ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1727/00

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Research into the dangers to the environment of a breach-of-containment accident at a number of nuclear plants

What research has been done by the Commission, Euratom or the Joint Research Centres on behalf of the Commission, into the dangers to the environment of a breach-of-containment accident at the high-activity liquor (HAL) storage tanks in operation respectively at:

(a) BNFL Sellafield,

(b) UKAEA Dounreay,

(c) Cogema La Hague,

(d) CEA Marcoûle,

(e) KFK Karlsruhe?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1726/00 and E-1727/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The high active liquor (HAL) storage facility at Sellafield has been in place since 1955. In connection with the incorporation of high level waste concentrate into glass in the Windscale vitrification plan (WVP) in 1990, a submission of general data under

Article 37 Euratom treaty for this plant was made in January 1990 and the Commission gave an opinion on this submission. The general data provided information on a reference accident which was the loss of cooling to the HAL feed vessel. It was concluded that in the event of an unplanned release of this type and magnitude the doses likely to be received by the population in Ireland, or any other Member State, would not be significant from the point of view of health. The updated review of safety of the storage of liquid high level waste at British Nuclear Fuel Limited (BNFL) Sellafield (HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, February 2000) does not provide information that would be cause for reconsideration of this assessment.

It is the responsibility of the respective Member States to require similar assessments to be carried out for the storage tanks in operation at United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Dounreay, Compagnie générale des matières nucléaires La Hague, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique Marcoule, and Forschungscentrum Karlsruhe, with regard to the potential exposure of members of the public and resulting health effects.

Bearing in mind that there are multiple containment layers, a breach of containment could nevertheless lead to significant levels of radioactivity in rivers or in the marine environment. It is thus appropriate to look into a possible detriment to the environment, in addition to man. The Commission has undertaken a research programme on effects on animal and plant life in the region and corresponding ecological detriment, and on the development of a rationale and methodology for setting standards of protection, with a view to establishing environmental quality standards. Such standards could then be applied to the assessment of the consequences of a major spillage of liquid radioactive wastes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Stage reached in the infringement proceedings opened against Spain for incorrect transposal of the directive on public works contracts

In early March the Commission announced its intention to allow the Spanish authorities two months in which to make good the irregularities that had led to the opening of infringement proceedings on the grounds of incorrect transposal of Directive 93/37/EC(1) on public works contracts. The proceedings were opened in connection with the procedure used to select the undertaking responsible for building a new prison in Segovia.

However, this move in fact calls into question the system used in Spain for the award of contracts to businesses which receive public funding a system which is used by many of the governments of the autonomous communities.

Given that the deadline set for the Spanish authorities has now expired and that no trace of any proceedings is to be found in the list of Spanish cases pending before the Court of Justice (as at 18 May 2000), can the Commission state whether it has actually referred the case to the Court and, if it has, what stage has been reached in the proceedings?

Furthermore, have the Spanish authorities submitted any further arguments, and, if so, what are those arguments?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission decided on 22 December 1999 to refer the matter concerning Spain to the Court of Justice, as part of infringement proceedings in connection with a call for tenders announced by the Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos Penitenciarios (Siepsa) to carry out works at the experimental training prison in Segovia.

The call for tenders, which was published in the national press but not in the Official Journal, was launched in violation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts. The Spanish authorities dispute

the application of this directive to Siepsa on the grounds that it is a public commercial company governed by private law. The fact remains that Siepsa is a contracting authority within the meaning of the Directive, inasmuch as it fulfils the conditions of Article 1 thereof, in particular the condition that it has been established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.

The Commission took the decision to refer the matter to the Court of Justice after Spain had replied on 22 November 1999 to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 25 August 1999, since the arguments put forward in the reply did not justify a change of opinion on the part of the Commission.

The application was recently submitted to the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1140/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Existing legislation is not consistent. The Commission says there is a need to review food legislation (section 64). Observers say that existing food legislation has largely been adopted in response to the single market. A review of legislation needs to be based on unambiguous principles.

Is the Commission prepared to draft a general EU foodstuffs law covering the entire food chain? If not, why, and on what grounds, does the Commission reject a general EU foodstuffs law? Otherwise, when can such a law come into being?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1952/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Cotton areas and quantities of cotton eligible and non-eligible for aid

According to the timetable published on the European Parliament's official Internet website, the debate on the new cotton regulation seems likely to be held on 4 September 2000, which means that it will not be possible to implement the new regulation during the 2000-2001 period.

Since the existing cotton regulation does not make any provision for restrictions on cotton-growing areas or for individual cultivation rights and all areas, and quantities are eligible for aid, provided they are declared and monitored:

1. What legal provisions form the basis of the decision by the Greek Ministry of Agriculture to determine the maximum area which each cotton grower is entitled to cultivate and declare and for whose produce alone he receives aid?

