ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Organic farming practices

The organic livestock regulation proposes to prohibit the use of more than two courses of allopathic treatment per animal in a year or lifetime. What is the scientific basis for the Commission's recommendations?

Does this effectively prevent farmers from using wormers for ewes at lambing?

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

The Commission proposal ((COM(96) 366. )) for a Council regulation supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991. )) to include livestock production, includes a provision that would prohibit the sale of organic products from animals that have received more than two courses of treatment of allopathic medicines other than for parasites. Thus treatments for parasites (e.g. wormers for ewes) would not be covered by this provision and in consequence would be permissible.

In organic farming, the health of animals is centered on three basic principles: choice of breeds resistant to disease, use of organic feedingstuffs and extensive housing conditions. There is evidence that disease problems are less severe if these principles are applied and recourse to allopathic treatments only necessary in exceptional cases.

Scientific evidence is taken into account in organic farming but it is not the primary consideration in developing rules. Organic farming constitutes a specific form of production, benefiting from special labelling and guaranteeing a particular quality of product to meet consumers' expectations of such products

The restrictions with regard to organic husbandry in general, and in particular those with regard to the use of allopathic medicinal products, have been established after careful examination of existing organic farming practices in the Member States and the expectations of consumers with regard to these practices. In this context, the use of allopathic medicinal products has to be limited to a strict minimum. The Parliament delivered in its session of May 1997 its opinion on the Commission proposal after a detailed examination of proposed production standards and confirmed the basic principle of limited treatments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/97 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Liability

At the beginning of August it was revealed that a huge soil-pollution incident had happened at Zelzate in Belgium, caused, as shown by test results, by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The PAHs, which are spread through the atmosphere, have been detected in weaker concentrations as far afield as the Zealand-Flanders border area, in particular in the localities of Sas van Gent and Axel in the Netherlands. A chemicals firm is suspected of having caused this pollution.

Can the Commission clarify the procedures that must be followed to force the Belgian polluter to assume liability for the damage that has been caused in the Zealand-Flanders region?

If the Belgian authorities are unable to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the identity of the PAH polluter in Zelzate, to whom must the injured parties in the Netherlands turn in seeking compensation for their losses?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

The Honourable Members are referred to the replies given by the Commission to written question P-2879/97 by Mrs Boogerd Quaak ((See page 90. )) and to their written question E-2900/97 ((See page 97. )).

The Brussels and Lugano conventions on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cover the procedures to be followed with a view to ascertaining liability of the polluter. According to these conventions and the jurisprudence based on them, both the courts of the place where the damaging act took place (Belgium) and of the place where the damage occurred (also the Netherlands) would be competent. It is up to the judge to decide, on the basis of international private law rules, which national law, including liability rules, would have to be applied to the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2747/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Incident at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Cumbria, Britain

On June 19 1997 last an incident occurred in one of the ageing Magnox reactors at Calder Hall, Sellafield, Britain.

According to the company which runs Sellafield, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), a control rod was lowered further than required into the reactor core during 'switching operations'. Reactor power then dropped below 15 MW and, BNFL said, the reactor was automatically switched off.

Have BNFL and/or the British authorities informed the Commission of this incident? If so, what information did they provide the Commission with? What action has the Commission taken and/or what action does it propose to take?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1997)

The Commission has not received any official information related to the event at Calder Hall from organisations in the United Kingdom. The British safety authorities are responsible for the licensing of nuclear power installations and they guarantee the respect of the safety and practices in the United Kingdom.

However, enquiries have shown that the event has been rated as 'level O' on the International nuclear event scale (INES) established at the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) and hence is judged to have no safety significance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2885/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: European grants to Donaldson, Leuven

Can the Commission confirm whether European Union grants have been given to Donaldson, manufacturers of cartridge filters and extraction units based in Leuven, Belgium, to assist with its enlargement plans?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1997)

No Structural Fund assistance has been granted to the enterprise Donaldson based in Leuven, an area not eligible under the Funds' regionalised objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Sellafield Solvent Treatment Plant, Britain

The European Commission issued an opinion on the disposal of nuclear waste from the Sellafield Solvent Treatment Plant in Sellafield, Britain on 10 September last.

Based on information supplied by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), which operates the plant, the British Government and a 'group of experts', the Commission reportedly decided that the disposal of wastes from this plant would not be 'liable to result in radioactive contamination, significant to the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State'.

Can the Commission give details of the data supplied by BNFL, the British Government and a 'group of experts' to it on this matter? Who were the members of this 'group of experts' and on what basis were they appointed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1997)

General data received by the Commission under the terms of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty are transmitted by the Member State (i.e. the government) hosting the plan concerned, not by the operator. While the Commission has no authority to release such data, the originating Member State may do so following a request from an individual or organization.

The group of experts mentioned in Commission opinions on general data is the group appointed by the scientific and technical committee under the terms of Article 31 for the purposes of Article 37. Members of the group are appointed on the basis of their personal expertise relevant to the work involved in examining general data transmitted to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3675/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Agenda 2000 - financial implications for Austria's net payments to the EU

Austria is at present in relative terms one of the largest net payers into the EU, its net contribution being about 0.5-0.6% of GDP in the years between now and 1999, corresponding to about ÖS 13 billion.

However, according to the calculations of the Austrian Ministry of Financial Affairs, the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals would add to Austria's burden, bringing the net contribution up to some ÖS 27.4 billion in the year 2006.

Is the Commission aware of these calculations, and has it come to the same result?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1997)

Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )) has made it clear that enlargement will entail substantial extra costs for the present fifteen Member States, reducing the positive balances of net beneficiaries and increasing the negative balances of the others. This deterioration is predictable given the economic character of the prospective Member States. Austria will be no exception to this development.

A key aspect of Agenda 2000 is the reform of expenditure policies. However, it is impossible to say how expenditure will in fact evolve over the next financial perspective since much will depend on whether the policies proposed are adopted and in what form; this is not as yet known.

It should to be noted that, as the Commission has shown in its paper Budget contributions, EU expenditure, budgetary balances and relative prosperity of the Member States ((SEC(97) 1918. )) budget contributions have become more equitable and will continue to become more so.

The Commission is not familiar with the Ministry of finance projections cited by the Honourable Member. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand that there is no unique measure of the net budgetary position of the Member States. To calculate such estimates it is necessary to make assumptions about, for example, the definition of expenditure, the beneficiaries of expenditure, and the accounting treatment of spending. These assumptions play a crucial role in the measurement of budgetary positions, and explain why estimates for the same Member State can differ, often substantially. The Commission, taking account of this, does not produce data for budgetary positions nor does it endorse any particular methodology for estimating them.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3090/97 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission (3 October 1997)

Subject: Outflows of EU resources to the Middle and Upper Franconian administrative districts

1. What EU financial assistance has gone to Bavaria as a whole and to the Middle and Upper Franconian administrative districts in particular since 1995?

2. In the context of what projects and funds have resources gone to these areas?

3. What specific projects have been implemented for the following target groups:

- women

- young people

- the long-term unemployed

and how much assistance has each received?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (11 December 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 P-3086/97 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission (19 September 1997)

Subject: Draft directive on paraffin

Can the Commission answer the following questions concerning its proposal for an amendment of Directive 76/769/EEC ((OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201. )) in respect of paraffin?

1. Does the current proposal in respect of paraffin really constitute an adaptation to technical progress within the meaning of Directive 89/678/EEC ((OJ L 398, 30.12.1989, p. 24. )) amending Directive 76/769/EEC?

2. Has the Commission carried out an in-depth investigation into the real risks involved in this issue and into the effectiveness of the proposed measure in terms of risk reduction? If so, what were the findings of those investigations?

3. To what extent is the Commission aware that the danger to health results largely from oil lamps which are not properly secureed, and what measures has it envisaged to reduce that risk?

4. To what extent does the Commission consider it justified that the proposed measure will have a major economic impact on certain undertakings within the European Union, although alternative and effective measures are available which will have a considerably less adverse effect on those undertakings?

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

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-2302/97 from Mrs Jackson and P-2377/97 from Mr Cassidy ((OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 122. )), E-2415/97 from Mr Kellett Bowman ((OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 130. )) and E-2763/97 from Mrs Peijs ((OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p.113. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3157/97 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Legal basis for budget headings B3-4103 and B3-4104

In the draft budget for 1998 no appropriations are allocated for budget headings B3-4103 (measures to combat poverty and social exclusion) and B3-4104 (measures for the elderly).

What measures does the Commission intend taking to guarantee the legal basis for these budget items?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1997)

The Commission awaits with great interest the judgments of the Court of Justice in the cases pending (C-106/96, C-239/96 and C-240/96) concerning the Community's competence to act in matters relating to the elderly and social exclusion in the absence of a legislative decision. The hearing in case C-106/96 took place on 4 November 1997.

The Commission is currently exploring all the possibilities that the new Treaty of Amsterdam will offer once ratified by the 15 Member States, with a view to pursuing its actions in relation to the elderly and social exclusion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Forestry

With reference to 'The situation and problems of forestry in the European Union and potential for developing forestry policies' (CES 476/97) ((OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 128. )), reforestation has a fundamental rolein agriculture, as it can cushion the impact of the set-aside measures introduced with the CAP reforms, help solve the problem of scarce timber in the EU and protect the health of the environment.

Will the Commission direct the EU's forestry strategy chiefly to guaranteeing and improving the conditions needed for an ecologically sound, profitable forestry economy and industry and to developing rural structures and enhancing the economic status of the forestry sector?

Will the EU also use its own funds to protect forests, support rural areas and provide research, training and information, as well as consultancy services? Closer coordination of the forestry sector is needed.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3017/97 and E-3018/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Honourable Member refers to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) on the situation and problems of forestry in the European Union and potential for developing forestry policies.

