ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2883/96 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) and Philippe De Coene (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Alternatives to tests on animals

In its reply to Written Questions E-2174/96 and E-2243/96 ((OJ C 11, 13.1.1997, p. 58. )), the Commission refers to a comprehensive strategy concerning the use of primates as laboratory animals. The Commission also mentions 'a much stronger justification for the use of primates in laboratories'.

1. Is the Commission aware of the recent report by the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) which concluded that the most endangered species are the anthropoid apes and apes?

2. Can the Commission clarify whether there are any factors at all which are sufficient to justify the use of primates, in view of the IUCN's research findings?

3. Where alternatives to tests on animals exist, would it not be true to say that there are no grounds whatsoever for performing tests on primates (animals which are both exotic and specially reared)?

4. Is it not, therefore, of the first importance to press on with the further development and validation of those alternatives?

5. What extra resources and methods will the Commission use to improve the performance of the European Communities Validation of Alternative Methods Centre?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

1. - 2. The Commission has not been informed of the report by the Species survival commission of the World conservation union (IUCN) and therefore cannot take position on its conclusions.

3. The Commission agrees that tests should not be performed on primates where alternatives exist. However, in spite of considerable efforts which have been put into the development of alternative methods to animal testing, few satisfactory results have been obtained. As a result, when substantial scientific justification is given, tests on primates can be performed.

4. The Commission considers it important to press on with the development and validation of alternative methods and will make every effort in this direction.

5. The Commission is committed to the support of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM). This is a new activity and it should be given time to develop. Furthermore, it should be stressed that validation is a very advanced discipline, in the forefront of the scientific field, and the expertise available around the world is very limited. Therefore, it is taking some time for ECVAM to reach its full scientific capacity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2313/96 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Contraceptive 'mini-pill' - access to information

In its answer to written question P-3141/95 ((OJ C 66, 4.3.1996, p. 62. )) by Mrs Hiltrud Breyer, the Commission refers to three unpublished studies which were brought to the attention of the committee for proprietary medicinal products (CPMP) at its meeting of 17 to 19 October 1995. The studies apparently suggest that there is an increased risk (although still low) of venous thrombo-embolism with third generation oral contraceptives. The studies included a multinational study carried out for the WHO.

1. Is the Commission aware that information on the form of this WHO study and the data which it uses is not available to the public?

2. Does the Commission not agree that producers and consumers of the products examined in the study have a right to access to this information?

3. Is the Commission prepared to make an active contribution towards making this information available. If so, what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1996)

The Honourable Member asks about the studies which formed the basis of the considerations of the committee for proprietary medicinal products (October 1995) in relation to the safety of combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrol and gestodene.

The studies which were identified have since been published and are therefore generally available as follows:

- a multinational study carried out for the World health organisation (WHO) published (in two parts) in Lancet 16.10.95, ref. WHO collaborating group, Lancet 1995, 346: 1582-1588 and 346: 1575-1982.

- a cohort study based on record linkage carried out by Professor H.Jick,published in Lancet 16.10.95, ref.Jick et al, Lancet 1995, 346: 1589-1593;

- a transnational study carried out by Professor W.O. Spitzer, published in British medical journal, 13.1.96, ref. Spitzer et al, British Medical Journal, 312: 83-90.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Thermie 1993

Follow-up question on point 6 of the answer of 29 April 1996 to E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).

Since the Commission's decision no longer conforms to the opinion of the committee because of the inclusion of three projects from the reserve list and three further programmes not on the reserve list, under Article 10(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1. )) the Council has to be informed and may take a different decision.

1. Has this been done?

2. What does the Council decision say?

3. When and where was this decision published?

4. To what areas (BM, BU, EI, IN, TR, OG, SE, SF or WE) do the three projects from the reserve list and three other programmes not on the reserve list supported by Commission decision of 13 December 1993 belong?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)

1. - 3. The two Commission Decisions to which the Honourable Member refers were taken with the backing of the Thermie committee. The matter was not therefore referred to the Council.

4. The Decision of 13 December 1993 does not include any projects from the reserve list annexed to the Decision of 19 July 1993. The three projects, which are on the priority list in the Decision of 19 July 1993, relate to solar energy and qualified for further financial support following a mistake made when the first Decision was published. The three remaining projects are in the field of solid fuels, for which a certain sum had been set aside, with the committee's agreement, following the call for proposals of 22 June 1993. ((OJ C 171, 22.6.1993. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 September 1996)

Subject: Subsidizing of national airlines

1. Can the Commission state why subsidies have been granted to national airlines (Air France and Iberia)?

2. Is their any possibility of these airlines receiving further subsidies?

3. How will the Commission deal with applications for subsidies from other EU airlines?

4. What are the objective criteria for assessing additional applications for subsidies from other airlines?

5. Will the Commission take steps to prevent further subsidies being paid to airlines? If so, what form will these measures take? If not, why are no suitable measures being taken?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)

As the Honourable Member may know, any subsidies to airlines have been paid in and by Member States and not by the Community, and a general prohibition of state aid to airlines would be contrary to the EC Treaty.

