ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2286/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Genetically modified colza

On Monday June 9 the Commission approved a genetically modified herbicide-resistant colza for market release. The herbicide-resistant colza was manufactured by the Belgian company Plant Genetic System.

What studies, if any, were carried out on behalf of the Commission to assess the health and environmental consequences of releasing this genetically modified organism? On what grounds did the Commission decide not to follow the precautionary principle in this case?

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

On 6 June 1997 the Commission adopted two decisions concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified hybrid swede rape seeds notified by the company Plant Genetic Systems (PGS) ((OJ L 164, 21.6.1997. )).

Following the adoption of these decisions, consents will be granted by France allowing the placing on the market of these products so that they can be used like any other traditionally bred swede rape. The placing on the market of food and food ingredients containing, consisting of or derived from the genetically modified organisms in question falls under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 on novel food and novel food ingredients ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )).

In line with the precautionary principle on which Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) is based, the applicant provided all the necessary data and information to assess the potential impact on human health and the environment of the release of the products in question. The dossier submitted included studies on the seed germination ability of the transgenic B94-2 oilseed rape line, the response of transgenic spring oilseed rape lines to agronomic inputs, monitoring residual effects in previous transgenic oilseed rape field trials, detailed observations of insects foraging transgenic PGS oilseed rape plants, an oilseed rape seed digestion experiment, the oilseed rape seed quality analysis of B94-2, a detailed oil and cake characterization of a benchtop processed transgenic oilseed rape hybrid, the detailed oilseed rape seed analysis of transgenic and non-transgenic oilseed rape, a phospho amino transfers (PAT) essay carried out on oilfree transgenic oilseed rape seeds, and the consumption of honey produced by honey bees foraging on transgenic oilseed rape.

The two decisions were adopted following a favourable opinion by qualified majority from the regulatory committee established under Directive 90/220/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Demonstration methods

In order to distinguish a genetically engineered product from a product which is not genetically engineered, will only the proof of the protein created by the new gene be used?

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 No. 2184/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Further development of demonstration methods



Official Journal C 082 , 17/03/1998 P. 0041



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2184/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997) Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Further development of demonstration methods What efforts are the Institutions of the EU making to facilitate further development of demonstration methods? Answer (28 october 1997) The Council has no specific powers in this connection and has not been informed of the intentions of the other Institutions, and in particular of the European Parliament, in this area, leaving aside the Commission's responsibilities pursuant to Regulation No 258797 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Prospects held out by the extraordinary European Council on employment

Is it to be hoped that the extraordinary European Council on employment will achieve greater progress than the Essen or Madrid European Councils?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2547/97, E-2548/97 and E-2549/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997)

The inclusion of an employment title in the Treaty of Amsterdam places employment as a priority issue for the Union on an equal footing with monetary and fiscal objectives. While primary responsibility for employment policy remains with each Member State, employment is now considered as an issue of common concern, which requires a coordination of policies at European level.

The new Treaty also requires that employment be taken into account in all Community policies. This means that there will be an explicit assessment of the employment impact in the design and implementation of all policy actions.

The convening of an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in November 1997 indicates the degree of commitment of the Member States to immediate implementation of the provisions of the new Treaty. The meeting is expected to focus on three issues: first an assessment of the employment situation and progress made in the implementation of the European employment strategy, second, an examination of the manner in which each Member State intends to implement the provisions of the Treaty, and identification of national best practice in combatting unemployment and marginalization, and third, the definition of operational targets for national employment policies of the initial guidelines on employment which the Commission will propose to Member States.

Once ratified by all the Member States article 5 of the employment title will allow the Council to adopt incentive measures to encourage cooperation between Member States, and support their action through initiatives aimed at developing exchanges of experience and best practice.

The conclusions of the Presidency as well as the resolution on growth and employment adopted at Amsterdam contain a political commitment for an early implementation of these provisions. The Commission will do everything that is necessary to make this possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2581/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Forcible importation into Europe of US meat containing hormones

Can the Commission say what the current situation is as regards the United States' insistent and threatening requests to import into Europe meat produced from cattle which have been treated with hormones?

Not least because of the opinion of its Scientific Committees the European Union has so far been opposed to these requests, but now the World Trade Organization (WTO) has declared European opposition to be 'contrary to the rules of international free trade'.

Can the Commission say whether and, if so, how the European Union will continue to uphold its belief that the use of hormones in stock breeding, as practised in the United States, is seriously harmful to human health?

