ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1840/97 by Carlos Costa Neves (PPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Right to compensation

Shipowners of the Armações Baleeiras do Sul do Pico company in Pico (Azores) have had to stop whaling, an activity which they carried on for more than a century and which was of great historical, cultural and economic value and of great significance to the families concerned.

They were forced to stop by the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

They argue that the EU has compensated German and Spanish businesses in similar circumstances.

Might it not therefore be possible to consider compensating them for having to stop whaling?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

When the Community was enlarged to include the two Member States on the Iberian peninsula on 1 January 1986, Portugal accepted the 'acquis communautaire' on the regulation of whaling under the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats signed on 19 September 1979.

As compensation for ceasing this historical and cultural activity on the Portuguese island of Pico in the Azores, the Commission part-financed structural measures designed to retrain whale fishermen for other activities, in particular fishing for tuna, which is a fairly abundant species in the waters of this part of the Atlantic.

Pico thus benefited from the construction of seven tuna boats and the construction of a modern coldstore for the conservation of fishery products.

Further structural measures have been part-financed in the region under Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed, Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and Regulation (EEC) No 4042/89 on the improvement of the conditions under which fishery and aquaculture products are processed and marketed ((OJ L 51, 23.02.1977. OJ L 376, 31.12.1986. OJ L 388, 30.12.1989. )).

Since the beginning of 1994, measure 1.4 under the multifund operational programme Pedraa II (Azores), which is part of the 1994-99 Community support framework for Portugal, has provided ECU 21 million from the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) for further schemes in the fisheries sector.

The Commission is not aware of any compensation paid by the Community to German and Spanish companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1749/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Delays in road transport to Turkey

The Greek press reports that there have been long delays in recent months for lorries crossing into Turkey. A particularly elaborate system for inspecting incoming products and checking Greek lorries at customs is being used, costing them time and money.

In contrast, Turkish international transport crosses into Greece without being held up at the border and, moreover, the 1000 tax-free permits which the Turks requested from the Greek authorities were issued immediately without creating problems.

What is the Commission's position on this matter and what action will it take to make clear to the Turkish authorities that it will not allow them to discriminate against Greek hauliers and thereby undermine their competitiveness?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

The resolution on the broadening of cooperation between Turkey and the Community adopted by the Association Council on 6 March 1995 foresees the strengthening of cooperation in transport, including transit and market access. However, the situation relating to financial cooperation has not yet enabled the Commission to start taking initiatives on this issue.

Until now the Commission has not been aware of reports of delays specifically involving Greek vehicles entering Turkey. In the absence of a relevant agreement between the Community and Turkey on road goods transport, the regulation of traffic between Greece and Turkey is a matter for the two countries concerned, subject to compliance with the relevant international rules.

The Commission will contact the Greek authorities to seek further information on this issue, in order to decide what steps should be taken to overcome any problems of discrimination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Requirements for authorization

What exactly are the test criteria, in accordance with which applications for authorization for products under the novel food regulation ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )) have to be assessed to see whether permission is required or whether simple registration will be deemed to be sufficient if the manufacturer has not applied for permission?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Submission of genetically modified basic varieties and varieties bred from them

Is it intended for the manufacturer to submit, in parallels with the tests, both genetically modified basic vartieties and varieties bred from them (given that in some cases significant changes are apparent only from a direct comparison)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2310/97 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (26 June 1997)

Subject: Duty free goods allowance on goods purchased outside of the EU

Can the Commission confirm what is the monetary value of the duty-free goods allowance for EU residents who have purchased goods from non-EU countries (e.g. the United States)? Does this exclude the allowance for tobacco, alcohol and perfume?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1997)

Goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers entering the Community from non-member countries may, within certain limits, be brought in free of import duties, VAT and excise duties provided that such importations are of a strictly non-commercial nature.

