ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/97 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Difficulties encountered by French building firms in Germany

The new requirements to be met by European (in this instance, French) craft firms in the building sector since 1 January 1997 when carrying out work in Germany pose problems in connection with the freedom to provide services.

This new federal law of 26 February 1996 requires employers to pay employees working in Germany not the contractual wage of the country of origin but one based on a set minimum hourly wage (DM 17).

According to the Alsace Chamber of Trade, the payment of this minimum wage of DM 17 by a French form would represent a 27% increase in the French wage compared to the German reference wage.

Does the Commission not see this as a disguised protectionist measure and an obstacle to the free exercise of their trade by craft firms in countries bordering Germany, with due regard for the rules of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1997)

The requirement that service providers, irrespective of their Member State of establishment, must pay a minimum wage does not infringe the freedom to provide services.

The case law of the Court of Justice has consistently shown that Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty do not prevent Germany, as a host Member State, from requiring all those performing paid work on its territory, even temporarily, to comply with minimum wage rules or from ensuring compliance by appropriate means.

This principle has recently been confirmed by Directive 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services ((OJ L 18, 21.1.1997. )). The Directive requires any firm providing cross-border services on the territory of another Member State and posting workers for that purpose to comply with a number of essential minimum rules - particularly those covering the minimum wage - in force in the host Member State where the services are provided.

The new German law is therefore in accordance with Community law, provided that the checks carried out to ensure compliance with minimum wage rules are not discriminatory or disproportionate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2182/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 -Application of sensitivity limit values

Are the sensitivity limits used to demonstrate genetic modification to be continuously updated in line with the state of the art?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2160/97, E-2162/97, E-2164/97, E-2166/97, E-2176/97, E-2178/97, E-2180/97, E-2182/97 and E-2186/97 (28 October 1997)

As specified in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )), an appropriate analysis should be able, if necessary, to demonstrate that certain characteristics of a novel food or food ingredient "are different in comparison with a conventional food or food ingredient, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics¨. It should also be noted that any arrangements for applying Article 8 will be adopted in accordance with the (Committee) procedure provided for in Article 13.

The questions are worded in such a way that it is difficult to identify the checks or monitoring to which the Honourable Member refers. The general provisions of Community legislation on the monitoring of foodstuffs are in any event applicable.

Regarding the assessments to be carried out under Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 258/97, the detailed arrangements, and notable the role of the Member States as regards the assessment bodies, are laid down in Article 4(3) and Article 6(2) to (4), supplemented, where Commission will publish recommendations concerning the scientifc aspects of the preparation of the initial assessment reports. These provisions are supplemented, where appropriate, by the relevant provisions of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )).

Regarding methods of analysis, it will be recalled that Article 4 of Directive 93/99/EEC ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )) provides that Member States shall ensure that the validation of methods of analysis used within the context of official control of foodstuffs complies whenever possible with certain criteria laid down in Directive 85/591/EEC ((OJ L 372, 31.12.1985. )) concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1607/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Review of technical requirements laid down by the Commission for the production of gelatine

By a decision of 11 June 1996 the Commission laid down technical requirements for the production of gelatine.

According to the Multidisciplinary Scientific Committee, the technical requirements in question do not provide absolute guarantees that the BSE agent has been rendered inactive. The committee says that only if primary matter from cattle were uninfected could it be guaranteed that gelatine would be entirely free of risk.

What urgent decisions does the Commission plan to take to ban the marketing of any gelatine which cannot be guaranteed totally safe for consumers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

On 11 June 1996, the Commission introduced measures to ensure the safety of gelatine produced in the United Kingdom. These measures included the setting of minimum processing standards, the exclusion from raw material of any tissues categorised as high risk and the setting of pre-conditions to be fulfilled before exports could take place.

The scientific basis for the minimum standards, however, has been found to be flawed and, therefore, the Commission has not taken the steps necessary to permit the export of gelatine from the United Kingdom if produced from raw materials derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom. However, all gelatine produced in the United Kingdom for food, feed, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products is now produced from raw materials derived from outside the United Kingdom. Inspections have taken place to ensure traceability of the gelatine to the Member State of origin. Additional legislation is being considered.