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

On 30 June 1997, the World trade organisation (WTO) panel notified the parties of its final reports on hormones meat. Effectively, the panel reports find violation of three provisions of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement by the Community directives prohibiting the use of hormones for animal growth promotion. A decision has been taken to appeal from the panel's reports. Until there is a definitive ruling on this matter under the WTO dispute settlement process (probably not before November 1997), it is not possible to indicate what course of action might be open to the Community. If the panel's conclusions are upheld by the appellate body of the WTO, the Community will still have a 'reasonable period' to decide its options.

The Commission will continue to invoke the precautionary principle in support of its claims and to defend the position that the Community's right to decide what level of sanitary protection it deems appropriate for its citizens be fully recognised by the SPS Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2464/97 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (8 July 1997)

Subject: Rules on public contracts

There appear to be problems of interpretation and a need for clarification in regard to Directives 92/50 ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1. )), 93/36 ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1. )) and 93/37 ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54. )) concerning the award of public contracts.

To what extent do the rules governing the award of public contracts also cover the public authorities' use of financial services? At present, the Member States interpret these rules differently. Italy, for example, does not apply the rules in this area, whereas Denmark takes the view that they do apply in this respect.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1997)

Community rules on public procurement do, as a starting point, cover the use of financial services by the public sector. In fact, in its Annex I A Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )) mentions 'Financial services', which category explicitly includes both a) insurance services and b) banking and investment services. Regarding banking and investment services, Article 1(a)(vii) excludes 'contracts for financial services in connection with the issue, sale, purchase or transfer of securities or other financial instruments, and central bank services' from the scope of the Directive.

Regarding loans in particular, the Commission is of the opinion that a loan which is not issued in the form of a negotiable security on the capital market is not comparable to a transferable instrument and, as such, is not excluded from the scope of Article 1(a)(vii) of Directive 92/50/EEC, unless it is floated by a central bank.

It is, however, correct that the application of Directive 92/50/EEC to financial services is subject to differing interpretations in various Member States. In order to ensure uniform interpretation of these provisions within the Community which, as the Honourable Member states, is essential, the Commission has taken the initiative to have this issue examined in the advisory committee for public contracts, in which all Member States are represented. To that end, a working document, prepared by the Commission, has been discussed and a written contribution requested from each Member State. Hitherto, only six Member States - Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom - have contributed. It is nevertheless expected that the issue will be settled in a forthcoming meeting of the advisory committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2877/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Coherence of Commission policies with Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers

Can the Commission confirm that the Danish baby food company, MILCO, violated the WHO Code of 1981 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in its operations in Bangladesh, and, as a consequence, has acted inconsistently with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers ((OJ C 172, 8.7.1992, p. 1. ))?

Is it the case that the Commission offers tax rebates to companies such as MILCO, promoting breastmilk substitutes outside the EU, even when these activities are in breach of the WHO Code of 1981 and the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992?

If so, does the Commission not agree that its approach is wholly inconsistent with the International Code and the Council Resolution, and that these tax rebates should be immediately stopped?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

The Commission, in line with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992, has instructed its delegations in third countries to serve as contact points for the authorities in order that any complaints or criticisms with respect to the marketing practices of a manufacturer based in the Community could be notified to them. No such complaints have been received to date from Bangladesh. The Commission therefore cannot confirm any statements or reports of inappropriate marketing practices by Community-based companies in this country.

Further the Commission would stress that in the absence of any such complaint on the subject, the case evoked by the Honourable Member in the second part of her question is not applicable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Publication of Amsterdam Treaty in the Official Journal

The Maastricht Treaty was signed on 7 February 1992. Publication of the integrated text of the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Rome was not in the Official Journal until 31 August 1992 (ref. C 224). This integrated text showed the changes arising from Maastricht in bold italic type. It was 'user-friendly'.

During this delay of 6 months, Ireland and Denmark held referenda. As a result of the delayed publication of the integrated text, citizens of those Member States were not as well informed as they should have been. Nor were national parliaments.

When does the Commission propose to publish in the OJ the full integrated texts of the Treaties following Amsterdam?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

The consolidated version of the Treaty will be published in the Official Journal on 3 November.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2304/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (3 July 1997)

Subject: Better provision of information concerning programmes and pilot schemes

It has recently been reported in the press that the Premià de Mar (Catalonia, Spain) local council has installed photovoltaic street lighting, although it was apparently unaware of the EU's alternative energy promotion programmes. This example could be followed by many local councils if the Commission provided more information about its programmes to a wider audience.

