ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: BSE

1. Can the Commission state how many cases of BSE in cattle there have been annually in the individual Member States of the European Union since 1991?

2. Can the Commission state how many cases of BSE in cattle there have been annually since 1991 in the following countries:

- Argentina

- Brazil

- Israel

- Poland

- Romania

- Switzerland

- Slovakia

- Slovenia

- Czech Republic

- Hungary

- United States?

3. In which EU Member States (other than the United Kingdom) in which BSE has occurred in cattle is there a ban on exporting cattle or beef products elsewhere in the European Union? Where such a ban exists what products does it cover?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 October 1996)

1. The number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) per Member State per year are indicated in the following table:

>TABLE>

2. Since 1991 the following number of cases of BSE have been recorded in Switzerland. In the other third countries cited by the Honourable Member, BSE has not been reported.

>TABLE>

3. The temporary export ban in the emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Commission Decision 96/239/EC ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )), as amended by Commission Decision 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )), is only applicable to the United Kingdom. This export ban covers live bovine animals and bovine embryos, meat of bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom, meat meal, bonemeal and meat- and bonemeal derived from mammals and products obtained from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom which are liable to enter the human food chain, the animal feed chain or which are destined for use in cosmetic products or in medical or pharmaceutical products.

As regards the above products an exception is made for certain products such as gelatin, di-calcium phosphate, amino acids and peptides, tallow and tallow-derived products, provided that a series of veterinary and sanitary provisions are respected. These provisions include the nature and origin of the source materials, labelling and identification, and official veterinary control assuring that the establishments of production operate in accordance with the conditions set out in the Annex of Decision 96/362/EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Mainland Greece, Measure 2 of the 2nd CSF: 'Social facilities'

Measure 5.2 of the regional operational programme for mainland Greece provides for funding of health and welfare facilities for the population of the region. The specific objective is to create a further 500 hospital beds by building a regional hospital in Lamia and medical facilities as part of the national health care network.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 1 500 000 for 1994 and ECU 3 052 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

3. Can the Commission provide details of the progress made with this measure?

Supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1484/96 and E-1485/96 given by Mme Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 June 1996 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 126. )), the Commission can now provide the following details.

Funding in 1994 and 1995 for the 'Health and Welfare' measure of the operational programmes (OP) referred to totalled ECU 72.1 million. The take-up over the same period was ECU 10.13 million. As the programmes started at the end of 1994, the funds were actually taken up in 1995.

Most of the financing under this measure goes on projects to build large hospitals. These require major planning, study and preparatory work before construction or equipment purchases can go ahead, hence the take-up delay in 1995.

Much of the preparatory work has been completed this year and work has started on building some hospitals. Consequently, an increase in the take-up of funding can now be expected. The Commission is closely monitoring this measure in both the regional and 'Health and Welfare' operational programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Leghold traps

Article 3 of Regulation No 3254/91 ((OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1. )) bans the importation of certain pelts and manufactured products, unless the Commission has established that a third country has banned the use of leghold traps or has used trapping methods for the thirteen species listed in Annex I which meet internationally agreed humane trapping standards.

third countries concerned, tackle the problem of indigenous populations who hunt using traditional methods and the question of appropriate technical assistance to help these populations accept and develop humane trapping methods?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2743/96, E-2745/96 and E-2746/96 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's suggestions, which relate to the current negotiations with Canada, the United States and Russia for a framework agreement on humane trapping methods. In accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty, the Commission is negotiating for the Community on the basis of negotiating directives received from the Council in June, directives which draw heavily on the conclusions set out in the final report delivered by the expert working party on 20 June.

The Commission would furthermore point out that it adopted, on 13 December last year, a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 for transmission to the Council. ((COM(95) 737 final. )) This proposal contains provisions concerning the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain species, including specific provisions on pelts and products obtained through trapping by indigenous peoples. The proposal also includes a timetable of measures to be taken by the Commission, measures which depend primarily on the progress made in the above negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Sweeteners for use in foodstuffs

The proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 95/35/EC on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (COM(95)0482) seeks to update the two earlier directives adopted in 1994 and adapt them in the light of recent technical and scientific developments.

