ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Alzheimer's disease

This year, for the first time, the budget includes a separate item on Alzheimer's disease, providing funding of ECU 2.5 million (item B3-4307N). The funds will be available for transnational pilot projects aimed at improving the quality of life of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related conditions and those caring for such persons.

What type of procedure will the Commission adopt for allocating these funds?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

The Commission has published a call for proposals for measures to help persons with Alzheimer's disease ((OJ S 40, 26.2.1997. )).

The deadline for proposals was 30 May 1997. When selecting the projects, the Commission will be assisted by a committee of experts, which will meet in Luxembourg on 3 and 4 July 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1399/97 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: UN Decade for the World's Indigenous People

In the light of the UN Decade for the World's Indigenous People, whose first quarter has almost passed, can the Commission indicate the projects through which it has supported the indigenous peoples of Finland in 1995 and 1996?

Can the Commission list the names of the projects and the amounts of financial support it has given for all the different financial instruments it has at its disposition to support the indigenous peoples of Finland?

Does the Commission feel that it has adequately reacted to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly which has called upon states and intergovernmental organizations to promote the rights and interests of the indigenous people living in their territories, as reflected by the title of the Decade: 'Indigenous People: Partners in Action'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1398/97, E-1399/97 and E-1401/97 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The Commission is contributing to international action to uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

In 1996, it supported the newsletter published by the European Alliance with Indigenous Peoples, whose aim is to inform a target group of people interested in action taken by the Community on issues affecting indigenous people. In October and November 1996, the newsletter published two articles on the position of indigenous peoples in French Guyana and Finland.

The Commission has not yet adopted a policy on indigenous peoples and development cooperation. However, a number of Community instruments refer to them specifically and to the need to encourage their participation in development projects. One of the objectives set for the conservation of tropical forests is to improve living standards for local people, as they themselves are crucial to forest conservation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1212/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Council (2 April 1997)

Subject: The Council's failure to take a decision on banning driftnets

The President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Patijn, stated before the EP that there is not a qualified majority in the Council in favour of a Commission proposal from three years ago calling for a ban on driftnets.

The EP has made it clear that it is in favour of this proposal and has on several occasions also called for a ban on set gill-nets because they seriously jeopardize the conservation of fish resources and such non-selective equipment is a seriously danger to mammals and birds.

Can the Council say which Member States oppose the Commission proposal?

What reasons do they give for their opposition?

Answer (5 June 1997)

For reasons of the Council's deliberations it is not possible to give any details on the positions expressed by individual members of the Council on this subject.

On the substance, the Honourable Parliamentarian is referred to the reply given by the Council on the 12th of March 1997 to an Oral Question by Mr Miguel Arias Cañete on the same subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Safety regime for fishing vessels

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a Council Directive setting up a harmonized safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (COM(96)255 final - 96/0168 SYN) ((OJ C 292, 4.10.1996, p. 29. )), (CES 1392/96/0168 SYN).

This proposal, which forms part of an EU strategy intended to improve the safety of maritime transport, seeks to lay down a set of harmonized safety standards for fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State and third country vessels operating in the internal or territorial waters of a Member State or landing their catch in a port of a Member State.

The provision making the requirements imposed on Community vessels compulsory for third country vessels intending to fish in the internal or territorial waters of the EU or land their catch in a Community port will be difficult to enforce.

Would the Commission therefore encourage the Member States to strengthen their monitoring systems, both on land and at sea?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1306/97, E-1307/97 and E-1308/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

In the explanatory memorandum of the Commission's proposal for a Council Directive setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over ((OJ C 292, 4.10.1996. )), the Commission stated that it intends to examine whether, for fishing vessels below 24 metres in length, further measures are required to complement those already included in Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 on the minimum health and safety requirements for work on board fishing vessels ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )). The Commission envisages that a study on the issue will be undertaken in the second half of 1997.

