ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/98

by Kenneth Collins (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Doñana

What information does the Commission have on the extent of damage to the proposed Natura 2000 site in the Doñana region of Spain, following the toxic chemical spill at Aznalcóllar? Can the Commission give any information on compensation payable for the loss of wildlife in the national park and when were landowners in the area, such as WWF, notified of such information?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

According to the information supplied by Spain, the chemical spill at Aznalcollar contaminated 2 256 ha of the nature park and 98 ha of the national park. The polluted water flowed for two to three days along the "Brazo de la Torre", which makes up the eastern border of the national park, until it was definitively stopped by the construction of a dam upstream. This dam, located within the nature park, held back several million cubic metres of acidified water containing heavy metals.

Work to decontaminate the water held back by the dam is reported to be nearing completion, allowing the water to be released into the Guadalquivir river. Work to clean up the mud laden with pollutants should begin immediately and be completed before the next rainy season.

The Commission has received no information on any compensation which might be payable by the Spanish authorities for the damage caused to wildlife in the national park. However, damage within the national park seems to have been limited, since steps were swiftly taken to contain the polluted waters at the northern limits of the park.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3062/98

by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Standards of veterinary training in Europe

Will the Commission agree that it is their responsibility to coordinate the monitoring of standards of veterinary training within the Member States?

And is the Commission aware that at least one Member State is very concerned that the system of visitations to veterinary schools in the EU has demonstrated serious deficiencies in some schools?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

This matter does not come within the Commission's responsibilities.

The Commission nonetheless welcomes initiatives from the profession for evaluating veterinary training establishments in so far as an evaluation system can help to improve training.

However, participation in such schemes is entirely voluntary, and there is nothing binding about the conclusions and recommendations expressed following an inspection visit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Toxic cloud

The radioactive cloud which crossed half of Europe, including northern Italy, from 25 May to 2 June 1998 originated in Spain, but this was completely unknown until Spain finally admitted that there had been a leak of radioactivity from the Acerinox foundry at Algeciras near Cadiz.

The source of the contamination was apparently a quantity of caesium 137 in the metal scrap that fuelled the furnace. An international committee of inquiry has been set up. By all accounts the level of caesium in the air was 2000 times higher than normal. Some experts claim there was no danger either to the population or to the environment.

If it is likely that there was no serious risk, can the Commission guarantee that there will not be any long-term risk? During the time the atmosphere was contaminated, the quantity of caesium deposited on fruit and vegetables was 2000 times higher than normal.

Does the Commission consider that, despite that, there is no danger to consumers?

Given the seriousness of the problem, how is it conceivable that the incident did not come to light until two weeks after it occurred?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

In Spain and the other Member States, the dose received by inhaling polluted air for one week would be in the order of 10 millionths of the maximum permissible dose for members of the public as laid down in the basic safety standards of 13 May 1996 (Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation)(1). The measurements currently available show no contamination of fruit or vegetables, and no significant contamination is to be expected on the basis of the measured levels of air contamination.

According to the report presented by the Nuclear Safety Council to the Spanish Parliament, most of the delay in passing on the information was due to the fact that the factory did not notify it (for about a week) until it had verified that the incident had occurred and ascertained how serious it was. The Spanish authorities then inspected the plant and assessed the results before informing the public. The Commission regards this delay as unsatisfactory and considers that the procedures involved should be reviewed.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/98

by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Personal watercraft (jet skis etc.)

Can the Commission comment on the issue of personal watercraft (jet skis etc.) which is becoming more contentious in the European Community where recent proposals for general legislation to control this potentially hazardous activity have not proceeded and maritime authorities are now limited to by-law provision which tends to be relatively narrow? A recent court ruling that "vessel" does not include personal watercraft has exacerbated the difficulties.

Does the Commission acknowledge the need for general legislation for public safety concerning these watercraft?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2524/95 by Ms Plooij van Gorsel(1).

