ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3617/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Rate of progress of Greek land registry

Given that Greece is one of the few countries in Europe still lacking a national land registry, the establishment of such a registry is obviously a matter of capital importance for Greece. Will the Commission say, on the basis of the information it has at its disposal, what is the overall volume of appropriations set aside for funding the Greek land registry, how much has been disbursed so far, what progress has been achieved in relation to the project as a whole and when is the project expected to be completed at the present rate of progress?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1997)

The Environment operational programme, as approved on 29 July 1994, provides for public expenditure of ECU 172 million on the establishment of the land register in Greece, representing a third of the programme's budget. Following the recent discussions on the amendment of the Community support framework (CSF), it is planned in principle to reduce the budget for the land register by ECU 33.3 million (public expenditure).

The current absorption rate of this project is 11%. That rate is expected to double (22%) by the end of 1997, when the signed contracts will represent ECU 120 million. The Commission considers that it was necessary to make proper legislative and organisational preparations for the introduction of a national land register system. This necessarily took time, so that the utilisation of funds as such could only start as from this year. The Commission believes that there are no more obstacles to prevent absorption of the appropriations within the time limit laid down in the CSF.

According to the programming of the Greek authorities, it will take approximately 15 years to complete the land register throughout Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2230/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Effects of the substance ephedrine on public health

The American Food and Drugs Administration has called for checks on all products containing ephedrine since use of the substance has been shown to be responsible for the deaths of 17 people over recent months in the USA and for serious health problems in a further 800. Checks carried out by the Greek Drugs Organization have detected 31 products in Greece which contain ephedrine in quantities that pose a danger.

1. In what circumstances is it permissible to import and use drugs containing ephedrine?

2. Given that scientists differ on this point, at what level is the use of ephedrine dangerous?

3. How does the Commission intend to tackle the problem?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

Ephedrine, related to the amphetamine family, is an alkaloid of vegetable origin which can be used either to supplement certain diets or as a medicinal product with a wide range of therapeutic indications. As such, it is a stimulant of the cardio-vascular and nervous systems, with known side effects. The American Food and Drugs Administration's checks on products containing ephedrine, following the appearance of health problems related to their consumption, relate solely to food and not medicines.

To date, ephedrine-based medicinal products available in the Community have only received national marketing authorisations, in accordance with the provisions on the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products laid down in Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965, as amended, on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products ((OJ 22, 9.2.1965. )). Marketing authorisations must be sought for medicinal products containing ephedrine; they are granted for prescriptions which must observe the constant principle in human medicine of striking a balance between the health benefits/drawbacks of taking the medicinal product.

The importation into Community territory of medicinal products from non-member countries must meet the requirements of Chapter IV of the second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975, as amended, on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products ((OJ L 147, 9.6.1975. )). Use of these products is subject to the provisions on monitoring and pharmacovigilance laid down in that Directive.

Given that, to date, no medicinal product containing ephedrine has been authorised under the new Community procedures, centralised or decentralised, the Commission has not had to pronounce on the concentrations of ephedrine considered dangerous for human consumption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3003/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Appeal by Assoedilizia against the sell-off of Italian State-owned property

According to the Italian press Assoedilizia recently wrote to the Commission calling for the annulment of Legislative Decree No 104 of 16 February 1996 and Law No 503 of 26 November 1995 concerning the sell-off of Italian State-owned property, the assets of social security offices and property investment funds.

Assoedilizia claims that these legislative provisions undermine both the value and profitability of property, creating a market parallel to the private market, run by the Italian Sate as a monopoly outside the rules of free competition safeguarded by the Community market.

In view of this can the Commission say:

1. whether it knows about the above-mentioned appeal;

2. whether in any case it knows about the events linked to the sale of public property;

3. what its opinion on the subject is?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

The Commission checked whether the communication of Assoedilizia was received, which was not the case. Therefore, the Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/97 by Brendan Donnelly (PPE) to the Council (17 November 1997)

Subject: Declaration on Nationality in the Maastricht Treaty

Will the Council publish the texts of declarations lodged with the Presidency under the terms of the Declaration on Nationality of a Member State in the Maastricht Treaty, which states:

'Member States may declare for information, who are to be considered their nationals for Community purposes by way of a declaration lodged with the Presidency and may amend any such declaration when necessary'.

