ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: BSE and export of British hides

The processing of cattle hides (including those of British origin) in a number of European countries such as Italy and Spain where tanning is a traditional industry involves the use of as a by-product from the production of fat, protein and gelatin used in human foodstuffs and animal feed (excluding ruminants) and in agricultural fertilizers.

In the tanning district of Chiampo-Arzignano in the Ministry of Health has now quite rightly ordered that waste from the processing of hides of British origin should no longer be sent to SICIT, a producer of feed for animals other than ruminants and which may therefore indirectly affect humans.

This ban is not being applied in other European Union countries such as Spain and the muscle tissue and fats concerned may therefore be covered by the British sheep and cattle waste whose export was recently banned by the EU.

Does the Commission not consider that the processing of these products is in breach of the ban?

Does it not consider that bans imposed in one EU Member State may be to the advantage of other countries, in breach of the competition rules?

Is it not necessary to ban the export of British hides to prevent products obtained from the flesh ending up in animal feed and indirectly in foodstuffs for human consumption?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

According to Commission Decision 96/239/EC ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996, p.47 as last amended by Commission Decision 96/362/EC, OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )), the United Kingdom shall not export from its territory to other Member States or third countries products obtained from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom which are liable to enter the animal feed or human food chains.

Therefore the hides and skins can be exported from the United Kingdom only for tannery purposes. The resulting tannery waste cannot be used for the production of animal feed or human food.

The Commission will undertake the necessary steps to ensure that all Member States apply this in the same manner.

There is no export ban on sheep or products from sheep.

The scientific veterinary committee is assessing the situation regarding transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in all the Member States in order to evaluate the need for any further measures. These measures should be applied across the Community.

The Commission intends to inspect all Member States to ensure that each is taking the necessary measures to ensure that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) rules are fully applied.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Specified bovine offal (SBO) regulations

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that abattoirs throughout the European Union are aware of the regulations concerning specified bovine offal recently introduced in the United Kingdom?

Does the Commission propose to introduce similar regulations throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 June 1996)

The Commission directly notifies Member States of the measures that are to be taken concerning specified bovine offal as laid down in Community legislation. In addition, these measures are published in the Official journal. The United Kingdom has informed the other Member States and the Commission of the measures taken as regards bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). It is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States to communicate with the abattoirs on their own territory.

The Scientific veterinary committee is at present drawing up an assessment of the need for measures regarding BSE in other Member States. Based on the recommendations from the Scientific veterinary committee, the Commission will propose any necessary measures to be taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1316/96 by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Council (4 June 1996)

Subject: Agreement on water resources between Spain and Portugal

In connection with the renewal of the agreements between Spain and Portugal on the exploitation of water resources on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula:

1. Can anything be said at this stage about the conclusions of the study commissioned from the British consultants Montgomery and Watson on the scale of the problem and the most advisable solutions?

2. As a result, what are the prospects for the building of the Alqueva dam?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Honourable Member's questions do not fall within the Council's competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1997/96 by Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Spores and parasites in baled straw silage

Research shows that ensiling in bales produces a larger concentration of anaerobic spores and parasites than ensiling in surface silos or haystacks.

Will the Commission investigate the significance of this for animal welfare and the quality of milk and meat, and how it affects consumer health?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The Commission is not aware that ensiling straw in bales has any impact on animal welfare or on the quality of animal products.

If this process were indeed to prove dangerous for animals or consumers, the Commission would not hesitate to take the requisite measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1638/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Colours for use in foodstuffs (Directive 94/36/EC)

Article 8 of Directive 94/36/EC ((OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p.13. )) on colours for use in foodstuffs states 'the Commission shall, to coincide with the date of entry into force of this Directive, launch a campaign, in conjunction with the European Parliament, national ministries, the food and retail industries and consumer bodies, to inform consumers about the evaluation and authorization procedures for permitted colours, and the meaning of the 'E' number system'.

