ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2150/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Labelling information

What sort of information should the labelling provide, and in what form?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2148/97 and E-2150/97 (20 October 1997)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to reply to question 2112/97 and to note that Article 8 of Regulation 258/97 states how the labelling requirements, referred to in Article 7 (2) of the Regulation, will be established

Since the wording of the question does not allow the "Varieties directive¨ to be identified, it is not possible to indicate whether any amendment to it is envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Flights of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel from the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain

The 12 June issue of Sellafield Newsletter, produced by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), states that Carlisle airport in Cumbria has recently been used to transport mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel from the Sellafield complex 'to a customer in Europe'. According to BNFL, 'the transports involved a total of five flights and were all conducted in complete safety'.

Was the Commission given prior notice of these flights? Will it give details of any data which BNFL provided on the safety measures covering these flights?

What is the Commission's policy on the transport of MOX fuel in general?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

The transport of radioactive material is organised in accordance with the regulations of the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) and implemented, for air transport, by the technical instructions of the International civil aviation organisation (ICAO), in force in all Community Member States.

No specific notification had to be made to the Commission concerning air transport of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.

The policy of the Commission is to ensure that the rules applicable to international air transport of radioactive material are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: The Pintasilgo report

The 1996 report of the Committee of Wise Men 'For a Europe of Civic and Social Rights' is an important contribution towards the formulation of a European social policy adapted to our times which forms an integral part of an economic policy based on competitiveness and employment and endows the citizens of Europe with fundamental social rights.

Prominent among the raft of proposals contained in this report is the idea of a process of jointly drawing up a modern list of civic and social rights and obligations- an idea that maintains its validity and reforming potential beyond the contingencies of the IGC that has just been concluded in Amsterdam.

Drawing on budgetary appropriations provided with Parliament's support, the Commission has sponsored a series of debates throughout the Member States to publicize the report of the Committee of Wise Men.

Will the Commission provide:

1. detailed and comprehensive information on the debates that have been staged, the venues, the organizing bodies, the type of association involved, the number of participants and their socio-professional backgrounds, the typical profile of participants, the conclusions reached, if any, the number of copies of the report distributed and coverage in the local media;

2. information on the follow-up given to the report, both as regards new dissemination initiatives and any substantial impact its proposals may have had on EU social policy measures?

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

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it intends bringing out a publication concerning the various conferences organised in the Community in the first six months of 1997 to debate the report of the Comité des Sages.

This publication will contain the conclusions and main results of the debates.

The Commission will disseminate the publication widely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (10 June 1997)

Subject: Lobbyists and Staff Regulations

Is the Council aware that Parliament has amended its rules to say that registered lobbyists, when recruiting former officials of the institutions, shall comply with the provisions of the Staff Regulations. These regulations currently specify that former holders of sensitive posts may have to seek permission of the institutions to take up new jobs where they interact closely with the Parliament. I understand currently no posts are designated sensitive. Is this an admission of impotence or an omission of action? Can the Council confirm it will look at the matter and draw up a list of posts?

Answer (17 October 1997)

1. When they leave the service the attention of Council officials is drawn to their obligations under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations. Article 40 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations ("non-cumulation¨ rule) is also applied.

2. The Council has not so far drawn up a list of "sensitive¨ posts, for which holders would, for a period of three years after leaving the service, have to submit for Council approval a description of the duties or assignments they may be called upon to carry out.

3. In the light of the Honourable Member's question, the Council will consider the question of drawing up a list of the posts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2493/97 by Marilena Marin (UPE) to the Commission (9 July 1997)

Subject: Trans-European networks: changes to the Milan-Venice priority project (high-speed link)

Work on one of the 14 trans-European network priority projects, the Milan-Venice high-speed link, is progressing at a slow pace.

It is probably for this reason that the Bonifica company (FIAT group and IRI) has made arrangements for a feasibility study on routing high-speed trains from Milan through Bologna in order to make the connection between the above link and the 'Adriatic corridor' (the preliminary feasibility study on which was cofinanced by the European Union), thus 'bypassing' the major rail and intermodal terminal in Verona.

Would the Commission state:

1. whether this feasibility study has been brought to its notice?

2. whether it would agree that it is totally contrary to the guidelines adopted in Essen?

3. whether it was notified of this procedure?

4. what steps it intends to take with a view to ensuring that the priority projects are carried out as originally planned, without any changes, in accordance with the undertakings entered into by the Member States?

5. whether it would agree that no changes may be made to priority projects without the prior consent of the European Parliament, in accordance with the codecision procedure?

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

1. - 3. The Commission is not aware of the feasibility study mentioned by the Honourable Member and therefore cannot comment on it.