The results of the Commission inspections carried out at the end of 1996 have clearly indicated that no Member State may be considered to be free from the risk from transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. On these grounds, therefore, the Commission has presented again a proposal for the removal of high risk material to the Member States within the standing veterinary committee on 16 July 1997. As this did not receive the required majority, the measures laid down in the draft were submitted as a proposal for a Council decision on 17 July ((COM(97) 419 final. )) in accordance with the regulatory committee procedure. Following discussion in the Council the Commission accepted certain amendments but the Council did not adopt the proposal and indicated that it would not re-discuss it within the next 15 days. In consequence the Commission adopted the measures in conformity with the regulatory committee procedure on 30 July 1997 ((OJ L 216, 8.8.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/97 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) and Giancarlo Ligabue (UPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Monitoring procedure for state aids

On 25 February 1997, draft law No 3270 on the restructuring of road transport and the development of intermodal systems was submitted to the Italian parliament. In accordance with Article 93(3) of the Treaty, the Italian Government forwarded the draft law to Directorate-General VII to enable it to assess whether the text of the law complied with European rules in force, in particular Regulation 1107/70 ((OJ L 130, 15.6.1970, p. 1.)), last amended by Regulation 543/97 ((OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 6.)), on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway.

By letter of 23 May 1997, the Director-General of DG VII, Mr Coleman, writing on behalf of the Commission, informed Italy's Permanent Representative to the European Communities that, following an initial consideration of the draft law, further information was required.

According to the Commission, this information was needed in order to clarify the content of some of the law's provisions and to obtain further details on the government's thinking from the point of view of Community interest. Given that the full liberalization of quota restrictions is due to be introduced in little more than one year from now and that the Italian road transport sector therefore needs a legal framework that will allow restructuring to be completed before that date, will the Commission say:

1. What progress has been made with the monitoring procedure and when will it adopt a final position on the question?

2. What additional information has been supplied by the Italian authorities at this stage in the procedure and is this information sufficient to indicate that the provisions laid down in the draft law comply with existing Community rules and the provisions of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

The draft law mentioned by the Honourable Member was notified to the Commission on 24 April 1997. In view of the diversity of the measures proposed and the very general terms of the draft law, the Commission requested additional information in order to be able to consider the compatibility of this aid scheme with Community law. At the request of the Italian authorities, a meeting with the Commission took place on 11 July 1997. This meeting contributed to clarifying not only the aims pursued by the Italian authorities but also various other aspects of the measure. The Italian authorities declared that an amended version of the draft law clarifying certain aspects would be sent to the Commission in the near future.

The Commission is aware of the importance of this dossier in relation to the liberalization of road transport. Naturally, as soon as the Commission receives the answer to its request for additional information and, as agreed, the revised draft law, it will give its opinion at the earliest opportunity.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1604/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Council (5 May 1997)

Subject: S. Raffaele Hospital in Malta and EU-Malta bilateral relations

At the request of the Maltese Government, the Monte Tabor Italian-Maltese Foundation has been set up as the body responsible for the planning and construction of the S. Raffaele Hospital in Malta, which is modelled on the S. Raffaele scientific institute in Milan.

The project is part of the Maltese Government's health programme and forms part of a wider scientific and medical project designed to provide the Mediterranean region with hospital facilities to treat various serious illnesses, including diabetes mellitus. A protocol for the completion of the project, has been drawn up between the Maltese authorities and the S. Raffaele authorities.

Does the Council consider that the sudden breaking off of relations ordered by the Maltese Government in connection with this project, which had been granted a loan of 12 million Maltese lire by the social development fund and the Italian-Maltese protocol of cooperation, could in any way adversely affect relations between Malta and an EU Member State, Italy, and, by the same token between Malta and the EU?

Answer (17 October 1997)

The project which the Honourable Member refers to in his question falls within the area of the bilateral relations between Italy and Malta.

