ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/98 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Imports of wines departing from Community oenological practices

Could the Commission say why it has granted a further year's extension in respect of imports of wines that have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 ((OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1. )), bearing in mind that the exceptions specified in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1873/84 ((OJ L 176, 3.7.1984, p. 6. )) applied for a period ending on 31 December 1997?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1998)

Under the 1983 'Wine Accord' between the Community and the United States, the Community granted a derogation to wines imported from the United States subject to oenological processes not provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine ((OJ L 84, 27.3.1987. )). The Council extended this derogation for a period of one year at the end of 1997, pursuant to the Commission proposal, in Council Regulation (EC) No 2612/97 of 15 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1873/84 authorising the offer or disposal for direct human consumption of certain imported wines which may have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 ((OJ L 353, 24.12.1997. )).

The Commission considers that it was necessary to extend this derogation as consultations are currently underway between the Community and the United States on the provisions of the 1983 agreement, particularly improved protection of geographical indications and oenological processes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/98 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: European Waste Catalogue

In 1994, the European Union adopted a European Waste Catalogue with a view to the recycling of waste. Similarly, Community directives have existed for almost twenty years which many countries have incorporated in their respective national legislations through regulations governing the demolition of buildings.

In accordance with the above-mentioned catalogue, the principle that buildings should be built in such a manner so as to allow them to be recycled when taken apart, should be paramount. However, the situation in this regard varies greatly from country to country: While in some Member States, such as Spain, only 5% of building materials are recycled, in others, such as the Netherlands, this figure can be as high as 60%.

Now that three years have passed since the adoption of the European Waste Catalogue, can the Commission say what the overall level of compliance is in the Member States, and, taking account of this, what changes or adjustments might be necessary to achieve the goal of making the sight of an excavator tearing down a building a thing of the past?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1998)

The European waste catalogue derives from Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes in pursuance of Article 1a of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ((OJ L 5, 7.1.1994. )), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )). Building and demolition wastes are listed under heading 17 00 00 in that catalogue.

Building and demolition wastes have received the Commission's particular attention via its programme on priority waste flows launched in early 1991. Groups of projects concerning the following waste flows were formed: wornout tyres, discarded vehicles, chlorinated solvents, health-care wastes, electrical and electronic equipment wastes, and building and demolition wastes.

All of those involved in building and demolition-waste flows have been invited to join a project group headed by Germany. The results of the group's activities led to the publication, in October 1995 of a report containing an information document, a strategy document and recommendations.

That document recommends that the Member States adopt the classification referred to above in order to ease the comparison of statistical data and thus assist in managing and planning that flow of wastes within the Community.

Currently the situations within the various Member States differ very widely and are difficult to compare. The Commission is currently contemplating action enabling the management of that waste flow within the Community to be improved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/98 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Council (17 February 1998)

Subject: Amnesty International Report on the human rights situation in Turkey

The most recent Amnesty International report on the human rights situation in Turkey accuses Turkey of torturing minors and the execution and disappearances of prisoners. According to Amnesty International figures, during 1997 25 people were killed during detention and 23 others disappeared following their arrest.

Will the Council say:

1. What measures it intends to take to put an end to the mockery of the European Union by successive Turkish governments and to the continuing unacceptable human rights situation in Turkey?

2. What does it intend to do to make the political and military leadership of Turkey finally realize that they cannot continue to torture and kill their own citizens under the gaze of a horrified international community?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4055/97 and E-0262/98 (11 May 1998)

The situation regarding democracy and human rights in Turkey continues to be of concern to the Council. The European Council meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 December 1997 again underlined the necessity for the Turkish Government to meet its fundamental obligations in the field of democracy and human rights. It recalled, in line with the Council position expressed at the Association Council with Turkey on 29 April 1997, that strengthening Turkey's links with the EU also depended on that country's pursuit of political reforms including the alignment of human rights standards and practices on those in the European Union.

