ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2062/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Promotion of renewable energy sources at national level

The European Union has set itself the target of increasing the proportion of energy from renewable sources to 15 % of total energy produced. According to some estimates, the current proportion is only 8 %, over three quarters of which is represented by hydro-electric power. If the figure of 15 % is to be achieved, the growth must come from other energy sources.

Does the Commission have figures for the proportion of energy produced from renewable sources in each Member State, and will an attempt be made at EU level to initiate national programmes to bring the proportion of renewable energy up to 15 %?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Council adopted a resolution on 8 June 1998(1) on promoting renewables with the clear objective of doubling the present share of renewable energy sources in the Community's primary energy consumption by 2010, from the current level of 6 % to 12 % based on recommendations of the Commission's white paper and action plan for renewables, adopted in November 1997(2).

Water power (large and small hydro) accounted for 13 % of total electricity generation in the Community in 1995. The white paper contains tables with figures for the renewables share in total energy consumption per Member State, as requested by the Honourable Member.

As part of the strategy put forward in the white paper, Member States will have to play a very large role in the effort to increase the market penetration of renewables. The majority of Member States either already have national plans and programmes aimed at doing so, or are in the process of adopting such schemes and measures and will also need to allocate resources. The Commission is strongly encouraging this process at national and regional level but it is for the Member States to set up such national programmes supporting and promoting renewables.

The principal rôle of the Community and the Commission is to undertake actions at Community level when there is added value, to ensure coordination between the actions undertaken by Member States, and to promote full transparency as well as a coherent and self-reinforcing approach and fair competition. The Commission clearly also has a role to ensure the optimized use of existing Community resources in order to promote renewables. The Commission is actively encouraging Member States to adopt their own national targets for increased share of renewables, each according to its own circumstances and in full respect of subsidiarity, but it cannot oblige Member States to do so. The Commission has the responsibility of carrying out the necessary monitoring of renewables and of making proposals for any adjustment which may prove necessary over the course of the strategy, in order to keep the Community's efforts as a whole on track towards the overall objective of reaching a 12 % share of renewables in the Community's energy balance by 2010.

(1) OJ C 198, 24.6.1998.

(2) COM(97) 599 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Cement dust pollution in Evvia

The inhabitants of Khalkis (Evvia) are in uproar over the pollution caused by the cement factory owned by Tsimenta Khalkidos.

The company refuses to take measures to protect the environment and, as a result, is harming the health of the population of Khalkis and the region as a whole as well as causing unprecedented damage to its sensitive environment.

Tsimenta Khalkidos was sold a few years ago, two of the main objectives of selling being to increase employment and protect the environment and public health. Whereas the number of workers employed by the company in 1991 was 1150, the current figure is half that, while the factory's filters have not been modernized and its environmental performance does not meet international standards.

What action will the Commission take to compel the company to honour its pledges to meet the environmental criteria?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

Plants for the production of cement fall under the scope of Council Directive 84/360/EEC on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants(1). Under this Directive, Member States have to take the necessary measures to ensure that the operation of such plants requires prior authorization by the authorities. An authorization may be issued only when the authorities are satisfied that all appropriate preventive measures against air pollution have been taken, including the application of the best available technology, provided that the application of such measures does not entail excessive cost, and that the use of the plant will not cause significant air pollution. Member States shall also implement policies and strategies, including appropriate measures, for the adaptation of existing plants to the best available technology. The Directive, however, does not fix emission limit values for polluting substances.

Installations for the production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day fall into the scope of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(2). This Directive will come into effect by end of October 1999. The permit to be issued for such installations shall include emission limit values for pollutants, based on the best available techniques. Existing installations have to comply with the requirements of the Directive not later than eight years after the date on which it is brought into effect.

The information given by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to conclude whether or not there is a breach of Community legislation. The Commission will therefore send a letter to the Greek authorities, asking for complementary information.

(1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984.

(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/98

by Edward Kellett-Bowman (PPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Safety in the workplace: soldering

Is the Commission aware of the problems caused by the toxic fumes resulting from the soldering process which affect many workers, particularly those in electronics assembly work, and are there any plans to draw up proposals to deal with this toxic pollution?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

The Commission is aware of the risks to the health of workers arising from exposure to welding fumes.

Workers exposed to welding fumes are already covered by the measures provided by the Community legislation on health and safety at work, such as Council Directives 80/1107/EEC(1), 89/391/EEC(2), 89/654/EEC(3), 89/655/EEC3, 89/656/EEC3, 90/394/EEC(4) and 98/24/EC(5). These directives lay down minimum requirements under Article 118A of the EC Treaty which are to be applied in the workplace in order to ensure that all the necessary steps have been taken to prevent or adequately control workers' exposure.

(1) OJ L 327, 3.12.1980.

(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(3) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.

(4) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(5) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Food shortages in North Korea

In view of the continuing food shortages in North Korea and the consequent problems of malnutrition, particularly amongst children, is the Commission responding positively to the recommendations of the FAO that increased "double cropping" would provide a partial solution and, in particular, to the request from the Government of North Korea for 8000 tonnes of wheat seed and 4500 tonnes of barley seed, plus an extra request for delivery of fertilisers?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 1998)

The Commission has been actively monitoring the food security situation and associated humanitarian problems in North Korea since 1995. Substantial Community assistance, worth approximately ECU 120 million, has been provided in the period 1995-1998.