What action is the Commission planning to take to encourage the use of alternative energy sources in order to achieve the objective called for by Parliament, whereby alternative sources would account for 15% of energy use by 2010?

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

The Commission is following several lines of action to promote renewable energies.

Regarding the case evoked by the Honourable Member, several instruments devised to disseminate information on Community programmes and renewable energy technologies are operating nationally and at regional level in Catalonia:

- the OPET (Organisations for the Promotion of Energy Technology) network, which includes the IDAE (Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía) and the ICAEN (Institut Català d'Energia);

- the EnR (national energy agencies) network, which includes the IDAE;

- FEDERANE (Federation of regional energy agencies), which includes the ICAEN.

Catalonia also has a number of urban energy agencies which obtained Community support in setting themselves up, including Maresme and the City of Barcelona.

The Commission also considers that the dissemination of information needs to be stepped up and improved, and to that end has already begun work to develop a global information strategy for renewable energies. More specifically, in response to Parliament's resolution on the Green Paper on renewable source of energy ((Doc COM(96) 576. )), it has already started working towards setting up a single centre for the gathering and dissemination of information on renewable energy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2194/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Recording the origins of novel food products

Are manufacturing firms obliged, as part of quality control, to keep a record of the origin of all ingredients used in food production and, where required, to forward such records to the authorities?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2188/97, E-2190/97 and E-2194/97 (28 October 1997)

Article 4(4) of the Regulation cited by the Honourable Member, with any supplements adopted in accordance with paragraph 5 or, where applicable, Article 3(4) or Article 9(1) of the Regulation, covers the information to be supplied in support of a request for the placing of products on the market.

This information does not prejudge implementation of the assessment procedures by the assessment bodies referred to in Article 4(3) of that Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Protection of dwellings near the mediaeval walls of Thessaloniki

With aid from the European Union, Thessaloniki municipal authorities are undertaking a series of town-planning projects in the upper city of Thessaloniki: these include the demolition of refugee dwellings bordering on the mediaeval walls, which, according to UNESCO's international list (No 456), constitute part of the world heritage. These buildings which are linked to the history of the City since the Byzantine period are being demolished to make way for roads running parallel to the walls and parking places.

The Academic Staff of the University of Thessaloniki's Faculty of Architecture and local inhabitants are protesting about this, and the Greek section of ICOMOS has addressed a letter to Thessaloniki municipal authorities stressing that the Granada Convention and the Charter of Venice provide that 'alongside the protected cultural heritage monument or artefact the natural and urban environment must also be protected'.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to intervene to ensure that, in addition to the walls which are protected as part of the cultural heritage, local dwellings which constitute the natural environment of the walls in the historical fabric of the upper city of Thessaloniki are also protected?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1997)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that under Article 128 of the EC Treaty the protection of the national cultural heritage is exclusively the responsibility of the national authorities. The role of the Community and of the Commission in particular is to encourage cooperation between the Member States in favour of the preservation and enhancement of the European cultural heritage.

In this context, the Commission can not, therefore, intervene for the protection of the dwellings bordering the medieval walls of the city of Thessaloniki.

However, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the works in question were not proposed by the Greek authorities for cofinancing within the framework for Community support 1994-1999. As for the dwellings, they are not listed as protected historic monuments according to information received from the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Illegal fishing in Morocco

The Moroccan business sector which is linked to the fishing industry acknowledges that there are local organized groups involved in illegal fishing for, and marketing of, cephalopods. They completely ignore the rules on fish size and closed seasons and pay neither taxes nor licence fees. All of this is at the expense of those who carry out their fisheries activities legally and in accordance with the current EU-Morocco fisheries agreement.

What attitude or measures has the Commsision adopted in response to this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

As part of its overall policy of safeguarding fishing for cephalopods, the Community agreed at the last meeting of the EC/Morocco Joint Committee in January this year, to two further biological rest months in 1997 (March and April in addition to September and October already planned). These apply without discrimination to all vessels fishing for cephalopods anywhere in the Morocco fisheries area.

The Commission is monitoring very closely the new measures which Morocco is applying to all fishing fleets operating in its waters as well as those which apply only to Moroccan vessels.

At that meeting of the Joint Committee, Morocco told the Community that it intended to take further steps to protect juvenile fish and their breeding grounds.

After stressing this requirement throughout the year, the Community received a letter dated 8 August 1997 from the Moroccan authorities stating that their fishermen had been banned from fishing for cephalopods within the 12-mile zone from 11 to 31 August 1997.