Answer (19 January 1998)

No Member State lodged with the Presidency declarations under the terms of Declaration (No 2) on Nationality of a Member State attached to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union.

It should be recalled, however, that a Declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany on the definition of the expression of 'German national' was attached to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and that another Declaration by the United Kingdom on the definition of the term 'nationals' was attached to the Accession Treaty of 1972; having regard to the British Nationality Act of 1981, the United Kingdom made a new Declaration, which appears in the Official Journal No C 23 of 28.1.1983, page 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4027/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (15 January 1998)

Subject: Landmines and EU aid

Does the Council welcome the UK decision to review the levels of its development funding to recipient countries which do not 'sign up' to the Ottawa agreement on landmines?

Would it, therefore, not be appropriate for the Council to recommend that the EU should adopt similar discrimination against recipients of EU development assistance which continue to produce and export landmines?

Answer (30 March 1997)

The Council has not to date been apprised of the content of the decision mentioned by the Honourable Member in her question, and has not therefore discussed the issue.

Nevertheless, the Honourable Member will be aware that, in the Joint Action on anti-personnel landmines, adopted on 28 November 1997, the Council recalled its resolution on the fight against anti-personnel landmines of 22 November 1996, which identified certain measures which could be adopted and the criteria which should govern the allocation of funds in support of mine clearance interventions.

At the same time, the European Union welcomed efforts to promote universal accession to the Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction and indicated that it would focus attention on those third countries which continue the irresponsible supply and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in the United Kingdom

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether the United Kingdom requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4220/97 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Labelling of foodstuffs - legibility

The labelling directive (79/112/EEC) ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p.1. )) specifies in Article 11 that the required particulars must be 'easy to understand and marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible'. In the Dutch Food and Drugs Act decision on the labelling of foodstuffs this provision is implemented using the terms easily visible and easy to read (Article 23).

1. Is it correct that when Member States implement Article 11 referred to above in their legislation they do not have to specify a minimum character size?

2. Is the Commission aware of complaints on the use of characters on labels which are too small or unclear?

3. Does the Commission consider that a minimum size should be specified for the characters used on labels which, in view of the increasing number of older consumers, would give a correct interpretation of the provision 'clearly legible'?

4. If so, is the standard set in internal guidelines for the monitoring of this provision?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (13 February 1998)

The implementation of Article 11(2) of Directive 79/112/EEC, which specifies that the information to be provided on the labelling of foodstuffs must be visible and clearly legible, is the operators' responsibility.

As Article 14 of the Directive specifies, Member States must refrain from laying down requirements more detailed than those already contained in Articles 3 to 11 concerning the manner in which the particulars provided for in these Articles are to be shown. In accordance with this provision, Member States are not entitled to fix the size of the characters used on the labelling.

The monitoring authorities in the Member States are however authorised to check if the principles set out in Article 11(2) and incorporated in national law are being correctly applied. If they believe that the particulars appearing on the labelling are illegible, they are fully within their rights to request that those responsible for the labelling modify it accordingly. The Commission is not authorised to carry out such inspections.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3689/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: The extraterritorial effect of certain US laws

What practical steps is the Commission taking to prevent the inclusion in the OECD multilateral investment agreement of the the provisions of the Helms-Burton and D'Amato Kennedy laws, which would thereby acquire extraterritorial effect?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3686/97, E-3687/97, E-3688/97, E-3689/97 and E-3690/97 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

The understanding with the United States is not unbalanced. The Commission has brought a World trade organisation(WTO) panel procedure against the Helms-Burton Act. The Commission considers that this legislation is in violation of international law since it intends to influence (or has the effect of influencing) the behaviour of Community companies because of their involvement in Cuba. The understanding of 11 April 1997 reached between the Community and the US on the Helms-Burton Act and the D'Amato Act, by which the Community agreed to suspend its WTO case regarding the former, calls for the development of disciplines which 'should inhibit and deter the future acquisition of investments from any State which has expropriated or nationalised such investments'. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the US to work together to address and resolve through agreed principles the issue of conflicting jurisdictions and secondary boycotts. It is important to note that the discussions between the Community and the US on this point are in symmetry with the discussions on investment disciplines. These talks are currently taking place with a view to finding an acceptable deal which will trigger a waiver under title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, thereby neutralising the extraterritorial effects of this Act.

