ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/96 by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Problems in the agricultural sector

Directive 74/409/EEC ((OJ L 221, 12.8.1974, p. 10. )) is currently being amended. It concerns the management of the honey sector.

1. Socially and legally, beekeepers are farmers but their activities are the responsibility of DG III, the Directorate-General for industry.

However, honey is the one unprocessed agricultural product which is not regarded as an industrial product.

Would it not be more sensible to give DG VI responsibility for beekeepers' activities?

2. Since honey is a product of the land, the designation of its origin should be authorized. Consumers want an indication on the label showing that honey has been imported into the European Union to be made obligatory and this information would make commercial transactions more transparent.

Should it not, then, be made compulsory to include the words 'imported honey' on the label of honey produced outside the European Union?

This measure can only be introduced for agricultural products, which is one of the reasons for asking for beekeepers' activities to be transferred to DG VI.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1972/96 by Mrs Leperre-Verrier ((See page 57. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Fairground apparatus containing asbestos in Liguria

In the fairground at Acquasola in Liguria there is a piece of apparatus containing large quantities of asbestos, and it has been there for more than 20 years. The health authorities declared it to be extremely dangerous and it was burnt, but although it is now even more hazardous it has not yet been removed and disposed of.

Can the Commission:

1. say whether it considers it should intervene to persuade the local authority to dismantle the apparatus immediately;

2. take steps to ensure that checks and tests are carried out to ascertain the harmlessness of facilities used by children and ensure that playgrounds are not equipped with apparatus containing substances which are highly dangerous for the health of children and the general public as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern for the health and safety of children in playgrounds.

From the information provided by the Honourable Member, it seems that the playground apparatus in question falls under the Community definition of waste, contained in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. )). Consequently, national authorities must ensure that this waste is recovered or disposed of without risk to human health and the environment. National authorities must also forbid the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste. In addition, insulation materials containing asbestos present in construction and demolition waste is, according to Directive 91/689/EEC ((OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. )), hazardous waste, and is therefore subject to the stricter provisions laid down in this Directive on hazardous waste.

As regards the first question of the Honourable Member, it is the full competence of the national authorities to take all the necessary measures to comply with Community legislation. In this specific case, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Italian authorities have still not complied with the requirements set out in the above mentioned Directives. The Commission is at present taking the necessary legal steps, as prescribed by the Treaty, to ensure the full respect by Italy of these Directives.

As regards the second question of the Honourable Member, there is no Community legislation covering the safety of playground equipment. Such equipment is specifically excluded from Council Directive 88/378/EEC ((OJ L 187, 16.7.1988. )) on the safety of toys. It is therefore beyond the Commission's competence to ensure inspections of such equipment by the relevant authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Cohesion Fund - 1993

Can the Commission state what projects were approved and subsidized by the Cohesion Fund for the Spanish state in 1993, with a breakdown of funding by project?

Can it specify which projects concerned transport and the environment respectively?

Can it also provide a breakdown by Autonomous Community?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2307/96, E-2308/96 and E-2309/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1236/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Misappropriation of Structural Funds

I understand that, with the aid of Community incentives, Kraft Jacobs Suchard Italy of Zingonia, in the province of Bergamo, has planned and carried out investments in Spain, thus ending its activities in the Bergamo area and leaving serious unemployment problems.

Would the Commission confirm whether my information about the incentives obtained by Kraft Jacobs is correct and whether such use of these incentives is lawful, or clearly contrary to the spirit of the Structural Funds and the principles set out in the White Paper on 'Growth, competitiveness and employment'?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

On the basis of the information obtained from the Italian authorities, the Commission can confirm that the undertaking in question has not run any vocational training courses financed by the European Social Fund.

The Honourable Member is referred to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-634/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.07.1996. )) and E-984/96 ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996, p. 21. )) from Mr Moretti and to the Oral Question H-86/96 ((Debates in Parliament (February 1996). )) posed by Mr Wolf at the February 1996 session.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1227/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Waste dumping from ships

Does the Commission intend to take any action to clean up the seas of Europe, with particular regard to the dumping of oil and rubbish from the many ships sailing these waters?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The discharge of oil and garbage and other residues from ships is regulated by the global Marpol 73/78 convention to which all the Member States, but not the Community, are contracting parties, together with all major shipping nations representing more than 90% of the world shipping tonnage. Under this convention ships are allowed to discharge small quantities of waste into the sea under very strict conditions. In some environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Baltic, Mediterranean and the North Sea, the criteria are even more strict. The Commission and the Member States have actively promoted the designation by the International maritime organisation of these seas as sensitive areas.

