ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/02

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Eligibility of workers to stand for election to works councils and joint works councils

Since joining the EEA and then the European Union, the Republic of Austria has been required to implement and apply Community law. This includes the rights of migrant workers from countries which are contracting parties to the EEA Agreement, and in particular the right to stand for election to bodies representing the interests of workers, which is covered by the non-discrimination principle enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (free movement of persons). Excluding workers who belong to Chambers of Labour and who come from the countries concerned from standing for election to bodies representing the interests of workers is contrary to Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68(1). The Commission therefore referred the case to the Court on 16 October 1997, and brought infringement proceedings against Austria on 9 July 1999. In spite of this, there has not yet been a majority in the National Assembly in favour of adapting the relevant laws. On 29 December 2000 the Commission criticised the Austrian laws again in a reasoned opinion, and called on the Austrian government for the last time to take the appropriate measures.

The exclusion of Turkish workers from elections to the Vorarlberg Chamber of Labour led to the election being legally challenged in the first half of 1999, and then to a case in the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court in Vienna referred the decision to the European Court of Justice.

Has the Austrian government reacted to the Commission's reasoned opinion, and if so how?

Given that no appropriate measures have yet been taken, has the Commission brought proceedings before the European Court of Justice against Austria, or does it intend to do so?

Will the Constitutional Court's referral have any influence on the substance of the Commission's infringement proceedings, and if so, in what way?

Does the Commission intend to contest both Article 21 of the Chamber of Labour Act (Arbeiterkammergesetz) and Article 53 of the Labour Constitution Act (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz) during the proceedings, or only one of the two?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

The Austrian authorities replied to the reasoned opinion in April 2001 which was considered unsatisfactory.

The Commission therefore proceeded to the next stage of the infringement procedure and referred the case to the Court of Justice on 4 December 2001 (Case C-465/01).

The Austrian Constitutional Court's referral does not have any influence on the substance of the infringement procedure, in which the Commission contests both Article 21 of the Chamber of Labour Act (Arbeiterkammergesetz) and Article 53 subpara (1) of the Labour Constitution Act (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: The Bahamas

In relation to the Bahamas can the Commission provide a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget for 2001 and indicate the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0215/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Botswana

In relation to Botswana can the Commission provide a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget for 2001 and indicate the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0032/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Calculation of price divergence

Will the Commission state why it has used private consumption including indirect taxes, as opposed to private consumption excluding indirect taxes, as the basis for its calculations of price divergence in the report from the Commission Economic Reform: Report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets(1)?

(1) COM(2001) 736 final.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Price convergence for private final consumption including taxes is one of the structural indicators agreed on by the Council to be used by the Commission in the synthesis report to the Spring European Councils. The Commission has also been using this indicator for some time in its annual report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets (the Cardiff report) as an indicator of price convergence in the internal market.

The purpose of the indicator is to monitor the convergence of prices actually paid by consumers and for that reason prices including taxes are used. However, in last year's Cardiff report(1), the Commission produced the indicator both including and excluding VAT in order to show the impact of differences in VAT-rates on price convergence(2).

The results (table 1) which show the price level with respect to the Union-average for private final consumption excluding and including VAT for all Member States in 1998 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. The price difference without VAT measured by the co-efficient of variation was 12 percent which is not much less than when VAT is taken into account (14 percent)(3).

For individual countries, however, differences in the VAT-rate can change the relative position with respect to the Union-average.

Differences in the VAT-rate also have an impact on price differences across sectors. Table 2, which is also sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat, shows the co-efficient of variation for goods and services calculated with and without VAT. VAT makes the biggest difference for non-durable goods like for instance food. VAT differences across Member States are fairly large in food products. The VAT-rate ranges from zero for some types of food in Ireland and the United Kingdom to 25 percent in Denmark. For durable goods like for example televisions and other consumer electronics equipment, VAT differences across Member States are smaller.

(1) COM(2000) 881 final.

(2) These calculations take into account VAT only.

(3) The co-efficient of variation measures the average variation in the price levels around the mean and is a measure of the price variation across Member States. For instance, a co-efficient of variation equal to 0,15 means that on average prices varies with ± 15 percent around the mean.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0226/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Belize

In relation to Belize can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/02 by Ralf Walter (PSE) to the Commission. EU subsidies for Rheinland-Pfalz in 2001.