Since the Directive came into force on 9 October 1994, can the Commission state whether or not it has launched this campaign and, if not, why it has taken so long to act according to its obligations as laid down by the Directive?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The behaviour of consumers with regard to the acceptance of foodstuffs containing food additives and in particular food colours is not homogenous throughout the Community. It was felt necessary to launch a feasibility study to investigate this phenomenon. Furthermore it was also necessary to investigate the work undertaken by Member States in relation to an information campaign on their territory and the means and media which could be used to obtain the most effective results under Article 8 of Directive 94/36/EC.

The study commissioned by the Commission has recently been completed. The Commission will study the recommendations contained in the final report with a view to starting with Parliament and the Member States the information campaign. The report will be made available to the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1491/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Inspection levies for meat and fish

In the European Union Member States a levy is collected for the health inspection of meat and fish. Can the Commission state how much that levy amounts to in the fifteen European Union Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Council adopted a horizontal Directive laying down the principles applicable to the financing of all veterinary checks on animal products, namely Directive 85/73/EEC, ((OJ L 32, 5.2.1985. )) as amended by Directive 93/118/EEC. ((OJ L 340, 31.12.1993. ))

The Member States' authorities must charge the traders concerned a 'Community fee' in accordance with harmonized procedures for checks on a number of animal products originating in the Community or coming from other countries (beef and veal, pigmeat, sheepmeat, goatmeat, and meat of domestic solipeds and poultry).

At its meeting on 24/25 June, the Council reached agreement on the principles applicable to financing inspections of live animals and the rules designed to ensure the monitoring provided for in Directive 92/23/EEC (monitoring of residues) ((OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. )) and Directive 91/493/EEC (fishery products) ((OJ L 268, 24.9.1991. )) and for inspecting the meat of rabbits and small feathered game and wild fowl. Directive 85/73/EEC, which has been codified to make it clearer and more comprehensible, was also adopted by the Council. Depending on the product concerned, different deadlines for transposition into national law have been laid down (1 July 1996, 1 July 1997 and 7 July 1999 for the provisions on fishery products).

For checks on other animal products, the Member States can charge what are termed 'national fees' in accordance with common principles.

The Commission has endeavoured mainly to monitor the transposition into national law of Directive 85/73/EEC by means of surveys and by requests for information when Community inspectors carry out on-the-spot checks. Even in the case of Community fees, Directive 85/73/EEC leaves the authorities considerable room for manoeuvre as regards the standard level of fee (veterinarians' salaries and structure of the establishments, etc.). In some Member States it is the local authorities which apply the arrangements. For meat covered by Community fees, the Commission can give only an estimate of the total fees collected, i.e. ECU 430 million. For fishery products, subject in some cases to national fees, it is at present impossible to given a reasonable estimate.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1760/96 by Daniel Féret (NI) to the Commission (20 June 1996)

Subject: EU recognition of qualifications in cosmetic medicine

Does Council Directive No 93/16/EEC ((OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1. ))to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications provide for recognition of specialist medical training in cosmetic medicine, as distinct from plastic surgery?

Whereas plastic surgery is in practice recognized as a speciality, training in cosmetic medicine still remains to be defined.

While there is a growing demand for this type of treatment (mesotherapy, electrotherapy, cellulite treatment, etc.), there is considerable disparity within the European Union between laws governing this profession and this often leads to abuse or such services being offered by unqualified practitioners, to the detriment of patients.

The European Union should therefore recognize qualifications in cosmetic medicine wherever the speciality exists in order to allow doctors with this qualification freedom of establishment throughout the European Union and legal protection for this medical qualification.

