ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Kallithea Common

Buildings and commons which make up the natural and cultural heritage are important elements which contribute to the quality of life of inhabitants in the major conurbations; and it is a fact that the inhabitants of urban regions are increasingly concerned about the quality of the natural environment in which they live.

Kallithea in Athens is one of the most densely-inhabited and developed towns in Greece. At the centre of this town is a single free space of 30 000 square metres which is a legacy and has been designated a green area and a common. This land is now under threat from a building project of doubtful utility funded by the Community: it is planned to construct university buildings on this site, although there is no obvious need for them and viable alternative sites exist on the outskirts of town which do not pose any problems. Urban programmes, of course, fall within the remit of the Member States, but there is scope for Community action, in accordance with the Green Paper on the urban environment.

Bearing in mind:

- that Article 24 of the Greek Constitution absolutely and expressly forbids construction by any means and for any purpose on, and the misuse or reduction of, the site in question, and that Community funds are allocated for use in accordance with environmental law, environmental ethics and an environmental rationale and code of conduct;

- the Green Paper on the urban environment;

- the Commission report of October 1994 on viable European cities; and

- Commission communication (COM(97) 197);

will the Commission say why a project is being funded which amounts to a further assault on the already heavily-polluted urban environment of Kallithea and is at odds with the Commission's sensitivity to matters relating to the quality of life and the promotion of viable development in the major conurbations?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Assuming that the Honourable Member is referring to the State Harokopion university, the Commission would inform him that, according to the Greek authorities:

- the area described in the question is private property, bequeathed to the university in 1915;

- four years ago the property was officially designated as a university compound. It has not been designated as a green area. Furthermore, as belonging to a university and as a bequest the property is protected by the Greek constitution and Greek legislation;

- the university recently renovated its existing buildings. The surface of the surrounding grounds is 20 000 square metres, of which 670 square metres will be used for the construction of the university library, the only new building in the compound. The construction of the building has been officially approved by the Greek authorities following all necessary legal procedures, and is to be cofinanced by the Community in the framework of the operational programme for Attica;

- the university has planted over 2 500 trees and plants and restored all traditional wells in the compound.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Violation by Turkey of its international commitments

Having signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 concerning special status for the islands of Imbroz and Tenedos giving them a degree of autonomy and local self-government, Turkey has consistently disregarded its

commitments and, immediately after signing the Treaty, commenced a wave of persecutions of ethnic Greeks who had inhabited the islands uninterruptedly for centuries. The measures taken included confiscating arable land belonging to Greeks, one example being the compulsory 'purchase' of 800 hectares at a price of TL 2 per 10 ares from 900 Greeks in the village of Schinoudi on the island of Imbroz.

The Turkish Government also built a penitentiary for long-term prisoners who terrorized the inhabitants, a tactic which fully achieved its purpose in that only 230 elderly Greeks remained on Imbroz and far fewer on the island of Tenedos.

Following this 'success' the penitentiaries ceased to function in 1992 ...

When did the Commission raise with Turkey the question of its obligations regarding the Treaty of Lausanne to which it is a signatory? What was Turkey's reply and what view does the Commission take of the recent statement by the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr Cem, that Turkey refuses to refer the issue regarding the islet of Imia to the International Court of Justice at The Hague?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The matter in question does not come within its jurisdiction of the Commission (which is unfortunately unable to supply the information requested).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3223/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: French postal charges

The French Post Office's charges for items of mail of the same size and weight vary according to the EU Member State to which they are addressed. It costs more to send mail to Finland and Sweden, for example, than elsewhere. Harmonization of postal charges is a principle which has been endorsed throughout the territory of the Union by means of international agreements and general practice, and the French Post Office's discriminatory charges constitute a gross violation of it.