Following the adoption of the third liberalisation package for the aviation sector in 1992, the policy pursued by the Commission in the matter of state aids to airlines has been to accept, under strict conditions, aid for the restructuring of airlines which may have been incurring losses for several years, in order that the necessary measures can be taken for them to become viable in a more competitive environment. This policy has applied to several airlines over the years and not only to those mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.

This policy will continue to be applied stringently when the liberalisation process is after 1 April 1997. Furthermore, under Commission guidelines adopted in 1994, airlines which have already received aid could only be allowed to receive further aid in circumstances that are proved to be 'exceptional, unforeseeable and external to the company'.

The Commission refers to the Honourable Member to its communication ((Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA agreement to state aids in the aviation sector, OJ C 350, 10.12.1994. )) which explains in detail the policy followed by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3075/96 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE) to the Commission (6 November 1996)

Subject: Size of, and monitoring arrangements for, the future duty-free tomato concentrate quota granted to Turkey

Turkey is currently entitled to a 16 500-tonne quota for the duty-free export of tomato concentrate to the EU.

According to information received, Turkey has already granted licences this year for up to 29 000 tonnes, which in itself constitutes an infringement of the established rules.

Furthermore, the EU association agreement with Turkey provides for the negotiation of a further duty-free quota, the size of which has not yet been determined.

In view of the above, could the Commission provide information concerning:

1. The size of the new quota referred to above and the criteria used to determine it?

2. The rules which the Commission intends to implement in order to manage and supervise the quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1996)

1. The Commission is presently negotiating with Turkey a shift from the current self-limitation system to a tariff quota for preferential imports of tomato concentrate. No agreement has yet been reached. During the negotiations, the Commission has been in permanent contact with the Member States.

2. The Commission will propose that the agreed tariff quota should be administered by means of a 'first come first served' system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1483/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Regional operational programme for Central Macedonia, sub-programme 3, Measure 3

The city of Thessaloniki has problems with its water supply, especially in summer when demand is higher, largely because of its pipelines. Measure 3, 'Environment management', of sub-programme 3, 'Improvement of the basic urban infrastructure and the quality of life' of the regional operational programme for Central Macedonia comprises projects to a value of ECU 11 343 000. One of the measure's objectives is to improve the water mains.

1. What was the take-up rate for Measure 3 of sub-programme 3 in 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

Measure 3.3 of the regional operational programme for Central Macedonia covers all the towns in the region except Thessaloniki.

The take-up rate was 12% in 1994 and 28% in 1995.

As part of the measure, joint financing has been made available for seven construction projects now in their early stages. The take-up rate will therefore probably accelerate from this year on.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3062/96 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission (6 November 1996)

Subject: Time-scales for the payment of regional assistance to INA-Verbund in Gunzenhausen

The Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs has authorized the payment of regional assistance amounting to DM 1 million to INA-Verbund in Gunzenhausen (Middle Franconia). This sum is supposed to be disbursed by the European Commission. INA-Verbund has now been awaiting payment for 1¾ years. The funds are needed to save 312 jobs.

Does the Commission share my view that such a time-scale is unacceptable?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1996)

The project to which the Honourable Member refers is not scheduled to receive Community part-financing under Objective 5(b) in Bavaria. The Bavarian Minister of Economic Affairs notified the Commission of the regional assistance in question individually as a national aid, as required under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty. The Commission gave its consent and the subsidy has recently been paid by Bavaria.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3415/96 by Michael Elliott (PSE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Rights of EU citizens

Under what circumstances in EU law is a European Union citizen, living in a Member State other than his/her own, entitled to social security benefits in the country of residence?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

The social security systems of the Member States are coordinated by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971; consolidated version OJ C 325, 10.12.1992. )). This applies to employed and self-employed workers who are nationals of one of the Member States, and to the members of their families.

According to the general rule contained in Article 13 of the Regulation, a person is subject to the social security legislation of the Member State in which he or she works. Therefore, if the national of a Member State goes to another Member State to live and work, he or she will be subject to the social security legislation of that Member State.

Equality of treatment under the legislation of a Member State is guaranteed by Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, according to which a person to whom the Regulation applies who is resident in a Member State shall be subject to the same obligations and shall enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of that Member State. For example, if a national of one Member State goes to work in another Member State, he or she will pay the same contributions and receive the same benefits as the nationals of that Member State.

The Community rules on the coordination of social security schemes are explained in greater detail in the guide to the Community provisions on social security, a copy of which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3051/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (6 November 1996)

Subject: Use of sewage sludge for agricultural or other land applications

What measures is the Commission proposing to take to monitor and regulate the level of Cryptosporidium oöcysts and Giardia cysts in sewage sludge sent for agricultural or other land application purposes?

