ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2294/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (26 June 1997)

Subject: Turkish infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights and the need for EU response

On 18 December 1996, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg held in its judgment in Loizidou v Turkey (40/1993/435/514) that, by denying the applicant access to her property in Kyrenia (occupied northern part of Cyprus), Turkey has, since 1974, been continuously in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of

the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to respect for possessions belonging to every natural or legal person.

That judgment has particular political significance given that there are at least another 200 000 people who are in the same position as a result of the 1974 Turkish invasion, and whose above-mentioned basic human right is being infringed by Turkey.

1. Is the Council aware of the above-mentioned judgment?

2. What will it do to exert pressure on Turkey with a view to ending the above infringement of such a fundamental human right, which has of course also been expressly recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights?

3. Will it raise the matter with the Turkish authorities? How and when?

4. Does it consider that this infringement, which affects more than 200 000 Greek Cypriots, constitutes a significant factor in an overall assessment of the already grave human rights situation in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (25 July 1997)

The Commission is aware of the Loizidou case against Turkey. This case highlights the need to find a political solution to the Cyprus question. The talks which began on 9 July in the State of New York between Mr Clerides and Mr Denktash under the aegis of the United Nations will help advance a political solution based on a two-zone and two-community federation in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions.

The Commission hopes that this discussion process will smooth the way for the negotiations for Cyprus's accession to the Community which are due to commence shortly.

Cyprus's accession to the Community will provide a unique opportunity to find a solution to the Cyprus question. It will benefit both communities and provide solutions compatible with Community law to the specific and complex problem raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2060/97 by Pierre Bernard-Reymond (PPE) to the Commission (16 June 1997)

Subject: Radioactivity in the Hautes-Alpes and Alpes-Maritimes

The CRII-RAD claims it has detected abnormally high levels of radioactivity in the nature reserves of Mercantour (Alpes-Maritimes) and Ecrins (Hautes-Alpes) in France.

Does the Commission have legal competence in this matter and can it provide any information on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The Commission is aware of the 'Commission de recherche et d'information indépendante sur la radio activité' (CRII-RAD) findings of elevated levels of radioactive contamination in the areas mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Under the terms of the Community basic safety standards on protection from the hazards of ionizing radiation (Directive 96/29/Euratom) ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. )), it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that Community obligations are respected. The Commission's role is limited to that of guardian of the treaty and it would only intervene when it has evidence of a failure of a Member State to meet such obligations.

In the present case the CRII RAD found evidence of elevated levels of radioactive contamination in soil and in mushrooms. However, the evaluation of the consequent exposure of the population is not straightforward, depending as it does on the lifestyle of individuals in the region. Consequently the levels of soil contamination measured are insufficient to demonstrate to the Commission any breach of Community requirements. As regards mushrooms the limit of 600 becquerel per kilogramme of radioactive caesium applies to commercial imports of certain agricultural products from third countries. The presence of higher levels in Community produce does not in itself breach Community requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon 20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate ester poisoning. As it was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76. )) on the same subject, I would ask the Commission to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

When were these agents authorized for use on small animals, especially cats? By whom? Had adequate tests been carried out? Were the tests reviewed and by whom?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1534/97, E-1540/97 and E-1544/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts reported by the Honourable Member. It is making enquiries among the Member States concerned and with the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of these enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2035/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Customs implications of the association agreement with the Republic of Slovenia

The association agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the European Union will, among other things, affect veterinary controls on animals imported from third countries.

It will place Italian facilities such as those at Gorizia and Fernetti (Trieste) in the same situation as Tarvisio (Udine) was placed following Austria's accession to the EU.

Are any measures to be taken or aid provided in connection with the establishment of control facilities at Slovenia's borders with Hungary and Croatia?

Have any plans been made for the future of the existing control facilities at Gorizia Sant'Andrea and Fernetti?

Given the benefits which cutting waiting times for vehicles in transit would bring for live animals, forwarding agents and road haulage operators, would it be possible as of now to coordinate customs operations at the twin terminals at Fernetti and Sesana (Slovenia), barely two hundred metres away from each other?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1997)

The association agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the Community will not affect current veterinary controls on animals from third countries. However, from the date of accession, Slovenia will have to ensure effective controls at the external border of the Community in order to comply with Community legislation in the veterinary field. This requires the setting up of appropriate facilities and training of staff prior to accession. The Phare programme provides assistance to support Slovenia in undertaking the necessary legal, institutional and certain structural adjustments.

The Commission is not aware of any plans developed as regards the future of existing control facilities at Gorizia Sant' Andrea and Fernetti (this being under the responsibility of the national authorities).

