ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0217/00

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Radioactive waste at the JRC in Ispra

Although it is now 16 years since the closure of the last working reactor at the JRC in Ispra, Italian newspapers have recently raised the issue of radioactive waste at the JRC.

In fact, there are 2500 cubic metres of radioactive waste stored in bituminous or cemented casks which have been kept at the Ispra Centre rather than being disposed of, probably because of the high costs of the disposal of and management of waste products from nuclear installations.

Needless to say, the presence of such dangerous materials is causing alarm and concern in the region.

Does the Commission have any information available on this question?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to its communication to Parliament and the Council entitled Historical liabilities resulting from nuclear activities carried out at the JRC under the Euratom Treaty decommissioning of obsolete nuclear installations and waste management(1).

The waste referred to by the Honourable Member is stored on appropriate premises, where it is monitored by instruments.

Nevertheless the Commission has undertaken to review its encapsulation in agreement with the Italian authorities.

As stated in the communication, that waste will be stored in a perfectly safe manner at the Ispra site while awaiting a final storage centre in Italy.

(1) COM(1999) 114 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/00

by Rosa Díez González (PSE), Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Monitoring of state aid to the Spanish electricity sector

With reference to the state aid for competition transition costs given to the Spanish electricity sector, and bearing in mind that Commissioner Monti has recognised that the sixth transitional provision of Law 54/97 on the Spanish electricity sector is a state aid which was granted without prior notification of the Commission, what view will the Commission take of the amounts already received by Spanish electricity companies when it comes to take a decision on this matter pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

In accordance with the Court's case law, the unlawful nature of a state aid measure, i.e. the fact that the aid was granted without prior notification to the Commission, does not prejudge its compatibility with the common market. The amounts already received will, therefore, be examined on the basis of the EC Treaty articles to determine whether they are compatible with the common market and whether they will have to be repaid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey

On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making subversive speeches. His lawyers had requested a six months' suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life.

At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a year's imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994.

1. Does the Commission not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993?

2. Does the Commission not consider that it should prevail upon the Ankara government to put an end to the judicial and other forms of persecution inflicted on Mr Birdal and Mr Erkaban?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member on the situation of Mr Akin Birdal, who has had to return to prison to complete his sentence, and Mr Necmettin Erbakan, who was sentenced to a year in prison.

With regard to Mr Birdal, a well-known defender of human rights in Turkey, the Commission fully supports the statement by the Council Presidency of 30 March 2000 calling on the Turkish Government to take steps to free him.

This latest development is all the more regrettable since the decision of the last European Council in Helsinki on 10 December 1999, confirming Turkey's status as a candidate country, called on it to make a special effort to respect the political criteria laid down at Copenhagen.

It is therefore vital that Turkey resolutely commit itself to a sustained process of democratisation and adopt the necessary reforms. In this respect the revision and even repeal of Article 312 of the penal code, under which Mr Birdal was convicted in 1998 and Mr Erbakan in March 2000, appears inevitable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Commissioners' cabinets

Will the Commissioners list the members of their cabinet?

What are the total salaries for each cabinet?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

The list of all members of the Commission's cabinets is being transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and the General secretariat of the Parliament. It is available in published documents.

The total monthly salaries for each cabinet are as follows:

>TABLE>

These amounts represent the net salary of officials of grades A, B, C and D and other agents who are assigned to cabinets. The net salary is composed of the basic salary payable at the various grades and seniority, any education and family allowance payable to those officials who qualify by having dependent family, expatriation allowance where applicable, and the fixed cabinet allowance for the C-grade officials. The net salary also takes into account deductions such as the contributions to the social security scheme, the Community tax and the special crisis levy payable by officials.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1672/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Payment of contractors and suppliers.



Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0210 - 0210



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1672/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (29 May 2000) Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers Further to Ms Schreyer's answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00(1), will the Commission indicate the total amount of money paid out in 1999 to which the proportion paid within the 60-day period refers? (1) See page 10. Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (13 July 2000) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: Rome Convention

What meetings have taken place in the Commission relating to the proposed legislation on non-contractual obligations (Projet de communication sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles (Rome II)) to replace the Rome Convention in the last six months? Where did these meetings take place? Have discussions on this proposal taken place with the Council during the last six months? If so, on what occasions and what were the conclusions of the meeting? What level of civil servant attended the meetings? Which Commission officials attended the meetings?

Which Commission officials and/or department have overall charge of negotiations on Rome II? Is the inter-service consultation document (DG JAI D (99) 495 Communication de la Commission sur la loi applicable aux obligations non-contractuelles), which is in circulation at the present time, available in English? If the answer is no, why is no copy available in English? What is the content of the inter-service consultation document and when is the outcome of the inter-service consultation expected?