The situation regarding democracy and human rights in Turkey remains high on the Council's agenda. These issues are brought up in virtually all meetings with the Turkish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0293/98 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Reorganization of Structural Funds with a view to enlargement towards the East

With reference to the European Parliament's resolution (A4-0368/97, paragraph 34) calling for special assistance for border areas in connection with EU enlargement, can the Commission say whether the projected reorganization of the Structural Fund will include provisions for financial aid to regions sharing external borders with the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

Border regions may feel the impact of the opening of markets and of enlargement more quickly and intensively than other regions, but they will also benefit from their closeness to new markets providing new opportunities. The importance of these new markets for Community producers is evidenced by the rapid growth in trade between the Community and the Central and eastern European countries (CEECs) and the increasing surplus of the Community's trade balance with them. Furthermore, the impact of enlargement, in particular in sensitive areas, will be softened through transitional arrangements.

In these circumstances, the Commission does not consider it necessary to create a special instrument for the regions sharing borders with the CEECs. In its view, the existing measures provide sufficient scope and flexibility to address the problems of these regions.

Many of the border regions are already assisted by the structural funds. The new German Länder and Burgenland are at present, and are likely to remain, objective 1 regions. Most of the other border regions in Germany, Austria and Italy currently receive assistance under objective 5b. Given that under the new objective 2, it is foreseen that the Member States will be able to use national criteria for the selection of a significant share of their assisted areas, they can include border areas if it is considered they face specific problems.

Apart from these ' mainstream ' programmes, the Commission proposes to maintain Interreg as one of three Community initiatives. Interreg is an appropriate instrument for tackling the specific problems of Community border regions with the CEECs. In combination with the PHARE-Cross-border cooperation (CBC) programme, it provides significant financial assistance to strengthen the economic ties across the borders concerned. Through its interventions, the accessibility of CEEC markets is improved and mutually beneficial cooperation on both sides of the border is supported.

The specific design of Interreg for the new programming period has not been decided but it will leave sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of the border regions, as the Member States may propose the regions to be covered and the projects to be supported. Given the proposed reduction in the number of Community initiatives, it will also have a very significant financial envelope.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0220/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Funding of the Natura 2000 network

The funding of management plans for special areas of conservation is a crucial issue with regard to the implementation of the Directive on habitats, which involves forwarding to the Commission the national list of sites. Can the Commission provide information on the financial framework established for this purpose, in particular pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. ))?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

Article 8 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna deals with the Community co-financing of those sites within the Natura 2000 network that harbour natural habitats or priority species.

Paragraph 1 provides that the Member States shall inform the Commission of the amounts of money that they feel are needed. So far no Member State has passed on such an estimate.

Paragraphs 2 to 4 provide that the Commission shall assess those amounts and then adopt an outline plan of co-financing action. Since no assessments have been received from the Member States the Commission has so far been unable to prepare any such action plan.

Conversely it is dealing with its future adoption by proposing that implementation of Natura 2000 should form part of the activities that are eligible under the structural funds and the common agricultural policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0331/98 by Stefano De Luca (ELDR) to the Commission (6 February 1998)

Subject: Freedom of association and thought consistent with human rights

1. Is the Commission aware that an Italian regional law, Law No 34 issued by Marche region, stipulates that candidates for appointment to regional bodies must declare that they do not belong to any Masonic lodge?

2. Does the Commission not consider that this law might prejudice the freedom of thought and association which individuals should enjoy?

3. Given that the persons affected are European citizens, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that the rule of law is restored and no local restrictions of this type can be imposed in future on free citizens who belong to universally known religious or non-religious organizations?

4. Does the Commission not consider the law in question to be contrary to the Treaty and in particular the principles relating to fundamental freedoms?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (19 February 1998)

The Commission sets great store by respect for human rights throughout the world. The treaties, however, have not given the Union any general powers to enforce respect for fundamental rights. Its only competence in this respect is within the scope of Community law, which is based on respect for fundamental rights.

Regarding the facts reported by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is amply assured in the Member States, both domestically by legal remedies and, externally, by the machinery put in place by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

As Community law stands the facts referred to by the Honourable Member are solely a matter for Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0487/98 by Honor Funk (PPE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: EU ban on the import of meat from hormone-treated animals (ruling of the WTO Appeals Panel)

Pursuant to the ruling handed down by the WTO Appeals Panel, the EU is entitled to introduce, on a scientific basis, what it feels is an appropriate level of consumer protection which may be more stringent than that derived from international public health standards.

1. For which specific areas must the required scientific evidence for possible risks be produced?

2. Which experts have been commissioned by the EU to provide this evidence?

3. How much money is available for these scientific studies?

4. Are the Member States involved as well?

5. What scientific studies are to be carried out, and when will they begin?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0487/98 and E-0568/98 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The Appeals Panel of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has endorsed the Community's right to lay down a higher level of consumer health protection than that required by international standards, provided the measures are based on an assessment of the risks. Moreover the Appeals Panel has confirmed its opinion that the ban on using hormones in the Community was not based on a sufficiently specific risk assessment, notably as regards the carcinogenic and genotoxic aspects of hormone residues in animal meat.

The Community has informed the WTO of its intentions as regards the implementation of the Appeal Panel's recommendations and decisions of 30 March 1998.

Currently the Commission is deliberating how best to meet its international obligations. At this stage the Commission cannot yet answer questions as precise and detailed as those asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/98 by Petrus Cornelissen (PPE) and Raphaël Chanterie (PPE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Treatment of lorry drivers

1. Is the Commission aware of press reports that a Belgian lorry driver and his mate spent 55 days in a Swedish prison cell - the first 48 hours naked and then several weeks in solitary confinement - because while the waybill said that they were carrying fruit juice the lorry was laden with alcohol?

2. Can the Commission confirm the accuracy of these reports?

3. If so, what is the Commission's view of this treatment which is redolent of the Middle Ages, not least in view of the acquittal of the drivers by the court in Malmö?

Reference: A number of newspaper reports and the Belgian TV programme 'de 7de dag' ('the seventh day') broadcast on 18 January 1998.

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1998)

The Commission can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the press releases to which the Honourable Members refer.

The respect of human rights and the assurance of fundamental freedoms within their justice system is a matter of national competence for each Member State.

The Commission does not have the competence to judge whether measures arising from a criminal investigation taken by a Member State are justified or commensurate with the suspected offence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Exclusion from agricultural markets

Can farmers in any Member State benefit from subsidies and incentives provided by the Commission whilst at the same time exclude the produce of farmers in other Member States from their markets by intimidation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)

There is nothing in Community law as it stands at present which could justify excluding farmers from subsidies within the context of the common agricultural policy even if they indulged in the activities described by the Honourable Member.

However, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the judgement of the Court of justice of December 1997 in case C-265/95 (Commission v France). The Court found that the events which gave rise to the action, which were not disputed by the French government, manifestly created obstacles to the free movement of agricultural products from other Member States, since serious incidents, such as the interception of lorries, the destruction of their loads, violence against drivers, threats against wholesalers and retailers and the damaging of goods when on display in shops, took place year after year - and over a period of more than 10 years - and that the measures adopted by the French government were not sufficient to prevent and effectively dissuade the perpetrators of the offences from committing and repeating them. Those events were also such as to create a climate of insecurity which had a deterrent effect on trade flows as a whole.

On that basis, the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the free movement of goods and the Member States' duty to cooperate in the fulfilment of obligations arising out of the EC Treaty require them not merely themselves to abstain from adopting measures liable to constitute an obstacle to intra-Community trade, but also to take all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent that trade from being obstructed on their territory by actions by private individuals.

The Member States are responsible for determining what measures are most appropriate to ensure the free movement of goods and it falls to the Court of justice to verify, in the cases brought before it, whether such measures are adequate.