Official Journal 160 E , 04/07/2002 P. 0225 - 0225



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/02 by Ralf Walter (PSE) to the Commission (15 March 2002) Subject: EU subsidies for Rheinland-Pfalz in 2001 What EU funds did Rheinland-Pfalz receive in 2001, and under what measures, from: 1. the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), 2. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance section, 3. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee section, 4. the European Social Fund (ESF), 5. the EC research programmes, 6. the EC programmes for environment 7. other EC programmes? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (22 March 2002) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Funding for disability projects

Does the Commission know what percentage of EU development project money is spent on disability projects?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

There are no Community programmes which provide funding exclusively for disability projects. The Commission's general approach is to ensure that all relevant Community actions are open to this type of project. This means that funding to help people with disabilities is granted under the Structural Funds and as part of programmes in the field of employment and social inclusion or in areas such as research and development, education, training and EU external policies.

However, there are no data which may be used to calculate the percentage of funding related to these actions which is spent exclusively on assisting people with disabilities. Nevertheless, the Commission has begun a study, which should produce results by 2002, in order to obtain further information on the various groups receiving support from the European Social Fund (ESF).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: EU standards governing whistle-blowers in the private sector

The Economist (issue of 12.-18.1.2002) raises an important issue when dealing with whistle-blowers in the private sector.

The Commission's internal rules on whistle-blowing are at the development stage and, while some directives do contain a few provisions dealing with this activity, horizontal provisions are lacking at EU level, particularly where whistle-blowing is not carried out by an official. Nevertheless, in view of the competitive situation of private companies operating in the internal market, the existence of uniform minimum standards could be of considerable significance.

Has the Commission considered the impact of the absence of whistle-blowing rules from the common labour market provisions on the functioning of the internal market?

Does it consider it necessary to draw up common rules to safeguard the position of employees of companies operating in the EU when blowing the whistle on the malpractices or negligence of their own employer?

Into what legislative project could such provisions most rapidly be incorporated or would it be better to begin drawing up a separate proposal dealing with them?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

There is no Community labour law on whistle-blowers and this issue is not addressed in the Social Policy Agenda adopted by the European Council in Nice (7 and 9 December 2000).

Furthermore, this matter is not on the agenda of the social partners at Union level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Answer to Written Question E-1393/01

Further to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-1393/01(1), will the Commission please specify for each separate Member State in a table:

1. the discount rate normally applied in the cost-benefit analyses;

2. the hourly rate attributed to time savings (with more than one if that is the case);

3. the savings attributed to reductions in fatalities?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 99.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Discount rates, hourly rate attributed to time saving, and savings attributed to reductions in fatalities used for infrastructure project assessment are established by Member States. The project Socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport 4th Framework Transport Research Programme reviewed these values in 1997. A table from the report providing the raw values for the main categories is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that definitions and measurements vary considerably among Member States. No direct comparison can therefore be made. The above mentioned project has proposed harmonised definitions and measurements and results can be found in the final report available from the Commission website(1).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/reports.htmlEUNET/SASI final report socio-economics and spatial impacts of transport, contract ST-96-SC037 (found under the headline Strategic).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/02

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Testing of medicinal products in Europe

In December 2001, Professor Urpo Rinne of the University of Åbo/Turku received a four-year unconditional prison sentence for misconduct and embezzlement in connection with research projects he had been in charge of. According to newspaper reports, the research projects related inter alia to the testing of medicines for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and patients' safety was put at risk. Given that the number of licence approvals in the USA has fallen (1996: 53; 2000: 27; 2001: 16), will the Commission state whether the rules on the testing of medicinal products are less stringent in Europe and whether pharmaceuticals firms have switched testing to Europe and Finland owing to differences in the rules on the licensing of medicines? Are there any other major differences, which could put patients at risk, that have attracted such research projects to Finland?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The rules on the testing of medicinal products in Europe are no less stringent than those that apply in the US.

According to Directive 2001/83/EC, all phases of clinical investigation on a medicinal product shall be designed, implemented and reported in accordance with good clinical practice and carried out in accordance with the ethical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. The internationally harmonised guideline on good clinical practice applies in Europe, the US and Japan.

In addition, Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use sets out the rules relating to the design, conduct, recording and reporting of such clinical trials in the European Union. This Directive sets out strict rules for the conduct of clinical trials and their audit and inspection, which are already set out in the harmonised guideline on good clinical practice.

Other European texts provide guidance on clinical trials in general and on the development of particular medicinal products in different therapeutic areas, including Parkinson's disease.

