ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/97 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Southport sea wall

1. Can the Commission confirm that it verified that the UK complied with the provisions of Directive 92/43 ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) (Habitats Directive) and Directive 85/337 ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) (Environmental Impact Assessment) in authorizing this project?

2. In doing so, was it satisfied that the alternative of 'natural sea defences' (i.e. allowing embryonic sand dunes to develop) was given sufficient consideration?

3. When the Commission carried out an on-site inspection, why did it not involve those persons and organizations that had originally submitted the complaint to it concerning the conformity of the project with European legislation, as it has done on many previous site inspections (e.g. on the Bootle docks coal dust problem within the same local authority), even if this is not a legal requirement?

4. When it authorized the project, why did the Commission not have the courtesy to inform the original complainants immediately?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1997)

The Commission can confirm that before approving the funding of part of the Southport sea wall scheme, it did ascertain that the project would not infringe the two directives mentioned in the question. Since no significant effects were established, the question as to alternative solutions under Article 6 of the habitats Directive did not arise. Those who had complained to the Commission on the sea wall project were informed later of the Commission's approval of funding. The Commission is aware that a delay of three and a half months to inform the association is too long. As such, concrete steps have been taken to improve the administrative procedure so as to ensure timely distribution of relevant information.

Concerning the visit to the site by representatives of the Commission, the Honourable Member should note that this was an informal visit undertaken at the request of the local council. The Commission's interest in undertaking such a visit was only to establish visually, at first hand, the area of coast and precise location of the proposed project. No people or organisations associated with the compaint were met during the visit because the Commission was already in receipt of subtantial correspondence and material relating to the potential environmental impact from the complainants and understood fully their concerns in regard to the proposed development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1341/97 by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Non-discrimination rule

The unpredictability of the amount of commission which shopkeepers might charge when payment is made by cash card will make it impossible for consumers to assess how much their card will cost when they obtain it, while the institution issuing the card will similarly be unable to provide card-holders with information on the cost of using such cards.

Does the Commission nevertheless consider that its plan is likely to make charges more transparent and improve competition among different means of payment?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1338/97, E-1339/97, E-1340/97, E-1341/97, E-1342/97, E-1343/97 and E-1344/97 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission is unable at this juncture to reply in detail to the questions put by the Honourable Member. It is currently examining in the light of Community competition law a number of card payment systems notified under Article 4 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 ((OJ C 13, 21.2.1962. )). They include, for example, national systems such as the 'CB' system in France as well as international systems such as those operated by Visa International and Europay Interntional. Some of these systems have a so-called non-discrimination rule to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is assessing the validity of that rule in the light of the Community rules on competition and has entered into discussions with the parties concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1379/97 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Import levels of soft fruits from the CEECs

Can the Commission confirm the level of imports of soft fruits, and in particular blackcurrants from the CEECs over the last few years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that during the last six years, the total imports of fresh and frozen soft fruit originating in Central and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia) evolved as follows (Community of 12 for 1992, 1993, 1994, Community of 15 for 1995, 1996 - the data for 1996 are not final):

>TABLE>

For blackcurrants the data are as follows:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1377/97 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Surveillance of EU citizens in the Member States

EU citizens residing in another Member State are required to register in that state. Registration can be with the civil authorities or with the police.

1. What registration procedures are applied in the different Member States?

2. If the registration procedure is with a department of the police might not this entail discrimination by comparison with the state's own nationals if the latter register with a civil authority?

3. Will the Commission draw its own conclusions on the basis of its answers to questions (1) and (2) above?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

One of the differences between a citizen of the Union who is a national of the Member State in which he/she resides and a citizen of the Union who is not a national of the Member State in which he/she resides is that the latter must be issued with a residence permit in accordance with secondary Community law. The practical procedures for the issue of such permits are determined by each Member State in accordance with its own administrative structure. It is not contrary to Community law for the authority which issues identity cards or passport to the Member State's own nationals to be different from that which issues residence permits to other citizens of the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2086/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: EU research funding for cloning experiments

Mrs Cresson answered Written Question E-1021/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. )) on 22 May 1997. Unfortunately she omitted to answer the second part of question 2(b).