Given that the proposal merely seeks to allow already authorized sweeteners to be used in certain new categories of foodstuffs, would the Commission not agree that, in future, when legislation is simply being amended, it would be advisable first to consult the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs - whose opinions must anyway be adopted by a qualified majority - and only resort to the use of a directive in cases where such a majority is not forthcoming?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1996)

The Commission shares the views expressed by the Honourable Member.

The matter is currently under consideration within the Commission. Parliament will be associated with any proposed decision in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Action programme for minorities

In view of the fact that in February 1994 the Commission drew up a report on action to support minorities, does it share the view that an action plan should be drawn up for the future for minority languages and cultures?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

The Commission has been supporting measures to promote and safeguard the regional and minority languages and cultures of the Community since 1983, under budget heading B3-1006. To this end, a report on the work of the Commission in this area in 1994-1996 will be drawn up at the end of 1996.

Moreover, the Commission intends to consider how this action can be continued, in order to ensure that the Community respects linguistic and cultural diversity. To this end, it has already launched an open invitation to tender for an assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2108/96 by Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Registration of pleasure boats

A special regulation will come into force in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1998 to transpose the directive harmonizing rules on the design of, and equipment for, pleasure boats. It stipulates that all pleasure boats used in Germany must have an EC registration; this also applies to boats from countries outside Europe, even if they are only in transit or visiting Germany. The EC procedure involves considerable costs, which will have an impact on the purchase price of leisure craft.

1. Will the compulsory EC registration enhance safety?

2. Will it lead to unnecessary restrictions on trade?

3. Is there a risk of a competitive disadvantage, for smaller shipyards in particular?

4. Will the European rules restrict the freedom of movement of owners from third countries?

5. Do the restrictions in the German regulation go beyond the aims of the directive?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (18 October 1996)

1. & 2. The legal basis for Directive 94/25/EC ((OJ L 164, 30.6.1994. )) relating to recreational craft lies in Article 100a of the EC Treaty. This Article is one of the provisions on the basis of which measures are adopted for the progressive establishment of the single market, eliminating barriers to trade. The Directive removes barriers to trade caused by divergent technical legislation between Member States with regard to the construction of recreational craft. Application of paragraph 3 of the above Article provides consumers and users with, among other considerations, a high level of safety. The construction safety of recreational craft will be improved by the application of the essential requirements of the Directive as well as over forty European committee for standardisation harmonized standards.

3. Analysis of the financial implications of the Directive, initially carried out during the drafting stages, showed that costs of conformity assessment were not a major problem. In addition, having one regulation across the Community means one procedure is acceptable in all Member States. This single procedure can only be to the advantage of small boatyards by harmonising previously different national regulations.

4. & 5. The recreational craft Directive 94/25/EC relates only to the construction of recreational craft, precluding the placing on the market of boats that do not fulfil the requirements of the Directive. The Directive does not include any navigation usage rules and there is no link between the design categories and any such rules.

The German rules state that a boat, placed on the Community market for the first time after 16 June 1998, may not be put into service if it does not fulfil the requirements of the Directive and thus has no 'CE' marking. Consequently, it does not apply to boats, visiting or in transit, which have never been placed on the Community market or put into service within the Community. Furthermore, the German legislation does not apply retrospectively to boats built before the full implementation of the Directive, i.e. 16 June 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2561/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Measures in relation to the White Paper

In its document Action for Employment in Europe - A Confidence Pact ((CSE (96) 1 final. )) - the Commission states that various Member States have still not transposed certain directives relating to the 1985 White Paper into national legislation.

Can the Commission produce a detailed breakdown of the recalcitrant Member States? Can it show in detail what directives have still not been adopted?

Can the Commission also state what action it intends to take to require Member States to implement these directives?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)

With regard to the first and third questions, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer that the Commission gave to his question E-2039/96 ((OJ C 305, 19.12.1996. )). More recent information on the notification of national measures transposing the White Paper directives is contained in the table which was transmitted direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

With regard to the second question, the White Paper directives requiring the adoption of national transposition measures in at least one Member State are as follows:

1. ABOLITION OF PHYSICAL BARRIERS

1.1. Checks on goods

1.1.1. Specific checks 92/3 (5)

1.1.2. Veterinary checks 85/321 (1), 85/322 (1), 86/146 (1), 86/469 (1), 87/328 (1), 87/491 (2), 88/289 (1), 88/661 (1), 89/227 (1), 89/361 (1), 89/437 (1), 89/662 (2), 90/167 (1), 90/425 (2), 90/427 (1), 90/428 (2), 90/667 (2), 91/67 (1), 91/69 (1), 91/174 (1), 91/492 (2), 91/493 (2), 91/495 (1), 91/497 (1), 91/628 (4), 92/5 (1), 92/46 (2), 92/65 (2), 92/116 (4), 94/65 (8),

1.1.3. Plant health checks 85/574 (1), 86/362 (1), 86/363 (1), 87/153 (1), 88/380 (1), 89/365 (1), 90/44 (1), 90/533 (1), 90/642 (1), 91/132 (1), 91/414 (4), 91/682 (3), 92/33 (3), 92/34 (3)

2. ABOLITION OF TECHNICAL BARRIERS

2.1. Free movement of goods

2.1.1. Special arrangements 91/477 (2) 93/7 (6)

2.1.2. New approach 89/336 (1), 90/385 (2), 90/396 (1)

2.1.3. Motor vehicles 87/358 (1), 88/76 (1), 88/436 (1), 89/458 (1)

2.1.4. Foodstuffs 88/388 (1)

2.1.5. Pharmaceutical products 87/19 (1), 87/20 (1), 89/381 (1), 90/676 (2), 90/677 (1)

2.1.6. Chemical products 85/467 (1)

2.1.7. Construction 87/405 (1), 89/106 (1)

2.1.8. Other fields 86/594 (2)

2.2. Public procurement 89/665 (1), 90/531 (1), 92/13 (4), 92/50 (5), 93/36 (5), 93/38 (4)

2.3. Free movement of persons 89/48 (4), 90/364 (1), 90/365 (1), 92/51 (5), 93/96 (1)

2.4. Internal market in services

2.4.1. Banks 93/6 (5), 94/19 (4)

2.4.2. Insurance 88/357 (1), 90/332 (1), 90/619 (1), 91/674 (3), 92/49 (4), 92/96 (1)

2.4.3. Securities 92/22 (8)

2.4.4. New technologies 91/263 (5)

2.5. Industrial environment

2.5.1. Company law 89/667 (1), 90/604 (1), 90/605 (2)

2.5.2. Intellectual property 92/100 (4)

2.5.3. Company taxation 90/434 (1)

3. ABOLITION OF TAX BARRIERS

3.1. VAT 94/5 (1)
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2385/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Council (30 August 1996)

Subject: Confidential statements

How many confidential statements have been adopted by the Council in its role as legislator and otherwise since conclusion of the agreement limiting secret statements?

Answer (13 December 1996)

Under the Code of Conduct on public access to the minutes and statements in the minutes of the Council acting as legislator, to which the Honourable Member refers, the Council agreed to use statements in the minutes sparingly, it being understood that this instrument must continue to contribute to the efficiency of the decision-making process.

Between 2 October 1995 - the date on which the Code of Conduct was adopted - and 30 September 1996, the Council definitively adopted 208 legislative acts, which were the subject of a total of 385 statements in the minutes. 382 statements were made available to the public and accordingly communicated to the European Parliament.

There have therefore been only three statements made at the time of adoption of legislative texts which have not been made available to the public under the Code of Conduct. However, the statements in question - all three concerning the OECD Agreement on shipbuilding - do not relate to legislative acts per se but the conclusion of an international agreement.

The Council is unable to provide statistics regarding the adoption of statements in its minutes when it is not acting as legislator, since no figures are kept for these.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2684/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Reform of the COM for olive oil

The olive-oil producing sector in Spain is concerned at the reform of the COM.

Commissioner Fischler's proposals to introduce aid per tree make it necessary for the Commission to verify first of all that there are indeed 215 million trees in Spain, as claimed by professional circles, and not 166 million as quoted in some quarters.

Furthermore, such a measures is not considered realistic within the sector. The current system is more appropriate, and the sector fails to comprehend the reasons behind the Commission's proposals.

What data does the Commission have, and what studies are being made to determine the actual scale of olive-growing in Spain and the consequences of a possible change in the system?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2684/96, E-2685/96 and P-2946/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1996)

The Commission will be discussing the different possible options for a reform of the olive oil common market organisation in the very near future. A document will be transmitted to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.

