ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 March 1998)

Subject: Regional operational programme for Attiki - sub-programme 1, measure 2

Sub-programme 1, measure 2 of the regional operational programme for Attiki includes measures for waste disposal, including recycling, sanitary 1landfilling, compacting systems and transshipment facilities.

According to the timetable ECU 19 591 million of the public funds earmarked for this purpose should have been utilized by the end of 1997.

1. In which projects have the main delays occurred and what are the principal reasons for this?

2. Did any modifications occur (and if so what modifications) during the CSF review and what were the budgetary implications thereof?

3. What appropriations had been utilized by 31.12.1997?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1998)

According to the financing tables amended on 21 October 1997, public expenditure programmed until 1997 for measure 1.2 of the operational programme for Attiki (waste management) amounts to ECU 5.3 million.

At the last meeting of the Monitoring Committee of the Community Support Framework (CSF), held on 31 October 1997, the regional programmes were not amended.

For technical information on the work programmed, progress in implementation and the causes of any delays, the Honourable Member is requested to consult the regional authorities in Attiki responsible for implementing the CSF.

At ECU 6.4 million, the appropriations spent at the end of 1997 exceed the 1997 forecast, as revised on 21 October 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1107/98

by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: Speeding up the procedure for examining infringements of Community law

The European Parliament, certain professional bodies and non-governmental organizations have asked the Commission to speed up the procedure for examining infringements of Community law. Despite the measures taken by the Commission hitherto, the speed of the procedure is unsatisfactory and justifiably gives rise to claims for compensation by the parties involved.

What measures will the Commission take:

1. to limit the period of time for the consultation procedure with the Member State concerned before applying Article 169 of the Treaty, and

2. to set a clear deadline for the Member State's answer or compliance after sending a letter of formal notice or a reasoned opinion or bringing the matter before the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 1998)

The Commission attaches high priority to its function as guardian of the Treaties, and it does all that is in its power to improve the operation of the Article 169 procedure. As it stated in its Fourteenth Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law,(1) it has taken a series of internal measures to speed up Article 169 infringement proceedings.

Where the Commission receives a complaint, it endeavours to take a decision on the substance, that is to say a decision to issue an Article 169 letter or to close the case, within a year. To meet this deadline, it has greatly reduced the preliminary correspondence with the Member State prior to the commencement of proceedings. It also tries to ensure that conciliation meetings with Member States are not used to slow the procedure down. As it states in its Fifteenth Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law, due to be laid before Parliament shortly, the result has been that cases are now processed more quickly.

As a rule the Commission allows two months for a reply to an Article 169 letter. Reasoned opinions do not give the Member State a period within which to reply, but a period is set within which it must put an end to the infringement. In urgent cases the period can be as short as a month or even a fortnight. In practice the Commission is now enforcing the period more and more strictly.

(1) COM(97) 299 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1029/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: EU legislation on workers using computer screens

It is well known that working on computer screens seriously affects people's health.

Is there any Community legislation prescribing additional compensation for workers in this field and is there provision for their having more time off, e.g. in the form of extra leave?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Community legislation contains no provisions stipulating the payment of compensation or the granting of extra leave to workers who use display screen equipment. Such measures are the responsibility of the Member States.

Directive 90/270/EEC(1) on work with display screen equipment stipulates, however, that the employer must plan the worker's activities in such a way that daily work on a display screen is periodically interrupted by breaks or changes of activity reducing the workload at the display screen.

(1) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Funding a Mox text facility

Further to the answer given to Written Question E-2891/97(1), can the Commission say what body is responsible for setting the standards for the tests in the Low Dispersible Materials test facility?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 1998)

The genesis of a material such as LDM (low dispersible material) must be approved by the competent authorities concerned. It will be up to those safety authorities to establish the methodology to be used in qualifying LDM in accordance with the criteria recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - where appropriate in experimental facilities. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) could be such a facility.