Although natural disasters, particularly in 1995 and 1996, aggravated the situation, the primary cause of the food shortages in North Korea is structural, stemming from the country's failure to adapt its agriculture and wider economy to changed international circumstances (the disappearance of former trade subsidies from China and ex-USSR).

Given the structural nature of the problems, the Commission has already in 1998 partially shifted Community assistance away from food aid towards measures designed to improve food security. An integrated ECU 30 million package combining both food aid (86 000 tonnes of assorted products) and support for agricultural rehabilitation (30 000 tonnes of fertiliser; technical assistance and pilot projects) is currently being implemented. The Community has also in the past supported double-cropping initiatives in North Korea with a view to promoting increased agricultural productivity.

No decision has yet been taken on possible Community food aid or food-security operations in North Korea for 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2816/98

by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Sun screens

In view of the various reports published in August in various sections of the media concerning the ineffectiveness of sun screens in cases such as melanoma, can the Commission say:

1. whether it has any information on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of such products, and

2. if not, what steps will it take to clarify the matter?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1998)

The safety of cosmetic products marketed in the Community is ensured by the provisions of Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, otherwise known as the Cosmetics Directive. The safety of sunscreens is closely examined and regulated through the provisions of Annex VII which lists the ultra violet (UV) filters that can be used in cosmetic products in the Community.

Article 7a of the Directive states that the manufacturer must make information on the efficacy of the product available to the authorities. The efficacy of sunscreens is demonstrated through the determination of the sun protection factor (SPF) for a material or product. This is the universal means by which the effectiveness of a sunscreen is assessed. It compares the UV dose required to introduce skin reaction with and without the protective product under examination. This method (for which a standard protocol is available) is widely accepted by dermatologists and health workers and has demonstrated the positive benefits of the protection provided by UV filters.

However, the Commission is responsive to the concerns over the safety and efficacy of sun products that have recently been reported. The Commission has convened, in the framework of the activities of the scientific committee on cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers, an expert panel on the safety of sunscreens. The expert panel will convene its first meeting in early 1999 and will advise the Commission on the consumer safety implications of the use of sunscreens and UV protectors. The scientific committee will examine the safety of sunscreens, their ability to block the harmful effects of UV exposure, consumer habits and the suitability of SPF for giving consumer information. The Commission will review the opinions of the expert panel and propose legislative or technical actions as appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Gas and electricity directives and environment impact assessment

The Commission has recently produced gas and electricity directives as a step towards greater liberalisation.

Why have these directives not already been subjected to an environment impact assessment, and when will this happen?

What will the Commission do to ensure that efficiency demands for the energy sector, the main sector to meet climate change commitments, will not be countered by liberalisation efforts?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission committed itself in 1993(1) to subject new legislative proposals to environmental impact assessments. As, however, the proposals for the directives on liberalisation of the markets for electricity and natural gas date from 21 February 1992, the Commission has not subjected these directives to environmental impact assessments.

Generally, the Commission considers that possible risks of liberalisation (e.g. more energy consumption due to lower prices) will be outweighed largely by the positive effects liberalisation will have on the environment, such as the interconnection of the systems favoured by the creation of a liberalised single market which means that reserve capacity can become smaller per country with less waste of natural resources. Also the introduction of competition will lead to increasing energy efficiency, because waste of resources is translated into higher prices, which will lead to a loss of customers in a competitive situation. In addition, further liberalisation and competition on prices will lead to a quicker switch over to the cheaper, and most importantly, cleaner resource of natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation.

Finally, the opening of the market, and the accompanying measures envisaged to promote access to the grid of electricity generated by renewables, are expected to provide new opportunities for the environmentally friendly renewable energies to take a bigger share of the market.

(1) SEC(93) 785 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2367/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Foreign prisoners held in French jails under Article 752

In France, convicted drug-traffickers must pay the street value of the drugs in their possession or, if the fine is over FF 500 000, must serve up to another two years in addition to their basic sentence. During that time, foreign nationals are eligible neither for transfer to their home country nor for parole.

Would the Commission support proposals to allow prisoners from the EU to serve these last two years of their sentence in the Member State of origin?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

Arrangements for the transfer of sentenced persons between the Member States are primarily governed by the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons of 21 March 1983.

The transfer of a person under this convention is subject to a number of conditions including the consent of the person concerned and the agreement of the sentencing state and the state to which the person is to be transferred. In accordance with the Convention the person concerned must be informed about the Convention by the sentencing state and may make known to either stated his interest in being transferred. It is possible for either state to apply for the transfer to take place.