As far as the future relations of Malta with the EU are concerned, the Council, bearing in mind the interest of both parties to maintain close relations, has invited the Commission to make proposals. After the completion of the exploratory talks with Malta, the Commission intends to present its proposals to the Council during the second half of 1997

Malta has been a beneficiary of EC grants and EIB loans, namely in the form of three financial protocols totalling approximately 93.5 MECU. The Fourth Financial protocol of 45 MECU entered into force on 1 January 1996. The main objective of this protocol was to help Malta with its preparation for its future accession to the European Union. However, due to Malta's decision to freeze its candidature, the indicative programme drafted by the Commission to implement this Protocol will undoubtedly have to be revised in order to meet the mutual obejectives of the future relationship.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2340/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Ear-tagging for pigs

Directive 92/102/EEC ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32. )) dictates that Member States must implement an ear-tagging indentification system for certain livestock, including pigs. There have been some complaints that this system is inhumane for pigs. There have been suggestions that increasing the use of inspections is a more viable alternative to ear-tagging.

Does the Commission have any plans to improve or eliminate the requirement for ear-tagging pigs? Is there scope in the directive to eliminate ear-tagging if it is replaced by an alternative system?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

In accordance with Article 5.3 of Council Directive 92/102/EEC on the identification and registration of animals, ' ... animals other than bovine animals must be marked as soon as possible and in any case before they leave the holding, with an eartag or tattoo making it possible to determine the holding from which they came and enabling reference to be made to any accompanying document which must mention such eartag or tattoo ...'.

In addition, the above mentioned Article provides for temporary marks and the possibility for Member States to apply their national system for the movement of animals other than bovine animals.

As far as future action is concerned, in accordance with Article 10 of Council Directive 92/102/EEC the Commission is now preparing a report on the identification and registration system of animals. All aspects of the identification of pigs, in particular those mentioned by the Honourable Member, will be taken into consideration. Based on the findings of this report, the Commission will propose any appropriate measures. The report and any proposals from the Commission will be presented to the Parliament. Additionally, Article 10 provides for a review of the possibility of introducing electronic identification arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1479/97 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Council (24 April 1997)

Subject: The need to change Finland's B production quota for beet sugar into an A quota to maintain sufficient refinery capacity in Finland

Finland's beet sugar production quotas total 146 776 tons, of which 133 433 tons is an A quota and 13 343 tons a B quota. Finland's A quota represents 1.1% and its B quota 0.5% of the corresponding quotas for the whole EU area.

Finland's raw sugar import quota is 60 000 tons. Consumption of sugar in Finland totals nearly 200 000 tons per annum. Finland is therefore clearly an under-production area for sugar, and we hardly benefit from EU sugar aid either. In reality, through production and storage levies, Finland subsidizes the sugar industries of Member States with surplus sugar production. In 1995/96, Finland's production levy was 27.5 million marks, of which the basic levy for the B quota was 996 215.30 marks and the production levy for the B quota 16 556 660.14 marks. Finland funds the EU's sugar industry to the tune of 27.5 million marks, 40% of the cost being borne by industry and 60% by farmers.

Because our beet sugar quota is too small, Finland's sugar industry is closing one of its beet sugar plants in Janakkala in 1998, our quota being too small to permit three plants to operate efficiently. The sugarbeet quota assigned to Finland in 1995 as a result of the accession negotiations was too small even at the outset, leading to higher unit refinery costs.

The closure of one plant will directly cause 150 redundancies and will destroy the livelihoods of more than a thousand sugarbeet farmers.

Finland needs a share in the EU's sugarbeet production quota which corresponds to our consumption. Finland's B quota of 13 343 tons should therefore be changed into an A quota. This would reduce our production levies from 27.5 million marks to 10.9 million marks, improve the viability of Finland's sugar industry and guarantee us a more equitable farming and refinery capacity.

Answer (16 October 1997)

The Council does not at the moment have any proposal from the Commission concerning sugar quota levels.

