ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Sewer systems in Pendeli

The western part of the settlement of Pendeli (Mikri Kallithea) on one of the three mountain ranges surrounding the Attica basin is still without a sewer system, and the needs of the local population are met by septic tanks. However, owing to the steep gradient of the land the sewage spills into the environment and small streams in the vicinity, and this has a number of adverse consequences.

Since this is causing serious health problems for the local inhabitants and widespread pollution of the subsoil, and given that the previous Community Support Frameworks supported actions of this kind, will the Commission say:

1. Is it examining any practical proposals for the construction of a sewer system in the region; and

2. Does it intend to support such a measure should it be proposed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

In terms of Community law, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1) requires Member States to ensure that all conurbations having more than 2 000 inhabitant equivalents (an inhabitant equivalent IE is an organic-pollution measuring unit representing the average pollution produced per person per day) to be provided with urban waste water collection and treatment systems. The deadlines for providing those systems are 31 December 1998, 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the conurbation and the sensitivity of the recipient waters.

The Pendéli settlement (Mikri Kallithea) would seem to be located outside the Athens conurbation and to be inhabited by less than 2 000 IE. This being the case Community law does not apply to that settlement. The action to be taken in order to reverse the adverse effect on the environment of the discharge of waste water falls within the powers of the Greek authorities.

The Commission feels that the type of work referred to by the Honourable Member could be eligible for joint financing under the next Community support framework for Greece during the 2000-2006 structural-fund programming period. However, depending upon the principle of subsidiarity, the choice of projects to be funded lies with the authorities in the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1462/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Effects on health of calcium sulphate

What information does the Commission have on the long term effects of exposure to calcium sulphate on human health and what measures if any have been taken to minimise the risks of exposure?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

Calcium sulphate is a chemical compound which is used in many different areas. It is mainly used in the production of cement and as a building material. The substance has an irritating effect on air passages and eyes. Little is known of the long-term harmful effects. The exposure of workers to dangerous chemicals is covered by Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998, on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work(1) which provides for specific prevention measures based on risk assessment.

Calcium sulphate is authorised for use as a food additive (EC number E 516). Based on the opinion of the scientific committee for food, it has not been assigned a specified acceptable daily intake (ADI). This means that it is not necessary to set a maximum level to ensure safety of the use of this substance in food. Therefore in this area of use, no further measure is needed.

It is also used as an implant, such as in bone substitutes, and is in that case covered by Council Directive 93/42/CEE of 14 June 1993, on medical devices(2). Impurities may cause problems in the use of calcium sulphate, but there are well known procedures for cleaning the materials and well-accepted USP (US Pharmacopoeia) and NF (National Formulary) guidelines in place (Pharmacology standards). Long term adverse effects of use in bone substitutes are not known.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(2) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Missing persons following the tragic events in Cyprus

Given that some 26 years after the invasion of Cyprus there has still been no official confirmation establishing the facts beyond all doubt of the fate of those who went missing during the tragic events in Cyprus and, in the light of the provisions of the agreement of 31 July 1997 between the two communities, will the Commission say whether it will take steps in the context of the accession process, involving both Cyprus and Turkey, to help finally resolve this matter, which is first and foremost a humanitarian issue?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Commission believes that progress towards the accession of Cyprus to the Union and the search for a just and viable settlement to the political problem are mutually reinforcing processes. Further, the Commission believes that the accession of Cyprus to the Union will benefit both communities and lead to civil peace and reconciliation in the island. The Commission regrets that it was not possible to find a political solution before the start of accession negotiations. The Commission still earnestly hopes that representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community will join the accession negotiations. The United Nations sponsored proximity talks will resume in Geneva in July 2000. Clearly, the question of missing persons will have to be definitively addressed within the framework of these negotiations before a lasting settlement to the political question can be established.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/00

by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: PCB and dioxin content of fish

Research has shown that high concentrations of PCB and dioxins are sometimes found in fish concentrations at the level found in chickens during the Belgian dioxin crisis. Both the European authorities and the Member States are hesitating to apply the same stringent standards to fish as to meat.