Does the Commission consider France's discriminatory policy acceptable, and does it accord with European Union legislation? What will the Commission do to put an end to the discrimination practised by France?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The French Post Office does indeed charge different rates for sending items of mail to Finland and Sweden than to the other Member States. It would appear that France has not redefined its postal tariff zones since 1995 and the accession of those Member States.

On the other hand, no international agreement obliges postal operators to charge the same rates for all the Member States of the Community. The Council Resolution of 7 February 1994 on the development of Community postal services ((OJ C 48, 16.12.1994. )) and the common position of 29 April 1997 with a view to adopting the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service ((OJ C 188, 19.6.1997. )) indicate that tariff principles must be cost-related.

If the difference in charges is justified by higher costs the Commission cannot consider this to be a case of unfair discrimination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/97 by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Toxic teats

France recently withdrew from the market 30 000 teats manufactured by Remond after discovering that they were made with a carcinogenic substance called nitrosamine.

In view of the urgent and worrying nature of this case:

1. does the Commission know that these products were definitely withdrawn from the market by the French Government;

2. can the Commission supply any information about the implications for Spain, in particular the Region of Valencia;

3. what steps has the Commission taken to ascertain that these products have been totally withdrawn from the European market?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

In accordance with Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) and, in particular, the emergency procedure set out in the Directive for the exchange of information between Member States on measures taken to deal with products that pose a serious and immediate risk, the Commission has been informed by the French authorities of the problem referred to by the Honourable Member.As soon as it was received, this information was forwarded via the early-warning system to all the authorities responsible for protecting the health and safety of consumers in the various Member States and in the European Economic Area (EEA).

1. According to the information provided by the French authorities, it was Sebir-Remond itself which, as a precaution, ordered the withdrawal of some of the teats as a result of allegations by a consumer association that they were contaminated with a carcinogenic substance.

The French authorities have carried out their own tests on the levels of nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in the teats concerned and in those produced by other manufacturers. At the same time, they have checked that the products in question have been withdrawn from all the establishments concerned (crèches, hospitals, chemists' shops, etc.). An assessment of the steps taken by the Member State and the manufacturer was due to be made at the end of October 1997.

2. Although the information supplied by the French authorities was forwarded via the early-warning system, the Spanish authorities have not informed the Commission of the steps taken to deal with these products nor of the scale of the problem in Spain as a whole or in its individual regions.

Under Directive 93/11/EEC concerning the release of N-nitrosamines and N-nitrosatable substances from elastomer or rubber teats and soothers ((OJ L 93, 17.4.1993. )), Member States must prohibit the marketing and use of teats and soothers which release a certain amount of N-nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances. Using the powers vested in it, the Commission will ensure that all the Member States comply with this obligation in order to protect the safety of European consumers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3313/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Transport of calves

Does the Commission have precise figures on the number of calves transported to the Netherlands from other countries of the EU for rearing in factory farming conditions?

Is this in accordance with the current rules on the transport of animals?

Does the Commission consider that such transport is ethically defensible?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1997)

According to the Commission's figures (Comext) in 1996 the number of calves sent to the Netherlands from the other Member States was 363 182 animals. The Commission does not have statistics on the number of these calves reared in crates. However, in the Netherlands about 25% of the calves are kept in groups.

Transport of calves is permitted subject to the observance of the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )). The Commission is not aware of any breaches of this Directive in respect of transport of calves to the Netherlands. As long as calves are transported according to the requirements of the Directive there should be no objection from the point of view of animal welfare.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3094/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Medical treatment options for persons severely injured by chemicals

1. In which European country is adequate medical treatment and therapy available for persons severely injured by chemicals with sensitivity to chemicals?

2. In which European country is there adequate diagnosis (as for instance carried out in the Gulf War study) under controlled conditions (Environmental Control Unit) for persons with sensitivity to chemicals, nutritional intolerance or neurotoxic injuries?