Does the Commission not consider that existing legislation needs to be supplemented and will it put forward a proposal to recognize qualifications in cosmetic medicine in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Commission has not received any request that the medical speciality of cosmetic medicine be covered by Council Directive 93/16/EEC. In any event, such a step must be in response to a sustained request from several Member States where that speciality is carried on. It must also satisfy an effective need as regards the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services. Such a need has not yet been shown to exist.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Animal consignments - Bavaria: mass animal-keeping concerns

1. At what locations are mass animal-keeping concerns to be found?

2. Who are the operators of the mass animal-keeping concerns?

3. What capacity do the mass animal-keeping concerns have?

4. What animal species are held in mass animal-keeping concerns?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1917/96, E-1918/96, E-1920/96 and E-1922/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The Commission does not have sufficient, up-to-date information and is therefore unable to answer the questions put. This being the case, the Commission recommends that the Honourable Member approach the German authorities, including those of the Free State of Bavaria, which are more competent to answer this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1343/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Administrative appropriations of the European Institutions

Will the Commission state the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1995 under budget heading B7-410 (MEDA) to expenditure on:

- studies,

- experts' meetings,

- conferences and congresses and

- information and publications?

Can the Commission also say what proportion of the total amount of appropriations allocated to this budget heading is taken up by these four types of expenditure? Does it consider this proportion to be reasonable?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

Total appropriations allocated under budget heading B7-410 (MEDA) to the categories of expenditure referred to in the question are as follows:

Studies: 959 742 Experts' meetings: 649 815 Seminars and colloquia (rather than conferences and congresses): 1 226 232 Information and publications: 1 301 901

The total MEDA budget was ECU 173.2 million in 1995. The four categories of expenditure listed above therefore account for some 2.4% of the budget. This is a reasonable proportion, bearing in mind the objectives of the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Transport of organs for transplant

In the rules governing transplants the transport of organs is of decisive importance and accounts for 10% of the total cost. Can the Commission therefore:

1. draft a directive aimed at reducing the cost by providing support for the transport of organs;

2. draft a directive envisaging aid to transplant centres which carry out scientific research and play an active part in maintaining the high standard of technical research and transplant surgery in the countries of Europe;

3. carry out a survey to study the possibility of encouraging the donation of organs, by introducing a series of subsidies for the families of donors?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behaf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

1 and 2. Transport costs for organs intended for transplant and financial aid to transplant centres are for the Member States to consider. The Commission has no intention to propose directives in this area. However, support for research in the field of organ transplantation is provided through the Community's Biomed programme in the context of the fourth framework programme of research and technological development, considering scientific as well as ethical and legal aspects of transplantation.

3. Payments in respect of organ donations, which might also involve the families of donors, is an issue with grave ethical implications which has preoccupied the media and the public, and has been the object of consideration by ethical committees at national and international level, notably at the Council of Europe. The Commission is carefully following developments in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Follow up to EU Helios programme

Given the fact that the Commission is placing new emphasis on providing HORIZON monies to aid disability organisations in 1997, will the Commission quantify precisely its intentions in this respect?

Will the Commission ensure that at least fifty percent of project monies are awarded to organisations which are controlled by disabled people or parents of disabled children, rather than unrepresentative organisations of able-bodied people according to the old fashioned paternalistic approach?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

Following the Commission Decision of 8 May 1996 to create a new strand Integra within the Community initiative Employment focusing on the reintegration into employment of groups who are excluded or at risk of exclusion from the labour market, the Horizon strand will henceforth focus exclusively on the reintegration into employment of handicapped people. The budget for this purpose remains unchanged at 513 MECU.

The guidelines agreed by the Commission, and the text of the operational programmes negotiated in 1994 with every Member States do not foresee any allocation a priori between different categories of beneficiaries of project promoters.

A first analysis of the projects selected by the Member States indicates clearly that associations of the handicapped are very widely represented amongst the project promoters, a situation which should meet the expectations of the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: The beach of Soverato

The Italian State Railways have started to build a barrier of stones to protect a stretch of railway track which crosses the beach of Soverato, one of the most beautiful beaches in Southern Italy.

This measure, apart from being of doubtful practical use, spoils the environmental features of an area of great natural beauty, for which tourism is the only means of ensuring a minimum of seasonal work for people in a region where unemployment is endemic.