The number of licence approvals in a country, whether falling or rising, bears no relation to the number of clinical trials conducted in that country and there is no evidence that companies are switched from the US to conduct trials in the EU because of a laxer clinical trial environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0933/02

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Member State legislation on health and safety for the self-employed

Given that in approximately half the Member States the self-employed, while covered by the Framework Directive for health and safety, are not covered in the individual Member State to the extent that national legislation on health and safety does not include the self-employed, will the Commission give priority to proposing an EU-wide solution which ensures that all workers in the Internal Market are ensured of equal treatment in relation to health and safety in the workplace, thus improving conditions for labour mobility and contributing to a more effective Internal Market and dynamic EU economy?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the importance of recognising the need for protection of the health and safety at work of the self-employed.

However, the Framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(1) does not cover the self-employed. In fact, its Article 3 defines the term worker as used in the Directive as any person employed by an employer. The result is that this provision clearly excludes self-employed persons from the scope of the Directive.

The Commission has however recently adopted a proposal for a Council Recommendation concerning the application of legislation governing health and safety at work to self-employed workers(2). The Recommendation is a non-binding instrument aimed at achieving a minimum level of protection for self-employed workers in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. The main issues dealt with in the Recommendation are recognition of the rights of self-employed workers, information, training, and health surveillance.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2) COM(2002) 166 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Urban environment policy in Greece

According to a survey by the National Environment and Sustainable Development Centre, the level of atmospheric emissions per unit of gross national product in Greece exceeds the EU average while according to the report, carbon dioxide emissions have tripled.

1. Does the Commission have information concerning the level of atmospheric emissions for each Member State of the EU?

2. Is it satisfied by urban environment policy in Greece and if not what are the problems?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The Commission has a number of ways of accessing emission data from Member States, both of conventional air pollutants (such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) and greenhouse gases. Both the Community and Member States are parties to international conventions such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oblige countries to report their emissions data. The European Environment Agency plays an important role in collecting and processing the data for the Community.

Recently adopted instruments at Community level such as Directive 2001/81/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants(1) and the Polluting Emissions Register under Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(2) will provide further mechanisms for obtaining emissions data.

As far as the urban environment is concerned, the Commission has a number of measures in place that address the quality of the urban environment. These include programmes and legislation in areas, such as air, water, waste, transport and spatial development. In this respect, progress with regard to the quality of the urban environment is frequently assessed in all Member States and where legislation is not satisfactorily complied with, appropriate action is taken. In addition, as required by the 6th Environment Action Programme, the Commission will be producing a thematic strategy on the urban environment. This will further serve to support action to monitor, manage and improve urban environments in all Member States, including Greece.

Greece faces particular problems in relation to the quality of the urban environment in areas such as water treatment, air pollution, traffic control and waste management. The Commission is keen to see that these are addressed and will ensure that current obligations are met and that, where appropriate, future measures address specific problems and circumstances.

(1) OJ L 309, 27.11.2001.

(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Progress on the evaluation of Fenthion

In answer to Written Question E-3552/00(1), the Commission stated that one of the basic principles of Council Directive 91/414/EEC(2) of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market was the drawing-up of a list of accepted active substances in Annex 1, although Article 8(2) provides for a derogation during a period of 12 years (until 25 July 2003) for Member States to continue to authorise plant protection products containing active substances not included in Annex 1 of the Directive .

The Commission went on to state that Fenthion was one of the active substances being evaluated under the Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92(3) of 11 December 1992, and that it was expected that the Commission would be able to adopt a decision on Fenthion in early 2001. The Commission also indicated that it would inform the Parliament and Council by July 2001, as provided under the terms of the Directive, of the progress which had been made with the re-evaluation programme.

On 28 November 2001, in answer to Written Question E-2883/01(4), the Commission confirmed that the use of Fenthion was permitted under Community law pending the completion of the evaluation process, that the evaluation process had almost been finalised, and that the Commission would, after consultation with the Scientific Committee on Plants, propose as soon as possible a decision on Fenthion.

Could the Commission indicate whether the evaluation has now been completed, and a final decision made on the safety, or otherwise, of Fenthion?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 76.

(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992, p. 10.

(4) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 187.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2002)

The evaluation of fenthion has now indeed been completed, with the exception of one study which was submitted only very recently to the rapporteur Member State. The evaluation of this study will be available in April 2002, but should not delay the decision making process. The Commission will submit the result of its evaluation to the Scientific Committee on Plants in April 2002. It is expected that the Committee will deliver its opinion within two months. The Commission intends to decide on fenthion as soon as possible after receipt of the opinion of the Scientific Committee.