The provisions of the Commission's proposal will give Member States the legal power to subject a fishing vessel flying the flag of a third country and operating in their internal waters or territorial seas or landing its catch in their ports to control in order to verify compliance with the safety standards required by this Directive. Logistic means for executing such controls both on-shore and off-shore are already in place in the framework of Council Directive 95/21/EC on Port State Control ((OJ L 157, 7.7.1995. )) and the control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy.

With regard to the collection of data on fishing vessel casualties and working accidents on board, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-272/96 by Mr Pronk ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/97 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1997)

Subject: Operation of the Capodichino-Napoli airport

The municipality and the province of Naples have announced that they have reached an agreement with the BAA (British Airport Authority) under which the BAA is to acquire a majority shareholding in the GESAC (the company which operates the Capodichino-Napoli airport) with a capital increase and a 65% stake.

The other companies which operate airports were excluded from this agreement between the two parties, having been denied any opportunity to take part in any of the negotiations.

Could the Commission state its position on this matter and say whether, in this particular situation, this is not a clear case in which the European legislation on calls for tenders has been breached and the rules on competition between companies, laid down in the Treaty on European Union, have been diverted?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

The transfer or purchase of shares between companies does not breach Community law if it satisfies Community legislation on concentration of companies.

In this case, where part of the shares of the GESAC company is purchased by BAA, notification of the transfer must be addressed either to the national authorities concerned or to the Commission depending on the importance of the transaction.

As only the ownership of the airport company is concerned, the procurement procedures do not apply in this instance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/97 by Corrado Augias (PSE) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Conversion of the Enel power station in the Stanic district of Bari

Does the Commission know about the draft agreement signed on 1 August 1996 between Bari city council, ENEL Spa and Elettroambiente Spa concerning the conversion of the Enel power station located in the Stanic district of Bari into a heating plant burning urban waste?

Has the Commission ascertained that this plant does not contravene the Union's policy regarding waste disposal? Can it guarantee that all the criteria of transparency compulsory in such cases have been respected? Finally, can the Commission guarantee that all the environmental impact assessments required when substantial changes are made to plants of this type have been carried out?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

The Commission was not aware of the draft agreement referred to by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of the information supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable, at this stage, to determine whether the project in question concerns the modification of a thermal power station with a heat output capacity of at least 300 MW or whether it is for an installation to dispose of industrial waste and household refuse. In any event, this type of project appears in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )).

The Directive stipulates that such projects must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics, viz. their nature, size or location, so require.

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to discover whether the competent authorities have examined the project in question to establish whether, given its characteristics, it should or should not be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.

In addition, the recovery and final disposal of domestic refuse must meet the requirements of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. )), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26..3.1991. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0244/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (13 February 1997)

Subject: Labelling of genetically modified soya and maize

1. Will the recently adopted novel food regulation be applied to Ciba Geigy's genetically modified maize, which has already been approved for marketing and cultivation within the EU?

2. If not, what is the Commission's view of the legal situation where two transgenic useful plants and thousands of novel foods are not covered by the novel foods regulation?

3. If the genetically modified maize and soya are not covered by the novel food regulation, does the Commission agree that in this case national labelling of the genetically modified organisms is possible, since this question was deliberately left open in directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. ))?

Answer (16 June 1997)

The legislation on novel foods came into force on 14 May 1997 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )). Certain implementing rules have still to be adopted. It is thus not possible, at this stage, to answer the specific questions put by the Honourable Member. It is, in any case, for the Commission, under the supervision of the Court of Justice, to ensure the correct application of the provisions of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0947/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (17 March 1997)

Subject: Middle East

What action is the Council taking in the context of peace policy in the Middle East in response to the statement made by the President of the Iranian Parliament, Nateq Nouri, on 7 February 1997: 'Israel is a bastard state', adding ' May Allah give you Palestinians victory. I hope one day we will celebrate the destruction of Israel'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0946/97, E-0947/97 and E-0948/97 (1 July 1997)

1. The European Union has pursued its Critical Dialogue with Iran in accordance with the decision of the European Council in Edinburgh, 1992. Its aim in conducting the Critical Dialogue was to encourage a more positive and constructive Iranian role in the region. It has made it clear that EU-Iran relations cannot develop normally in the absence of progress in the areas dealt with in the Critical Dialogue.