Can the Commission take urgent measures to stop the work being carried out by the Italian State Railways and draft a directive for the protection of the environment of Soverato?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Commission has investigated whether the site mentioned (spiaggia di Soverato) has been classified as a special protection area under the terms of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )), or proposed as a candidate site of Community importance under the terms of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). This investigation has given negative results.

The Commission then further checked whether this site would qualify for one of the two designations above, again obtaining a negative result.

The Commission can therefore conclude that the matter raised by the Honourable Member is not relevant as far as Community legislation is concerned and therefore falls under the competence of the Italian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1386/96 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Protecting las Hoces del Cabriel (Spain)

The Madrid motorway route through las Hoces del Cabriel, which is partly funded by Community monies, has been called into question in the Spanish courts by the Castilla-la-Mancha authorities and various political, trade union and ecological organizations, which believe that the Spanish environmental impact legislation had not been correctly applied, and that the building of this road infringes various Community directives, particularly those referring to protection of habitats and the preservation of woodland birds.

The work is scheduled to begin next summer.

In this emergency, would the Commission be willing to get the Spanish authorities to suspend operations as a precautionary measure and, in conjunction with the Spanish authorities and those of Castilla-la-Mancha, investigate the possibility of redrawing the current route and proposing an alternative route which would safeguard this major natural heritage site?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The route of the proposed Madrid-Valencia motorway has been altered by mutual agreement between the central and regional Governments so as to safeguard the natural wealth of the Cabriel gorges.

Accordingly, the Commission has no grounds for intervening in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/96 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) and Leen van der Waal (EDN) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Infringement of the rights of Christian minorities in Turkey

On 16 February 1996 Commissioner Van den Broek answered my Question 3660/95 ((OJ C 112, 17.4.1996, p. 57. )) on behalf of the Commission. The Commission promised to obtain information on this subject through Turkey's Permanent Representation in Brussels and its own representation in Ankara. Three months have now passed.

Can the Commission indicate what information it has obtained on the problems of the various Christian minorities in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek On behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

The Commission has now obtained more detailed information about the status of Christian minorities in Turkey.

This very complex issue has to be seen from all angles, the most important being the international obligations contracted by the signatories to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne and in particular Articles 37 to 45 which govern minorities' status. The Commission has gathered all the information it can from the Turkish authorities and experts in Turkey.

The Commission has received a memorandum from Professor Tekin Akillioglu of the University of Ankara summarizing the Turkish legal view on this matter. The decision by the Turkish Court of Appeal on the inheritance rights of Greeks in respect of property also throws an interesting light on the matter. The Commission will forward these two documents to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission has not yet received a formal reply from the Turkish authorities regarding its request for information on the rights of Christian minorities in Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1998/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Pepsi-Cola's bogus agreement

PepsiCO has concluded an agreement with its employees on the setting up of its own European works council in order to avoid coming under the European works council Directive.

There are several grounds for misgivings about this agreement. The so-called employees' representatives were carefully selected by the management. The agreement consequently reflects this. The agreement specifically states that the European trade union confederation may not act in an advisory capacity when the European works council meets. The employees have no opportunity at all to meet before the meetings of the works council.

Does the Commission check that such voluntary agreements meet the provisions of the Directive on European works councils?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

Article 13 of Directive 94/45/EC ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. )) stipulates that 'the obligations arising from this Directive shall not apply to Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings in which, on the date laid down in Article 14(1) for the implementation of this Directive, or the date of its transposition in the Member State in question where this is earlier than the abovementioned date, there is already an agreement, covering the entire workforce, providing for the transnational information and consultation of employees'.

It is up to the Member States and the national courts in the first resort to examine, if necessary, whether an agreement such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member reflects the conditions referred to in the abovementioned Article 13, which are required to be transposed into the national laws of all the Member States to which the Directive is addressed.

Accordingly, and given also that the deadline for transposition of the Directive has not yet been reached, the Commission considers it premature to examine whether the agreement in question conforms with Community law.