asked the Commissioner what the procedure was for paying these indemnities in Portugal. At that time the Commissioner replied that she was unaware of the situation but that she would seek information from the Portuguese authorities.

As I have not yet received any information from the Commissioner, I have decided to pursue the matter through a written question.

According to information to which I have had access, the Portuguese Government paid all the amounts due to the fishermen during the second period of forced inactivity, i.e. between 1.9.1995 and 30.11.1995 (when fishing resumed). With regard to the period from 1.5.1995 to 31.8.1995, the Portuguese Government paid only Esc 52 000 per man per month in a first stage; it later paid a further Esc 18 832 per man per month under an order dated 19 April 1996. Thus the Portuguese Government still owes all those fishermen who had to suspend fishing activities in Morocco around Esc 18 000 per month for the first four months of this period.

Is the Commission now in a position to confirm this information? If the above figures are correct, what urgent action will the Commission take to ensure that Portuguese fishermen receive the indemnity in full, bearing in mind that their Spanish colleagues, for example, received the full amount some time ago?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

In accordance with Article 4 of Council Decision 95/451/EC of 26 October 1995, ((OJ L 264, 7 November 1995. )) Portugal drew up a two-part plan of action.

- Part I (1 May-31 August 1995) provided for payment to fishermen of an indemnity of Esc. 70 070 per man/month.

- Part II (1 September-30 November 1995) provided for larger payments - Esc. 120 000 per man/month.

During the same two periods shipowners were entitled to a temporary laying-up premium under Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 3699/93. ((OJ L 346, 31 December 1993. ))

It is up to the Member States themselves to ensures that the rules are complied with and indemnities duly paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2281/96 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Quality of bathing water in Holland

According to the Commission's thirteenth report on the quality of bathing water in 1995, in Holland none of the samples of coastal waters and only 18% of those of inland waters met the necessary quality standards.

Has the Commission taken any steps to remedy this situation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2281/96 and E-2282/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

The unsatisfactory quality of bathing water in the Netherlands was indicated in the recently published Commission report on the quality of bathing water in 1995.

The Commission has decided to question the Dutch authorities on this matter through a letter of formal notice - the first step in the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Regarding the poor quality of inland bathing waters in Germany, the Commission, having identified the situation some time ago, has instituted infringement proceedings. A reasoned opinion, the last step in the Article 169 procedure before the matter goes before the Court, has already been notified. Proceedings are continuing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1957/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (17 July 1996)

Subject: Plutonium smuggling

1. Can the Council clarify a dispute in the case of plutonium smuggled to Munich in 1994?

2. Euratom claims to have been informed by the German Government on 10 August 1994. But the German Government claims already to have notified Euratom on 27 July 1994. Who was lying? The German Government or Euratom?

3. How does the Council account for the fact that plutonium smuggling has occurred in only 12 Member States, and most flagrantly in Germany?

4. Can the Council rule out the possibility that in Germany plutonium smuggling has deliberately been staged by the Federal Intelligence Agency?

Reply (7 November 1996)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the reply given to Written Question No E-3082/95 on the seizure of plutonium at Munich airport (OJ C, 17.4.1996, p.21).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1375/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: EU-approved collection centres

How many EU-approved collection centres have been notified by the competent authorities of (a) Britain, (b) France, (c) Spain, (d) Italy, (e) Ireland, to the Commission as required by EU Directive EEC/64/432 ((OJ L 121, 29.7.1964, p. 1977. )), Article 3(8)?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

Further to its answer of 8th July 1996, the Commission can now give the Honourable Member the following information.

The authorities of the United Kingdom have approved 141 livestock collection centres for intra-Community trade. Approximately two thirds of these collection centres are livestock markets. The French authorities have informed the Commission that 167 livestock collection centres have been approved so far of which three are livestock markets. The list sent to the Commission is only a provisional one. Ireland has informed the Commission of the approval of 117 livestock collection centres, including 107 livestock markets. The Commission regrets to have to inform the Honourable Member that the Spanish and the Italian authorities have not responded in due time to the Commission's request for updated information in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Early detection and diagnosis of cases of BSE and CJD

In all the statements it has issued, the UK Government has insisted that there is no scientific proof of transmission of BSE to human beings and that the need is to regain consumer confidence.

However, it is clear that, to restore consumer confidence, it is not enough to lift the total or partial ban on exports of meat and meat products. What is needed is to inform consumers clearly about the health and hygiene measures which will be taken to ensure that meat and meat products are free of BSE-transmitting agents.

It appears that there is no laboratory test at present which can guarantee detection of BSE and that the only health and hygiene inspections are histopathological tests on each slaughtered animal.

How long does a vet take to carry out such a test?

Are individual tests conducted in abattoirs under veterinary supervision now a requirement in the UK, together with a register of the tests and identification of each cow slaughtered?

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

It is clear that a laboratory test which could identify the presence of the agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an animal during life or at slaughter would be a useful tool in preventing human exposure to the agent and, thereby, improving consumer confidence.

However, there is at present no practical test which can achieve this. The currently available methods are time consuming and not appropriate for use at slaughter and are only suitable for the confirmation of clinical cases, or animals in the very late stages of incubation. Work is handicapped by the lack of knowledge about the nature of the agent. Existing techniques rely on the identification of other markers for disease such as histopathological changes or the presence of abnormal protein in tissue biopsy samples or fluids such as cerebrospinal fluid. So far no marker has been identified in blood or other more easily available material. At least one laboratory has developed a test which is useful in predicting the eventual onset of scrapic in sheep, using tonsil material. This will be evaluated in respect of BSE.

Meanwhile, therefore, it is not possible to carry out routine tests in abattoirs. This is why the United Kingdom and the Community policy is based on the assumption that every bovine animal over the age of six months in the United Kingtom is potentially infected. Measures are then taken to remove the tissues which could contain infectivity, i.e the specified bovine material.

The Commission will do all it can to assist research and development of a suitable test for the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1954/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Impact of patenting animals

What is the impact on downstream markets, such as the drugs market, of patenting animals?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 October 1996)

In reply to the question put by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the granting of patents in respect of animals will not adversely affect the pharmaceuticals market, either in terms of the prices of medicines, their quality or their diversity. On the contrary, the inventions concerned should encourage the marketing of new medicines, especially as scientists will be better able to study certain diseases by experimenting on transgenic animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Problems faced by road hauliers in transit through Austria

According to the Greek periodical, 'Trochoi Kai Tir', allegations have been made that the Austrian authorities have forced many international road hauliers to drive their vehicles to poorly equipped and unauthorized garages to repair non-existent technical problems which the police have found (or have tried to find). The whole procedure is enormously expensive and time-consuming for the transport companies concerned.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this matter, and what immediate measures it intends to take to put an end to this curious practice by the Austrian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

All Member States are required by Community legislation to carry out regular roadworthiness tests for vehicles registered on their territory and are also fully entitled to check the roadworthiness of vehicles of any nationality driving on their territory, provided that such checks are not done in a discriminatory manner. Equally, should such controls reveal serious vehicle defects, the authorities are fully entitled, for safety or for environmental reasons, to require that the vehicle visit the nearest garage for the necessary repairs before continuing its journey.

The Commission is not aware of any particular difficulties being faced by foreign trucks on Austrian territory.

If the Commission receives detailed complaints highlighting specific examples of alleged police harassment or discriminatory treatment of foreign trucks in Austria or any other Member State it will investigate and act accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2061/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Environmentally-friendly diesel fuels

Can the Commission provide details of what action it is taking to promote the use of environmentally-friendly diesel fuels such as city diesel?

Is this to be included in the negotiations towards an environmental tax?

What part is the Commission planning to take in this pro-active attempt to protect the environment?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

On 18 June 1996 the Commission adopted a new strategy for reducing emissions from road vehicles ((COM (96) 248. )) with a view to achieving strict air quality standards in respect of carbon monoxide, benzene, nitrogen dioxide, particulates and the ozone layer.

This strategy will enable present levels of road vehicle emissions to be cut by 60% or 70% in the year 2010. It includes a proposal to reduce emissions from private cars and a proposal on fuel quality. Other proposals for legislation on vans and lorries, arising from the Auto Oil programme, and on roadworthiness tests will be presented in 1996 and 1997.

With regard to measures to promote the use of environmentally-friendly diesel fuel, the abovementioned proposal for a Directive on fuel quality allows the member States, by way of an exemption, to require that 'special fuels' be placed on the market for use in areas where the right air quality standards cannot be achieved simply by implementing the Community measures.

At present, the Member States can impose different duties on different fuels in order to promote the use of 'clean' fuels, but to do so they must obtain from the Council an exemption under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81/EEC. ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992. )) Several Member States have been authorized, in this way, to levy lighter duties on more environmentally-friendly diesel fuel.

Since negotiations on the May 1995 amended proposal for a Directive on a CO2/energy tax ((COM(95) 172. )) were blocked, the Ecofin Council meeting on 11 March 1996 mandated the Commission to draw up new proposals on the taxation of energy products. When drawing up these proposals, the Commission will take full account of the need for a simple method of allowing Member States to levy lighter duties on more environmentally-friendly products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Commission proposals on emissions and fuels

The Commission recently announced its objective of reducing emissions of pollutants and improving the quality of fuels.

However, in many EU countries the bulk of private and commercial vehicles are fitted with antiquated technology, and there is considerable concern that the Commission proposals might mean that these vehicles have to be withdrawn from circulation.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to provide incentives to replace private and commercial vehicles by new vehicles which run on improved and more environmentally friendly fuels?

2. Has it evaluated the financial cost of fuels for passenger and freight carriers using diesel-powered vehicles?

Answer given by Mr Bangeman on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1996)

The proposals on reducing emissions from new vehicles and improving fuels adopted by the Commission on 18 June 1996 ((COM(96) 248. )) and the complementary proposals announced to ensure that vehicles in service are properly maintained do not require any specific adaptation of vehicles already in service.

The main requirement of the measures proposed on the quality of fuels is investment in the development of refining techniques. The new fuels will be usable by old or new vehicles without technical problems.

