ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/99

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: New toxic substances harmful to the environment discovered in food

According to an article in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter of 11 October 1999, Swedish scientists have found a new substance that is harmful to the environment and causes cancer. Brominated flame retardants (TeBDE) from discarded electrical domestic appliances are now found in high concentrations in herring and Baltic herring. The concentrations are still low in meat, butter and cheese, but the discovery is alarming for two reasons; firstly the concentrations will increase as fast as PCBs, and secondly, the toxins from the flame retardants must be added together with other substances that are harmful to the environment, such as PCBs, so that the total health risk can be estimated.

Is the Commission aware of this new discovery, and does it intend to take any action regarding the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers to written questions E-3004/98 by Mr Eisma(1), P-1976/99 by Mrs Schörling(2) and to the oral question H-776/99 by Mrs Schörling during question time at Parliament's December 1999 part-session(3).

Furthermore, following the submission of a memorandum from Denmark and Sweden, a discussion took place at the Environment Council on 13 December 1999 about the need for urgent Community measures in respect of brominated flame retardants.

In this context the Commission recalled that comprehensive risk assessments on three brominated flame retardants, undertaken in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(4), are currently underway. When the risk assessment reports are finalised they will be presented for independent peer-review to the scientific committee for toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment.

The member of the Commission responsible for the Environment wrote on 15 December 1999 to the ministers of the Member States responsible to urge completion of the risk assessments as soon as possible.

Once the reports have been finalised, the Commission will publish the results in the Official journal and propose further risk reduction measures, if necessary.

Given that increased concentrations of five polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) congeners have been found in the blood of workers at recycling plants and that future Community legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) will increase significantly the recycling of PBDE containing plastics, the substitution of these brominated flame retardants in the production of new electrical and electronic equipment is currently discussed within the Commission.

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999.

(2) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 101.

(3) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).

(4) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/99

by Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Renewable energy sources the Commission's intentions

In many Member States generating electricity from renewable energy sources attracts national support measures, e.g. under the German Law on feeding electricity from renewable energies into the public grid. At the request of the Council and Parliament the Commission has drafted a proposal for a directive on generating electricity from renewable sources. The draft says that if the share of electricity from renewable sources in a particular Member State amounts to 5 % of total electricity consumption, with effect from 2010 the internal electricity market should also be opened up to imported electricity generated from renewable energies from other Member States.

There are two points to be made:

1. In Germany banks usually make loans for renewable energies for periods of 12 to 15 years. The cut-off point of 2010 would put a stop to these loans and would mean that small and medium-sized businesses specialising in renewable sources of energy would face financial difficulties. This would run entirely counter to the idea of support for renewable energy.

2. At the same time, the EU would be going against its intended reduction in CO2 emissions.

What are the Commission's views on this?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Any Community action with respect to a proposal for a draft directive on electricity from renewable energy sources must have two aims firstly a significant increase in the level of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in all Member States, which constitutes a fundamental contribution to the achievement of commitments undertaken at Kyoto and the indicative objective of doubling the share of renewable energy from at present 6 % to 12 % of the gross inland energy consumption by 2010 as set out in the white paper on renewable energy sources, and secondly the progressive inclusion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market.

Numerous organisations representing the different renewable energy technologies have stressed the need for regulatory stability as this would reassure the potential investors and the financial institutions on the viability of the long term investments in plants generating electricity from renewable energy sources. A directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources would have to take account of the need to reinforce the regulatory stability concerning the Community legality of the support schemes applied in the Member States.

The Commission will decide shortly on the future steps with respect to a possible proposal for a draft directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2664/99

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Information on the URBAN Programme

The URBAN Programme and URBAN Pilot have constituted a successful attempt by the Union to tackle the deep-seated problems of exclusion which are prevalent in urban areas.

1. Can the Commission outline its future plans in relation to a new URBAN Programme/Urban Pilot?

2. What funds are now available for this Programme/Pilot?

3. What are the guidelines?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

1. The URBAN Community initiative and the URBAN pilot project (UPP) scheme have been essential components of the Commission's efforts to assist Member States in enhancing the quality of life in depressed urban agglomerations. Taking into account the views of the Parliament during the discussion on the reform of the structural funds, the Commission has decided to launch a new URBAN Community initiative, which will cover about 50 urban areas during the period 2000-2006.

A draft of guidelines for the new URBAN initiative was adopted by the Commission on 13 October 1999(1). They are at present being discussed with Parliament and Member States. The Commission will therefore adopt the final guidelines in March 2000 or April 2000. Member States will be invited then to present proposals within six months of the publication of the guidelines in the Official journal.

The Commission does not envisage launching a new wave of UPPs for the programming period 2000-2006. However, most of them will continue until the end of 2000.

2. During the 1994-1999 programming period, URBAN funded programmes in 118 urban areas. The total Community contribution amounted to approximately 900 million at 1999 prices. A further 164 million between 1989 and 1999 supported 59 UPPs within the framework of the innovative actions under the European regional development fund (ERDF).