It appears that this question was raised by the Belgian Minister of Health at European level in Spring 1999, but apparently there was a lack of willingness to do anything about it.

Is a high PCB and dioxin content in fish as dangerous to humans as the same level in meat? Is the Commission considering laying down a separate PCB and dioxin standard for fish and for meat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

The contamination by dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in food and feed constitutes a risk to public health. Therefore, the Commission will take the necessary measures to reduce the contamination level of dioxins and PCBs in feed and food, including fish and fish feed, to ensure public health protection. Accordingly, the Commission identified in the white paper on food safety(1) the need to define standards for contaminants throughout the chain from feed to food. The scientific basis for setting these limits needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

The Commission has therefore requested the scientific committee for food and the scientific committee for animal nutrition to assess the risks for public health arising from the presence of dioxins and PCBs in food and feed. This will include an assessment of the dietary intake of dioxins and PCBs by the Community population, identifying the main contributors. Given the great complexity of the problem, including the problems caused by background levels of dioxin in the environment, the opinions are not to be expected before autumn this year.

Depending on these scientific risk assessments, the Commission will propose measures to limit the presence of dioxins and PCBs throughout the whole food and feed chain.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/00

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Need for adoption of the E-OBD requirements with regard to LPG-fuelled vehicles

Since 1 January 2000, all vehicles marketed in Europe have to comply with the requirements of Directive 70/220(1) as amended by Directive 98/69/EC(2) introducing in particular the need to fit vehicles with an On Board Diagnostics (OBD) system.

Directive 98/77/EC(3), also amending Directive 70/220, installed the provisions to achieve the approval of LPG vehicles.

The result of these two directives is that, from 1 January 2000 for new types and from 1 January 2001 for existing types, LPG vehicles have to comply with the E-OBD requirements.

Since summer 1999 it has been unanimously recognised by the European Commission and the industry that OBD should be applied to LPG vehicles in accordance with the time frame established for diesel vehicles (or later), to leave the industry enough time to develop and to implement this new technology on alternatively fuelled vehicles.

In this context, the Commission issued a proposal that was considered in the Council. To date, a decision on this Commission proposal has been prevented by procedural problems as a result of which it is now under discussion in the Council and the European Parliament.

1. Can the Council explain the nature of those procedural problems?

2. What is the Council's view of the problems this delay causes for the LPG industry, particularly in the light of a possible barrier to free trade in LPG vehicles in Europe?

3. What actions can and will the Council take to speed up the procedure on this issue?

(1) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 286, 23.10.1998, p. 34.

Reply

(23 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member points out in her question, the Commission submitted a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (on 14 February 2000) in order to set the dates from which vehicles running partly or permanently on LPG or NG must be fitted with an on-board diagnostics (OBD) system.

The Council is examining the Commission proposal.

At this stage of the codecision procedure the Council can either adopt the proposed act, if it approves all the amendments in the European Parliament's Opinion or if the Parliament does not propose any amendments, or, in other cases, adopt a common position which is forwarded to the Parliament for consideration (Article 251 TEC).

As to the Honourable Member's question about a possible barrier to the free movement of LPG-fuelled vehicles, we would point out that the proposed measures are part of the European system for vehicle type-approval. This legislative approach is fully supported by operators on the internal market and thus prevents any possible barriers to the free movement of LPG-fuelled vehicles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1380/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Signing and ratification of the CEDAW and the Optional Protocol

By December 1999 the additional protocol to the UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had been signed by only 23 States, eleven of which are EU Member States. Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have, however, so far failed to sign it. Does the Council intend to prevail upon these States also to sign this additional protocol as soon as possible so that ratification can go ahead?

Will the Council also take measures to ensure that all the candidate countries sign and ratify this convention together with the additional protocol prior to accession?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council has no power to put pressure on the Member States of the European Union to sign instruments of the United Nations rapidly. It does note, however, that the fact that eleven Member States have already ratified a very recent protocol demonstrates the commitment of the Member States of the European Union in this field.

As regards the signing of instruments of the United Nations by applicant countries, inasmuch as these texts are not part of the acquis communautaire, the European Union cannot make the accession of those countries dependent on signing the CEDAW Convention and its additional Protocol.

Finally, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Treaty establishing the European Community provides in its Article 13 (ex Article 6a) that the Council, within the limits of its powers and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on sex. This provision of the Treaty belongs by definition to the common nucleus of legislation that each applicant country will be called upon to incorporate into its national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Differential pricing by airlines

It has been reported that it is cheaper to fly from some EU Member States via Heathrow to the US than it is to fly simply from Heathrow to the US, on the same airline.

Differential pricing usually applies to ticket prices on the different legs of a return journey. This, however, is an instance of differential pricing on the same one-way route.

Does the Commission regard this as an acceptable use of differential pricing? If not, what action does it propose to take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The Commission takes the view that London-New York is a different market than, for example, Brussels-New York and that companies are therefore justified in pricing tickets for these two destinations differently even if a Brussels-New York flight goes via Heathrow. In general direct flights from all Community airports to the United States are more expensive than indirect flights. There may be an infringement of the competition rules, however, if airlines restrict the possibility for consumers in London to buy and use cheaper tickets from departure points elsewhere in the Community, particularly if such restrictions are based on an agreement or concerted practice between a number of airlines. The Commission is currently considering whether any action is required on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2161/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Council

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Religious freedom in Greece

Ms Chara Kalomiri, a Greek citizen, is at the centre of a legal saga which raises disturbing doubts as to whether freedom of religion is being respected in Greece. She was reported by the Mount Athos authorities for having led, from September 1994 to March 1995, a centre for practical psychological philosophy in the Chalkidiki peninsula. She was sentenced by a Greek lower court in 1997; this sentence was quashed by the Supreme Court, but a retrial led to her being sentenced over again. The judges justified their verdict on the grounds that the place of Buddhist worship devoted to meditation had not received the mandatory authorisation of the Ministry for Education and Religion, which is granted after the Orthodox hierarchy has given its opinion.

Does the Council not consider that, given that respect for religious freedom is a fundamental right of the individual and a principle common to all the Member States, action should be taken under Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU or Article 13 of the EC Treaty, as a matter of urgency, to put an end to all violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and all forms of discrimination related to religious freedom, with particular attention being paid to Greece?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Member, which concerns facts, decisions and judgements which are purely domestic in nature, does not fall within the competence of the European Union.

The right of freedom of religion or belief, which is embodied in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as results from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, does form part of the general principles of Community Law (Article 6 of the TEU)(1). However, this provision of the Treaty applies only in situations covered by Community or Union law.

(1) Judgement of 27 October 1976, Case 130/75, Prais, ECR 1976 p. 1589.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: European social statute for housewives

The diversity of regulations relating to housewives in the various Member States fuels the argument that, in one way or another, the role of housewives will have to be regulated if the legitimate aspirations of what constitutes an important grouping within the Community are to be satisfied.

In France there exists a social statute for housewives; in Italy the government has set up a domestic-accident insurance scheme; in Spain, preferential treatment for savings intended to increase the future pensions of housewives is under discussion and in a non-Community country (Switzerland), housewives receive childcare payments and a retirement pension.

Does the Commission not think that, with a view to uniformly regulating the current situation of housewives in the various Member States, a European social statute for housewives should be proposed, incorporating all the aspects which should be regulated in order to consolidate the social dimension of housewives within the European economic environment?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Honourable Member refers, in his question, to the present position of housewives in the Member States. He asks whether a European social statute for housewives should be proposed with a view to uniformally regulating the current situation, which varies considerably from one Member State to another.

