ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1835/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Member State measures against specified bovine offal

In November 1994 new measures were introduced in Britain to bring the intestines and thymus of calves below the age of six months into the definition of specified bovine offal. Prohibition o the use of specified bovine offals for human and animal consumption came into force on 25 September 1990.

According to British Overseas Trade Statistics in 1995, 424 000 calves below six months of age were exported from Britain to other EU Member States.

Can the Commission state what measures have been taken in all EU Member States to ensure that the abovementioned specified bovine offal has been, and is being, removed at slaughter from calves that originated in the UK? Can the Commission also confirm that this SBO has been prohibited from entering the human or animal food chain in each respective Member State that imported British calves?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

There has been no specified bovine offal ban in place in Member States specifically covering the veal calves originating in the United Kingdom. As a result of the present bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis the veal calves in Belgium, France and the Netherlands imported from the United Kingdom were destroyed and the owners were compensated for the destruction under the market regulation rules.

Some Member States such as France, Ireland and Portugal have implemented national restrictions or bans on certain bovine offal.

The Commission has consulted the scientific veterinary committee, and an expert sub-group has been set up to evaluate the need for further measures for BSE in Member States other than the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: ESF assistance for retraining and re-employment of workers

In a trade-union tract the workers of the ailing IRITECNA/FINTECNA-IRI Group, who have been drawing the short-time working allowance since October 1993, claim that the Union has allocated Lit 4 500 bn under the European Social Fund to enable them to retrain and find new employment.

Has the above contribution in fact been granted?

If so, it is possible to ascertain how it is being used, given that the employees of the firms concerned (many of whom will soon lose their unemployment benefit) are wondering what has happened to the money and fear that it will be administered under a bankruptcy arrangement, as has previously been the case when funding of this type has been provided?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

IRI is one of the beneficiaries of the 'Enti pubblici' operational programmes covering the 1989-93 programming period.

As matters stand, the Commission has no information on the financing of LIT 4 500 billion from the European Social Fund for the retraining and re-employment of workers in the Iritecna/Fintecna undertakings.

A request for information has been sent to the Italian authorities. Once a reply has been received, the Commission will be sure to inform the Honourable Member accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/96 by Umberto Bossi (ELDR) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Translation of documents relating to actions under the fourth RTD framework programme

With reference to the brief answer given to Written Question E-1255/96, I should like to ask the Commission to specify more clearly:

1. on the basis of what criteria it favours certain Community languages rather than others for the publication of background documentation and application forms relating to RTD framework programmes;

2. whether it does not consider that the delays in publishing background material on the programmes in all the official languages in effect discriminates against companies from countries whose national language is not one of those given priority (English, French and German);

3. whether it does not consider that this arbitrary choice in actual fact amounts to a tacit endorsement of 'unfair competition' between firms in the various Member States of the EU;

4. what steps it intends to take to ensure equal opportunities for access (i.e. publication in a clearly understandable language) to RTD programmes for all firms in the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1255/96 ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996, p. 45. )).

That answer is still valid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Tuscany regional council's failure to comply with European environmental case law

In judgment No 176 of 5 May 1994 the Tuscany regional council failed to apply European environmental rules; when it reconsidered the regional plan for the organization of waste disposal services it confirmed the authorization for the special waste dump and possible fixed installations (some 600 000 m2) at Motrena in Agro in the commune of Colle Val d'Elsa.

This thus constitutes infringement of Council Directive EEC/85/337 of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as well as failure to comply with Council Directives 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances and 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on the quality of water for human consumption. Article 130r of the Single Act however explicitly acknowledges Community jurisdiction in environmental matters, and the Treaty of Maastricht provides for the integration of environmental policy in Community measures.