2. Will there be eligible and non-eligible cotton areas or volumes of production during the 2000-2001 period on the basis of the measures taken by Greece, even though no provision is made for such a measure in the present regulation?

3. What procedures will be used to hand over, and receive aid for, the produce of areas which the Greek Ministry of Agriculture considers non-eligible, invoking provisions of the new regulation which has not yet been debated and adopted by the EU institutions, even though this produce is entitled to aid under the existing regulation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

There is no provision in current Community legislation imposing restrictions on the area that may be put under cotton.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Body piercing: risks and information

The current obsession with body awareness is reflected in the potentially harmful fashion for body piercing among young people. In some EU countries the practice is regulated to ensure that health and safety standards are observed. Unless certain rules are followed concerning the materials used and the way in which the piercing of various parts of the body is carried out, followers of this fashion run serious risks, the most common of which are infection and hepatitis.

1. Can the Commission list the Union countries in which this practice is subject to regulation?

2. Could the Commission call on those countries which do not have such provisions to introduce them?

3. Does the Commission agree that it would be good idea to propose information campaigns in schools to highlight the dangers of body piercing and discourage young people from allowing such piercing to be carried out by unqualified people?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

At the moment there are no Community regulations covering the practice of body piercing as such. However, European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EEC of 30 June 1994 amending for the twelfth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(1), which recently entered into force, prohibits the use of nickel for body piercing. This is important, as 15 % of women in the Community are now sensitised to nickel, and this is partly attributed to its use in body piercing.

The Commission does not know of any specific regulations applied by Member States in this field. It will carry out a survey on this subject among the Member States in order to establish whether Community initiatives in this field are justified and necessary, and what form they could take. It will inform the Honourable Member of the results of this survey.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Milk for confectionery

Are there any restrictions in operation within the Community on the use of EU milk for confectionery?

What is the legal situation of any company attempting to specify to producers the country/countries within the EU from which such milk must originate before they will purchase the confectionery?

Answer by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The use in confectionery of milk produced within the Community is not subject to any restrictions in the Community.

In general, Community law does not prevent a company purchasing milk-based confectionery from specifying to producers the Member State(s) from which the milk used must originate.

Furthermore, in case of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, it may be provided in the specifications of the protected name that the milk must originate from a given geographical region.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Alyssandrakis report on space policy

This report, adopted in the European Parliament on 18 May 2000, calls on the European Commission to organise a conference of the space powers, namely the European Union, Russia, USA, Japan and China, to discuss cooperation on the development of launch vehicles and the creation of a GSSP.

Is the Commission planning to respond to Parliament's call? If so, when approximately is it planned?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The questions of future launcher development and the provision of a global stationary satellite position (GSSP) do not form a part of the present Commission work programme. These subjects are currently dealt with adequately by the Member States.

The Commission is currently preparing a European strategy for space, together with the executive of the European Space Agency, in response to the request by Council (2 December 1999). A communication on the strategy will be presented to Council and Parliament before the end of this year.

These questions will be considered as part of the strategy and further discussions in that context will determine the Commission's role, if any, in the subject matter raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1101/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Food safety and probiotics in poultry

In the last two years, a major project carried out at Leahurst Veterinary Field Station, University of Liverpool, has shown that it is possible to reduce significantly the major pathogens of concern to humans by making use of the probiotic product, Protexin. This work was partly funded by the Commission through the UK Department of Trade and Industry.

At the moment, the Commission cannot look into the effects of Protexin because of its judgment that probiotic poducts should not contain more than two strains of micro-organisms.

Would the Commission be able to reconsider this rule in the interests of not ruling out, without due investigation, the potential benefits of probiotic products containing more than two strains of micro-organisms?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970, concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1) requires that a Community authorisation be granted prior to the use and marketing of an additive in feedingstuffs.

The Protexin dossiers were first evaluated under Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993, concerning the use and marketing of enzymes and micro-organisms in animal nutrition(2). The objective of the Directive was to list the enzyme and micro-organism products which were used in the Member States with no formal approval, to evaluate the corresponding dossiers and to authorise those products which complied with the requirements of Directive 70/524/EEC and of Council Directive 87/153/EEC of 16 February 1987, fixing guidelines for the assessment of additives in animal nutrition(3), last amended by Commission Directive 94/40/EC of 22 July 1994(4).

The Protexin dossiers were evaluated in the course of 1996. According to the group of national experts in charge of the assessment, none of the 9 Protexin products complied with the prerequisites of Articles 2 and 7 of Directive 70/524/EEC and none of the dossiers followed the requirements of Directive 87/153/EEC. The members of the standing committee for animal nutrition formally endorsed the conclusions of the group of experts on 6 May 1997.