In addition, the Community made clear that no settlement of the differences over the Helms-Burton Act will be implemented unless the United States has also granted Community companies a waiver under the D'Amato Act.

The Community has reserved all rights to resume the WTO panel procedure, or begin new procedures, if measures are taken against Community companies under Helms Burton or D'Amato as a result of waivers not being granted or continued.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: School transport by bus in the EU

A large number of accidents occur in all the EU Member States involving school buses, in most cases because the vehicles are not up to proper safety standards.

The use of school buses with a reasonably harmonized appearance (colour, logo, etc), conforming to rigorous safety standards and thus identified with higher safety levels for primary and secondary schoolchildren, could be of positive symbolic value for the EU.

Can the Commission state:

1. whether it possesses information on Member States' practice in this field, and whether special requirements exist concerning safety checks and certification for vehicles of this type;

2. whether, in the context of the European educational dimension and the rules governing road transport and safety at work, the possibility could not be studied of turning school transport into a European symbol of safety for children and access to education?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 January 1998)

The Commission is naturally concerned by any accidents involving school buses but cannot on the basis of the available facts, accept the Honourable Member's assertions that 'A large number of accidents occur in all the Member States involving school buses' and that accidents involving school buses are 'in most cases because the vehicles are not up to proper safety standards'.

Of the 45 000 road fatalities that occur annually in the European Union less than one percent relate to any form of bus or coach and school transport accounts for a small fraction of all bus and coach journeys. Meanwhile, the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of all road accidents result from human error rather than because of defective standards.

In response to the Honourable Member's two specific questions. The Commission is not aware of any Member State requiring harmonised appearance and higher safety levels for vehicles used in school transport. Council Directive 96/96/EC ((OJ L 46, 17.2.1997. )) lays down requirements for roadworthiness tests on all motor vehicles, including school buses and consequently provides the type of safety check and certification mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Whilst uniquely identifiable vehicles built to special safety standards for school transport (as in the United States) could provide further safety benefits, the Commission notes that no Member State has yet chosen to take this approach in national legislation. Such an approach would clearly necessitate the creation of two fleets of buses - one exclusively for school transport and one for other purposes and may not be regarded as practical or cost-effective. The Commission will, in any event, continue to promote legislative and other changes in the effort to try to ensure high safety standards for all buses and coaches, regardless of their use.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3934/97 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (4 December 1997)

Subject: BSE - classification of Member States into differing risk areas

Can the Commission indicate how, in its opinion, the Member States of the European Union should be classified, on the basis of the IOE criteria, into BSE-free regions, low risk regions and high risk regions?

In the Commission's view, what shortcomings are there in those Member States which, on the basis of the IOE standards, are classified as low risk areas and could therefore be viewed by the Commission as zero risk areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1998)

Chapter 3.2.13 of the International office of epizootics (IOE) code, dealing with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), refers to three categories of countries: those free from BSE, those with a high incidence of the disease and those with a low incidence. It does not classify countries on the basis of risk.

The incidence of BSE in a country is not synonymous with the risk of BSE. The incidence is determined by the accuracy of detecting and reporting disease, whereas the risk of becoming infected or of transmitting BSE is determined by measures taken to prevent or eliminate infection. Thus, a country in which inadequate measures have been taken to prevent the use of infected feed and which has no effective surveillance for BSE may have reported no cases, but may present a greater risk than a country which has reported a few cases but has taken effective measures to deal with them.

The scientific veterinary committee, in its opinion of 21 October 1996, stated that it 'considers any risk from BSE to be much lower in other Member States than in the UK, but it is not zero'. All Member States are at liberty to submit evidence to the Commission if they seek to demonstrate that they have a particularly favourable position in regard to risk from BSE. Several have already done so and their submissions will be examined by the appropriate scientific committee.

The Commission cannot take a position with respect to the situation in any individual Member State until it has received the scientific advice. As a first step, the Scientific steering committee is presently preparing a harmonised list of criteria against which all submissions will be evaluated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in Ireland

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether Ireland requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.