If a Member State fails to take such necessary and appropriate measures, it can be held responsible by the national court in the light of the caselaw of the Court of justice (see joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du pêcheur).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Advisory Committee on Fisheries

Can the Commission publish the names of the individuals and trade organizations represented on the Advisory Committee on Fisheries, provide an outline of its work programme for 1998 and indicate the composition of its Bureau and working party membership by policy area?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0283/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the ISM Code (Regulation 3051/95)

How many qualified inspectors are responsible for ensuring compliance with ISM Code Regulation 3051/95 ((OJ L 320, 30.12.1995, p. 14. )) in each Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0283/98 and E-0284/98 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1998)

Since Council Regulation No (EC) 3051/95 of 8 December 1995 on the safety management of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries does not provide for Member States to supply to the Commission information about the number of inspectors responsible for ensuring compliance with the Regulation in each Member State, the Commission is not in a position to provide a detailed reply to the Honourable Member's question.

The Commission does have information relating to the documents of compliance and the safety certificates issued for companies and ferries operating regular ro-ro passenger transport services to or from ports of the Member States as at 1 July 1997. On the basis of that information it appears that Council Regulation No (EC) 3051/95 is being implemented and enforced by the Member States. That assessment is substantiated by the outcome of the bilateral (on-location) consultations being carried out by the Commission with the Member State administrations. These consultations have not yet been completed and it should be borne in mind that the monitoring of the implementation and enforcement of the Regulation is an ongoing process, which includes, according to Article 8 of the Regulation, a review by the Commission of the implementation of the Regulation and the proposal of appropriate measures by the year 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0160/98 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Council (3 February 1998)

Subject: Gaza European Hospital

Can the Council inform me of the cost of the total investment by the EU in the Gaza European Hospital?

Can the Council inform me when the International Management team will be arriving in the region?

When will the hospital be fully operational and what is the Council's policy in meeting the recurrent costs of the large scale infrastructure projects in developing countries?

Answer (8 June 1998)

As the Honourable Member of Parliament is well aware, the implementation of actions financed in the framework of the MEDA regulation, as is the case with the one mentioned in this question, is the responsibility of the Commission.

Therefore, the Honourable Member of Parliament is advised to refer the present question to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/98 by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: The EU's new public health programme

A new public health programme for the EU is in preparation. The need for this programme is indisputable and it needs to come about as soon as possible.

I should like to ask the Commissioner responsible whether the aim is to retain the current disease-centred approach, or whether a new strategy is being developed taking a wider, holistic approach which promotes general health. Among other things, such an approach would be in the interests of equality and of avoiding social marginalization, and would permit demographic changes to be taken into account.

When will the new public health programme be adopted, will its criteria and the direction taken by the European Union's health policy be debated openly with the Member States and how will the feedback from the Member States be taken into account?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that a new public health policy has to be developed in order to respond to a number of important developments, such as emerging threats to health from new and resurgent diseases and increasing pressure on health systems, the enlargement of the Community, and the new public health provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Moreover, as most of the current public health programmes expire around the year 2000, a new policy will need to be in place by then.

Detailed policy proposals cannot, however, be presented until after the new EC Treaty has been ratified, since it includes significant changes to the existing legal competence on public health. In the meantime the Commission intends to put forward shortly a preparatory communication which will set out the possible lines of a new policy. The new policy would be broad and flexible enough to accommodate side by side actions directed at particular diseases and initiatives in relation to the socio-economic determinants of health, such as the important areas of health inequalities, social exclusion and demographic developments, mentioned by the Honourable Member.

This forthcoming communication should stimulate a wide-ranging debate on the future of Community public health policy. The Commission will take full account of the reactions to the ideas presented in the communication in drawing up its detailed policy proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0340/98 by Luis Campoy Zueco (PPE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Objective 2

Could the Commission indicate what criteria will apply to the new Objective 2 and which Spanish regions it will cover?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0329/98 by Mrs Todini ((OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 167. )).