The Commission continues to focus its efforts relating to maritime safety and environment protection on merchant shipping, but nevertheless is examining the possibility of addressing the safe operation of pleasure craft in the coming years.

Insofar as product safety is concerned, and in the absence of specific Community provisions relating to personal watercraft, Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety(2) applies - this requires that only safe products be placed on the market. Under this Directive Member States are required to monitor the compliance of products with this obligation and to adopt the necessary measures against those representing a danger for the health and safety of consumers, including product withdrawal where necessary.

(1) OJ C 40, 12.2.1996.

(2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Cadmium

In connection with the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the placing on the market of fertilizers containing cadmium, the Commission is seeking a further extension of the existing derogations. The Commission intends the extra time to be used mainly for further studies of the impact of fertilizers containing cadmium.

The hazards associated with cadmium are adequately known. Why, in spite of this, does the Commission wish to carry out further studies on the subject?

On what scale are they to be carried out?

Who is to carry them out?

How long does the Commission expect them to take?

What costs will be involved?

What new information does the Commission expect to gain from them?

How will the findings be used?

Which EU Member States are preventing the EU, for example, from adopting Austria's limit values for fertilizers containing cadmium, and on what grounds?

In Austria, for example, the limit values for fertilizers containing cadmium were introduced after thorough research. Will the Commission use the research on which they were based?

If not, does the Commission regard the research already carried out, for example, in Austria as being insufficiently scientific?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(28. September 1998)

It is known that there are dangers associated with cadmium, but the danger to humans and the environment from cadmium in fertilisers is insufficiently known. The quantities of cadmium which can be taken up by plants and enter the food chain depend on climate, soil conditions, and other environmental factors which are very different in Member States. Only in a few Member States is sufficient information available, and not enough is known at European level to form a basis for Community decisions.

The Commission therefore, with the agreement and participation of Member States, initiated in June 1998 a programme of studies by consultants, at a total cost of some ECU 120 000. It aims to increase information at European level, concentrating on sensitive population groups and vulnerable environments. Final results are expected at the end of 2000, to allow the Commission to propose possible Community measures in 2001.

The programme depends on the active participation of Member States, and Austria is playing an important role in the review of the need for Community action. All relevant information in the possession of Member States, including Austria, will be needed to ensure the success of the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council

(18 September 1998)

Subject: Measures to tackle the crisis in Russia

Among the victims of the recent economic crisis in Russia are the Italian banks.

According to the latest surveys carried out by the Bank for International Settlements, Italian banks have exposures in Russia amounting to $4,3 billion, the equivalent of over LIT 8 000 billion. The SACE in particular has exposures totalling LIT 10 600 billion.

Any deterioration in the crisis in Russia could give rise to the so-called "contagion effect" which would worsen the general crisis in market confidence.

Can the Council say what the actual exposure of European and, in particular, Italian banks to the rouble crisis is?

Can the Council clarify whether measures will be taken in relation to the introduction of the single currency to protect the economies of European countries against financial crises in third countries, in which the Community's own programmes have encouraged investment?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

According to the Bank for International Settlements' available data, EU commercial banks account for about 70 % of foreign bank exposures to Russia. As for Italian banks, their lending to Russia represents about 9 % of the European commercial banks exposure to this country.

Moreover, the Council considered the means by which the EU can help Russia to overcome the present crisis and concluded during the General Affairs Council meeting of 5 October 1998 that its response should depend on a credible and sustainable Russian economic programme, to be developed in close co-operation with the international financial institutions. At the EU-Russia Summit which took place in Vienna on 27 October 1998, the EU and Russia recognized that a credible and sustainable economic policy programme is essential to address pressing social needs, meet existing financial obligations and restore confidence in the markets and stability of the currency while stimulating investment, including foreign investment.