The Commission is not directly involved in the enforcement of the convention, but is nevertheless taking a number of initiatives to support Member States' practical ability to enforce it. Firstly, the adoption of the port state control Directive (95/21/EC) ((OJ L 157, 7.7.1995. )) means that Member States will be enforcing the convention in relation to foreign ships entering their ports. Secondly, the Commission expects in 1997 to propose a directive on port reception facilities for waste from ships. It will make it mandatory for ports in the Community to have the necessary facilities for such waste and it will also be mandatory for ships to discharge all their waste ashore before leaving these ports.

The Commission will soon open a call for tender for a study investigating the zero discharge concept for oily residues and other waste from ships and focusing on structural measures such as waste prevention, recycling and closed loop processes. The study will also include all aspects of a mandatory discharge regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1372/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Anti-smoking campaigns

On 21 April 1995 the Commission proposed a European Parliament and Council decision adopting an action plan 1995-1999 to combat cancer, which identifies smoking as the most serious cause of cancer and calls for measures to combat cancer to include action against smoking.

Recent figures show that a high percentage of cancer cases and many deaths due to cancer are associated with lifestyles and that 30% of cancer cases are due to tobacco consumption. Although Regulation No 2075/92 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco provides for the establishment of a Community fund for tobacco research and information, expenditure in support of the market still amounts to ECU 817 m.

The Commission is asked what plans there are for action against the causes of cancer and for projects to promote non-smoking with a view to giving practical form to the fight against cancer and why market support for tobacco production is not abolished, seeing that the consumption of tobacco is so serious a threat to health.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The priority measures in action against smoking in the European Community are set out in the 1996-2000 action plan to combat cancer ((Decision No 646/96/EC - OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )). They mainly consist of information and health education measures to combat smoking. Furthermore, a number of anti-smoking initiatives may be organised under other action plans in the field of public health, for example the programme of Community action on health promotion, information, education and training ((Decision No 645/96/EC - OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )).

Support for the market in raw tobacco is an integral part of the common organisation of markets and has been approved by Parliament and the Council. It does not, as such, play a role in encouraging consumption.

Attention should also be drawn to the establishment in 1992 of a Community fund for tobacco research and information ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 - OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )) to finance and coordinate programmes of research and information with a view to improving knowledge of the harmful effects of tobacco and the appropriate preventive and curative measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: Tolls for the Arlberg tunnel

In view of the fact that the company Alpen Strassen SG of Innsbruck envisages the introduction of a yearly season ticket for the use of the Arlberg tunnel for Austrian citizens only, can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to ensure that all EU citizens have equal rights as regards the tolls charged by Alpen Strassen AG?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

On 30 July 1996 the Commission adopted an opinion concerning an Austrian draft law on the introduction in Austria of a nation-wide toll system on the existing and planned trunk road network. The issue of annual toll tickets only being obtainable by holders of a car registered in Austria was addressed in the opinion. The Commission stated that annual toll tickets should be available to cars registered throughout the Community (and not only in Austria).

The Commission has contacted the Austrian authorities and asked them to confirm that Austria will adapt the regulation governing the purchase of annual toll cards in order to comply with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1979/96 by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Discrimination against employees and self-employed persons with their residence in Belgium and their place of work or business in Germany

Employees of a German firm with premises in Germany who live in Belgium may not drive the company car provided by their employer for either professional or private purposes in Belgium. They must first pay Belgian road tax, even though the vehicle is already taxed in Germany. The same applies to the self-employed.

Workers employed in Germany who have their residence in Belgium risk finding that the above situation becomes an obstacle to obtaining employment with a German employer. They are at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their opposite numbers living in Germany.

For employers who wish to operate over the German border into Belgium, this situation constitutes a competitive disadvantage, since they may have to pay double road tax.

Does the Commission not think that double taxation of company cars constitutes discrimination against employees and that the situation infringes EU rules on the freedom of movement of persons, goods and services? What steps does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The Commission is fully aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member, namely the use by a resident of a Member State in his Member State of residence within the meaning of Directive 83/182/EEC ((OJ L 105, 23.4.1983. )) of a company car provided by his employer and registered in another Member State.

In the particular case described by the Honourable Member, no tax is payable on the company car registered in Germany other than VAT, which is deductible in any event, whereas in Belgium, in addition to VAT, vehicle registration tax is chargeable. This situation is not unique to Belgium but is encountered, albeit with differing arrangements, in twelve of the fifteen Member States.

Accordingly, the Commission takes the view that a satisfactory solution to the problem posed by the use of company cars can be found only within the framework of an initiative at the level of Community law. It is currently carrying out a review of vehicle taxation with a view to identifying what action is appropriate at Community level in the interests of improving the functioning of the internal market and of advancing other Community policies. The problem raised by the Honourable Member will be examined in the course of this review.

The Commission is looking into whether the Belgian rules are compatible with Article 48 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/96 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Alqueva dam

A sustainable use of water resources requires that particular efforts go into water-saving measures. Has the Commission compared the cost/benefits of building Alqueva with that of putting to work the partially idling irrigation schemes existing in southern Portugal? Or of repairing the leaking existing water distribution systems that waste tremendous amounts of water?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission believes that good water resource management should as far as possible include measures to minimize water loss and waste. This being so, special attention will have to be paid where necessary to the water distribution networks in the south of Portugal.