4. The Commission is fully committed to the implementation of the projects of common interest as identified in Decision 1962/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport (TEN-T) network ((OJ L 228, 9.9.1996. )). In the period 1991 to 1996 the Community has co-financed with about 40 MECU feasibility studies for the section Turin-Venice of the project Lyon-Trieste through the TEN-T budget line. The Commission keeps under review the implementation of the guidelines contained in Decision 1692/96/EC and will report to the Parliament on their implementation in accordance with Article 18(3) of the Decision.

5. The 14 projects adopted by the European Council at Essen on 9 and 10 December 1994 are listed in Annex III to the Decision 1692/96/EC. It is understood that any change to the annex as an integral part of the Decision has to follow the co-decision procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/97 by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Discriminatory age limits in the advertising of posts in EU institutions

In the EU employment debate the blame is very often laid at the door of the individual, mobility and lifelong learning being described as the panacea for unemployment. The EU institutions in particular should set an example in this context by refraining from the practice of imposing discriminatory age limits as a requirement for admission to the EU's service and taking suitable initiatives to create skilled jobs in the EU sphere for anyone, male or female, of any age.

1. Is it true that some notifications of vacant posts in the European institutions impose an age limit (Notification of Open Competition EUR/A/121 published by the Council of the European Union, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in OJ C 363 A, 3.12.1996)?

2. What objective arguments for the discriminatory exclusion of older people from working and professional life are advanced when, on the one hand, the people concerned still have 20 or more years of working life before them and, on the other hand, programmes for the integration of older people into the labour market indicate a different policy?

3. How is this inconsistency justified?

4. What suitable initiatives have been taken by the EU institutions to create skilled jobs in the EU sphere for anyone, male or female, of any age?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2556/97 and E-2720/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

In reply to questions 1, 2 and 3, the Commission confirms that there is an agreement between the Community institutions to apply a general age limit of 35 for admission to competitions for starting grades. There are several reasons for applying age limits, and they have virtually all been aired in the answers given to parliamentary questions.

Nevertheless, as indicated in the answer to Question E-1623/97 by Mr Alex Smith ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998. )), the Commission has started taking a more flexible approach to age limits for recruitment.

The Board of the Heads of Administrative Departments have begun preliminary talks with a view to adopting a common approach to be applied by all European institutions. Discussions will resume early in the autumn.

The question of age limits will be one of those to be assessed in the context of the future entry into force of Article 6a of the EC Treaty introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty, on non-discrimination on grounds inter alia of age, and of trends in this respect in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2156/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Labelling



Official Journal C 082 , 17/03/1998 P. 0037



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 June 1997) Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Labelling Is there any provision for involving national authorities, consumer associations and environmental groups etc. in making and discussing proposals before the form of labelling is finally agreed? Joint answer to Written Questions E-2154/97 and E-2156/97 (20 October 1997) Article 8 (3) of Regulation No 258/97, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189 b of the Treaty, stipulates how the detailed rules for labelling are to be drawn up, to be supplemented in accordance with Article 7 (2).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/97 by James Nicholson (I-EDN) to the Commission (3 July 1997)

Subject: Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC

A public inquiry was held recently which was concerned with a planning application to locate a thirteen million cubic metre capacity landfill waste disposal site adjacent to Larne Lough, Co. Antrim. The applicants indicated that substances listed under the Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC ((OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43. )) would be present in their estimate of potential discharge to the Lough. The objectors to the application expressed the view that the applicants had not considered the implications of the directive and the Northern Ireland implementing legislation.

How does the Commission view an application that, in the view of the objectors, has been prepared without due regard to the Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC?

Has the Commission any mechanism to review or scrutinize a decision made by the Northern Ireland statutory authorities in the event of planning permission being granted for the landfill site without due regard to EEC directives?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1997)

In response to the suggestion by the objectors that the planning application had been prepared without due regard to Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, the first matter which needs to be clarified is whether the application is in line with national legislation or guidelines on the matter. If it is not, then this should be taken up with the national authorities.

If, however, it is established that the application is in line with national legislation or guidelines on the matter but these are considered to incorrectly or insufficiently implement the relevant Directive, then - in answer to the second question - the Commission may register a complaint, leading to possible infringement proceedings against the Member State under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2643/97 by Inger Schörling (V) to the Commission (25 July 1997)

Subject: Contravention of meat export ban

The Commission has reported that the UK has contravened the beef export ban introduced to prevent the spread of BSE (mad cow disease). More than 1000 tonnes of beef are believed to have been sold illegally to a number of countries.

Consumer confidence in the EU's meat industry is, quite rightly, already very low, and reports of large-scale illegal exports are driving it even lower.

Are there no effective export controls? How can such a large quantity of meat escape official controls?

What steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, both to take legal action in respect of such a serious breach of the export ban and to ensure that it does not happen again?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2579/97, P-2642/97 and P-2643/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1997)

The matter to which the Honourable Member refers relates to a recently uncovered fraud, involving the redescription and recertification of frozen beef of British origin as coming from other Member States.

Investigations by the Commission, working very closely with the relevant Member State authorities, into the extent and implications of this fraud are currently in hand and have been reported to the Parliament on an interim basis. However, care is needed at this stage not to jeopardize the success of these investigations through the premature release of information on their findings.

Primary responsibility for controlling the health marking, certification and movement of such beef rests with the Member States concerned. Although frauds are extremely difficult to prevent completely, it has become clear from the Commission's investigations that there is a need to improve health controls at a national level so as to increase the level of detection and prevention of such illegal activity. In response to the shortfalls already identified by the Commission's inquiries, a formal letter requesting information has already been sent to the United Kingdom.

Investigations into the possible existence of other fraudulent meat movements are continuing, with a view to ensuring that a full picture is obtained and that all possible avenues are explored.

Following the results of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) parliamentary inquiry, the Commission transferred responsibility for veterinary control from the Directorate general for agriculture (DG VI) to the Directorate general for consumer policy and consumer health protection (DG XXIV).

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of prompt and vigorous action in response to this situation to ensure that a high level of protection for animal and public health is ensured and that consumer confidence is maintained. To this end, all Member States are being kept informed of progress in the investigation, so that a coordinated approach can be followed.

The Commission will ensure that the Parliament continues to be informed of developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Non-Proliferation Treaty

Following a resolution of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved on 15 May 1997 - with the full support of the European Union - a model protocol whose purpose is to reform and strengthen the IAEA safeguards in all non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) worldwide.

1. Has the Commission the intention to propose to the Council negotiating directives for a full implementation or only for a partial implementation of the model protocol in the NNWS of the Community, and what are the reasons for the proposed policy?

2. Since the model protocol involves beyond dispute the national non-proliferation competences of the Member States, will the Commission propose to the Council, for the negotiations with the IAEA and the subsequent implementation of the model protocol in the Community, negotiation and management procedures that will recognize the national non-proliferation competences of the Member States, or will the Commission on the contrary propose to negotiate and implement the protocol as if it were an exclusive Euratom-competence instrument?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1997)

1. The Commission submitted on 16 July 1997 negotiating directives to the Council under which the Commission proposes to negotiate with the relevant non-nuclear weapon Member States and the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) with a view to the conclusion, under Articles 101, paragraph 2 and 102 of the Euratom Treaty, of an additional protocol to the safeguards agreement between the Community's non-nuclear weapon Member States, the Community and the IAEA (INFCIRC/193). It is proposed that this protocol will be negotiated on the basis of the model protocol, which was adopted by the IAEA board of governors on 15 May 1997 as standard for the additional protocols designed for states having a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA in order to strengthen the effectiveness and to improve the efficiency of the safeguards system as a contribution to global nuclear non-proliferation objectives.

2. The Commission fully recognises the legal fact that several of the measures foreseen in the model protocol currently fall within the competence of Community Member States. This is clearly reflected in its proposal to negotiate the additional protocol together with Member States and to conclude the protocol under Article 102 of the Euratom Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/97 by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) to the Commission (29 July 1997)

Subject: Extension of education programmes to countries in Central and Eastern Europe

As from 1998 it is intended that the Socrates and Leonardo programmes should be extended to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that pupils and students from EU Member States taking part in programmes in Central and Eastern European countries have a command of those countries' languages?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1997)

The Decisions of the Association Councils laying down the arrangements for the participation of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe in the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth for Europe Programmes stipulate, in Article 2, that:

'Language preparation and training activities concern the official languages of the Community. In exceptional circumstances, other languages could be accepted if the implementation of the programmes so requires.'

This means that, as a general rule, the languages of the countries of central and eastern Europe are not considered to be priority languages or even target languages under these Programmes. However, as part of mobility and in order to ensure that exchanges can take place, courses in the language of the host country may be required for the pupils, students, teachers or young trainees who travel to the countries of central and eastern Europe.

In these special cases and when required for the implementation of the Programmes, the Decisions of the Association Councils allow for the possibility of funding language training measures. The Commission will carefully examine all substantiated needs in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/97 by Jyrki Otila (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Aid to the audiovisual sector

Since 1996, the EU's cultural policy has been based on four main programmes: Kaleidoscope, Ariane, Raphael and Media II. Media II is intended to promote the development of European audiovisual works and their dissemination inside and outside the European Union.

Why are radio programmes excluded from Media II? What will the Commission do to arrange for their inclusion in Media II in accordance with the above heading?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

The Council Decisions establishing the MEDIA II Programme (95/563/EEC) and 95/564/EEC) ((OJ L 321, 30.12.1995. )) clearly limit its scope to supporting European audio-visual works, that is programmes and films which make use of both sight and sound. This definition clearly excludes purely audio programmes.

As far as radio programmes are concerned, the Commission issues yearly calls for proposals aimed at supporting new radio initiatives on the basis of the budget line earmarked for this purpose by the Parliament. The latest call for proposals was published on 26 June 1997 with a closing date of 31 August 1997 ((OJ C 196, 26.6.1997. )).