The Tuscany regional council has thus in all respects disregarded the spirit and letter of European case law on the environment. Will the Commission intervene to protect the rights of European citizens in conformity with the Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

Following a complaint, the Commission has been informed of the Tuscan regional council's decision to authorize the opening of a special waste dump at Motrena in Agro, in the commune of Val d'Elsa. It will approach the Italian authorities as soon as it receives the additional information it has requested from the complainants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Air transport for the purposes of vivisection

What is the Commission's reaction to the forceful campaign of counter-information being conducted by the French anti-vivisection league which recently took the form of distribution of an excellent folder to those such as Air France and Sabena whom it accuses of complicity in international transport for the purposes of vivisection?

Can the Commission not intervene vis-à-vis the two companies on the grounds of European Union rules on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

Community law allows the use of animals in laboratories and the transport of the animals involved subject to certain conditions.

Council Regulation 3626/82 ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1982. )) lays down requirements for the import of specimens of wild species into the Community. Council Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) lays down general standards on the keeping and use of animals in laboratories. In addition, Directive 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )) lays down detailed requirements for the welfare of transported animals including those transported by air.

As the Honourable Member has not indicated any breach of the above mentioned requirements by the airlines to which he refers, there would appear to be no basis for intervention by the Commission in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1766/96 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Commission information campaign directed at Turkish Cypriots concerning the benefits they will derive from the accession of Cyprus to the European Union

Under the decision of the General Affairs Council of 6 March 1995, the Commission should take steps, within the framework of consultations with the Cypriot Government, to inform Turkish Cypriots about the benefits they will derive from the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.

Can the Commission state what action it has so far taken, and what action it intends to take in future, to inform Turkish Cypriots about this matter? Can it also say what specific measures it intends to take to ensure that, in compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions 541/83 and 550/84 and the European Union's consistent position vis-à-vis Cyprus, this information campaign does not lead to the establishment of institutional ties with bodies representing the illegal occupying regime?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1656/96 and E-1766/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (27 September 1996)

Community policy concerning the information activities for the Turkish Cypriot community was determined by the Council's conclusions of 6 March 1995: 'Cyprus's accession to the European Union should bring increased security and prosperity to both communities on the island'. The Council further considered that 'this community must perceive the advantages of the European Union accession more clearly and its concerns at the prospect must be allayed'. The Commission was invited to 'organize the requisite contacts to this end with the Turkish Cypriot community in consultation with the government of Cyprus'.

The Commission, accordingly has implemented a series of information activities, both in Brussels and in Cyprus, in consultation with the Cypriot government.

The Commission does not consider that this initiative deviates from the Community's consistent policy concerning Cyprus and in particular the full respect of the United Nations resolutions mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2030/96 by Michael Spindelegger (PPE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Differing frontier formalities for EU citizens on journeys within the Community

The creation, provided for in Article 7a of the EC Treaty, of an area without internal frontiers, in particular as regards people, is still subject to immense difficulties in its implementation.

The following actual case occurred: an Austrian holidaymaker had chosen Munich as the airport of departure for a holiday in Ireland as he lives in western Austria. At Munich airport he was refused permission to leave Germany, however, as he had 'only' an Austrian identity card and not a passport. He was therefore unable to start his holiday.

The traveller concerned had been able, on his previous holiday in Ireland, to enter Ireland with no difficulty using his Austrian identity card and in this case the journey had been started in Switzerland, where it had also not been a problem that he had only an identity card. Thus, whilst for Austrian citizens the identity card is seen as a valid document for crossing the frontier into Ireland it is unfortunately not valid for leaving Germany!

Does the Commission intend to take steps to ensure that, until frontier checks have been completely abolished in the Community, there is at least equal treatment for EU citizens as regards the identity documents required for crossing frontiers within the Community?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)

The Commission would point out that, in accordance with the Community legislation in force regarding free movement, EU citizens may leave the territory of a Member State and travel to another Member State simply on production of a valid identity card or passport (see in particular Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of Directive 68/360/EEC). ((OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. ))

If the Honourable Member were to provide it with all relevant particulars concerning the matter at issue, the Commission would examine the complaint and, if appropriate, institute proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1170/96 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Support of the European beef market

Bearing in mind the weight of evidence concerning the link between BSE and CJD and bearing in mind that the World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that there is only the remotest possibility that the two may be linked, will the Commission concede that the ban on the export of British beef for over two months amounts to measures that were out of proportion to the risk?

