ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1027/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Legal basis for the marketing of genetically modified products

The marketing of genetically produced or modified food products is regulated by Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )) and European Parliament and Council Regulation 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (the 'novel food regulation').

1. What rules govern the marketing of transgenic plants which are used as animal feedingstuffs and hence indirectly enter the human food chain?

2. (a) How is the marketing of transgenic plants which are used directly for human consumption and also for animal feedingstuffs and the production of renewable raw materials regulated?

(b) Is there only one procedure for this or more than one?

(c) How do these procedures relate to each other?

Answer (14 July 1997)

1. Directive 90/220/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 258/97 govern, inter alia, the placing on the market of respectively products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food and food ingredients that contain GMOs within the meaning of Directive 90/220/EEC or consist of such organisms, subject to the exclusions laid down in those acts.

2. Directive 90/220/EEC does not, as such, distinguish on the basis of the use to which the product to be marketed will be put, although any Community legislation governing the product will apply and information relating to the planned use must be given. Regulation No 258/97 covers foods and ingredients intended for human consumption.

3. The inter-relationship of the conditions for the application of the Directive and the Regulation is defined in Articles 1, 3 and 9 of the Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) and Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: National implementation of the nitrate directive

Can the Commission indicate how the various EU Member States have acted on, or are intending to act on, the European Union's nitrate directive?

In particular, can the Commission state whether for each Member State there is a single implementation scheme applicable to the entire territory of the Member State in question, or whether there is a differentiated approach in certain Member States?

If a differentiated approach has been adopted in certain Member States, can the Commission state what form this takes; for example, by region, soil type or problem area (depending on the amount of nitrate in the soil)?

Does the Commission have any plans to submit a paper in the near future on the various national implementation schemes, and when can we expect such a paper?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1566/97 and E-1744/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1997)

The transposition of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources into national laws has been completed by all Member States except Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland.

Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria, have designated the whole of their territory according to Article 3(5) of the Directive. Ireland considers that it does not have any areas of its territory that should be designated as vulnerable zones. Sweden and the United Kingdom have completed their designations of vulnerable zones. In the remaining Member States designations have not been completed.

Codes of good agricultural practice, or their equivalent, covering the whole of their territory have been received from all Member States except Belgium, Portugal and Spain. Action programmes have been received from Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden. In Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg the measures cover the whole of the territory. Sweden's measures just apply in the vulnerable zones.

The Commission is highly dissatisfied with the present state of implementation in most Member States and is currently taking all measures available to it, including the use of proceedings under Article 169 EC Treaty in all cases where these are justified.

The Commission intends to fulfil its obligations under the Directive to produce two reports, one summarising the information supplied by Member States, and another on the implementation of the Directive. It is envisaged that these will be produced by the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1658/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Report on drugs in Europe

Article 18 of Regulation 302/93 ((OJ L 36, 12.2.1993, p. 1. )) on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction states that the Commission shall forward to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers a progress report on the Centre's activities aimed at preventing the spread of drug abuse in the EU by 31 October 1996.

Will the Commission say whether such a report has been drawn up, and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1997)

A report ((COM (97) 146. )) on the activities of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the period 1994-96 was indeed drawn up by the Commission and sent to the Council and the European Parliament, and, for information, to the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1494/97 by Antoine-François Bernardini (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Legislation on mobile crane transporters

French mobile crane transporters' representatives recently raised with me the issue of French legislation governing the pursuit of their occupation.

Their occupation, that of transporting mobile cranes, is of recent origin and came into being to meet the needs of firms in the building and civil engineering industry; it is now facing fierce competition in France, as French legislation is restrictive and has not been updated for almost 25 years.

The Commission's attention is drawn to the fact that a legal vacuum in this area is causing a distortion of competition.

Will the Commission state whether it intends to harmonize rules governing the movement of such machinery, which, in France alone, is considered to be of an exceptional nature and hence is subject to excessive restrictions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)

The Commission is aware of national and local differences where authorisations for the circulation of mobile cranes are concerned. These vehicles fall outside the scope of Community legislation as laid down by Directive 96/53/EC on maximum authorised weights and dimensions for circulation ((OJ L 235, 17.9.1996. )).

On the basis of information made available by Member State authorities, the Commission considers that authorisation for these vehicles is best left to national and local authorities as these are best placed to judge possible problems with regard to infrastructure and road safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1354/97 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Liberalization of air transport in the EU

With the liberalization of air transport in the European Union, which came into force on Tuesday, 1 April 1997, any company from a Member State may provide services on a domestic route in another Member State. This establishes once and for all unitary European skies and consequently competition, particularly as regards fares.

Is the Commission aware of the air-safety parameters which must be observed and the guidelines being defined to guarantee the necessary technical conditions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 May 1997)

The Commission agrees that, in the liberalised internal air transport market, due attention must be given to the harmonisation of the technical and social environment in order to ensure fair competition and the maintenance of high safety standards.

Accordingly the Commission proposed in 1990, and the Council adopted in 1991, a Council Regulation ((Regulation 3922/91/EEC of 16.12.1991 - OJ L 373, 31.12.1991. )) on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in civil aviation, with a view to establishing the necessary common legislative basis for aviation safety regulation, using as much as possible the work of the organisation created by the European civil aviation administrations, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). A number of rules governing airworthiness and aircraft maintenance have already been introduced into Community law through this instrument, and the Commission is considering further recently adopted rules on air operators certification and flight crew licensing.

In the same spirit the Commission has prepared, and the Council has adopted, a Council Directive ((Directive 94/56/EEC of 21.11.1994 - OJ L 319, 12.12.1994. )) on aircraft accident investigation. This makes a mandatory requirement for Member States to investigate aircraft accidents and serious incidents and to cooperate in drawing conclusions, so that all appropriate measures can be taken to avoid recurrence. Similarly, the Commission is now working on a system for incident reporting and treatment, so as to prevent accidents as much as possible.

The Commission recognized in its communication ((SEC(96) 1083 final. )) defining a Community aviation safety improvement strategy, that these actions would not be sufficient if nothing was done to ensure their effective and uniform implementation. It suggested therefore that a European Aviation Safety Authority be created to be responsible for regulating aviation safety in the whole of Europe. The Commission also proposed to the Council a recommendation - and appropriate negotiating directives - which would empower it to negotiate the creation of an international organisation to fulfil this role on behalf of the Community, its Member States and all other European countries willing to join.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1327/97 by Honor Funk (PPE) to the Commission (10 April 1997)

Subject: EU funds for structural improvements in disadvantaged areas

It was reported in the newspaper 'La Republica' at the end of February 1997 that Italian bureaucracy was consistently blocking the use of EU funds. The report referred to a sum of 60 000 billion lira, i.e. 60 billion marks, deposited with banks in Rome.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission not have an obligation to demand that appropriations be returned after the deadline has expired?

Is any such procedure currently pending within the Commission? If so, will it have consequences for the allocation of funds in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)

The Commission is aware of the delays in the implementation of structural funds programmes in Italy. For this reason already in 1995 it concluded an agreement with the Italian central and regional authorities on a package of measures to improve the management of structural funds programmes there. The Commission monitors closely the implementation of this agreement.

Structural fund appropriations which remain unused by the final deadlines for the implementation of programmes have to be reimbursed by the Member States.

The closure of programmes is an on-going affair dependent upon the relevant closure dates. The Commission takes the appropriate steps regarding reimbursement or final payment after examination of the final implementation report for each programme. There is no direct link between this exercise and the allocation of funds to new programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1904/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Green Paper on Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility

With reference to the 'Green Paper on Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility' (COM(96) 0462 final) and with a view to achieving greater social justice, will the Commission give priority to taking, without delay, all the measures needed to ensure that the most deprived are not excluded from the benefits of the Community programmes considered in the Green Paper? Will it also make provision, under line of action No 7, to ensure that the financial circumstances of the participant, or the nuclear family to which he or she belongs, are taken into account when the amounts of financial assistance laid down in the programmes are allocated?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1900/97, E-1901/97, E-1902/97, E-1903/97 and E-1904/97 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/97 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Increase in the incidence of hepatitis C

There has been a sharp and continuous increase in the incidence of hepatitis C in Europe which is transmitted in the blood (e.g. by transfusions). Would it not be an idea to provide incentives for enhancing prevention as regards both blood collection and transfusion procedures?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

Based on a recent survey funded by the Commission, the estimated number of people infected (prevalence,) with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the Community ranges between 2.4 and 5 million, with prevalence rates varying from one Member State to the other. Data on the number of new cases (incidence) of hepatitis C, however, are not available to the Commission.

Screening procedures for anti-hepatitis C antibodies in blood and plasma used both for transfusion as well as for the preparation of medicinal products derived from these sources are routinely used in the Member States. Moreover, Council Directive 89/381/EEC of 14 June 1989 extending the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products and laying down special provisions for medicinal products derived from human blood or human plasma ((OJ L 181, 28.6.1989. )), requires the Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent transmission of infectious diseases in all medicinal products derived from blood and plasma.

The Commission is currently investigating existing requirements in the Member States regarding donor selection and the screening of donations with a view to proposing Council recommendations for appropriate criteria in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1770/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: European investment in Burma

Is the Commission considering any suspension of European investment in Burma (following the example of the USA) in view of the human rights violations perpetrated in that country?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1997)

The Commission fully supported the Union's common position on Burma/Myanmar adopted by the General Affairs Council on 28th October 1996, and prolonged for a second six months period on 29 April 1997, which imposed a first set of sanctions on Burma. The Commission is not in a position to anticipate future developments with regard to the possible imposition of further sanctions, in particular since the Member States are engaged in a discussion on the usefulness of economic sanctions to achieve political objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1098/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Future jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice

Under the current wording of Article L of the TEU, the EU Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over foreign and security policy or justice and home affairs.

Does the Commission not think that the EU should enhance the powers of the Court of Justice as regards the monitoring and enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms of EU nationals and hence, by extension, of nationals of non-member countries? What steps are being taken to have these points included in the conclusions of the IGC and the new Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

In the context of judicial monitoring of respect for fundamental rights, the Commission has always considered that limiting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice solely to the Community does not fill all the lacunae in the protection afforded to fundamental rights in the areas in which the European Union operates.

That is why the Commission has stressed at the Intergovernmental Conference that the idea of a provision in the Treaty giving the Union (or the Communities) powers to accede to international instruments for the protection of fundamental rights needs to be retained and that, in any event, the amended version of Article L of the Treaty on European Union concerning the powers of the Court of Justice should not exclude any area of Union action from the outset.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0661/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Taxes on business companies

Can the Commission tell me what the situation is in each Member State with regard to taxes on business companies, specifying the regional situation where appropriate?

Can the Commission tell me if the European Union's scheme of regional incentives, whose objective is to achieve more balanced regional development and to attract fresh undertakings coincides with, approximates to or is very different from the most and least favourable situations for companies as far as company tax is concerned?

Can the Commission forward to myself and the European Parliament the appropriate statistical reports on the geographical distribution of company taxes, regional incentives and Community regional aids?

Does the Commission believe that these subjects should be included in our thinking on tax harmonization in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the sixteenth edition of the Inventory of Taxes published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, which gives a brief description of corporation tax legislation in each Member State. The Inventory of Taxes is the only official document published by the Commission on this subject.

The Community grants which firms established in assisted areas may receive are subject to the tax arrangements applicable in the relevant region. The aid may not in any event exceed the aid intensity ceilings authorized by the Commission for competition policy purposes. The ceilings are set in terms of net grant equivalent so as to take account of differences between Member States and regions as regards tax arrangements applicable to such aid.

The Commission does not have any statistical tables on corporation tax or on Community regional incentives or aid.

The effects of tax incentives or aid on competition between Member States is currently being discussed by the taxation policy group set up following the Commission's report of 22 October 1996 on the development of tax systems ((COM(96) 546 final. )). The aim is to bring about some coordination so as to restrict the harmful effects of tax competition on tax structures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Fisheries agreements with New Zealand and other countries

In order to preserve the fishing activity of the Community fleet and the jobs which depend on it, the European Union needs to sign new international fisheries agreements with countries with which it does not yet have such agreements.

New Zealand offers potential in this regard and has indicated interest in such an agreement.

Has the Commission contacted the New Zealand authorities with a view to negotiating a fisheries agreement? If so, what stage have the talks reached? With which countries does the Commission plan to conclude new fisheries agreements?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1997)

The Commission identified the potential for a fisheries agreement with New Zealand in October 1995. New Zealand expressed an interest in further developing contacts and thus exploratory talks took place in March 1996 in New Zealand in order to assess whether a basis existed for a second generation fisheries agreement between the Community and New Zealand.

The Commission during its mission to New Zealand met representatives of the public and private sector, both of which were positive about possible cooperation with Community fishing interests under joint ventures and joint enterprises. The initial reactions from Member States were also rather positive.

The Commission requested from the Council in January 1997 a negotiating directive which would authorise the Commission to commence negotiations with New Zealand with a view to concluding a fisheries agreement. The matter is currently under discussion in the Council's external fisheries group.

For 1997, the Commission is at present examining the possibility of fisheries agreements with Russia and Poland in the North, as well as with some countries in Southern Africa, namely, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique. The conclusion of these agreements however is contingent upon, firstly, the reactions of the Community sector on the fishing possibilities offered and on the financial envelopes resulting from these possibilities and secondly, on the level of the financial commitment of the Community to such actions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: Aid for the shipping sector

The Commission has adopted new guidelines authorizing state aids in the shipping sector.

Does the Commission intend to grant aid from European funds to counteract the decline in the European fleet?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

On 6 May 1997, the Commission adopted revised guidelines for state aid in the maritime transport sector. The revised guidelines were envisaged in the Commission communication 'Towards a new maritime strategy' ((COM(96) 81 final. )) which recommended such a review in order to help maintain and develop the Community's shipping sector.

The guidelines seek to regulate the manner in which aid is granted by the Member States. However, apart from a number of initiatives in the area of training (e.g. Leonardo) it is not foreseen that Community funding will be used to aid the maritime transport sector.