Answer give by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1996)

Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment and in particular soil when sewage sludge is used in agriculture ((OJ L 181, 4.7.1986. )) only applies when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. It therefore does not cover other uses such as spreading in forestry or landscape renovation. This Directive only allows the agricultural use of sludge that has been pretreated and stabilized, generally using heat. In general, Cryptosporidium oöcysts and Giardia cysts, parasites of the intestine, do not withstand such treatment.

As, in addition, Cryptosporidium oöcysts are widely distributed in the environment, particularly as a result of dispersion by young animals, and the role of spread sewage in epidemiology is far from proven, the Commission considers that at present it is inappropriate to provide for specific measures for sludge monitoring, especially as the known detection techniques are not very reliable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - scope

1. Which countries have submitted requests for the application of a simplified procedure in accordance with Decision 94/730/EC ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31. )), for which genetically modified plants and what were the modifications concerned?

2. What scientific data concerning the safety of experimental release as regards human health and the environment have been submitted for which genetically modified plants and what were the genetic modifications concerned?

3. What information and data were submitted to prove that sufficient experience had been obtained concerning safety for human health and the environment, and what were the genetically modified plants concerned?

4. Which genetically modified plants have proved to be safe for human health and the environment, and on the basis of what scientific data?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2864/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Sale of leghold traps in EU and Regulation 3254/91

When the above regulation was debated in Parliament the text referred to banning the manufacture, sale and use of leghold traps in the EU, however the word 'sale' was deleted from the final Council text. Since these traps are on sale in France, does the Commission plan any review of this regulation to ascertain its effectiveness?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

Article 2 of the Regulation concerned indeed only prohibits the use of leghold traps in the Community. This prohibition is effective since 1 January 1995.

Although there are no plans for a specific review of its effectiveness, it is of course one of the Commission's duties to ensure the correct implementation of Community legislation. Any infringements of the measure which are brought to its attention will therefore be given full attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/96 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Decision-making procedure in the Codex Alimentarius

Since the start of the World Trade Organization (WTO) the degree of enforceability of certain standards adopted in the framework of the Codex Alimentarius has increased.

As the Commission is aware, in the Codex Alimentarius decisions are taken by a simple majority of votes cast.

As these standards have an indirect influence on the content of European legislation, it would seem appropriate for the Commission to recommend the Member States to press in the Codex Alimentarius for a change in the decision-making procedure so that it would relate to the actual impact which the Codex standards will have in future.

Does the Commission intend to take steps in this direction?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

The standards and other instruments adopted under the Codex Alimentarius are not, strictly speaking, mandatory, but serve as reference works if there is a dispute concerning the justification of any measure preventing or hampering the international trade in a foodstuff. Indeed, two agreements drawn up under the World Trade Organization, of which one concerns technical barriers to trade and the other health and plant-health measures, assign that role to the Codex instruments.

The Commission fully shares the view of the Honourable Member whereby certain of the voting rules currently applying within the Codex are no longer appropriate, given the importance now assumed by the standards and other instruments deriving from the Codex. It hopes that this problem may be examined and settled in a satisfactory manner during a subsequent session of the Codex committee dealing with general principles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3145/96 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Language courses for officials of the European Institutions

Can the Commission provide information on language courses organised for its officials per place of work and in respect of the following:

1. the languages for which courses are organised;

2. the criteria used for deciding whether or not to organise a specific language course?

Can the Commission also state whether language courses were organised in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 on an interinstitutional basis, and for what languages?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1996)

The following information relates to language training given by the Commission in Brussels. In Luxembourg, this training is organized by Parliament for all the institutions established there.

Courses are given in all Community languages (Danish (DA), Dutch (NL), English (EN), Finnish (FI), French (FR), German (DE), Greek (EL), Italian (IT), Portuguese (PT), Spanish (ES), Swedish (SV)) and, as regards non-Community languages, Arabic (AR), Russian (RU), and Japanese (JA).

The main criterion on which the decision to organize a course is based is the number of applications received. Thus, courses are generally organized once ten officials have applied (the current average is 16 per course). However, courses are organized in certain Community languages for which there is less demand if there are five applications. This is done to maintain equality of treatment for all Community languages. Obviously, the criteria set out above are applied within the limits of budgetary availabilities.

Each institution in Brussels organized courses separately in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The report adopted by the interinstitutional working party on the rationalization of administrative expenditure in 1995 recommended that interinstitutional cooperation be strengthened. Interinstitutional courses were started on 1 July 1996, at the beginning of the intensive summer courses. Courses which commenced in October 1996 were also organized at interinstitutional level.

Tables containing statistics on interinstitutional courses will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.