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 17.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2203/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Express railway for Oporto - tendering procedure

I have in my possession the Commission's replies to my written questions P-0591 and P-1659, for which I am grateful. I noted that, following the meeting scheduled for 15 June 1998 with the Portuguese authorities, the Commission was to decide whether or not to initiate the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty. I also noted that the project would be financed by the European Investment Board. However, the Commission cannot disregard the fact that it will also receive significant financial assistance under the current Community Support Framework.

Consequently, and taking into account the very real possibility that the complaint may simply be filed, would the Commission on this occasion answer a question which I have already asked but to which I have yet to receive a reply? Is the Commission willing to finance the additional costs of the delays (totalling over five months) which affected the project on account of the decision to suspend the tendering procedure? What specific financial and administrative measures is the Commission willing to provide in order to compensate for the adverse effects stemming from the delays?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The Commission understands the inconvenience that has followed the suspension of the award procedure concerning the third phase of the Metro de Porto tender procedure. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that this is an important and complex subject requiring detailed analysis and that the Commission would not be carrying out its responsibility here if it did not react to a possible infringement of the relevant Community rules.

As the Honourable Member knows, according to Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the Commission ensures that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant to it are applied. In performing this task, the Commission may resort to the infringement procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty. In addition, the Commission is obliged in particular to intervene in a situation such as this, where not only has a complaint regarding the award procedure been lodged but Community funding is also involved.

In the light of the information obtained at the bilateral meeting held in Portugal on 16 June, at which this matter was discussed with the Portuguese authorities, the Commission has decided to take no further action in the absence of any infringement of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1735/98

by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Council

(8 June 1998)

Subject: Who decides how the Treaty evolves?

It is a well-known fact that Germany's Federal Court and Denmark's Supreme Court have examined EC legislation to ascertain whether it is compatible with the respective national constitutions and the powers transferred to the EC.

The official line is that Member States' national parliaments, and hence their citizens, decide how the Treaty evolves. However, it is the European Council that makes the relevant proposals, which means that it wields influence, not to say holds power, over the Treaty.

If a national court rules that a European Union treaty is incompatible with national law, whose views take precedence, those of the EU or those of the national court?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

It is not for the Council to discuss the possible implications of the case-law of national courts. The Council notes that neither of the Courts referred to by the Honourable Member has declared Community legislation to be incompatible with national constitutions. It recalls that, in ratifying the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the European Union, Member States have committed themselves to respect those Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/98

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 June 1998)

Subject: Construction of a nuclear waste site in Aldeadávila, Spain

The Spanish Government recently put a proposal to the Senate on setting up a commission to look into the possibility of building a nuclear waste site in the Ávila de la Ribera area. This proposal, like previous projects along similar lines, caused a public outcry.

There is no doubt that building this dumping ground for nuclear waste would be a highly dangerous undertaking, given that the proposed site lies in an area rich in granite, pose a grave danger to public health and the environment, place the regional economy at serious risk, and contravene international standards, given that the site is less than one hundred kilometres from the border between Spain and Portugal. Can the Council say what stance it intends to take on this matter, given that it warrants urgent attention?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) applies in the case of installations designed exclusively to store radioactive waste permanently or to eliminate it definitively. Pursuant to Article 4(1) thereof, this type of installation must in principle be the subject of an environmental impact study. In addition, Article 7 provides for consultation procedures where a project of this kind is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another Member State, either on the initiative of the Member State undertaking the project or at the request of the other Member State.

Moreover, Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty stipulates that each Member State must provide the Commission which must deliver its opinion within six months, with such general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form as will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

The Council considers that the proper application of Community legislation should enable the environmental and health rules in force to be observed in relation to the project referred to by the Honourable Members.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1744/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Customs controls in Gibraltar

British Members of the European Parliament regularly receive complaints about delays encountered when crossing from Gibraltar to Spain.

For customs purposes, Gibraltar is treated as a third country. Accordingly, customs controls will inevitably involve more delays than those between Member States.

Nevertheless, the extent of the delays encountered by EU citizens crossing this border is clearly not in keeping with the proportionality principle.

What mechanisms does the Commission have in place to monitor this situation? Does the Commission have any comment to make about the state of the bilateral negotiations between the UK and Spain which cover this issue? Does the Commission propose to take any action to facilitate these negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 1998)

For customs and indirect taxation purposes Gibraltar is treated as a third country by virtue of Section 4 of Annex I to the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom of 1972.

There are no Community provisions that prescribe how the Member States must carry out customs controls on travellers who enter or leave the Community's customs territory. The EC Treaty and derived Community law merely require that Member States' administrations take the measures necessary to ensure that Community provisions are applied effectively.

The Commission does not monitor the situation at the frontier in question and is not party to any bilateral negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain on the control for customs or fiscal purposes of travellers entering Spain from Gibraltar or vice versa. In 1996 the Commission announced that it had instituted legal proceedings against Spain because the Spanish authorities appeared to be applying incorrectly, at the border crossing concerned, the Community provisions in respect of relief from customs duties and taxes on goods carried by travellers entering the customs territory. However, these proceedings were dropped as soon as the Spanish authorities showed that they were in conformity with Community law.

Of course, if the Honourable Member can provide details of cases where he considers that the delays mentioned in his question are avoidable and may be attributed to deliberate action by the authorities of one or other of the Member States concerned, the Commission will naturally be willing to examine the circumstances and, if it judges necessary, raise the matter with those authorities.

In respect of the second sentence of his question, the Honourable Member is reminded that there are no longer any regular customs controls at all on travellers between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: US tariff on tinned tuna in oil

In its answer to Written Question E-1201/98(1), the Commission points out that "it cannot be excluded that the higher rate of duty applied for canned tuna in oil in the United States makes the Community a more attractive market for third countries given its lower duty". Likewise, it states that "as the United States is respecting its obligations under the GATT World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding its tariff bindings, the Community has no basis under the WTO to contest this tariff" and ends by asserting that "however, it will be possible to pursue this issue in the context of the next multilateral tariff negotiation".

Can the Commission say when the next multilateral tariff negotiation will take place?

Will the Commission take that opportunity to raise the problem posed by the higher tariff applied for tinned tuna in oil in the United States, given that the Community duty is lower?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The Community is in favour of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. However, the setting up of such a round, which the Community would wish to see include negotiations on tariff reductions, can only be decided by the contracting parties to the World trade organisation (WTO). It is the Commission's hope that this will be done at the 1999 WTO ministerial meeting.

Once such negotiations are agreed, and provided that negotiations on tariff reductions are included, the issue raised by the Honourable Member could be included.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 77.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1536/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: Ban on use of PVC in the EU

Greenpeace and other authoritative international organizations claim that the use of PVC, particularly in toys, is a direct threat to children's health. Research has shown that particularly high levels of toxic phthalic compounds and some heavy metals (lead, cadmium etc) used as additives in PVC are to be found in toys. These substances can escape from plastic toys and enter the sensitive bodily systems of young children resulting in damage to liver and kidneys, abnormalities of the reproductive system, cell mutation, the development of cancers in the liver, kidneys and blood, and endocrine and hormonal disorders.

Is the Commission considering banning the use of PVC in the EU as this material appears to pose nightmarish threats to the health of children in Europe?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2088/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Welfare of animals at slaughter

Article 13 of Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing required the Commission by no later than 31 December 1995 to submit two reports, one to the Council and the other to the Standing Veterinary Committee, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, together with appropriate proposals concerning a range of issues which affect the welfare of animals at slaughter.

The Scientific Veterinary Committee published its detailed opinion in October 1996. In particular the Committee recommended that both, rather than just one, carotid arteries should be severed to produce a rapid bleed out and death. The Committee set out the minimum currents required to produce an effective stun in each of the principal farmed species.

