do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 177/98 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Disposal of sewage and waste water
Date: 1998-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, WATTS
Subjects: flood, marine pollution, pollution control measures, urban area, waste management, wastewater, water treatment

C 223/134

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 7. 98

(98/C 223/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: Disposal of sewage and waste water

Is there any EU legislation, existing or proposed, which seeks to prevent the discharge of untreated waste into the
sea when the capacity of the treatment facilities is not able to cope after heavy rain and flood waters?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 1998)

Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on the treatment of urban waste water (1) provides that the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of waste-water collection and treatment systems shall be such that they,
in particular, restrict any pollution of the recipient waters caused by installation overload due to rainstorms.

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(98/C 223/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: Disposal of sewage and waste water

Is the Commission aware that several barges a day still take sewage from London down the River Thames and
discharge it into the Thames estuary within a relatively short distance of the Thanet coast? What legislation exists
or is planned to prevent such wholesale disregard of the marine and coastal environment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 1998)

The UK authorities have informed the Commission that discharges to surface waters from boats were not of
urban  sewage  but  of  sludge  from  sewage  treatment  plants.  Article  14  of  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of
21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste  water  treatment (1)  calls  on  the  Member  States  to  ensure  that  by
31 December 1998 the disposal of sludge to surface waters by dumping from ships, by discharge from pipelines
or by other means is phased out.

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(98/C 223/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/98

by Jesu·s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: International anti-drugs centre, Panama

The US and Panamanian Governments have reached an agreement in principle whereby, for a period of twelve
years starting on 31 December 1999, the two countries will jointly operate an international anti-drugs centre.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 305/98 of 5 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1337/97
Date: 1998-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, barley, export refund

L 31/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 2. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 305/98

of 5 February 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation
to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1337/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2052/97 (4), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund and/or the
tax for the export of barley to all third countries was
opened pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1337/97 (5);

Whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of
the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No

1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
than the
tenderer whose bid is equal
maximum refund, as well as to any tenderer whose bid
relates to an export tax;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
the Management
in accordance with the opinion of
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 30 January to 5 February 1998,
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation
(EC) No 1337/97, the maximum refund on exportation of
barley shall be ECU 26,96 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 February
1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 287, 21. 10. 1997, p. 14.
(5) OJ L 184, 12. 7. 1997, p. 1.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 303/98 of 5 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1773/97
Date: 1998-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, oats

L 31/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6. 2. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 303/98

of 5 February 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to
tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1773/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2052/97 (4),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1773/
97 of 12 September 1997 on a special
intervention
measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden (5), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 268/98 (6), and in partic-
ular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund for the
export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for
export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries was
opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1773/97;

Whereas Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1773/97
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid

down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of
the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No
1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
tenderer whose bid is equal
than the
maximum refund;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 30 January to 5 February 1998,
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation
(EC) No 1773/97, the maximum refund on exportation of
oats shall be ECU 29,87 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 February
1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 287, 21. 10. 1997, p. 14.
(5) OJ L 250, 13. 9. 1997, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 25, 31. 1. 1998, p. 76.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 252/98 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. Agriculture
Date: 1998-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, SKINNER
Subjects: animal disease, rabies, report, scientific committee (EU), vaccination, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation, veterinary medicine

C 304/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2. 10. 98

(98/C 304/86)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0252/98

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: Agriculture

Can the Commission confirm if it has conducted its review on the quarantine situation in the Member States, as
required under Article 10 of Directive 92/65/EEC (1), and if it will publish its results?

(1)  OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p.54.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1998)

The rabies quarantine situation was reviewed and updated by the scientific veterinary committee and a report was
issued in September 1997. A copy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

It was concluded in this report that an alternative system to quarantine for rabies, for dogs and cats, was a viable
option  which  offered  an  equivalent  guarantee  of  safety.  In  brief,  the  alternative  suggested  system  involves
vaccination, microchips and blood testing. The Commission will make suitable proposals at an appropriate time.

(98/C 304/87)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0253/98

by Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: Obligation to accept two currencies for the same transaction

Is there a statutory obligation for businesses to accept two different currencies (the old national currency
1.
and the euro) for the same transaction in the period between 1 January and 1 July 2002? If so, in what legislative
act is this obligation laid down?

2. Would it not be more acceptable to drop this obligation to accept two different currencies if there were a
large number of exchange points for the old national currency in commercial banks, for example?

3. Will the Commission make any recommendations on this matter?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1998)

The  obligation  for  businesses  to  accept  a  payment  is  a  question  about  legal  tender,  which  is  a  privilege  of
banknotes and, with some restrictions, of coins. Today in all Member States no one can be forced to accept a
payment by cheque or electronic means, even in the national currency. This will remain the case with the euro.

Euro notes and coins will be introduced in all participating Member States on 1 January 2002. According to
article 10 and 11 of the draft regulation on the introduction of the euro (1), these euro notes and coins will be legal
tender in all participating Member States and therefore must in principle be accepted by retailers for payment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 256/98 by Elly PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL to the Commission. European firms paying for forbidding documents in Turkish public tendering procedures
Date: 1998-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, PLOOIJ-VAN GORSEL
Subjects: Türkiye, administrative cooperation, administrative formalities, invitation to tender, payment, public contract, trade agreement

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(1999/C 13/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/97

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Documents of Compliance

How many companies have been refused ISM Documents of Compliance in each Member State?

(1999/C 13/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/97

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Refusal of ISM Safety Management Certificates

How many vessels have been refused ISM Safety Management Certificates by category in each Member State?

Supplementary joint answer
to Written Questions E-2804/97 and E-2805/97
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

Information provided by the Member States on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) 3051/95 on the
safety management of roll-on, roll-off passenger ferries indicates that no ro-ro ferries or companies have been
refused international standards method (ISM) related certificates in the Member States.

(1999/C 13/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0256/98

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: European firms paying for forbidding documents in Turkish public tendering procedures

Is the Commission aware that European firms taking part in public tendering procedures in Turkey have to pay to
receive the bidding documents?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 179/98 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Disposal of sewage and waste water
Date: 1998-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, WATTS
Subjects: building permit, coastal protection, environmental protection, hydraulic works, wastewater, water treatment

2. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 304/45

Given that many foods of non-animal origin can pose a considerable risk to public health, for example many of
them can contain mycotoxins, does the Commission intend to harmonize EU levels of inspection for foodstuffs
of non-animal origin to the same level as that for foodstuffs of animal origin? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and
will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(98/C 304/62)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0176/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: Disposal of sewage and waste water

Is the practice of discharging treated sewage into the sea environmentally sustainable?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 1998)

The aim of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on the treatment of urban waste water (1) is to protect
the environment, and in particular seawater, against impairment by discharges of such waste waters.

The provisions of the Directive, and in particular those concerning discharges into coastal waters are, by their
nature, intended to provide effective long-term protection for the marine environment.

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(98/C 304/63)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: Disposal of sewage and waste water

In the context of the Thanet Objective 2 Programme, is the proposal to construct a large sewage plant on the
clifftops of Foreness Point, on one of the last areas of public open space in the district and an acknowledged area
of natural beauty, compatible with the policies to regenerate the economy by, inter alia, protecting and enhancing
the environment, not least that along the coast? Can the Commission assure me that no EU money will fund such
a project?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 1998)

It  is  understood  that  a  sewage  plant  is  planned  for  construction  at  Foreness  Point  and  has  received  planning
permission. However, although the plant will be located in the area covered by the Thanet objective 2 single
programming document 1997-1999, it would not constitute an eligible project under that programme.