Within the Union judicial co-operation is a matter of common interest in accordance with Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union. According to these provisions as they currently stand, the Commission is not in a position to take action in this field, but such an initiative must come from the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Payment arrangements for funding of EU projects

Many small national organizations have experienced cash flow problems as a result of the slow payment of funds for EU projects. Even if the proportion borne out of the organizers' own resources is, say 40 %, the organization is forced to tie up considerably more of its own money for the period of the projects, because the EU pays its aid in three tranches. The first tranche (30 %) is paid within 60 days from the beginning of the project, the second (40 %) within 60 days from the approval of the interim report, and the third (30 %) within 60 days from the approval of the final report. Even when the reports have been submitted, it can take months before the final report is dealt with and the last tranche can be paid.

Is it really necessary for funding applications to cover only a year at a time, given that many projects are planned and approved for a longer period?

Could the EU payment arrangements be speeded up, for example by paying in tranches of 50 % at the beginning of the project, 40 % after approval of the interim report (by which time in practice ten months of the one-year project have already elapsed) and the remaining 10 % after approval of the final report?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Community grants are governed by specific legal bases, the Financial Regulation(1) and general instructions and guidelines drawn up by the Commission.

Such instructions and guidelines allow for the possibility of large advances to be made (up to 100 % of the grant), provided the sum is guaranteed by a financial organisation.

In order to resolve the problems referred to by the Honourable Member, grant recipients may come to an agreement with the authorising department about the rules that will apply in these particular cases.

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2606/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the working time directive

If the United Kingdom proceeds to implement the working time directive with a 14 day, rather than a 7 day, reference period, which means that workers can be asked to work for 12 days in a row without a break for Sunday or other day for religious observance, would the UK be breaching the directive and would it be stepping out of line with the way other EU Member States have implemented the directive? What are the reference periods so far chosen by other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Under Article 16(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC(1) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, Member States may lay down a reference period not exceeding 14 days for the application of Article 5 (weekly rest period). As the Court of justice in Case C-84/94(2) annulled the second paragraph of Article 5 relating to Sunday rest, there is nothing to preclude a Member State from adopting a reference period of 14 days as regards the weekly rest period.

The situation in the Member States varies significantly and is very complex. In some, Sunday is considered in principle as the day for the weekly rest period. However, in a number of sectors and activities work during Sunday is permitted, even in Member States which have provisions relating to work on a Sunday. The Commission is currently undertaking a thorough examination of Member States implementation measures with a view to presenting an implementation report on the working time directive. The issue of reference periods will also be addressed in this report.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) ECR 1996, page I-5755.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland

Will the Commission state whether the Irish market for motor vehicle insurance is affected by any derogations from EU competition policy or other legislation and can the Commission state when such derogations come to an end?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: Printing of the euro

Transporting and guarding currency is a notoriously dangerous and hazardous business, as the recent industrial action over violence against security guards in Belgium demonstrated.

Given these security dangers in a relatively peaceful country such as Belgium, as well as the very high costs of transporting currency, does the Commission agree that the euro should be printed only within the borders of the European Union and, if so, what plans has it made, or will it be making, to ensure that this occurs?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

According to the EC Treaty (Article 105a 1), the issuance of euro banknotes is the competence of the European central bank (ECB) and the National central banks (NCBs), the ECB having the exclusive right to authorise the issue of such banknotes. The technical preparation of euro banknotes was supervised by the European monetary institute (EMI) until the creation of the ECB (on 1 June 1998) and by the ECB since then.

According to the information from the ECB, thirteen Member States have their own banknote printing works. The two Member States which do not have their own printing works buy their banknotes from European commercial security printers. As decided by the governing council of the ECB in June 1998, the production of euro banknotes for the initial supply is going to take place at national level on the basis of the same printing works, with the possibility of exceptional bilateral pooling arrangements for the production of some denominations for which the volume needed would be very low.

The competence for issuing coins lies with the Member States (Article 105 a 2). The national mints will be in charge of minting the euro coins.

Therefore, given that the bulk of production will take place at national level, the transport of euro banknotes and coin, and consequently the associated risks and costs, will be limited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2678/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Environmental crime

The fight against organised crime is increasingly becoming a key concern for the Union. It is generally agreed that the threat posed needs to be tackled through individual and joint action.

The conclusions of the Cardiff Summit noted that environmental crime was a serious, disturbing matter whose effects often extended beyond national borders. Measures would accordingly have to be taken to combat it.

1. What practical steps will the Commission take to answer the above call for action?

2. What particular forms will the measures take?

3. What impact will they have on criminal prosecution issues in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission agrees with the conclusions of the Cardiff European Council on the need for closer cooperation at European level to combat environmental crime. It will examine with interest the proposals to provide common definitions of offences announced by the Danish Minister for Justice during the public debate at the Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs) held in May 1998. Such measures will facilitate judicial cooperation and prevent certain firms from taking advantage of existing disparities between criminal laws to the detriment of the environment. The Commission feels this initiative should be supplemented by a communication on stepping up the fight against environmental crime. The communication would cover the exchange of information, training, investigations, prevention and legal matters such as improved enforcement of existing legislation. With regard to the last point, as the Commission already mentioned in its communication on Implementing Community environmental law(1), it is planning to include specific provisions in its proposals for environmental legislation, requiring the Member States to make provision, in their transposal measures, for penalties, including criminal penalties, in the event of an infringement of these measures.

(1) COM(96) 500 final.