When does the Commission intend to submit the reports together with appropriate proposals required by Article 13(2)(b) and Article 13(12)(c) of Directive 93/119/EC? Does the Commission intend to include among its proposals (i) a requirement that both carotid arteries should be severed and (ii) a provision laying down minimum stunning currents for each of the principal farmed species?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

It is the intention of the Commission in the near future to submit two reports, one to the Council and one to the standing veterinary committee, drawn up on the basis of an opinion of the scientific veterinary committee, together with appropriate proposals concerning the use, in particular, of free bullet pistols, gases or combinations thereof for stunning or killing. The reports and proposals will in addition deal with the strength and duration of use of the current required to stun the various species concerned and any other scientifically recognised procedure for stunning or killing.

It is, furthermore, the intention of the Commission to include in the proposal a requirement that animals which have been stunned must be bled by incising both carotid arteries or the vessels from which they arise in order to produce a rapid bleed-out and death, and in addition provisions laying down minimum stunning currents for the various species concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2204/98

by Alan Gillis (PPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Bougainville

Given the volatile nature of the cease-fire and the real possibility of a resumption of armed conflict can the Commission indicate whether or not the promised funding has reached the people of the island of Bougainville to ensure that the peace agreement is secured and that the educational system and economic life of the island can restart?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 1998)

Following the signing of the "permanent and irrevocable" ceasefire in Bougainville on 30 April 1998 by nearly all parties concerned, the government and Papua New Guinea's donors have sufficient confidence in the situation to have pledged considerable sums for the rehabilitation and development of Bougainville. Emergency aid and rehabilitation actions have already started, meaning that the so-called peace dividend is materialising. Perhaps the best indication of the solidity of the ceasefire is that the people of Bougainville have themselves begun rehabilitating houses and even roads.

The Community has established a comprehensive package for Bougainville making use of a number of instruments coordinated by Technical assistance already in place.

In particular, existing projects under the 7th European development fund, the budget line for eco-forestry and Stabex which were blocked because of the security situation, are now being implemented. For Stabex alone nearly 2 MECU have either been committed or disbursed and a new Stabex intervention of approximately 5 MECU is under preparation. It is likely to concentrate on agriculture rehabilitation, in particular cocoa, rehabilitation of feeder roads of importance to the agriculture, and probably eco-forestry (there is a substantial need for timber on the island).

In addition, a grant of 500 000 ECU for the International Red Cross has just been decided by the Commission. This includes distribution of medical kits, construction materials and kits, and water and sanitation supplies for the benefit of medical facilities in Bougainville and some small neighbouring islands.

Finally, other traditional donors like Australia and New Zealand have also already committed considerable sums for Bougainville.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2121/98

by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Lifting of the export ban on British beef and veal

The European Commission wishes to lift the export ban on British beef and veal from animals born after 1 August 1996. Can the Commission set out the grounds on which its decision is based and provide evidence that the British have complied in full with the rules governing the feeding of animals, the traceability of beef and veal, the monitoring of distribution networks, the destruction of all risk material and the elimination of the use of the various types of meat and bone meal?

Has the accuracy of this evidence been checked by independent bodies and experts?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1864/98 and P-2121/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 1998)

In accordance with the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council held in Florence, on 21 and 22 June 1996, the Commission proposals for the gradual restoration of the single market in beef have been based upon scientific and technical advice.

The proposal for a date-based export scheme allowing the dispatch from the United Kingdom of deboned meat and meat products, derived from certain cattle born after 1 August 1996, has been drawn up in accordance with the advice of the scientific steering committee.

Strict control provisions have been laid down by Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 concerning emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) amending Decision 94/474/EC and repealing Decision 96/239/EC(1) for the export certified herd scheme. Their implementation in Northern Ireland was inspected by the Commission's food and veterinary office from 20 to 22 April 1998. Only after this inspection did the Commission set 1 June 1998 as the date from which dispatch could resume. Under the Commission proposal for a date-based export scheme, similarly strict controls would apply. An inspection will be carried out by the Commission's food and veterinary office along with experts from the Member States, before the Commission sets a date from which dispatch of the relevant products may resume.

It should also be noted that the decline in the BSE epidemic in the United Kingdom follows scientific expectations.

(1) OJ L 113, 15.4.1998.