Assuming the sponsoring company prepares a Protexin dossier which complies with Council Directive 70/524/CEE, last amended by Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996(5), and which demonstrates a beneficial effect on animal production or on animal products, the dossier will be evaluated on its own merits, provided it is submitted to the Commission and the Member States according to the provisions of Article 4, paragraph 1 and 2 of Directive 96/51/EC.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.2.1970.

(2) OJ L 334, 31.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 64, 7.3.1987.

(4) OJ L 208, 11.8.1994.

(5) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1505/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system

Council Directive 96/48/EC(1) of 23 July 1996 on interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system established that the deadline for transposition would be 8 April 1999.

Would the Commission please indicated the countries which have not yet incorporated it in their legislation?

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system provides that Member States shall amend and adopt their laws, regulations and administrative provisions so as to authorise the use of interoperability constituents and the putting into service and operation of subsystems which comply with this Directive no later than 30 months after entry into force of this Directive.

The Directive should therefore have been transposed by 8 April 1999.

To date, four Member States (Denmark, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands) have notified measures incorporating the Directive into national law. Infringement proceedings have been brought against the Member States which have not transposed the Directive, as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/00

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Frequency of accidents among novice drivers

It is a well-known fact, and statistics (at least in Germany) bear this out, that freshly qualified drivers are involved in a disproportionately high proportion of road accidents. In 1999 18 to 29 year-olds accounted for 26 % and 25 %, respectively, of all car occupants killed or injured in accidents (Source: Federal Statistics Office data for 1999).

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Do comparable statistics exist for the whole of the EU?

2. If so, what is the proportion of young drivers killed or injured in the EU as a whole?

3. Does the Commission see any need to take action in order to remedy this state of affairs or reverse this trend?

4. What measures could be taken at EU level in order to reduce the proportioned number of freshly qualified drivers involved in accidents?

5. Could it envisage limiting the maximum engine power for novice drivers to 50 h.p. as a possible measure (similar to the restriction on the c.c. size for young motorcycle drivers in Germany)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

1. Equivalent data is available at Community level (although 1999 data has not yet been processed) using the CARE accident statistic database (Council Decision 93/704/EC of 30 November 1993 on the creation of a Community database on road accidents(1)).

2. For recent years the average number of young drivers (18-29) killed in road accidents in the other 14 Member States, as a proportion of vehicle occupants is 24 %. The number of young drivers (18-29) killed as a proportion of all car drivers killed in accidents is 38 %.

3. and 4. The Commission is concerned about road safety. In April 1997 it issued a communication on road safety(2) which proposed an action programme of measures for the period 1997-2001. The Commission has also adopted on 17 March 2000 a progress report(3) which gives a prioritisation, based on a cost effectiveness analysis, of measures to be undertaken during the remainder of the action programme. The priority measures identified are: EuroNCAP (vehicle crash testing); seat belts and child restraint use; alcohol use; speed limiters for light vehicles; black spot management; and safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition five more measures merit more research: medical standards for driving licences; testing for driving licences; daytime running lights; the effects of medicines on driver behaviour; and post accident care. Lastly three measures were identified as providing valuable support and back-up: the CARE database; an integrated information system; and research into vehicle standards and telematics.

5. The Commission has no plans to suggest power or output limits for vehicles driven by young or novice drivers.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2) COM(97) 131 final.

(3) COM(2000) 125 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1416/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: The Telecom Italia Mobile company

The Telecom Italia company is regularly quoted on the stock exchange and subject to the rules governing private companies.

However, the company of which it is an offshoot, SIP, was a public company enjoying a monopoly position.

The agreement reached between certain trade unions and the telecom company involves direct intervention by the Italian State, which meets certain costs. There are other companies in Italy operating in the same market sector as Telecom Italia and which do not enjoy the same economic assistance.

Does the Commission not consider therefore that the agreement to make unemployment assistance available to Telecom Italia will distort the market to the detriment of other operators and does it not agree that the restructuring should not be financed with public funds to the detriment of new operators who already have to come to terms with a market that was previously a monopoly and are now seeing Telecom Italia given special treatment in the shape of a reorganisation that is of no benefit to the community at large?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any financial interventions by the state in favour of Telecom Italia related to the financing of part of the costs of the undertaking's restructuring plan.

The availability of social security support measures, such as anticipated pensioning or other unemployment schemes is not exclusively destined to Telecom and, as a matter of principle, is open to all undertakings having significant number of excess personnel. In this sense, it does not constitute a discriminatory measure in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty.