ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0671/97 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (26 February 1997)

Subject: Euratom Loans for the upgrading of units 5 and 6 and Kozloduy nuclear power plant

1. Can the Commission confirm that it is in the process of evaluating a loan for the upgrading of units 5 and 6 at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria? If so, which European firms will be involved, what is the total cost of the project and how much will the Commission be funding?

2. What other Euratom loans is the Commission preparing?

3. Is the loan part of a programme to close units 1-4 at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, as laid out in the Nuclear Safety Account agreement of 1994 which agreed the closure of unit 1-4 by 2000?

4. Will the Commission insist that the NSA agreed time-scale for closing units 1-4 is written into all legal and binding agreements should the Commission proceed with the Euratom loan?

5. Will the Commission insist that the Bulgarian authorities organize an environmental impact assessment and public participation process for this project prior to the Commission's approval of the financing?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

The Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania (NEK) has decided to award the contract for the bulk of work involved in upgrading units 5 and 6 at the Kozloduy nuclear power plant to the Kozloduy European consortium, which comprises Siemens, Framatome and Atomenergoexport. The Bulgarian Energy Minister has asked the Commission to contribute via a Euratom loan to the financing of 50% of the project, the total cost of which has been estimated by NEK at some ECU 220 million.

The request is being examined by the Commission, which has not received any other requests for Euratom loans from Bulgaria.

The agreement on the Nuclear Safety Account, which is administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, provides for certain investments that will permit the gradual closure of units 1 to 4, including the upgrading of units 5 and 6, completion of the Chaira pumping station and improvements to three urban heating plants. The Commission attaches major importance to the earliest possible implementation of the agreement. Any involvement on the part of Euratom will take place in this context.

The Commission will also assess all the particulars of the matter before deciding whether to grant a Euratom loan and before adopting the detailed arrangements.

Units 5 and 6 came on stream in 1987 and 1991 respectively. An environmental study has been carried out by the Bulgarian authorities. An environmental impact assessment of the project will be conducted as part of the examination of the application for a Euratom loan for upgrading these units.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0386/97 by Per Stenmarck (PPE) to the Council (6 February 1997)

Subject: The safety of ferry passengers

The safety of ferry passengers is of paramount importance, as has been stressed in recent years, not least owing to the large number of disasters involving ferries that have occurred in EU waters.

When the Commission proposal for increased safety standards for non-SOLAS vessels was submitted to Parliament, I was anxious, as the rapporteur responsible, to steer the proposal through to the decision stage as quickly as possible. The aim was to ensure that these rules became law in all Member States as soon as possible.

Parliament delivered an almost unanimous opinion in September 1996. Four months have since elapsed. For every month that passes, the risk grows that it will become more difficult to finally transpose the rules in the national laws of all Member States.

Is the Council prepared to submit its proposal on this subject to Parliament as soon as possible?

Answer (5 June 1997)

The Council hopes that it will soon be in a position to forward to the European Parliament its common position on the Directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships. The Council attaches great importance to the Commission proposal but would point out that it has taken some time to finalize its common position on this matter in view of the size and highly technical nature of the Annex and the difficulty of updating the text in the various official languages of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/97 by Stanislaw Tillich (PPE) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Award of Jean Monnet chairs

Can the Commission provide a list of the Jean Monnet chairs awarded in 1996, with details of the universities and subjects concerned?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: Farmers in Holland

Will the Commission say how many farmers there are in Holland and how many people are directly employed in agriculture in that country at the present time?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0989/97, E-0990/97, E-0991/97, E-0992/97, E-0993/97, E-0994/97, E-0995/97, E-0996/97, E-0997/97, E-0998/97, E-0999/97, E-1000/97, E-1001/97, E-1002/97 and E-1003/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

Survey on the structure of farms

>TABLE>

Source: Eurostat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1333/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Subsidies and grants to UK farmers

Can the Commission detail for the last financial year available

1. the type of grants and subsidies paid to UK farmers and

2. the amount for each heading?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1089/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Duty-free sales

The Council agreed in 1992 to abolish duty-free sales by 30 June 1999 in conjunction with approval of the Excise Duties Directive. In 1991, prior to this decision, Parliament requested that the Commission attach a 'fiche d'ìmpact'to the decision to abolish duty-free sales. To date, no 'fiche d'impact' has been completed. Numerous independent studies indicate that the elimination of duty-free sales will have large economic and employment impact on the industry.

Will the Commission be producing a 'fiche d'impact' on duty-free sales and, if so, when will it be completed? If not, could it explain why it is not producing a 'fiche d'impact', since the decision to abolish duty-free sales does have 'significant impact' on a particular industry? The word significant implies the need for a 'fiche d'impact' under current internal Commission rules.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

The Commission can only confirm its answers to questions E-3061/96 ((OJ C 138, 5.5.1997. )) and 0-44/97 ((Debates of the European Parliament No (February 1997). )) by Mr Stenmarck on the same subject.

It does not call into question the Council's decision, which provides for the abolition of tax-free sales within the EU as from 30 June 1999.

It is not planning to carry out any study on the effects of such abolition.

The Commission regrets that the sector of the economy concerned has not so far made use of the period allowed by the Council to develop a strategy for adjusting to the abolition of the tax concession involved in such sales, despite the fact that the Council decision was clearly irreversible and that five years have already elapsed since it was adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1066/97 by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Rice imports from overseas countries and territories

The volume of EU rice imports from the ACP countries, which have transited duty-free and without any quantitative restrictions through Overseas Countries and Territories rose from 58 000 tonnes in 1992 to 365 000 in 1996, thereby causing considerable disruption of the Community market. The Commission has adopted safeguard provisions, which were then approved by the Council but are, by nature, transitional measures.

Does the Council consider these import arrangements to be compatible with the CAP principle, which guarantee Community preference for agricultural products?

Answer (2 July 1997)

The Council would point out that rice has been imported from the overseas countries and territories (OCT) in accordance with the Council Decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community ((Decision No 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991, OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1. )).

However, because of the volume of these imports at the end of 1996, the Spanish and Italian Governments drew the Commission's attention to the fact that there were serious disturbances in the Community's rice sector and to the risk of a considerable deterioration in this sector of economic activity as a result of increasing imports of low-priced rice originating in the OCT.

To deal with this disturbed situation in the Community rice market, the Commission adopted in January 1997 a Regualtion introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the OCt ((Regulation (EC) No 21/97 of 8 January 1997, OJ L 5, 9.1.1997, p. 24. )). Subject to an adjustment of the amounts specified for Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands, these measures were confirmed by the Council in February 1997 ((Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of 17 February 1997, OJ L 51, 21.2.1997, p. 1. )).

The safeguard measures were introduced for a limited period. Before this expires, it is intended that an evaluation should be made of the situation to determine whether the measures need to be extended or adjusted.

If the Council were again called upon to take a decision on this matter, it would take account of all the factors involved, including the need to protect the interests of Community producers and to honour the obligations arising from the Decision on the association of the OCT with the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1459/97 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (28 April 1997)

Subject: Recognition of third country diplomas

1. Is it correct that recognition of third country diplomas in the European Union is a matter for national discretion and that there is no European directive thereon? Is it also correct that recognition of a diploma in one EU Member State does not mean that other EU Member States are also bound to recognise that diploma? If so, what is the basis for the freedom from that obligation?

2. Are there any special rules applying to pharmacists for the recognition of diplomas obtained in third countries? Do different arrangements apply depending on the third country involved?

3. Is the Commission aware of any cases hitherto in which a national of an EU Member State has had his/her freedom of movement restricted because only one Member State of the Union recognized his/her third country diploma? If so, what are the judgments of the Court of Justice in those cases?

4. Is freedom of movement within the Union guaranteed only if it can be proved that diplomas or other qualifications were obtained in the EU? Is such a restriction of freedom of movement logical in relation to people who are nationals of an EU Member State but obtained their educational qualifications in a third country, which are then only recognized by one Member State of the Union?

5. Is the principle of trust on which the general directive on recognition, EEC/92/51 ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25. )), is based not to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must accept the classification of courses of study established by another Member State even where the courses involved are those of third countries?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 June 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Reforms to the current COM in dairy products

With reference to the forthcoming reform of the COM in dairy products, does the Commission consider the current system of national dairy quotas to be sound?

In the Commission's view, is there any possibility of establishing a Community dairy quota which could be allocated to countries whose quota falls short of their consumption level?

Is the Commission prepared to reform the COM without creating sectoral tensions?

Does the Commission see any possibility of a linear increase in national dairy quotas or does it prefer to revise each national quota in relation to consumption?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

Each Member State's quota was fixed on the basis of its existing production. Any other allocation criterion, particularly population or national consumption, would either have made it impossible to reach an agreement on the scheme or would have resulted in the fixing of such a large overall quantity for the Community that the scheme could not have achieved its objectives of keeping budgetary expenditure within affordable limits and controlling greatly surplus milk production.

The Commission is currently studying developments on the market in milk and milk products. Its analysis will be disseminated shortly, so that all interested parties can take part in the discussion which will lead, in due course, to the Council deciding on the policies to be followed in the coming years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Olive oil aid and quality

With regard to the planned reform of the COM in olive oil, why does the Commission not accept that unit aid per tree discourages quality production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

On 12 February 1997 the Commission adopted a document on olive oil ((COM(97) 57. )) describing the current market organization, explaining the need for reform and proposing various options, including the one based on aid per tree.

As far as quality is concerned, the current market organization does not provide for any specific commercial incentives and aid is currently granted irrespective of the quality of the oil produced. This is why the Commission adopted specific measures to encourage the quality of production by means of 'quality improvement programmes' as well as introducing a rigorous policy of compliance with the different classes of olive oil and their specific properties by laying down physicochemical parameters.

Whatever the option finally selected, the Commission intends to continue developing the quality policy followed until now by improving the use of available funds and avoiding the current under-utilization as much as possible.

The Commission believes that aid per tree does not necessarily discourage quality oil production for two main reasons. The Commission will introduce the mechanisms needed to ensure that this aid does not lead to the abandonment of olive-growing and that the oil actually marketed is of the quality sought by consumers. Aid of this type, which is not based on production, should result in a scale of olive harvest and marketing of oil which will maintain olive growers' incomes at current levels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Transport of nuclear waste from Germany to Turkey

The Turkish press recently gave wide coverage to statements by the former President of the Turkish Atomic Energy Commission concerning the burial of 1 150 tonnes of nuclear waste from Germany in the region of Isparta and the incineration of a further 800 tonnes in a flour mill in the prefecture of Konya.

This is an enormous problem for Turkey itself, but undoubtedly also concerns Turkey's neighbours which have to endure so much owing to its indifference which endangers the environment.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this matter and how it intends finally to prevail upon Turkey to refrain from actions which endanger the health of millions of inhabitants both within and outside its territory, since Turkey's effrontery is clearly growing in the absence of any practical or unambiguous reaction from the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1997)

The Commission has no information about the alleged intended burial of 1150 tonnes of nuclear waste in the region of Isparta in Turkey and the incineration of 800 tonnes of nuclear waste in the Konya region of this country.

Any shipment of radioactive waste into and out of the Community is subject to the provisions of Council Directive 92/3/Euratom ((OJ L 35, 12.2.1992. )). This Directive requires prior to shipment authorisation by the authorities of the Member States of origin, of transit and of destination. Furthermore, for a shipment to a third country, the authorities of the Member State of origin have the obligation to provide evidence that the receiving country has the resources to manage the radioactive waste safely.

The Commission has no indication that procedures in line with the Directive have been initiated in view of the alleged shipments to Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1721/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Sightings of UFOs in East Kent

Is the Commission aware of reports in both the Folkestone Herald and Adscene in early March, concerning sightings of unidentified flying objects in the Donkey Street area of Burmarsh, close to the home of Michael Howard MP and the ruins of Lympne Castle?

Eye witnesses described the objects as triangular shaped crafts ringed with bright lights.

I am concerned at possible danger to Mr Howard and Lympne Castle and anxious to ensure that these well-known ruins are protected from hazards of unknown origin.

Does the Commission have any evidence of extra-terrestrial activity in this area or in the English Channel?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1624/97, E-1625/97 and E-1721/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1997)

In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1289/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Set-aside of agricultural land

1. What is the total amount of agricultural land, by percentage of the whole and in hectares, set aside in the EU at present?

2. What is the total amount of agricultural land, by percentage of the whole and in hectares, set aside in the UK at present?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

The Honourable Member will find below the information requested for the marketing year 1995/1996:

>TABLE>

The total set-aside area includes areas set-aside under Regulation (EC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992. )), whether rotational, non-rotational or voluntary, and the 5-year set-aside scheme covered by Regulation (EC) No 2328/91 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991. )).

Total COP area includes all areas supported under Regulation (EC) No 1765/92, (cereals, oilseeds, proteins, non-textile linseed and set-aside), 5 years set-aside and fodder areas declared under Regulation (EC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal ((OJ L 148, 28.6.1968. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0281/97 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Summer time

Since 1980 the Commission has been responsible for harmonizing the beginning and end of summer time in the Member States which apply this system. It has repeatedly explained that the decision whether or not to implement the summer time arrangements does not fall within its powers but within those of each Member State.

Recently the French delegation to the Council announced its intention to go back on the summer time system applied in France.

An expert opinion from the Council states that, in that event, France would be disregarding compulsory provisions on summer time.

Will the Commission state whether it is maintaining its traditional interpretation of summer time arrangements, i.e. that the decision whether or not to apply them lies solely with each Member State and that its responsibility is merely to harmonize the beginning and end of the summer time period?

Will the Commission state what progress has been made with surveys on the impact of summer time on men and women in the European Union and on socio-economic activities as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1997)

While the main purpose of the Community directive concerning summer time arrangements is to harmonize the time-table of the summer time period to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and European citizens, the fact is that all Member States have been applying a summer time regime for at least 16 years since the first directive of 1980.

At the end of the seventies, following the initiative taken - particularly by France - Member States expressed themselves in favour of the introduction of a common summer-time system. The unanimous and repeated expression by Member States in favour of the system have been progressively reflected by the wording of the directives. The directive that is currently in force (the 7th directive) recognises this in its second recital: 'whereas, given that Member States apply summer time arrangements, it is important for the functioning of the internal market that a common date and time for the beginning and end of the summer time period should be fixed throughout the Community from 1995 onwards'. Both Council and Commission currently give a binding interpretation of this directive for the introduction of the system and the application of the harmonized time-table as set by the directive. The same applies to the proposal for an 8th directive ((COM(96) 106. )).

Finally, in 1995, and in line with its commitment, the Commission carried out a study of the application of summer time, with a final report sent to all Community institutions and representative bodies of the various sectors considered in the study. The main conclusions of the study are stated in the Commission report attached to the proposal for an 8th directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/97 by Stanislaw Tillich (PPE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Financial support for Saxony during the period 1994-1996

1. Can the Commission state what amounts of money flowed into what projects in Saxony, divided up into those under programmes or funds requiring the provision of matching funds from regional, Federal or local budgets and those under programmes on funds which do not need to activate any matching funds from public sector budgets in order to be paid.

2. What level of EU funds has Saxony called upon in comparison to all other Federal Länder?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: Farmers in Germany

Will the Commission say how many farmers there are in Germany and how many people are directly employed in agriculture in that country at the present time?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0989/97, E-0990/97, E-0991/97, E-0992/97, E-0993/97, E-0994/97, E-0995/97, E-0996/97, E-0997/97, E-0998/97, E-0999/97, E-1000/97, E-1001/97, E-1002/97 and E-1003/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

Survey on the structure of farms

>TABLE>

Source: Eurostat.