The Commission warmly welcomed this report and agrees with it in many respects, particularly on sustainable forest management, which covers not only the financial but also the environmental and social aspects, and on the role of forestry and related industries in providing jobs and income in rural areas.

Before the end of the year the Commission will be submitting a report on the implementation of forestry measures in agriculture, showing the economic, environmental and social impact of these measures. In addition, the Community's forestry measures are described in the Commission's Report to Parliament on agriculture and rural development (A4-0414/96).

At the beginning of 1999, in response to Parliament's resolution of 30 January 1997 on the Community's forestry strategy (Thomas report), the Commission will be presenting a proposal for a European forestry strategy, which will take account inter alia of the objectives of Agenda 2000 ((Doc. COM (97) final 2000. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3006/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: The presence of dangerous waste in a disused warehouse belonging to the chemical firm Zucchet in Rome

On 9 December 1996 Rome City Council decided by mayoral decree to clear all the waste remaining on the site of the warehouse and laboratory belonging to the Italian chemical firm Zucchet, which is now disused, in via Pian Due Torri (Magliana district).

On the site, which backs onto the river Tiber and is near a sports centre and a number of dwellings, hundreds of metal canisters, containers and bags were found containing unidentified substances.

However, despite the aforementioned decree, nobody has taken steps to implement it and all the waste is still in the former warehouse, despite the worrying reports issued by the local health office Rm D, pointing out the need to identify the waste substances.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether the case in question does not constitute an infringement of Directive 96/61/EC ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.)) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, in particular Article 3(f), which establishes that the Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all installations are operated in such a way as to avoid any risk of pollution when activities definitively cease and to return the site to a satisfactory state;

2. whether the case in question does not constitute an infringement of Directive 91/689/EEC ((OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.)) on hazardous waste;

3. whether, if infringements of Community environmental law are ascertained, the Commission intends to ask the Italian authorities to guarantee compliance with the law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

The Honourable Member mentions that, despite the existence of a specific ordinance of 9 December 1996, the wastes generated by the chemical industry Zucchet are still stored in canisters and bags containing non-identified substances.

Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )) prohibits the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste. Furthermore, this Directive requires Member States to ensure that wastes are recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste ((OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. )) requires Member States to ensure that, on every site where tipping of hazardous waste takes place, it is recorded and identified. Moreover this Directive prohibits as a general rule the mixing of hazardous waste with other hazardous waste or with other waste, substances or materials. In the course of collection, transport and temporary storage wastes must be properly packaged and labelled in accordance with the international and Community standards in force.

The Italian authorities have to ensure compliance with the above requirements, and the Commission will address them a letter on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3186/97 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Commission sickness fund administration

Can the Commission confirm the claim made in BT of 19 September 1997 that it employs 130 people in its sickness fund administration? Will the Commission provide an establishment plan for its sickness fund administration?

What does the Commission have to say about the claim that 20 people in the private sector could manage its sickness fund?

Does the Commission intend to call for tenders?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1997)

The Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme set up under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations encompasses the Economic and Social Committee, the Commission, the Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the Ombudsman, the Joint European Torus (JET), the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the European Training Foundation, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, the European Environment Agency, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the Translation Centre and the Community Plant Variety Office, thereby providing cover for 77 000 persons in about a hundred countries.

The Commission unit in question also manages the schemes for teachers in the European Schools and the Florence University Institute.

The number of officials employed in Commission unit IX.B.5 who deal with sickness insurance can be broken down as follows:

Category A: 4 Category B: 26 Category C: 79 Category D: 1

A directory of the unit, not including officials who deal with cover for accidents and occupational diseases, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat. It should be noted also that tasks performed by certain officials straddle the sickness sector and the accident and occupational disease sector.

The figures quoted by the Honourable Member do not appear in the Court of Auditors' report, which merely makes comparisons by way of guidance, with a national insurance scheme. It is well known that such comparisons are difficult because a national scheme is usually monolingual, operates in only one country and one currency and benefits from economies of scale.

Nonetheless the Commission has carefully noted the comments in the Court of Auditors' report on ways of reducing the administrative costs of managing the fund, and an interinstitutional group is currently analysing the situation.

On the basis of the Court's report, which, moreover, does not suggest calling in the private sector, the Commission does not intend to contract out the management of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/97 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: The European Union's involvement in the International Science and Technology Centre (ISTC) in Moscow

In its answer to my question E-2557/97 ((OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 126. )) the Commission indicated that for those employed at the ISTC another budgetary basis would be found to cover their further employment.

What form will this other budgetary basis take and how in practical terms will the financial cover for the contract of employment be organized?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

Five members of staff are currently provided to the International science and technology centre (ISTC) by the Commission. They are contracted through the European agency for co-operation. Contracts, due to expire at the end of 1997, have recently been extended for two members of staff until 30 April 1998 as an interim measure.

All of the five officials, who will continue to be financed by the Tacis programme, will have a new contractual basis thereafter as contracts expire, which will be put in place through the ISTC secretariat, as is the case with staff provided by the United States. The conditions of employment for the staff will be renegotiated case by case within that contractual framework.