The Commission cannot pre-empt the outcome of its deliberations by answering specific questions on the options but will certainly take the Honourable Member's questions and remarks into account.

It must be clear that the new olive oil common market organisation should be simple, more transparent and easier to control than the existing regime. Quality should be at a premium and producers should be targeted as directly as possible. Differences of a regional, social and environmental kind should be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2613/96 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission (14 October 1996)

Subject: Reduction of pesticides, herbicides and other residues through the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering

Can pesticides, herbicides and other residues be reduced through the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering, and if so, to what extent?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1996)

It is not possible to give a general statement on the impact of biotechnology on the use of plant protection products and every case has to be evaluated on its own merits. This issue is one of the objectives of the Commission's research programme Fair (agriculture and fisheries).

There certainly is an opportunity to reduce the use of plant protection products in cases where the plants have been made pest or disease resistant through genetic engineering, and hence to decrease the plant protection product's residues in plants.

In cases where a plant has been made tolerant to a herbicide, this would lead to a change in the pattern of the use of plant protection products. The use of the herbicide to which the plant has been made tolerant would displace that of other herbicides hitherto used in the crop to control the weed populations concerned. The precise impact could be different in each case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/96 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Town twinning

Could the Commission specify precisely the type of activities that satisfy the requirements to have a European element to a town-twinning programme in order to receive financial assistance from the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

The Commission regards town twinning schemes as a valuable way of involving ordinary people and their elected representatives in European integration and of strengthening their sense of belonging to the Community.

If a twinning arrangement is to be a success in this sense, the actual exchange schemes need to be organized so that the nature and content of the activities proposed contribute towards fostering a better understanding between those taking part and providing greater knowledge of their social, economic, professional, political and cultural environment. Eligible projects can involve any social or age group (e.g. children, young people, adults), but should demonstrate that they create a genuine European awareness.

In fact the scope of possible town-twinning activities which satisfy this criteria is virtually unlimited. Among the following activities which have been judged to provide a European element and have benefitted from a grant in the past are joint discussion of topics such as ways of combating unemployment, protection of the environment, the problems of racism and xenophobia, comparisons of education systems, language teaching, how local administration functions, electoral systems, the integration of disabled people or immigrants into the Community, debates on European policies, the future of Europe (monetary union, enlargement), the role of local authorities in the European integration process, visits to projects funded by the Community, visits to local industries, institutions and other facilities in order to compare them with facilities in the twinned towns and exhibitions of local artists from different twinned towns. Any town-twinning activity which brings together people from more than two towns and two different Member States can already be said to have a European element. This is even more evident if the activity involves a pooling of experience and ideas about a subject where there is a particular need for solidarity and a common commitment to Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2946/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Revision of the rules governing the common organization of the market in olive oil

In view of the fact that:

a) the Commission is due to adopt - probably on 13 November 1996 - a plan for revising the rules governing the common organization of the market in olive oil in the European Union, introducing far-reaching changes to the form of support and replacing aid for producers by a flat-rate aid by tree;

b) this radical restructuring is being undertaken in a sector which has no need for such measures and is motivated apparently by reasons unconnected with the operation of the market; and

c) these radical measures will seriously jeopardize the future of the sector and the quality of the product which is an important factor in the olive oil market;

Will the Commission say:

1. Whether it intends to submit to the European Parliament a text containing the relevant proposals and, if so, when?

2. What form will such a document take?

3. Whether it intends to accompany its proposals - whatever form they take -by a study of the consequences of its proposals both for producers and the natural environment and for the future development of the olive oil market?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2684/96, E-2685/96 and P-2946/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1996)

The Commission will be discussing the different possible options for a reform of the olive oil common market organisation in the very near future. A document will be transmitted to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.

The Commission cannot pre-empt the outcome of its deliberations by answering specific questions on the options but will certainly take the Honourable Member's questions and remarks into account.

It must be clear that the new olive oil common market organisation should be simple, more transparent and easier to control than the existing regime. Quality should be at a premium and producers should be targeted as directly as possible. Differences of a regional, social and environmental kind should be taken into account.