The Commission followed the World Health Organization's recommendations on levels of nitrates in water, why will it not do so in the case of BSE/CJD? WHO has advised that the risk to humans of catching CJD from BSE in cattle is very remote. Does the Commission not accept this?

Does the Commission agree that all exports of beef from the EU to third countries have been affected, not just those from Britain?

What action is the Commission taking to prevent and control the outbreak of CJD in those countries where there are no BSE-infected cattle?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)

The expert consultation held by the World health organization (WHO) on 2 - 3 April 1996 on public health issues related to human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies concluded that a link has not yet been proven between V-CJD (the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease) in the United Kingdom and the effect of exposure to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent, that the most likely hypothesis for V-CJD is the exposure of the United Kingdom population to BSE and that further data are urgently required from scientific studies on these variant cases.

It is not, therefore, correct that WHO has stated that there is only the remotest possibility that the two may be linked. The Commission Decision ((Commission Decision 96/239/EC, of 27 March 1996, on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy. OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )) to ban exports of cattle, beef and certain bovine products from the United Kingdom, pending an overall examination of the situation, was a fully justified response to the prevailing uncertainty. This was confirmed by the WHO conclusions that more information was needed to clarify the situation.

The Commission is aware of the effect of consumer concerns about BSE and CJD, in the Community and elsewhere, on the whole of the Community beef market. It considers that the best way to allay those concerns is to take all possible measures to ensure the highest level of consumer protection. The Community measures taken and planned are fully in line with the recommendations of WHO.

The Commission is not aware of an 'outbreak of CJD'. According to the latest figures available from Member States and from WHO, CJD continues to occur worldwide with an incidence of around 1 case per million

per year, regardless of the occurrence of BSE, other spongiform encephalopathies of animals or particular dietary habits. This incidence is unchanged since CJD was first recognised over 60 years ago.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2095/96 by Elisabeth Schroedter (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: TRANSRAPID/Germany - Article 92 of the EC Treaty

The German Hamburg-Berlin magnetic suspension train project (TRANSRAPID), which has been described on various official occasions as the benchmark line for better export opportunities for German industry, receives support from the German state budget of DM 5.6 billion for track construction and possibly also larger amounts.

Does the Commission share the view that this is a form of public export assistance and that this state support contravenes the principle of Article 92 of the EC Treaty?

What does the Commission intend to do in this case?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

In April 1996 Germany decided to build a magnetic levitation train between Berlin and Hamburg. The project will entail costs of almost 9 000 million DM (4 740 MECU) over the next 9 years. The train will reach close to 500 kmh and the distance of 285 km between the two cities will be covered in less than an hour. The train will provide mainly passenger services and to a small extent light goods services.

A test site for the project has been in operation in Emsland since 1984. The Versuchs- und Planungsgesellschaft für Magnetbahnsysteme Gmbh - MVP - (research and development enterprise for magnetic levitation train systems) is responsible for the project. MVP and six industrial enterprises are providing the relevant test, design, planning and construction work.

In the period from 1994-1999 a budget of 460 million DM (295 MECU) is foreseen to be used on research and development costs generated by MVP, the undertakings involved and research institutes. The Commission in its Decision n° 175B/94 of 12 June 1996 agreed not to raise any objections with regard to this budget. It had been assessed that only about a quarter will be aid in the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. The rest will be payments for the supply of goods or services under normal market prices, awarded after having undergone a tendering procedure. The amount which was considered to be aid was cleared after reference to the specific rules applicable to research and development.