The total contribution by the ERDF to the URBAN Community initiative during the period 2000-2006 is fixed at 700 million at 1999 prices.

3. The guidelines assist Member States in the preparation of their programmes to be funded under URBAN. They set out the objectives and principles of the Community initiative, define the priorities for action and criteria for the selection of eligible urban areas, and lay down the procedures for preparation, approval and implementation of the programmes. They also contain an indicative list of eligible measures that aim at social, economic and environmental regeneration of urban areas.

(1) COM(1999) 477 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Update on the URBAN programme in Rome

With reference to my previous question E-0568/99(1) and to the answer given by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies on 3 May 1999:

1. Can the Commission say whether, as a result of the accumulated delays, there have been reductions in allocations from the Commission?

2. Has the municipality of Rome made up ground since the end of April and reached the commitment level of 70 % forecast by the Commission?

3. Can it provide a comparative table of the other Member States?

4. What is the final budget?

(1) OJ C 370, 21.12.1999, p. 63.

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

There were no reductions in appropriations for the Community Initiative programme for urban areas (Urban) in Rome in 1994-1999. The latest information provided by the Italian authorities shows that by 31 December 1999 the municipality of Rome had committed all the appropriations available under that Initiative. Since the competent authorities had until 31 December 2001 to complete payments from the Structural Funds for that programming period, a final budget for Urban cannot yet be provided.

The present state of implementation of Urban in the various Member States over that period is given in the table below:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2655/99

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Flight delays

This year flight delays in Europe have reached unacceptable levels. Suffice it to say that from July to September over 30 % of flights on European routes were delayed by over 15 minutes. According to some estimates these delays may cost over EUR 5 billion per year, and they cause considerable inconvenience and loss to passengers.

Thus it is clear that urgent measures need to be taken to protect air transport users, for instance by adopting Community legislation similar to the law on overbooking, and redefining the concept of delay in the Warsaw Convention.

1. Can the Commission provide information on the specific measures it intends to adopt to protect passengers and the timescale involved, particularly as regards their right to be informed of the reasons for delays and to obtain adequate compensation in the event of unjustified delays?

2. Can the Commission also say if it intends to adopt ad hoc measures to protect consumers in other public transport sectors?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

With regard to delays to air traffic, on 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication to review the current situation and propose new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market(1).

The question raised by the Honourable Member, regarding information to passengers on air traffic delays, is answered in this document which has been communicated to the Council and the Parliament. During this year, the Commission will propose a system of publication of punctuality indicators to give passengers the means of forming their own opinions as to the situation and its causes.

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport(2). That Regulation already provides for compensation in the case of overbooking.

As to the broader question of the protection of passengers, the Commission has just released a consultation document on air passenger rights with the aim of collecting views to help develop future policy. This activity so far covers air transport only, but consideration will also be given to similar work on other modes of transport. While problems vary between the modes, it will still be important to ensure that all passengers generally enjoy similar rights.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final.

(2) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0055/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: BSE screening programme

How and when does the Commission intend to introduce a systematic screening programme for BSE, as has been in place in Switzerland since March 1999?

The BSE screening programme in Switzerland shows that the aberrant prion is much more widespread among cattle than was thought and that infected animals can enter the food chain.

In view of the legal obligation to apply the precautionary principle, is not both urgent and necessary for the Commission to investigate this dreadful problem fully before any more food safety disasters occur in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

As stated in my hearing before Parliament last September I consider that a systematic testing for BSE should be implemented. The Commission has initiated discussions with the Member States on the introduction of post-mortem tests for BSE with the intention to present a proposal to the standing veterinary committee before April 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0101/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 January 2000)

Subject: EU asylum policy

In reply to my oral question H-0722/99, the Council explains that there are no common definitions in the EU of what constitutes a 'safe country of origin' and a manifestly unfounded request for asylum.

In the light of that answer, will the Council say:

1. whether the decisions on asylum policy taken at the Tampere Summit have any implications for how Member States should assess asylum cases in which the applicant has been subject to persecution other than State persecution, and

2. whether the Summit's decision on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention has any practical implications for how Member States should deal with and assess individual asylum cases?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Tampere European Council, while providing for the future common European asylum system to be based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, calls for the establishment in the short term of, inter alia, common standards for a fair and effective asylum procedure, approximated rules on the recognition and content of refugee status as well as measures on subsidiary forms of protection. The European Council calls upon the Council to achieve these aims on the basis of proposals to be submitted by the Commission. The implications for the Member States mentioned in the Honorable Member's questions will flow from those proposals which the Council will examine as a matter of priority.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0053/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Nitrosamines in meat products

Five consumer organisations have just published the conclusions of a survey of nitrosamine levels in a number of common meat products in five EU countries (Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal). A total of 600 tests were made.