How much EU money was indirectly utilized (for cloning experiments with sheep cells)?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

Referring to the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1021/97, the project under point 2a, which aimed to gain understanding of cell totipotency, has received a Community contribution of 1.3 MECU for 3 years (ECU 351 000 to the Roslin institute).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/97 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Driving licences and insurance for epileptic people

Can the Commission inform me of the regulations regarding the issuing of driving licences to people with epilepsy throughout the Community?

It is clear that different conditions apply, thus making it extremely diffciult for free movement of people with epilepsy who, having been issued a driving licence in one jurisdiction, are refused it in another.

Can the Commission also comment on insurance conditions in this context?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)

Provisions regarding the issuing and renewal of driving licences to people with epilepsy are laid down in Annex III point 12 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )) of 29 July 1991. However, point 5 of the annex provides that Member States may set stricter standards for the issuing and renewal of driving licences.

Article 1.2 of the Directive provides that driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised. This means that someone who holds a valid licence issued by a Member State may drive throughout the Community, including on the territory of a Member State applying stricter rules.

It is for the insurance company to decide the conditions upon which it provides cover, and at what premium, taking into account all relevant factors, one of which, obviously, could be a driver's history of epilepsy.

More specifically, regarding compulsory insurance cover under motor insurance policies, Article 3.1 of Directive 72/166/EEC ((OJ L 103, 2.5.1972. )), as amplified by Article 1 of Directive 84/5/EEC ((OJ L 8, 11.1.1984. )) and Article 1 of Directive 90/232/EEC ((OJ L 129, 19.5.1990. )), provides for the introduction of civil liability insurance against property damage and physical injury to passengers in respect of vehicles normally based in a Member State's territory. This is an obligatory cover throughout each Member State. Central to this objective is the need for all Member States to have a legal requirement for motor insurance.

Nevertheless, motor insurance directives do not harmonise the liabilities which are compulsorily insured neither do they abolish all differences between national requirements, except insofar as these impede the free movement of people and vehicles within the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1999/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Imports of poor-quality steel products from third countries

The European steel industry is facing serious problems arising from imports of steel products from third countries whose specifications are not comparable to the EU's, while the accompanying 'quality certificates' are very often not genuine. These products have been imported into the EU for many years and the fact that their prices are low is putting further pressure on the already beleaguered European steel industry, particularly in the smaller Member States of the Union.

How will the Commission respond to the allegations that 'quality certificates' are falsified or issued with completely inaccurate information and what measures will it take to verify effectively such certificates which often accompany the poor-quality, cheap steel products which are taking over from their EU counterparts which are manufactured to higher specifications?

Answer givren by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

In the case of steel product imports, it is essential to distinguish between customs treatment of the goods and judgment of the condition of the goods.

As far as customs treatment is concerned, the quality of the goods will play a role only if it has to be incorporated into the definition of the combined customs nomenclature, which corresponds to the international harmonized tariff system, i.e. stainless steel, high-grade steel. The use of false data in order to obtain advantages in the application of custom duties can be pursued on the basis of customs regulations. The responsibility for these controls lies with the national customs authorities.

As far as the question of the quality and the fitness for use of import material is concerned, it is up to buyers and sellers to include appropriate provisions in their contracts. Falsifications of quality certificates fall accordingly into the civil law area. Community-wide controls in this area cannot fall under sovereign jurisdiction. Nonetheless, a number of technical supervision and examination systems exist for steel products within the Community, which exclude the use of sub-standard material in sensitive areas (e.g. with reinforced steel).