2. Following the findings of the Superior Court of Justice in Berlin in the so-called Mykonos case, the Presidency issued on 10 April 1997 a statement on behalf of the European Union, condemning the involvement of the Iranian authorities. The European Union noted that under the present circumstances there is no basis for the continuation of the critical dialogue.

3. At its meeting in Luxembourg, on 29/30 April 1997, the Council had an extensive discussion on European Union relations with Iran. It agreed on a number of measures with respect to Iran and decided to keep the relationship with Iran under close review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Nuclear plant at Akkuyu in Turkey

Reports in the Turkish press say that Turkey's developing nuclear programme has a military purpose. In particular, Turkish professors such as Mr Kilic and Mr Kadiro Fglu are reported as saying that the above programme will provide the technical know-how and the means for producing nuclear weapons and that the use of a particular method will allow the quantity of plutonium producers in the reactors of Canadian origin ('CANDU') which Turkey is preparing to establish on its territory to be increased.

The Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Chrétien, has promoted sales of these reactors to other countries apart from Turkey, such as Korea, Thailand etc., but according to recent information these reactors present safety problems and do not meet the safety standards of Canadian environmental legislation.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this problem, what official information it possesses on this subject and what immediate measures it intends to take to frustrate Turkey's nuclear programme which endangers the safety and environment of the region?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The international invitation to tender issued by the Turkish authorities for building the Akkuyu power station will close before the end of June 1997.

According to information gathered by the Commission the outcome of the evaluation of tenders should be known by the end of the year. Tenders must be for the completion of the entire project and also propose 100% cover of the credits needed to finance it. The Turkish authorities have therefore not yet selected the type of reactor for this project.

The Commission has taken careful note of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member but it has no powers in that connection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1326/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, altering the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables

Regulation 2200/96 ((OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. )) introduced changes to the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables. According to this Regulation, through the operational funds producer organizations can obtain from the Community up to 50% of certain costs they have incurred, for example for marketing products grown by them.

Producer organizations can also undertake other activities, including marketing fruit and vegetables from other producer organizations or products imported from third countries.

In view of the above, under certain circumstances the new market organization may result in a disruption of fair competition between the producer organizations on the one hand and existing trading organizations on the other. The 'other activities' which are not eligible for subsidy can benefit indirectly from the Community aid for activities which are eligible for subsidies.

1. How does the Commission intend to prevent this disruption of fair competition between producers and traders?

2. How can it guarantee that the Community aid actually relates only to the products grown by the producer organizations, without concealed 'cross-fertilization' to other, for example imported, products?

3. What practical steps does it intend to take if, in specific cases, such disruption of competition does actually exist?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

1. Under Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, producer organizations are entitled to Community financing for operational funds covering only those fruit and vegetable products for which the producer organization has been recognized. Producer organizations may not benefit, directly or indirectly, from the Community financing for products for which the producer organization has not been recognized and, in any case, not for fruit and vegetables imported from third countries.

2. General provisions for the implementation of operational programmes and withdrawal operations eligible for Community financing under an operational fund are laid out in Chapter IV of Regulation (EC) No 411/97 ((OJ L 62, 4.3.1997. )) and include provisions for verification of compliance with the conditions for grant of assistance.

3. Sanctions in the case of non-compliance with Community legislation covering Community financing under an operational fund are set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 411/97.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1221/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Position of Hungarian agricultural sector

Hungarian farmers have recently protested that their livelihoods are being threatened by cheap imports from the European Union. What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that agriculture in the transition economies of central and eastern Europe is able to survive and adapt to new conditions?

Does the Commission accept that an over-dependence on imported food would be an undesirable development?

Does the Commission reject entirely the criticisms made by Hungarian farmers, or does it plan to re-examine its current policies with a view to responding to what appear to be legitimate concerns?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is conscious of the fact that, in Hungary as well as in other Central and Eastern European countries, the agricultural economy has to undergo a period of transition. This situation has led to an initial recession. However, in Hungary, there have been signs of recovery since last year.

The Community supported Hungary's agriculture during the transitional period by means of the Phare programme. Between 1990 and 1995, a total of 78.5 MECU was committed to assist the transformation of the agricultural economy into a market-oriented one. The main areas of activity have been assistance for the creation of a rural credit guarantee fund, the creation of agricultural crediting channels and land registration.

Furthermore, in the framework of the Europe Agreement, the Community and Hungary granted each other concessions on agricultural products and food, but in an asymmetric manner favouring Hungary. This means that Hungarian producers benefit from favourable access conditions to the highly priced Community markets.

The Commission fully agrees that any over-dependence on imported food would be an undesirable development. However, Hungary is a net exporter of agricultural products and food. Also, its trade balance with the Community for the products concerned has always been positive (in 1994 350 MECU, and in 1995 492 MECU in favour of Hungary).

Nevertheless, the Europe Agreement provides for procedures to remedy any market difficulties caused by increased imports of a given product and the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it is always ready to examine these cases and seek solutions together with the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0566/97 by Jean Baggioni (UPE) to the Commission (24 February 1997)

Subject: Date of the next call for tenders for the PACTE programme

The European Parliament is actively supporting the Community PACTE programme (action programme for local and regional authorities in Europe).

It is interesting to learn that this programme will henceforth be funded under the budget heading corresponding to Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation.

Can the Commission say on what date it intends to launch its invitation to tender for this programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

The Commission has not yet adopted a decision to continue financing the Pacte programme. This decision should be taken before the summer of 1997. The Commission will not fail to inform the Honourable Member when the time comes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1022/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Health hazards arising from genetically engineered foods

A study of the absorption of food-derived DNA in the gastro-intestinal tract of mammals has been published by W.Doerfler and R.Schubbert (W.Doerfler/R.Schubbert: Medicinal-genetic implications. Absorption of foreign DNA via the gastro-intestinal tract. In Deutsches Ärzteblatt - Ärztliche Mitteilungen No 25/26 Cologne 1994). Doerfler and Schubbert conclude, in contrast to prevailing scientific opinion, that food-derived DNA in the gastro-intestinal tract is not completely destroyed by the digestion process but that DNA fragments of up to a

quarter of the size of the original DNA - i.e. functioning genetic sequences - reach the gastro-intestinal tract. This DNA can be absorbed and recombined by microorganisms and pathogens. This exogenous DNA was also found in blood cells and could also be absorbed by receptors of muscular cells.

1. What is the Council's assessment of the risk that proteins of body cells and microorganisms coded on the exogenous DNA may be translated in the human body?

2. Does the Council agree that, as a result, antiobiotic resistances, which in many transgenic plants are present as marker genes, must be reevaluated?

3. What is the Council's reaction to the fact that antibiotic resistances could therefore enter pathogens in the human body?

4. Should the market authorization for genetically modified maize produced by Novartis (previously Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz), which contains a resistance against amplicilin, not be reviewed and possibly withdrawn as a result of these new scientific findings?

5. Does the Council agree that, at the very least, antibiotic resistance genes should be avoided in transgenic plants?

6. Is the Council prepared to take account of these new scientific findings when deciding whether to grant future market authorizations for genetically modified and produced foods?

7. Does the Council agree that the transfer of genetic material across species boundaries as a result of new scientific findings constitutes, by its very nature, a general hazard, in view of the constant risk of a synthesis of allergenic substances following recombination?

Answer (14 July 1997)

The Council is not aware of the study referred to by the Honourable Member and as a result can neither comment on it nor draw conclusions from it.

It would also remind the Honourable Member that, before genetically modified foodstuffs are placed on the market, a number of scientific checks have to be made at both the national and Community stages in the assessment of applications for their placing on the market.

Furthermore, Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC makes it possible inter alia for consent already given to the placing of a product on the market to be reviewed where a Member State has objective reasons to consider that a duly authorized product presents a risk to human health or the environment.