According to the expert studies available to the Commission, one of the reasons for the under-utilization of some of the existing small dams for irrigation purposes is their chronic water shortage. The project presented by the Portuguese authorities, which is currently being scrutinized by the Commission, is designed not only to ensure that the right quantities of water are available for irrigation but also to ensure that there are adequate drinking water supplies and to foster the overall economic development of the area concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Checking of statistics on animal experiments

In reply to Written Question E-2641/95 ((OJ C 79, 18.3.1996, p. 12. )) the Commission said (on 6 December 1995) that an investigation would soon be carried out with the Italian authorities on the findings which had emerged from the various statistics produced by Italy on the number of animals used in experiments (Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. ))).

Can the Commission now tell us the results of this appraisal and what steps, if any, it intends to take?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

The Commission met the Italian authorities to discuss the information required by Articles 13 and 26 of Directive 86/609/EEC on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes.

At the meeting the Italian Ministry of Health indicated the changes it had introduced, via an administrative circular, to the collection of statistical data, the format of tables and the frequency of collection.

The Italian authorities have thus complied with the provisions of Directive 86/609/EEC as regards the collection of statistical data and have therefore met the requirements of Articles 13 and 26 thereof.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Council (5 July 1996)

Subject: Internal market for electricity

Will the Council establish consultative structures for the electricity sector so that employers and trade unions from the sector can meet to discuss the impact of the internal market for electricity on the public service, the environment, energy structures and employment. If not, can the Council explain why not?

Reply (7 November 1996)

The Council draws the attention of the honourable Member of the European Parliament to the Council Resolution on the White Paper "An Energy Policy for the European Union" ((OJ C 224, 1.8.1996, p. 1. )) . In this Resolution the Council "calls on the Commission to continue this process of consultation in a Community energy policy framework".

The Council believes that consultations in the energy field at the European Union level can take place in the framework thereof and sees no added value in creating additional parallel consultations processes in particular areas.

The Council noted that the European Parliament in its opinion on the Internal Market in Electricity ((OJ C 329, 6.12.1993, p. 159, proposed amendment no 47. )) called on Member States "to set up an electricity and gas council or an equivalent body".

The Council also noted that the Commission did not take on board this suggestion in its amended proposal.

As can be seen in the Council's reason for the Common Position on the Directive concerning common rules for the Internal Market in Electricity ((Adopted by the Council on 15 July 1996. )) the structure of the Directive has, shifted towards a greater emphasis on the role of Member States with regard to implementing measures.

In line with the above, the Council did not consider it appropriate to include provisions in the Directive on how Member States shall organize consultations in the electricity sector between employers and trade unions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/96 by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Cultivation and import of maize and soya beans

1. What developments have there been in the cultivation of maize and soya beans in the individual countries of the European Union in the last five years?

2. What has been the volume of maize and soya bean imports from the USA into the individual Member States over the last five years?

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

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2349/96 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (8 August 1996)

Subject: Implementation of EU environment directives

In the Federal Republic of Germany it is increasingly being claimed - especially by business organizations and farming associations - that German industry suffers competitive disadvantages because EU environment directives are implemented very promptly and fully in the Federal Republic.

1. What is the Commission's view on the state of implementation of Community environment legislation in the Federal Republic compared with other Member States?

2. What are its views on the distortion of competition if EU environment directives are implemented in one Member State much earlier than in another?

3. Does it consider German industry suffers competitive disadvantages as a result of the late implementation of EU environment directives in other Member States?

4. Can it quantify such competitive disadvantages?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

1. The implementation of Community law in Member States is the subject of the annual report on monitoring the application of Community law. According to the last report ((COM(96) 600 final. )), in contrast to the assumption of the Honourable Member, Germany is not taking the lead in promptly implementing Community environmental legislation.

2. It cannot be ruled out that in specific circumstances a Member State may have a competitive advantage in not implementing in due time a directive related to the environment. Therefore the Commission as guardian of the Treaty has to ensure that Community legislation is applied by Member States. In case a Member State does not fulfil its obligation to implement Community law in time the Commission may take action before the European Court of Justice which may confirm an infringement.

However, it should be underlined in this context that differences in implementation are often due to the fact that directives related to the protection of the environment set up minimum standards. Member States then have the option to go beyond this level of protection. As far as directives are based on Article 130 s of the EC Treaty (environment) Member States may apply Article 130 t. This allows Member States under specific conditions to adopt stricter measures. These measures may also have an impact on competition.

3/4. The Commission does not have pertinent information on this issue. Furthermore, in a view of what has been said above, the Commission does not assume that German industry suffers specific disadvantages due to late implementation of environmental directives by other Member States.