Finally, the Commission is of the opinion that, on the basis of the data in the import documents, imports of downgraded material do not currently exceed the proportion found on the Community market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Raising of the retirement age for women, and compensation therefor

The Finnish Government is drafting a law based on the EU Court of Justice's 'Barber' decision which will raise the retirement age for women to the same age as applies to men without giving the women affected by this any compensation.

Will the Commission ensure that Member States respect the principle that nobody's entitlements may be reduced in connection with the said decision?

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

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, with regard to equality between men and women in the matter of retirement age, the essential factor from the point of view of Community law (Article 119 of the EC Treaty, and Directives 86/378/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.8.1986. )) and 96/97/EC ((OJ L 46, 17.2.1997. ))) is that men and women should be treated equally in occupational social security schemes ((Equality of treatment between men and women as regards retirement age in statutory schemes has not yet been introduced. Pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ L 6, 10.1.1979), Member States may continue to apply different retirement ages for men and women. )). This equal treatment may result either in the fixing of an identical retirement age for both sexes or in the introduction of a flexible retirement scheme comprising the same conditions for both sexes. The choice of the identical age is a matter for the occupational scheme in question to decide, in accordance with the rules and arrangements applicable in the Member State concerned.

Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996, amending Directive 86/378/EEC so as to bring it into conformity with Article 119 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its 'Barber' judgment and related subsequent judgments, stipulates that Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with the said Directive by 1 July 1997. The Commission intends writing to all Member States in the very near future to ask them to supply details of the measures taken to implement the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Reduction of payment deadlines for SMU

It is well known that one of the main difficulties faced by SMU as regards their expansion, and often their survival, is caused by the excessive delays in the payment of invoices. With a view to improving the functioning of the internal market, does the Commission feel it would be useful to draw up a directive requiring large firms and multinational companies in particular to settle invoices within a period of 30 to 45 days, after which interest calculated on the basis of the bank rate would have to be paid?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

The action plan for the single market ((CSE(97) 1 final. )) and the Commission's report on late payments in commercial transactions ((C(97) 2121, 9.7.1997 )) indicated that further action is needed to tackle the problem of late payment in Europe. The lack of action in most Member States on this issue and the latest statistics on late payments in Europe have led the Commission to conclude that it is now necessary to make proposals for minimum requirements to combat late payments which should be incorporated into national legislation. The Commission intends to make a proposal for a directive on late payments before the end of the year, based on the package of measures set out in the Commission's Recommendation of 12 May 1995 (No 198/97/EC) on payment periods in commercial transactions ((OJ L 127, 10.6.1995. )), including the statutory right of creditors to interest on late payment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Ireland's failure to ratify CITES

Ireland is the only EU country which has not yet ratified the UN Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Has the Commission sought any explanation from the Irish authorities about this matter? What responses have been given by the Irish authorities?

Is the Commission monitoring how the EU states which have ratified the convention are enforcing its provisions? Is it satisfied with the enforcement of its provisions by Member States? Has it published any reports about such monitoring?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

The Commission has indeed insisted on the accession by Ireland to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) since the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1982. )) on the implementation of CITES.

In December 1996, the minister for arts, culture and the Gaeltacht confirmed Ireland's commitment to its accession to the convention and its intention to do so this year following enactment of a bill to amend the Wildlife Act 1976.

The Commission monitors the implementation and enforcement by Member States of the 1982 Regulation mentioned above and its successor, Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 ((OJ L 61, 3.3.1997. )), which entered into force on 1 June 1997. The Commission has been generally satisfied with Member States' performance under the 1982 Regulation, but expects the 1997 Regulation to bring important improvement in both implementation and enforcement.

The old Regulation did not contain a provision for reports on implementation, unlike the new one. The latter provides, in its Article 15.4(c) and (d), for biennial reports on implementation and enforcement. The first of these reports has to be drawn up before 31 October 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0790/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B7-852 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0714/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B3-300 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0723/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B3-4103 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.