While the Commission recognises the important contribution housewives make to their families and society in general, the powers of the European Union are very limited in the field of family law.

Where the status of housewives is concerned, I would point out that, in 1987, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive(1) completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory social security schemes. It provided for individual entitlement to social security, as an alternative to derived rights, and also covered housewives.

This proposal was not adopted by the Council in the end, despite the favourable opinions of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

The Commission intends to look into this question, in connection with the new strategy for modernising and improving social security in Europe.

(1) OJ C 309, 19.11.1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Swedish state aid to Bengtfors in Sweden

Has the Commission approved Swedish state aid of SEK 60 million to boost employment in Bengtfors following the relocation of the Lear Corporation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In 1999 the company Lear Corporation decided to leave the town of Bengtsfors in the region of Dalsland in Sweden. As the company was an important employer in the region, the Swedish government in a press release dated 29 March 1999 offered to grant an employment aid of up to SEK 60 million (about 7,2 million). The aid was to be granted under ordinance 1998:996 on employment grants, which was approved by the Commission on 18 June 1997(1).

The potential recipient company, Nisch Produkter, produces special motor vehicles for passenger transport. Under Section 2.2 of the Community framework for state aid in the motor vehicle sector(2), all aid granted under an approved aid scheme has to be notified separately, if the nominal amount of the investment project (total cost of the project) is more than 50 million or if the total gross aid granted for the project is more than 5 million. Consequently, if Nisch Produkter belongs to the motor vehicle sector, an aid of about 7,2 million has to be notified to the Commission.

The Swedish authorities have informed the Commission that as of 5 June 2000 the company has not requested any aid. They expect the eventual request to concern an amount, which is lower than the amount mentioned in the press release. If the thresholds mentioned above are still exceeded, and if it is concluded that the recipient company belongs to the motor vehicle sector, the aid will have to be notified to the Commission.

(1) State aid No E 23/95, letter to the Member State SG(97) D/4397.

(2) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2445/00

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Violation of internal market principle in glass recycling industry

In the Netherlands glass has for some time been recycled on the basis of the 1997 packaging arrangement (Convenant Verpakkingen II). The system operates to the complete satisfaction of all concerned, and no government support is necessary. That contrasts sharply with the Green Points scheme, which is expensive to administer and operates in various other Member States.

At present the Netherlands system is being disrupted by the fact that the market for glass in that country is being flooded with cheap-to-recycle glass from surrounding countries such as Germany and Belgium. Such glass can be supplied at very low cost because it benefits from the high level of government subsidy provided by the Member States that operate the so-called Green Points scheme.

In my opinion this supply of subsidised glass to the Netherlands market amounts to a form of unfair competition to the detriment of Netherlands glass-recycling arrangements, and conflicts with the rules of the Internal Market.

I also consider that government subsidies to activities that have been shown in practice to be perfectly viable without them should be discontinued.

Is the Commission aware of the above situation?

If so, does it agree that this practice conflicts with the rules of the Internal Market, and what action will it take to remedy the problem?

If not why not?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the import to the Netherlands of glass from Member States applying the Green Dot system. According to the Honourable Member the imported glass is subsidised and therefore causes a distortion of competition on the Dutch market.

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that government subsidies for activities that can be undertaken without subsidies should be stopped. Indeed, this is an underlying principle of the Commission's policy on state aids and is pursued consistently.

The Commission has extensive information on the Green Dot systems operated in several Member States. This information does not suggest that illegal state aid would be involved in the operation of such systems. Should the Commission receive sufficiently precise information alleging the existence of illegal aid it would naturally examine the matter.

The Commission has received various notifications regarding the creation of Green Dot systems for packaging waste in several Member States. When considering a negative clearance or the exemption of certain restrictive provisions, the Commission seeks to ensure that possible service providers can exist in parallel and that companies with environmental obligations have a real choice of alternative means of fulfilling those obligations.