Nitrosamines, which are highly carcinogenic, are formed from nitrates/nitrites added to meat products. Under Directive 95/2/EEC(1) on food additives other than colours and sweeteners the permitted limit values are expressed in residual amounts of nitrate/nitrite in a meat product. However the residual amount gives no indication of the quantities of nitrates/nitrites added. On the other hand, there is a clear connection between quantities of nitrates/nitrites added and nitrosamine levels. This link was confirmed by the Scientific Committee for Food in 1990 and 1995.

The survey revealed that completely unacceptable nitrosamine levels were found in a very large number of samples.

Will the Commission therefore takes steps to:

- amend the method to measure the quantities of nitrates/nitrites added to rather than as residual amounts in meat products,

- reduce the permitted limit values very substantially,

- set limit values for nitrosamine levels in meat products,

- set up a mandatory system for monitoring nitrosamine levels in meat products to which nitrates/nitrites have been added, and

- improve the labelling rules so that consumers are informed of the quantities of nitrates/nitrites added and of the health hazard represented by nitrosamines.

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

In Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners(1) provisions are laid down for the use of nitrates and nitrites in certain meat, dairy and fish products. For cheese and fish products and for cured bacon the permitted levels are expressed only as a residual amount. For other meat products an indicative added amount is given in addition to the residual amount. This is the approach that the Council and the Parliament approved when the Directive was adopted in 1995. The limits were set in order to attain the necessary effect of preservation and to correspond with the estimated safety of these food additives. However, these limits are presently the subject of proceedings in the Court of justice brought by Denmark against the Commission in case C-3/00. The Honourable Member's questions, therefore are related to the subject matter of those proceedings and need to be dealt with in that forum.

Nevertheless, as mentioned in the white paper on food safety, the Commission has already indicated that it proposes to undertake a general revision of the directive this year. As part of the review, the Commission will take into account any new scientific findings that have become available.

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0077/00

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Failure to appoint an Advocate-General at the Court of Justice

Article 222 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Court of Justice shall be assisted by nine Advocate-General until 6 October 2000. The appointment several months ago of Advocate-General La Pergola to the post of Judge following the death of Judge Mancini left a vacancy that the Member State concerned has yet to take the necessary action to fill.

Given that the failure to have the requisite number of Advocates-General is a clear breach of the Treaty, would the Commission not agree that, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, it has a duty to bring this situation to the attention of the Member States, and to Italy in particular, which must nominate a candidate before a new Advocate-General can be appointed by common accord?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Under Article 223 (formerly Article 167) of the EC Treaty, the appointment of Court of Justice Judges and Advocates-General is the responsibility of the Member States' governments acting by common accord.

It is true that the absence of members of the Court, or a delay in their appointment, is detrimental to the workings of the institution.

However, the Honourable Member is reminded that in this particular case the ninth Advocate-General would be appointed, for the remainder of the term of office, to a post created on the occasion of the last enlargement and due to be abolished on 6 October 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0949/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Large-scale redundancies in the ABB-Alsthom Group

Can the Commission verify whether the procedure followed by ABB-Alsthom Power with regard to its expected redundancies in many EU countries complies with Community law? Can it also take action to prevent these redundancies?

Most of these redundancies are not really based on true industrial requirements and pose huge social problems. Worse still, however, is the fact that the decisions have been taken without any form of dialogue or negotiation with the trade unions and the European works councils.

It appears that the EU directive on European works councils is unsuitable for two-company mergers, especially when the merger is on a 50-50 basis, and does not guarantee that workers will be consulted when facing post-merger redundancies.

Should this indeed be the case, the directive should be revised in order to fill this gap. Will the Commission therefore propose an updated, revised version of the directive on the establishment of European works councils in the case of company mergers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0238/00 during question time at Parliament's March I 2000 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March I 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0048/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Cologne process: adjustment of the Poseima programme in the Azores with regard to trade in agricultural produce

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763(1) (Poseidom) lays down specific measures on the marketing of certain agricultural products from ultraperipheral regions in neighbouring regions.

Transport problems and market structures mean that, the high quality dairy produce and beef produced in the Azores Autonomous Region is normally sold only on the European mainland at present.

Does the Commission think that the Poseima programme could include measures like those found in Article 3 of the Poseidom Regulation, with the aim of encouraging exports of Azores agricultural products to other neighbouring regions such as the other Macaronesian archipelagos and the eastern seaboard of the USA and Canada?

(1) OJ L 356, 24.12.1991, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/00, E-0043/00, E-0044/00, E-0045/00, E-0046/00, E-0047/00, E-0048/00, E-0049/00, E-0050/00, E-0051/00 and E-0052/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Honourable Member has put a whole series of questions regarding the Poseima Programme for the Azores.

The Commission is currently drafting a report on the measures to implement Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

At this stage, before the Commission has adopted that report, it is not able to reply to the Honourable Member's questions concerning its content.

Lastly, the Commission's Work Programme for 2000 provides for a report to be presented to the Council and Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products(1) (Poseima), together where appropriate with proposals for any adjustments that prove necessary to achieve the programme's goals. The set of measures relating to agriculture in the Azores will be considered in that connection.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.