The Commission does not have any information on plans for specific bilateral arrangements as regards customs coordination at Fernetti and Sesana.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2163/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Demonstrability

1. What demonstration systems are to be drawn up for the prescribed 'appropriate analysis'?

2. What methods will probably be used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1608/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Cohesion Fund investment in Andalusia

Following repeated requests by the European Parliament, the Commission has laid down conditions by which Member States, regions and local authorities must publicize any measures subsidised by the Cohesion Fund.

Despite this, the public still knows very little about measures supported by Community funding. It can be difficult, even for Members of the European Parliament, to obtain initial information or any follow-up.

Can the Commission provide details of investment made by the Cohesion Fund in Andalusia, in terms of projects, locations, amounts and completion dates, as well as a summary of the monitoring reports?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1997)

The Commission has no data on the Cohesion Fund broken down by region.

However, it is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament the annual reports for 1994 and 1995 on the work of the Fund. Annex I to those reports contains the main points of environmental and transport projects part-financed in Spain, including those in Andalusia.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1651/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Implementation of EC 258/97 Novel Food Regulation

The Novel Food Regulation EC 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) will come into force on 15 May 1997 and before this date all Member States will need to know how it is to be interpreted. Many issues concerning its implementation have not been resolved and the Commission has not published guidelines dealing with the most difficult questions of scope and labelling.

1. Why has the Commission not published guidelines dealing with Articles 1 (applicability), 2 (scope) and 8 (labelling) despite much room for dispute over interpretation?

2. Will gene maize and gene soya, already authorized for marketing, now be labelled under the Food Labelling Directive 79/112 ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1. ))and if so what detailed criteria will be applied?

3. Will the Commission confirm that under Article 8 of this regulation, the four separate labelling criteria listed under paragraphs (a) to (d) will be applied individually and independently of each other so that the foodstuff will be labelled if the conditions in any one of these subparagraphs are met?

4. What provisions are foreseen for prohibiting the use of novel ingredients and products in baby food as recommended by the Scientific Committee on Food?

5. Will the molecular structure and the use of DNA-destroying enzymes in novel foods be indicated in product applications and labels?

6. Will products or ingredients produced using gene technology or incorporating a GMO continue to be classified as novel if a substantially equivalent item has previously been approved under EC 258/97?

7. Will gene food products and crops already approved under Community or national legislation be treated as signifying previous use for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community?

Additional answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 29 May 1997 will the Honourable Member please refer to the answers given by the Commission, more particularly to his Oral Question No 0-65/97, during the joint discussion concerning novel foods on the agenda for the plenary session held in June 1997. The Commission will take steps to answer the more specific points not contained in the oral question referred to above in its forthcoming answers to the series of questions recently put to it on this same subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2625/97 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Animal welfare

Is the Commission aware that thousands of sheep are slaughtered in France every April to satisfy the rituals of the Eid-el-Kabir festival? A similar fate befalls many horses imported for slaughter from Eastern Europe.

The European Union has outlawed this type of activity but the practice still continues.

What does the Commission propose to do to enforce the protection laid down to ensure humane treatment of all animals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1690/97 by Mr Watts ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 81. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Combating cancer

With regard to budget heading B3-4301: Combating cancer, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 June 1997)

Subject: Community trademark/international registration of marks

With reference to the 'Proposal for a Council Decision approving the accession of the European Community to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks, adopted at

Madrid on 27 June 1989' (COM(96) 0367 final - 96/0190 CNS) ((OJ C 293, 5.10.1996, p. 11. )) and the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trademark to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration adopted at Madrid on 27 June 1989' (COM(96) 0372 final - 96/0198 CNS) ((OJ C 300, 10.10.1996, p. 11. )),

the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ((OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1. )) on the Community trademark (henceforth 'the Regulation') on 20 December 1993;

the Regulation establishes the Community trademark system giving trademarks (for goods and services) unitary protection throughout the territory of the European Community on the basis of a single application for registration;

the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, based in Alicante, began accepting applications for the registration of Community trade marks on 1 January 1996 and became fully operational on 1 April 1996;

the Madrid Protocol also became operational on that date, having entered into force on 1 December 1995;

the European Community's accession to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks is welcome;

the insertion of Title XIII into Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 is welcome; will the Commission, however, propose measures to harmonize legislation in the designs and models sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

The Commission welcomes the support of the Honourable Member for the two proposals concerning the Community's accession to the Madrid Protocol and the amendment to the Regulation on the Community trademark giving effect to that accession.