The Council is of the opinion that the decision on the introduction of the euro at the preannounced exchange rates, as from 1 January 1999, has shown to be a safeguard against monetary instability between the currencies of Member States following the Asian and Russian financial crises.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2026/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Self-regulation of banking - Petition No 1227/95

The Commission's response to the above petition mentioned "A hearing ... held in Brussels on 6 November". Would the Commission be able to provide a written report of that hearing, giving its findings and conclusions, and is the Commission now in a position to advise whether it will be "proposing measures in certain areas in the near future or medium term" and to advise what such measures might be?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The findings and conclusions of the hearing to which the Honourable Member refers are presented in the Commission's communication Financial services: Enhancing consumer confidence, of 26 June 1997 (1).

That communication sets out the results of a consultation process which the Commission launched in May 1996 with its Green Paper Financial Services: Meeting consumers' expectations(2), and the observations put forward at the hearing of interested parties - financial services industry, consumer organisations and Member States - that took place on 6 November 1996.

In the communication the Commission argues that action has already been taken to tackle some of the problems identified, for example regarding cross-border credit transfers(3). But in other cases it considers that new initiatives, legislative or voluntary, will be needed in order to give full effect to the single market and to meet consumers' expectations.

The Commission has since adopted a good many of the measures foreshadowed in the communication. Examples are the proposal for a directive on insurance for motorists travelling abroad, which the Commission put forward in July 1997, and the recommendation of July 1997 concerning transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder(4). In July 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on electronic money aimed at establishing a legislative framework for business of this kind.

Following on from the 1997 communication the Commission has also launched a voluntary initiative, a dialogue intended to enable the parties concerned to reach voluntary agreements on consumer information and consumer access to appeal machinery. In the course of 1997 and 1998 a particular subject of discussion was consumer information in the mortgage credit sector. A voluntary agreement on this point may be reached before the end of the year.

The Commission is currently examining other initiatives. These include the forthcoming directive on consumer credit and measures in respect of intermediaries.

Lastly, the Commission is drawing up a proposal for a directive on distance selling of financial services. The proposal would seek to improve the operation of the single market in this area, and to provide effective protection for consumers; it will be adopted in the next few months.

(1) COM(97) 309final.

(2) COM(96) 209final.

(3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(4) COM(97) 353final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Measures to tackle the crisis in Russia

Among the victims of the recent economic crisis in Russia are the Italian banks.

According to the latest surveys carried out by the Bank for International Settlements, Italian banks' exposure in Russia amounts to $4,3 billion, the equivalent of over LIT 8 000 billion. In particular, the SACE's exposure totals LIT 10 600 billion.

Any deterioration in the crisis in Russia could give rise to the so-called "contagion effect" which would worsen the general crisis in market confidence.

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to protect European investments in Russia, in view of the fact that it encourages investment in the former USSR through specific Community programmes such as TACIS?

In the light of the economic and political situation in Russia, does the Commission plan to make changes to the Community programmes aimed at helping the former Soviet Union?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

Russia is in the middle of a very serious economic and financial crisis against the background of a continuing political crisis and growing social unrest.

The Commission's preliminary assessment, at this stage, is that the direct effects of a Russian crisis on the Community are likely to be limited. The trade effects, except in some sectors such as agriculture, will be small as Russia accounts for only around 4 % of Community trade. The effects through the banking sector are likely to be manageable as, although exposure is high compared to American or Japanese banks, it is certainly relatively limited compared to total external exposure elsewhere.

Under the current circumstances, the Commission's efforts will concentrate on:

- making maximum use of the flexibility in the Tacis programme to focus as much as possible on areas where immediate remedial action needs to be taken, for instance public finances, financial sector reform and institution building;

- emphasising cooperation through the partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) in order to reinforce Russian institutional and economic structures;

- encouraging more private sector involvement to help resolve the crisis;

- working towards better coordination, both within the Community itself and between the Community and others, especially the international financial institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1979/98

by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Appointment of the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives

I have recently heard that the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives has been appointed for a period of only two years, whereas his term of office should normally be five years, as was recommended by the ECVAM's advisory committee.