In the case of products other than tobacco, alcohol and perfume, which are subject to quantitative limits, the total value of goods imported tax-free may not exceed ECU 175 per traveller. Where the total value of several items exceeds that limit, the allowance is granted, up to the limit, in respect of those items which would have qualified for the allowance if imported separately. The value of an individual item cannot be split up; neither can any artificial distinction be drawn (between the jacket and trousers belonging to a suit, for example).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2135/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Requirements for authorization: checking information supplied by manufacturers

1. Is the information supplied by manufacturers to be checked, at least on a sample basis?

2. If so, how will the risk of allergies be assessed in products, the novel ingredients of which have hitherto not normally been consumed or have not usually been contained in foodstuffs (e.g. proteins from bacteria from hot springs?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2167/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 97/258

What method will be used to finance the setting up and maintenance of the authorities responsible for monitoring and assessment?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1804/97 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Restriction on the import of Gastropoda into the EU

Would the Commission confirm or deny that it intends to place restrictions on the import of Gastropoda (a large ground snail from Ghana) into the European Union?

Officials at London Heathrow Airport have indicated to a company operating in my constituency that this may be the case, and they are concerned at this forthcoming restrictions to their importing activities.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

The public health conditions for the trade in and imports of gastropoda (snails) intended for human consumption are laid down in Commission Decision 96/340/EC ((OJ L 129, 30.5.1996. )) amending Council Directive 92/118/EEC ((OJ L 62, 15.3.1993. )). This requires the authorities of a third country sending a consignment of snails to the Community to sign a health certificate, the model of which is provided in the Annex to the Decision. In signing this certificate, the authority of the third country declares that the snails have been produced in accordance with the appropriate hygiene rules, that the establishment of origin applies an own check programme and that the snails have been submitted to the required official checks. In addition, the packaging and wrapping of the snails must carry the ISO code of the country of origin and the approval number of the production establishment in indelible print.

Furthermore, Directive 92/118/EEC lays down that only third countries which appear on a Community list are authorized to send snails to the Community. This list is laid down in Part XI of the Annex to Commission Decision 94/287/EC ((OJ L 120, 11.5.1994. )). Ghana does not appear on that list, and is therefore excluded from exporting snails to the Community. However, the list of third countries can be amended. For that purpose, the authorities of a third country must prove that their products are produced in accordance with the rules of hygiene. Such request will be examined by the Commission. This may involve an inspection on the spot, so as to ensure that the products concerned are produced in accordance with the Community health requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2193/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258797 - Recording of, and safety guarantees for, novel food products

Is it intended that authorities should keep a record of the foods in which various manufacturers use genetically modified products so that if, following consumption of such foods, there is an occurrence of a health problem which cannot be foreseen at present, all the products in question can be recalled?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2161/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - 'appropriate analysis'

1. What is undertstood by 'appropriate analysis' (novel food regulation No 258/97/EEC ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1. )))?

2. How is monitoring to be carried out?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (28 April 1997)

Subject: Building of the Colle Salario-Bufalotta-Talenti-Tiburtina expressway in Rome

Rome City Council will shortly open the first section of the expressway due to link Colle Salario with via Tiburtina, under the urban development plan adopted by the City of Rome in 1962.

However, densely populated districts have since grown up in the areas affected by the expressway plans, in particular at Colle Salario, Talenti, Casal de' Pazzi and Ponte Mammolo. Among other things, the road is due to be opened before the completion of work on noise barriers, that are essential for protecting people living in the area from the high level of noise pollution. This has caused alarm among many local inhabitants; however, their complaints have been ignored by the Rome administration.

It is therefore clear that the Rome Municipality has not carried out an environmental impact assessment, as required under Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. )) amending Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )).

Does the Commission agree that the Rome Municipality's attitude is contrary to the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC on the environmental impact of major projects?

Will the Commission state whether the opening of the expressway before the installation of noise barriers has been completed constitutes an infringement of Community law on noise pollution produced by motor vehicles?

Will the Commission state whether it considers that steps must be taken to ensure that the Rome Municipality complies with Community law in respect of environmental impact assessments and restrictions on noise pollution?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1997)

The Honourable Member refers to an urban expressway to be opened shortly.

Annex I to Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) does indeed require that expressway projects be assessed. However, the information provided by the Honourable Member does not indicate whether this particular case involves an expressway within the meaning of the Directive.

The project in question would appear to belong to Annex II to the Directive, in respect of which recent case-law of the Court of Justice specifies that all categories of project appearing therein must be considered by the authorities with a view to deciding whether impact assessment must be carried out.

It should also be pointed out, however, that both the environmental impact assessment procedure and the Commission's own checks take place before a project goes ahead. In this instance, the road would already appear to have been constructed and completed.