As regards the suggestion that the Commission propose initiatives with a view to harmonising legislation in the designs and models sector, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that in December 1993 it presented two proposals on this subject. The first was a proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation on the creation of a Community system for the legal protection of designs and models ((COM(93) 344. )), the second a proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of designs and models aimed at harmonising certain aspects of national law in this area ((COM(93) 342. )). The former is currently still before Parliament awaiting an opinion. The Council adopted a joint position on the latter on 17 June 1997. The text will be forwarded to Parliament for a second reading.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/97 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Consideration of fish species in CITES

The United States has proposed setting up a CITES group on fish species, to tackle the issue of the resources regulated by the various competent fisheries organizations.

Both the FAO Code of Conduct and the United Nations Agreement on the Management of Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks recognize that the adoption of any CITES measure in such cases must be based on the opinion of the organizations which regulate the catching of these species and hence have more scientific knowledge at their disposal and know about the relevant fishing activities.

The Commission has nevertheless shown itself to be in favour of setting up the CITES group. Can the Commission therefore state the reasons for its support of this proposal?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 August 1997)

The Commission supported the creation of a Conference on international trade in endangered species (CITES) working group on marine fish species on the condition that it would consider CITES aspects of marine fish conservation and not become active in areas that fall within the competence of the Food and agriculture organization and regional fisheries agreements. A working group of the CITES conference of the parties drafted a version of the proposal that took full account of the above and the resulting new proposal was supported by the Community.

It should be pointed out that the proposal aimed to avoid CITES involvement in marine fish species rather than the other way around. In spite of this, the proposal was rejected by the conference of the parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2553/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 July 1997)

Subject: Protection of the Community's forests against fire

Under Regulation (EC) No 308/97 ((OJ L 51, 21.2.1997, p. 11. )) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 ((OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3. )) on protection of the Community's forests against fire for the period 1992-2001, funding is provided for forestry measures subject to the adoption of forest-fire protection plans and provided that, before 1 November each year, Member States submit to the Commission their projects or programmes for improving the protection of forests against fire.

In view of the fires which broke out on 6 July 1997 in various localities in the prefecture of Thessaloniki destroying the Seik-Sou forest can the Commission say whether the Greek authorities submitted their projects or programmes for the protection of forests and when? What specific forest-fire protection measures has Greece adopted in order to comply with current Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1997)

The Greek national protection plan presented under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on protection of the Community's forests against fire ((OJ L 217, 31.7.1992. )) (recently prolonged in validity by Regulation (EC) 308/97 ((OJ L 51, 21.2.1997. ))) was given a favourable opinion by the Commission on 7 March 1994. It describes the general situation for Greek forests, their specific problems, the fire history of the last ten years and the protective strategies adopted (infrastructure, silviculture, surveillance, extinction).

Projects presented by Greece before 1 November of each year under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 must fall under this plan. Over the period 1994-96 aid of ECU 8.6 million was approved for 49 projects consistent with the plan and on 9 July 1997 the Commission approved aid of ECU 2.32 million for five projects meeting this requirement.

Under Article 3(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 any forestry measure granted Community financial assistance that is located in a high risk zone must be in line with the fire protection plan for that zone.

Since the entire territory of Greece was classed as a high-risk zone by the Commission on 24 June 1993, all forestry measures approved for Greece under Cohesion Fund provisions, under the regional development programmes (national operational programme for agriculture under the Community support framework and regional operational programmes) and under the provisions on aid for afforesting agricultural land (Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. ))) must meet that requirement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1728/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Asymmetrical impact on the Nordic welfare model of EMU criteria uniformly applicable to Member States

The Member States of the Union are not homogeneous: their economic and social structures differ significantly from one another. Under the Nordic welfare model, social security is guaranteed to all on an individual basis. As a result, women have been freed from the obligatory caring role and dependence on men as breadwinners which prevail in societies where women's place is deemed to be in the home.

Public services provide jobs for women and enable them to find employment. Because of women's dependence on the State, cuts in public expenditure have a direct impact on women's opportunities to make a living. Thus the EMU criteria, and particularly the constraints on public budgets, affect men and women differently in different countries depending on how social security is organized there. In view of the above, I would ask:

What will the Commission do to overcome the problem that the EMU criteria applicable to all affect men and women differently in different countries?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1997)

Cuts in public expenditure are not an objective of the economic and monetary union (EMU) criteria. If the EC Treaty insists on limits to public deficits and debt - among other conditions of equal importance - it is to ensure a policy-mix favourable to growth and employment. Long-run sustainability in public finances is a necessary condition for financial market stability, low interest rates and private sector confidence, which themselves are essential prerequisites for investment, growth and job creation.

The EMU criteria are the same for all Member States. They constitute no infringement on the Nordic welfare model, nor on any other social arrangement remaining under national responsibility. The financial viability of any social policy programme depends crucially on the underlying strength and income-generating capacity of the economy.

The EMU criteria do not have an impact on the legal equality of right of men and women. They do not affect the equal treatment of men and women on the labour market granted by national law.