Are any outside bodies being consulted on this proposal? If so, which groups are being consulted and how are these groups selected?

When is publication of a formal legislative proposal expected in this area and when is the legislative process expected to be completed?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Rome II project on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations is not intended to replace but to complement the existing Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

A number of discussions on the project took place in a Council working group between July 1998 and October 1999. These discussions have been temporarily suspended to allow the Commission to come forward with an initiative.

The document to which the Honourable Member refers is an internal inter-service consultation on a document to launch a public consultation. The Commission does not intend to put forward legislation until this process of public consultation has been concluded.

The Commission will shortly take a decision as to if and when this document will be adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Unemployment rate in Greece

On 4 January 2000 Eurostat, the EU's statistics service, published very interesting data (Bulletin No 1/2000) on the unemployment rates for men and women in the EU. These data cover the period from November 1997 to November 1999 and refer to men and women below 25 years of age and above 25 years of age. It is noteworthy that no data whatsoever are given concerning Greece, although detailed information is given for all the other EU countries, as well as for the USA and Japan.

Will the Commission say whether the Greek authorities have forwarded data on the unemployment rate in Greece and, if not, what reasons they have invoked for their failure to do so and what measures the Commission services have taken, if any, to obtain information on the unemployment rate in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-0338/00 by Mr Alavanos(1).

(1) See page 131.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0512/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Offshore centres and the exchange of information concerning payments

In the light of the answer to Written Question E-2234/99(1) by Mr Bolkestein (17 January 2000), is there any reason why similar measures to those outlined in the answer might not be applied to offshore centres which failed to enter into agreements for the exchange of information concerning payments to non-residents?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 128.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Beyond the scope of current anti-money-laundering provisions, the exchange of information regarding tax matters is generally governed by bilateral tax treaties which are entirely within the competence of the governments concerned. The finance ministers of the Group of seven most industrialized countries (G7) have recently expressed concern, however, about offshore financial centres and tax havens which undermine international standards of financial regulation and which are shelters to avoid or evade payment of tax.

Representatives of the Financial action task force on money laundering and the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) committee of fiscal affairs have been considering how anti-money-laundering systems could be strengthened and how the effectiveness of tax information exchange arrangements could be increased.

The OECD has also identified the lack of exchange of information as a key factor in identifying tax havens. Accordingly it recommends that countries that do not have rules concerning reporting of international transactions and foreign operations of resident taxpayers should consider adopting such rules and that countries exchange information obtained under these rules. The OECD intends to publish a list of tax havens later this year and will consider the possibility of co-ordinating countermeasures against jurisdictions that are uncooperative in the fight against harmful tax competition.

The Community has already adopted directives both to counter money-laundering and to provide mutual assistance in the field of direct and indirect taxation. The latter specifically includes provisions for the exchange of information between tax administrations in order to combat tax evasion and avoidance in the Community. Furthermore the Community has taken the lead in identifying the need for co-ordinated action, and in taking concrete steps to tackle harmful tax competition, including in Member States' dependent and associated territories.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey

In the past week, several newspapers, non-governmental organisations and sources from the International Red Cross and the UN have brought to Parliament's attention the serious case of five Turkish professionals, engineers and entrepreneurs Halil Muftuoglu, Emre Nil, Ferhat Terkoglu, Hasan Basri Guner and Timur Ayan who, after prolonged and excruciating torture, were forced to sign false confessions to crimes against the state. According to the victims' declarations and evidence gathered from several sources, but not reported by the Turkish press, the torture comprised electric shocks to the testicles, jets of freezing water and beatings with clubs wrapped in towels to avoid bruising. The torture was inflicted by officers and officials of the Istanbul directorate for organised crime, a body which is part of the Turkish government's criminal investigation department. All five are now being detained in Bayrampasa prison while awaiting trial.

1. Does the Commission not consider that these continuing grave violations of human rights provide a startling contradiction to the statements made by the Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, and the entire Turkish government to the effect that the reform of the judicial system, which should facilitate Turkey's accession to the EU, is already under way?

2. Does the President of the Commission, Mr Romano Prodi, not consider that the essentially positive opinion expressed by the Commissioner for enlargement, Mr Verheugen, after his recent visit to Istanbul, on the progress achieved by Turkey in this regard is largely unjustifiable, or at the very least, premature?

3. Should the Commission not ask the Turkish government to provide immediate explanations for the inhuman treatment of the five aforementioned prisoners before starting negotiations on the accession of Turkey to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission has been concerned about certain events relating to the human rights situation in Turkey that have occurred since the Helsinki European Council. On each occasion it has taken a firm stance.