The project has not received Community funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2125/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Safety tests

In the event of authorization being given for a genetically modified plant line pursuant to the varieties directive, following thorough testing of the change in its metabolites are all plants resulting from crops-breeding from this line tested for possible metabolitic change?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1193/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Supervising the archaeological heritage

Major archaeological sites in Rome have had to be closed owing to a lack of staff (a real irony given massive unemployment), thereby endangering some of Italy's most precious historic monuments such as the Coliseum, the Forum, the Caracalla Baths and Palatine Hill, just at a time when the number of visitors is greater than ever and preparations are under way for the Jubilee celebrations.

Moreover, budget cutbacks have resulted in a reduction in the allowances paid to persons in receipt of unemployment benefit who help the custodians of these sites on Sundays and in the afternoons, these allowances amounting to a paltry LIT 8 000 per day. The decision to allow free entry to such places has also reduced the scope for raising funds to overcome the spending cuts implemented as a result of the austerity measures introduced by the Ministry for Cultural Affairs.

Can the Commission draw up a directive aimed at increasing the number of staff employed to guard and look after archaeological sites and at employing auxiliary staff, who would be given regulatory uniforms and empowered to carry out the necessary checks?

Can it draw up a directive governing the opening hours and opening days of archaeological sites, with particular attention to those days on which the greatest number of visitors can be expected, and providing for effective supervision measures?

Can it set up a European fund to provide assistance in setting up suitable schemes for supervising and safeguarding archaeological sites in the Community?

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

Article 128 of Title IX of the EC Treaty lays down that the Community will 'contribute' (para.1), 'aim at encouraging' (para 2) and 'foster' cooperation (para. 3) in the cultural field. Para. 5 empowers the Council to adopt incentive measures (excluding any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States) and recommendations.

These provisions do not empower the Commission to propose a directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Cuts of meat from protected whales in Japanese shops

Is the Commission aware that a DNA examination carried out by Dr Scott Baker and Dr Gina Lento of the University of Auckland on behalf of IFAW, Greenpeace, Earthtrust and other organizations has shown that meat from protected whales is still being sold today in Japanese shops?

Does it know that whaling of protected species has been banned since 1986 by the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling, and that in the first few months of 1997 more than 20% of the cuts of meat examined in Japan have been shown to be meat from protected whale species?

The Japanese authorities claim that these are old stocks and whales that were caught by mistake during fishing operations. What does the Commission think of these arguments?

How does the Commission view the fact that Japan is trying to obtain permission through CITES to resume whaling and international trade in whales? And what is the Commission's view on permitting the hunting of and trading in (protected) whale species?

How will the Commission be protesting to Japan against the attitude and practices described above?

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

The fact that whale meat from several cetacean species is both legally and illegally traded with Japan and Korea and on sale within those countries is indeed known. The issue was extensively discussed at the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), held in Harare, Zimbabwe from 9 to 20 June 1997. The Conference adopted a series of recommendations to improve controls and to increase possibilities to detect whale meat of illegal origin. It should be pointed out in this context that Japanese authorities have on multiple occasions been successful in the seizure and confiscation of illegal shipments.

The Commission confirms that pre-moratorium stocks of whale meat and stocks derived from Japanese scientific whaling exist. Whale meat can be stored for up to ten years. It is also true that whale meat is derived from by-catches and even from whale strandings.

The Japanese (and Norwegian) proposals to the conference mentioned above, to transfer certain whale populations from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II were all rejected or withdrawn and were strongly opposed by the Community.

Finally, the Commission is of the opinion that both scientific and commercial whaling should only take place within the framework of the Convention for the regulation of whaling and therefore not without approval from the International whaling commission (IWC). It has frequently made this view known since the adoption of the moratorium on commercial whaling by the IWC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2333/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (7 July 1997)

Subject: Confiscation of bibles in Uzbekistan

According to the Nederlands Dagblad of 19 April 1997, the Uzbekistan Government has confiscated 25 000 bibles intended for Christians in the Republic.

Will the Commission ask for clarification of this matter from the Uzbekistan Government, particularly in view of Article 2 of the partnership and cooperation agreement between the European Union and Uzbekistan, which refers to human rights as defined in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The Commission has no information on this matter.

It has been in touch with the Uzbekistan authorities, which have so far failed to clarify the situation.