Even if the project may be promoted as generating export possibilities, the Commission considers that compensation for research and development costs deriving from the planning of this inner German passenger railway line does not involve export aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1988/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Derogations from Directive 91/497/EEC

In answer to my Written Question E-1233/96 ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996, p. 68. )) on the question of Member State derogations from Directive 91/497/EEC ((OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 69. )), the Commission told me that it had not yet received lists from all Member States of those establishments benefiting from derogations under the Directive.

Can the Commission please say which Member States have sent in their list of establishments benefiting from derogations under this Directive and how many derogations there are in each of the Member States which have submitted such lists?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission has not yet received from all Member States the lists of establishments benefiting from derogations under Directive 91/497/EEC, but once it has it will not fail to let the Honourable Member have the information he requests.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0892/96 by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Council (3 April 1996)

Subject: Renewal of the exemption from Article 85(1) of the Treaty on European Union applied for in 1993 by UIP

The Commission has still not taken a decision on the renewal of the exemption from Article 85(1) of the Treaty on European Union applied for in 1993 by UIP.

UIP therefore continues to operate on the European market in contravention of the Community competition rules.

This state of affairs undermines the system for the production and distribution of European films, which is paradoxical in view of the policy which the EU is supposed to be following in the audio-visual sector (MEDIA II programme, cross-border television directive).

What action is the Council intending to take to establish effective competition rules for the European audio-visual sector?

Reply (19 November 1996)

The Council is well aware of the need for competition rules to be complied with in the European audiovisual sector, whose specific nature should be preserved. Nevertheless, under Article 155 of the Treaty it is for the Commission to "ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied".

It is not for the Council to adopt a position on the case referred to by the Honourable Member regarding renewal of an exemption from Article 85(1) of the Treaty granted by the Commission to United International Pictures (UIP).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: 1997 Preliminary draft budget

In the 1977 preliminary draft budget there are appropriations of ECU 13 270 000 for item A-238 (operating expenditure related to technical and administrative assistance) including ECU 11 451 000 for the 'social area'. Can the Commission explain what is included in this social area, and can it provide reasons for the appropriations (breakdown of expenditure by building, equipment and function)?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The appropriations requested for budget article A-238 are mainly intended to meet the expenditure of the Directorates-Generals concerned with the 'social area', namely DG V (Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs) and DG XXII (Education, Training and Youth).

This heading covers the administrative expenses of the technical assistance bureaus with which the Commission has contracts for the implementation of programmes in the following fields:

- employment (Miser, Sysdem, European employment survey, post Essen);

- equal opportunities for women and men;

- social welfare (the elderly, the handicapped, social security survey, the family, and action against poverty);

- public health and health and safety at work (Safe);

- Socrates, Leonardo, and Youth for Europe.

On the basis of the likely expenditure for 1996, the breakdown of appropriations can be expected to be 25% for buildings, 10% for equipment and 65% for administrative expenses. The nature of these administrative expenses can be very different according to the contract; they consist largely of publishing costs, and the costs of organizing conferences and meetings, and to a lesser extent of real administrative expenditure such as telephone and fax charges and consumables.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1197/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Redundant industrial land at Canvey Island, Essex

Does the Commission accept that the 30 acres occupied by the former British Gas methane terminal and 375 acres occupied by the redundant Occidental oil terminal represent an outstanding example of blighted industrial land in the deprived area of Canvey Island, Essex, in my constituency? Does the Commission agree that environmental upgrading of these sites could be dealt with alongside other similar redevelopment initiatives under the 'Thames Gateway' initiative for South Essex, North Kent and East London, and what initiatives could be taken at European level through this or other programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1996)

The Honourable Member makes reference to certain derelict industrial sites in his constituency. The Commission has not had cause to study these sites in detail but can accept that the presence of large areas of dereliction might constitute a serious problem for the environment and the local economy.

However, the Commission cannot comment on measures for which it has no responsibility, such as the 'Thames Gateway' initiative. Moreover, since Canvey Island is not eligible under objectives 1 or 2, no assistance from the European regional development fund can be provided for the environmental improvement of the sites in question.