What is the Commission's opinion of this, and what academic credibility does it think a director can have who only holds his post for two years?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/98

by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Council

(8 September 1998)

Subject: Lebanese prisoners in Syria

What pressure has the Council brought to bear in negotiating the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Syria, or under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to secure the release by the Syrian Government of the 250 Lebanese detainees still held in its prisons?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

1. The standard clause on human rights is included in the negotiating directives for an Association Agreement with Syria. The clause, which states that relations between parties will be based on respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights which guide their internal and international policy, constitutes an essential element of the agreement. The negotiations with Syria were opened in April 1998 and the second round of negotiations took place on 20-21 October 1998. The Council follows closely all aspects related to the negotiations.

2. Syria is also a signatory of the Barcelona Declaration in which the participants undertook to act in accordance with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as with other obligations under international law; and to develop the rule of law and democracy in their political systems.

3. The Council is following closely the question of Lebanese detainees in Syria. It noted that on 5 May 1998, 121 detainees had been liberated by the Syrian authorities.

4. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to employ all means at its disposal, of a formal or informal nature, to invite the Syrian authorities to abide by the rules of law and justice so as to allow the liberation of all prisoners unjustly detained.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Repayment by the Italian Government of the "Europe Tax"

In its 1997 budget the Italian Government levied the so-called "Europe Tax" in order to bring public finances into line with the criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty for moving to the third phase of the single currency.

The Italian Ministry of Finance has recently stated that 60 % of this tax will be repaid to taxpayers by the end of 1998.

Some Member States have several times expressed doubts about the legitimacy of this tax, precisely because of the commitment made to repay it.

If the Italian Government were to repay, as promised, part of the "Europe Tax" to taxpayers, does the Commission not consider that this alleged "tax" would in reality be compulsory lending imposed on the Italian people?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 1998)

The Italian Government has made considerable efforts on the budgetary consolidation front in recent years, and particularly in 1997. These efforts have enabled Italy to fulfil the budget criteria laid down in the Treaty on European Union and thus to qualify for participation in the third stage of economic and monetary union. In that context, Italy's finance act for 1997 contained a number of tax measures, in particular an income tax surcharge ("Tassa per l'Europa").

When the "Tassa per l'Europa" was adopted, the Government stated that it intended to reimburse some of the revenue from this surcharge to taxpayers in future years, under conditions to be determined. Recent statements by the Italian Finance Minister are in line with the political commitments which the Government entered into at that time.

Revenue and expenditure items are always entered in the budget in accordance with clear administrative rules. The proceeds from the "Tassa per l'Europa" were registered as budget revenue in exactly the same manner as the proceeds from other taxes.

A formal decision, taken after collection, to refund part of the revenue from the "Tassa per l'Europa" to taxpayers would constitute a new budget measure that would be independent, in both formal and accounting terms, of the initial collection of the surcharge. The corresponding expenditure would be charged to the budget for the year in which the refund was made.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Continued imports of Italian waste for disposal in Biebesheim in Germany

Since 1997 the authorities in Darmstadt have, on a number of occasions, granted the Italian firm 3 R Servizi S.p.A. authorization, pursuant to Articles 4 (2)(a) and 5(1) of the Regulation on shipments of waste (EEC) 259/93(1) to ship Italian waste for disposal at the special waste incineration facility in Biebesheim. The waste is imported by the firm Hessische Industriemüll GmbH (HIM).

Up to 24 June 1998 authorization had been granted to import shipments of at least 7 000 tonnes of waste from Italy for disposal in Germany. 3 R Servizi S.p.A. has announced its intention of submitting further applications. The competent Land authorities feel unable, on grounds of European law, to forbid these waste imports.

Is it permissible under European law for the Land of Hessen or the competent authority of destination to prohibit an import of waste from another Member State by invoking the principle of proximity if a waste disposal plant is available closer to the importer guaranteeing at least the same level of protection of health and the environment? Which takes precedence: the principle of self-sufficiency in waste disposal or the principle of proximity? Is the competent authority of destination entitled to turn down applications for shipments of waste for disposal on the grounds of reducing the transport risk?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.