3. Are there any clinics that meet the environmental standards of the Environmental Health Center in Dallas, USA (free of chemicals, no disinfection, air filtration, filtered water, furnishings of glass, steel or resin-free and turpentine-free timber, no fitted carpets, a ban on smoking and perfume, etc. see description of EHC)?

4. Are there any clinics that meet the medical standards of the Environmental Health Center (doctors experienced in environmental medicine; detoxification therapy, immune system therapy, test substances free of preservatives etc.)?

5. Is the appropriate accommodation, free of contaminants, available?

6. Is there a clinic in Europe with appropriate controlled conditions (ECU) and surgeons who are able to operate on people with sensitivity to chemicals?

7. Which European countries are financing adequate environmental clinics with public funds?

8. What value is placed in the various EU countries on the psychiatric treatment of persons injured by chemicals?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

Matters of treatment and therapy, such as those raised by the Honourable Member, are for the Member States to consider.

A copy of a study on chemical sensitivity in selected Member States which contains qualitative information on this condition is sent to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission already referred to this study in its response to the Honourable Member's written question E-2904/97 ((See page 33. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Use of biological crop protection products in the European Union

In its answer to my question E-1761/97 ((OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 53.)) the Commission refers to certain measures which should improve the position of biological crop protection products in Europe. Can the Commission also indicate:

1. When the fast-track procedure for the authorization of biological crop protection products can enter into force?

2. When the harmonization in the framework of the OECD will be ready and whether the directives will be adjusted as a result?

3. Whether the industry concerned will be consulted both on the development of the fast-track procedure and the OECD-related harmonization?

4. Whether the Commission intends to encourage the use of biological products in the EU and whether it is prepared to make financial resources available to this end, for example to take responsibility for part of the costs of the registration tests so that the position of biological products can be strengthened by comparison with chemical products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1997)

1. A proposal amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market ((OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. )) is currently under preparation by the Commission. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the issues to be covered in the proposal, adoption by the Commission is not to be expected before the end of 1998. The date of the entry into force of the proposed measures will depend on the duration of the adoption procedure in which Parliament will be involved.

2. The working document concerning the data requirements for micro-organisms, which was mentioned in the answer to written question E-1761/97 of the Honourable Member, has been forwarded to the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) secretariat. A period of three to four years in order to achieve harmonisation of OECD level seems realistic. Pending such harmonisation, the working document can be used as a guidance document for the applicants concerned in the Community.

3. The relevant industry has already been contacted on the working document mentioned under point 2 and further consultations are foreseen.

4. The Commission does not find it appropriate to finance part of the costs for the authorisation of plant protection products. The Commission is of the opinion that the measures mentioned in the reply to written question E-1761/97 can contribute to an easier authorisation of plant protection products containing micro-organisms as far as it is demonstrated that the risks from use of such products are lower than those that can generally be expected from chemical plant protection products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (30 September 1997)

Subject: Statoil operations in waters surrounding East Timor

Statoil, the Norwegian state-owned oil company, is currently undertaking exploratory work in the waters surrounding Indonesian-occupied East Timor.

Norway's Energy Minister, Ranveig Froeiland, announced recently that no action would be taken against the company in spite of the continuous abuse of human rights in East Timor and the fact that neither Norway nor the UN has accepted a framework proposal for oil exploration in the area.

Given the Council's common position on East Timor and its efforts to end human rights abuses there, will it urge the Norwegian authorities and Statoil to cease oil exploration in the area?

Answer (15 January 1998)

This question refers to the sovereign decision-making process of a third country which is not a member of the European Union. It does not therefore fall within the competence of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Funding of projects for the protection of forests

The Commission has allocated a sum of ECU 13.4 million to projects aimed at protecting forests from atmospheric pollution and fires.

Will it say which projects are intended for Portugal and what level of funding has been allocated in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Commission has granted assistance of ECU 64 892 to four projects submitted by Portugal under Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 on the protection of the Community's forests against atmospheric pollution ((OJ L 326, 21.11.1986. )).