In general, it is asking the Turkish Government to show a clearer commitment to democratisation. This was the position taken by the Member of the Commission responsible for enlargement on his most recent visit to Turkey on 9 and 10 March 2000.

The case raised by the Honourable Member is indeed now before the Turkish courts. The Commission has itself received a large number of letters about the case and has answered that it is taking the allegations very seriously and will be asking the Turkish authorities for an explanation.

It is true that the foundation with which the five people referred to by the Honourable Member are associated raises certain questions, given the anti-Semitic views expressed and published on its Internet site, but if the reports of how they have been treated turn out to be correct, it is completely unacceptable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague

Numerous data from university institutes and reliable environmental organisations substantiate the progressive contamination of Europe's seas. The Commission has been aware of such information for years (Petition 393/95). It has also been kept informed of worsening findings in the intervening period. As a contracting party to the OSPAR Convention, the Commission aims by 2020 to bring down measurement values for radioactivity throughout the European marine and North East Atlantic biotope to natural levels.

1. What information in terms of emission levels and radioactive contamination of the coastal and marine biotope by the Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague has been forwarded to the Commission by the public authorities of the operating countries in the past few years?

2. Why has the Commission taken no account of the alarming findings of university institutes and reliable environmental organisations? Why has it until now relied exclusively on the findings and interpretations communicated by the operating countries' public authorities when assessing the situation? How does it rate their scientific independence?

3. Is it the Commission's opinion that it has fulfilled its duty of care, having inspected the Sellafield reprocessing plant and Cap de la Hague only once in each case over a 10-year period (1989-1999)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The information which the Honourable Member seeks, in respect of the provision of information by Member States of levels of radioactivity in the environment, and of the manner in which the Commission interprets this information and that from other sources, has been supplied in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2585/99(1).

The Commission, as a contracting party to the Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic, is playing an active role in contributing to the implementation of the Oslo-Paris Commission (OSPAR) strategy with regard to radioactive substances. The manner in which the Commission could most effectively contribute to the implementation of this strategy was discussed by contracting parties at the OSPAR Radiation absorbed doses (RAD) meeting, hosted by the Commission, in Luxembourg from 18 to 21 January 2000. As a result of this, and earlier discussions, the Commission has undertaken to carry out several actions to assist the implementation of the strategy, including a commitment to undertake an update of the Marína project on the radiological exposure in the Community from radioactivity in north European marine waters.

The Commission has carried out verification visits, under Article 35 of the Euratom treaty, to Sellafield and to Cap de la Hague as part of a planned programme of such visits to all Member States, which continues. The Commission is achieving as high a level of verification visits as possible within the constraints of resources allocated at present.

(1) See page 24.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions

Further to my Question No E-0137/00(1) I wish to submit specific supplementary information. As my research has shown, the problem arises in connection with the closed settlement contracts concluded in Austria between the Federal Ministry for Internal Affairs and a private-sector association on the one hand and the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions on the other, not just from the inadequate tendering procedure for those contracts. The problem arises more from the fact that direct settlement between the above bodies has, since 31 March 1995, been concluded without any contractual basis, whereas the option of direct settlement by other suppliers of such services is rejected by the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions. It is against that background that I wish to ask the Commission the following supplementary question:

Does the circumstance that direct settlements between the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions and the said rescue flight undertakings are concluded without any contractual basis not raise doubts in the Commission whether these arrangements are compatible with the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC(2) of 18 June 1992?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 183.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Question No E-0137/00, which also dealt with rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions.

The Commission will be in a position to answer the question raised by the Honourable Member once it has received the information it is awaiting from the Austrian authorities. The conclusion of a contract does not, of course, preclude the possibility of an infringement of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1151/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission says the rules for food additives and flavourings need to be amended in several respects. Firstly, the Commission wants the power to maintain the EU lists of authorised food additives and clarification of the status of enzymes. Secondly, the lists of colouring matters, sweeteners and other additives need to be updated. Thirdly, the purity criteria for colouring matters, sweeteners and other additives need to be amended.

Appropriate purity criteria for food additives made from novel sources have to be laid down. The Commission is to publish a report on the intake of food additives. Research is needed into the toxicological effects of substances naturally present in flavourings. The Commission is to update the register of flavouring substances and lay down a list of additives authorised for used in flavourings.

1. Why does the Commission no longer wish to apply the codecision procedure for sweeteners, colouring matters and other additives? Does this not detract from the democratic right of the European Parliament to take decisions?

2. In what respect does the Commission wish to change the status of enzymes?

3. Will there be a change in the requirements for permitted additives? Will the Commission lay down other purity criteria for additives obtained from novel sources?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.