The Commission is nevertheless aware that the large number of very old vehicles still in circulation in a few Member States is likely to be a technical obstacle to the total elimination of leaded petrol by the year 2000. The Commission has therefore made provision for a two-year derogation for any Member States experiencing particular difficulty, although no such difficulties have so far come to light.

In any case, the age of vehicles and the placing on the market of special fuels likely to reduce pollution will be major environmental issues for the Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member. The national authorities concerned must therefore take steps to remedy this situation, following the example of measures already taken in other Member States in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

The additional cost of improving diesel oil in accordance with the Commission proposal has been estimated at ECU 1.8 per 1000 litres of fuel on average, and would so lead to a moderate increase in fuel costs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Mad cow disease

Mad cow disease is causing concern to millions of consumers who, whether justifiably or not, have over the past few weeks reduced their consumption of beef and veal.

1. Can the Commission state when the first case was recorded in the United Kingdom and how the disease is transmitted?

2. Can it state how many people have so far been directly affected by the virus and give details of the specialized prevention and treatment centres existing in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 September 1996)

1. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was recognized as a specific disease in cattle in November 1986. Some bovine animals in the United Kingdom may have had BSE prior to that date, without having been recognized.

The most likely scientific explanation for the origin of BSE is that the infective agent was present in animal feed containing meat-and-bone meal of ruminant origin. The meat-and-bone meal containing the infectious agent was not sufficiently treated to destroy it. The BSE agent is most probably derived from scrapie, a related disease of sheep. There is, however, recent statistical evidence that vertical transmission may occur although there is no biological explanation for the mode of transmission at present. If vertical transmission from mother to calf does occur it will probably be at relatively low levels.

2. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is a rare disease of unknown origin; a viral aetiology is not thought to be involved. Its incidence is of the order of one case per million humans per year, in all countries. The new variant of this disease first described in March 1996 is much less common, with 12 cases to date worldwide. A link between this new variant and BSE has been suggested but not proven.

There is no specific treatment for this fatal disease. Cases are usually managed in neurological units of general hospitals.

Preventive measures against exposure of the human population to the BSE agent are undertaken at the level of abattoirs and processing plants, under the supervision of Member States' veterinary services.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: 1997 preliminary draft budget

The European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) receives appropriations under Article A-300 for the Supply Agency. Can the Commission provide the European Parliament with details of the nature of the activities carried out by the EAEC and the results of these activities?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

At its 23rd session on 1 and 2 February 1960, the Council of the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) decided unanimously that the Commission should postpone the levying of the charge originally provided for in Article 54 of the Euratom Treaty and intended to cover the operating expenses of the EAEC's Supply Agency. Since then, a subsidy, intended to balance the estimates of the Agency's revenue and expenditure, has featured in the Commission budget under heading A-300. This covers the operating expenses of the Agency, excluding the costs of staff and office rental, which are included in the Commission budget.

For an explanation of the activities of the Agency, the Honourable Member is referred to Chapter VI of the Euratom Treaty. A hard copy of the text describing the Agency on the Internet and the Agency's most recent annual report are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's General Secretariat.

For the activities of the EAEC in general, the Honourable Member could usefully refer to Title I of the Euratom Treaty, while the results of its activities are described in the relevant sections of the Commission's General Report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1384/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Imports of avocados from Mexico

The mass imports of Mexican avocados into the European Union are severely prejudicing Community avocado producers, who cannot compete with the Mexican prices.

Mexican avocado production costs are much lower than ours, since the socio-economic conditions there mean that labour costs are very low indeed. Nonetheless, the final quality of the product is much lower than that of European avocados, because of the length of time involved in transporting the former.

Is the Commission aware that while our market is being flooded with cheap, poor-quality Mexican avocados, thanks to the unfair socio-economic conditions in Mexico, over-ripe European avocados are literally falling from the trees because of the length of time that producers have held out waiting for a reduction in imports from Mexico? Does the Commission intend to take any steps to improve the situation?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1384/96 and E-1385/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Commission acknowledges that Community imports of avocados increased in 1994 and 1995 and last year amounted to a total of 105 552 tonnes. However, these increases follow two years of reduction, in which the Twelve in 1991 imported only 90 145 tonnes, and the relative increase over the period 1991-95 was no more than 16%.

Mexico accordingly became the Community's principal supplier of avocados in 1995. The increase in Mexican imports meant that the Community's second main supplier, Israel, saw its market share fall whilst sales by South Africa, the third supplier, remained at their previous level. These three countries account for almost 90% of Community imports.

Conventional customs duties on avocado imports are 7.5% from 1 June to 30 November and 4% during the rest of the year. ((Commission Regulation (EC) No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff - OJ L 319, 30.12.1995. Product code: 0804 40. )) This product therefore receives greater protection during the Community production period.

Hence, the Commission does not see the Mexican imports in question as likely to disrupt the Community market and does not envisage specific measures in respect of the avocado production sector.

The Commission is nevertheless monitoring this market closely and would point out that the new provisions which the reform of the fruit and vegetables organization incorporates should provide the opportunity for measures capable of improving the competitiveness of Community producers.