Under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on protection of the Community's forests against fire ((OJ L 217, 31.7.1992. )), the Commission has granted assistance of ECU 2 482 888 to 23 Portuguese projects.

Alist of the forest-protection projects approved in 1997 under the two Regulations is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/97 by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Radioactive waste

It has emerged that at the plutonium reprocessing plants of La Hague in France and Sellafield in Britain radioactive waste has been disposed of in the sea.

It is estimated that 200 000 cubic metres of plutonium, a dangerous substance which remains active for 250 000 years, is dumped in the sea annually.

The situation is so alarming that the French Government even banned bathing and fishing in the sea near the plant last June, in view of the threat to public health.

Does the Commission know about the dumping of plutonium in the sea at La Hague and Sellafield?

Has the Commission carried out any detailed study about the dumping to ascertain its legality and the environmental impact?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

Both France and the United Kingdom have undertaken to respect the ban on the dumping of radioactive substances at sea as outlined in the 1992 Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, which is in the process of replacing the two earlier conventions of Oslo and Paris respectively. That ban, however, concerns the dumping of wastes at sea and does not refer to the discharge of low-level liquid wastes from land-based installations which is controlled within strict authorisations issued by national authorities.

In July 1996, under the terms of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission verified the environmental monitoring facilities established at and around the La Hague site. It was concluded that suitable arrangements were in place for monitoring levels of radioactivity in the environment.

In respect of restrictions on access around the La Hague site, the Commission understands that legal restrictions on public access to a zone around the pipe outlet and within a corridor along the pipeline have been in place for many years. Earlier this year, those restrictions were extended briefly while the French government commissioned studies into levels of radioactivity around the La Hague nuclear reprocessing site. The report of those studies concludes that levels of activity discharged were within the limits set by the national authorities. Furthermore, it confirmed that levels of radioactivity in the environment led to doses to the most exposed members of the public which were well below the limits specified in the Community basic safety standards.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3615/97 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (6 November 1997)

Subject: Protection of the Community's financial interests

What specific initiatives does the Commission intend to take in the light of the changes made by the Amsterdam Treaty to Article 209a?

Will the Commission re-examine the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (which no Member State has yet ratified), given that parts of the Convention can be adopted under the new Article 209a?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

The Commission welcomes the changes made to Article 209A of the EC Treaty by the Amsterdam Treaty. This Article will become Article 280 of the EC Treaty and it will constitute a legal basis for proposals concerning the protection of the financial interests of the Community, with a more active role for the Parliament (co-decision procedure).

The Treaty still needs to be ratified by the Member States. Although the Commission is currently examining the potential of the new Article 280, it is too early at this stage to decide on concrete initiatives.

As indicated in its answer to the written question E-3349/97 by Mrs Torres Marques ((OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 177. )), the Commission is aware that no Member State has yet ratified the Convention on the protection of the financial interests of the Communities. The Justice and home affairs Council of 28 April 1997 introduced the target date of mid 1998 for this ratification, with the subsequent approval of the European Council of Amsterdam. The Commission considers ratification to be a matter of urgency and continues to follow closely the situation in each Member State. After the adoption of the two protocols to the Convention on the protection of the financial interests as well as the adoption of the Convention on the fight against corruption, Member States not willing to start separately the ratification procedure for each instrument drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union can now ratify them all together.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3414/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: World trade and protection of animals

The European Commission has often indicated that a WTO arbitration decision would not produce any clarification in favour of European animal protection provisions. The decision on hormones appears to confirm this assessment.

1, What is the next stage if this decision is maintained? What can be done to prevent the EU's animal protection provisions being eliminated one after the other?

2. Is there a greater possibility of success in other cases, or must action now focus on new negotiations, reinterpretation or even changes to WTO provisions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3414/97, E-3415/97, E-3417/97 and E-3418/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2569/94 by Mrs Oddy ((OJ C 145, 12.6.1995. )).