However, as far as the sugar arrangements are concerned, the Council would point out to the Honourable Member that:

- a Member State's sugar consumption is not the sole determinant of the amount and composition of its sugar quotas;

- the sugar quota applicable in Finland was negotiated and agreed in the context of the negotiations for Finland's accession to the Union. The production quota levels for Finland and other Member States were subsequently confirmed by the Council at the time of the review of the Community's sugar arrangements in April 1995. The B quota established for Finland is 10 % the A quota; the same percentage is applicable in five other Member States;

- the sugar arrangements take account of the supply situation in tha derived regionalized prices are set for sugar in deficit regions; these prices are higher than the general Community price and ensure higher returns for sugar producers and beet growers in those regions. This is also the case with Finland.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2122/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Testing the health and environmental impact



Official Journal C 082 , 17/03/1998 P. 0031



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2122/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997) Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Testing the health and environmental impact When new genetically modified varieties are entered in the common list of varieties which require neither an authorization pursuant to the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) nor an authorization pursuant to the deliberate release directive ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )), what form does testing of health conformity and the ecological effects tasks? Answer (20 October 1997) As far as can be established on the basis of the text of the Question, the cases envisaged by the Honourable Member would appear to be covered by Article 10 (2) Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p.15. )). This specifies the requirements for risk assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2628/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: 'Development mission' organized by Rome City Council in Corviale

In 1995 Rome City Council, after consulting 'IG Società per l'Imprenditorialità Giovanile spa' (a consultancy firm dealing with the establishment of businesses by young people) launched a research project designed to promote new business activity in a poor outlying district of Rome called Corviale. This project, referred to as a 'development mission', should of course have resulted in the financing of the best business projects put forward by local young people, with the aid of advice from IG.

However, after IG had carried out the work it was contracted to do, selecting the best projects, Rome City Council did not grant any funding, leaving the young would-be business people disappointed and wasting the money spent by the government on the 'development mission'.

Now, two years after Rome City Council's abortive project, can the Commission say:

1. whether over-ambitious and ineffective projects such as this go against both common sense and the conclusions recently reached in Europe concerning support for employment and firms in disadvantaged districts of big cities, which recommend practical, innovative and immediate measures which can be reproduced on a large scale;

2. whether the Commission's recent communication adopting a 'special framework' for State aid to firms on the outskirts of large cities is applicable to Corviale, or whether, as a result of that communication, it will finally be possible to fund the business projects which were selected in Corviale, but were never carried out;

3. whether it knows of similar projects successfully carried out on the outskirts of other European capitals?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

The guidelines on state aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas, ((OJ C 146, 14.5.1997. )) adopted by the Commission on 2 October 1996, lay down rules for identifying urban districts which can be classed as deprived urban areas eligible for state aid subject to certain conditions and ceilings. Under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, Member States are required to inform the Commission of any such plans they may have and to obtain its approval.

As regards the Corviale district of Rome, the subject of the Honourable Member's question, the Commission has not yet received any notification from the Italian Government and has no knowledge of any project in this district. As for the projects examined by 'IG Società per l'Imprenditorialità Giovanile Spa', the Commission lacks sufficient information to be able to judge whether they are compatible with the guidelines in question. Under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, it is the responsibility of the Italian Government to notify the Commission accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - 'appropriate analysis'

1. What is understood by 'appropriate analysis' (novel food regulation No 258/97/EEC ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )))?

2. How is monitoring to be carried out?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2160/97, E-2162/97, E-2164/97, E-2166/97, E-2176/97, E-2178/97, E-2180/97, E-2182/97 and E-2186/97 (28 October 1997)

As specified in Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )), an appropriate analysis should be able, if necessary, to demonstrate that certain characteristics of a novel food or food ingredient "are different in comparison with a conventional food or food ingredient, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics¨. It should also be noted that any arrangements for applying Article 8 will be adopted in accordance with the (Committee) procedure provided for in Article 13.

The questions are worded in such a way that it is difficult to identify the checks or monitoring to which the Honourable Member refers. The general provisions of Community legislation on the monitoring of foodstuffs are in any event applicable.

Regarding the assessments to be carried out under Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 258/97, the detailed arrangements, and notable the role of the Member States as regards the assessment bodies, are laid down in Article 4(3) and Article 6(2) to (4), supplemented, where Commission will publish recommendations concerning the scientifc aspects of the preparation of the initial assessment reports. These provisions are supplemented, where appropriate, by the relevant provisions of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )).

Regarding methods of analysis, it will be recalled that Article 4 of Directive 93/99/EEC ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )) provides that Member States shall ensure that the validation of methods of analysis used within the context of official control of foodstuffs complies whenever possible with certain criteria laid down in Directive 85/591/EEC ((OJ L 372, 31.12.1985. )) concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption.