ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1290/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: The High Authority for Telecommunications

The High Authority for Telecommunications which Italy has set up in Naples in breach of the law and against all common sense was supposed to be a streamlined, anti-bureaucratic, efficient and impartial body. Instead it has proved to be a sprawling bureaucratic body with hundreds of under-worked employees (despite the willingness to work of some employees) who go to work in an 18-storey building (in Caltagirone) in the administrative centre in Naples.

Recently and this is but one of many examples the Authority awarded the cleaning contract for the building to a local firm. The contract is worth 712 million lire over two years (nearly one million lire a day).

What can the European Commission do to ensure that Italy wastes less public money, and in particular to ensure that the virtually pointless activities of the Authority for Telecommunications are brought to an end?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Community's regulatory package for telecommunications provides for the establishment of national regulatory authorities in the Member States with specific powers and competences in relation to the regulation of the newly liberalised telecommunications market. Responsibility for the implementation of the regulatory package is delegated in large measure to the national regulatory authorities, which play a crucial role in this regard in each Member State. They also make an important contribution towards ensuring the consistent application of the Community's regulatory package through their input to the licensing and open network provision (ONP) committees, their participation in the high level committee of national administrations and regulatory authorities and, in the case of regulatory bodies which are separate from national ministries, their co-ordination through the independent regulators' group. These constitute heavy responsibilities which the Commission considers require an appropriate investment in terms of personnel and budgetary resources.

The Commission regularly reports on the implementation of the regulatory package in the Community, including an assessment of the national regulatory authorities (NRA) work. The fifth report on the implementation of the regulatory package(1) gave overall a positive assessment of the functioning of the Italian NRA.

On the other hand, on the basis of the information available to the Commission at that time, the Italian NRA appeared to be significantly understaffed, taking into account the wide range of its responsibilities, which cover audio-visual, telecommunications, and the press. This contributed to delays in reaching decisions.

Each Member State is responsible for the organisation of the national regulatory authority. The Commission can not intervene in this respect. The location of the seat of national regulatory authorities remains the responsibility of the Member States, in full respect of the principle of subsidiarity.

(1) COM(1999) 537 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of the Treaties

Does the Commission believe that individuals or legal personalities who believe that their rights under the European Treaties have been violated should have the right to petition the Court of Justice directly?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

Any natural or legal person may bring a direct action before the Court of Justice against acts taken by the Community institutions in the manner prescribed in Article 230 (former Article 173) of the EC Treaty. They may also bring an action before it for failure by the Community institutions to act (third paragraph of Article 232, former Article 175) and in respect of Community's contractual or non-contractual liability (Articles 235 (former 178) and 288 (former 215)).

Natural and legal persons may bring an action before the national courts, which are the ordinary courts for matters of Community law, against measures which the national authorities are alleged to have taken in violation of Community law or in accordance with a Community act which they consider to be contrary to the EC Treaty. As the Court has held in a long line of cases, the existence of a remedy of a judicial nature against any decision of a national authority refusing the benefit of a right conferred on individuals by the EC Treaty or by an act of secondary legislation is essential to guarantee the individual actual protection of his right(1).

It should be recalled that, under Article 234 (former 177) of the EC Treaty(2), national courts before which questions are raised may and, in certain cases, are obliged to stay proceedings and refer to the Court of Justice matters concerning the interpretation or validity of Community law to which the disputes brought before them give rise. National courts are required to settle disputes in accordance with the terms of the preliminary rulings of the Court.

The aim of all these procedures is to ensure the legal protection of the rights which individuals enjoy under the EC Treaty.

(1) Case 222/86 Unectef v. Heylens [1987] ECR 4097; Case C-282/85P [1997] ECR I-1503.

(2) See also Cases 283/81 Cilfit [1982] ECR 3415 and 314/85 Foto v. Frost [1987] ECR 4199.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2355/00

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and competition in connection with the situation of teachers in schools officially recognised as equivalent to State schools

The perpetuation in officially recognised schools in Italy of blatant disparities and discrimination contrary to the spirit of the Italian Constitution and European legislation on competition has prompted the questioners to raise the following issues at a higher level.

The question is therefore not intended to refer to or interfere with Article 126 of the EC Treaty, since the aim is not to deal with the organisation of school systems but with the infringement of the right to work caused by discrimination between the teaching staff of State schools and of those officially recognised as equivalent.

1. Teachers in these officially recognised schools have been allowed access to the competitive qualifying examination, in which, incomprehensibly, only half the years of service are recognised the overall mark includes both the level achieved in the examination and half the number of years of service. Why, when the final list is drawn up, is the service is ignored?

2. Can the Commission explain why the Italian Ministry of Education does not systematically allow teachers in officially recognised schools access to competitive examinations by qualification only since, once again, the years of service do not count?

3. Why, in the provincial authorities' lists of supply teachers, does service in officially recognised schools only count for half (why not one third or two thirds? Does a teacher in such a school only work half time?).

4. Why, when a teacher passes the ordinary competitive examination, are the marks relating to teaching not recognised?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The question from the Honourable Members refers to discrimination encountered by teachers in schools recognised by the Italian State at the time of recruitment and recognition of their period of service.

This problem does not come under Community jurisdiction. Each Member State is responsible for laying down the conditions of access to its own public service. Disputes concerning provisions on this subject are therefore a matter for the national courts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1546/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Turkey's human rights record and membership of the EU

I am concerned with the human rights record of the Turkish Government. In a recent report, I read that Members of the European Parliament from across the political spectrum were disappointed at the lack of progress made by Turkey in the fields of human rights, minority rights, and the rule of law'. Mr Morillon, a French MEP, said in a recent debate that it was not clear whether Turkey would eventually be a member of the EU or not mldr Turkey would need profound changes in its government and attitude.

Will the Commission please indicate the criteria regarding human rights, minority rights and the rule of law for countries wishing to join the European Union?

Is Turkey's application being deferred because of its relatively poor human rights record?

Does the European Commission have concerns about the human rights record of any of the other twelve applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Heads of State and Government of the Union, meeting at the European Council in Copenhagen, in June 1993, concluded that in order to join the Union it would be necessary to be able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions. The political conditions (the so called political Copenhagen criteria) are that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The Helsinki European Council added that compliance with the political criteria laid down at the Copenhagen European Council is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations mldr.

In the case of Turkey, the Commission examined its preparations for membership in its regular report issued on 13 October 1999(1) and did not consider that Turkey meets the political Copenhagen criteria. In particular, it said that there are serious shortcomings in terms of human rights and protection of minorities. There is no question of opening negotiations with Turkey until the political criteria are met.

As far as the other candidates are concerned, in the composite paper accompanying the 1999 regular reports, the Commission concluded that with the very positive developments in Slovakia, and with the exception of Turkey, the overall record of the candidate countries in relation to building stable and robust democracies, respecting the rule of law, has improved. However, the treatment of minorities and the Roma, and the situation of children in care in Romania continue to give rise to concern.

The Commission is closely following the situation on the specific issues singled out in the 1999 regular reports, and will provide a detailed assessment of the human rights situation in all candidate countries in the framework of its 2000 regular reports. These reports are currently under preparation and are scheduled to be adopted by the Commission in early November 2000.

(1) COM(1999) 513 and 514 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2303/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: The EQUAL programme and Ceuta

Can the Commission estimate the amount of funding to be assigned to the Spanish region of Ceuta under the EQUAL programme in the next programming period?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

It is not possible at this stage to estimate the amount of funding to be assigned to the Spanish region of Ceuta under the Community initiative EQUAL. It will be necessary to wait until the Spanish Community initiatives programme has been approved and the projects have been selected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1522/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Land purchases by EU nationals in Romania and Bulgaria

Can the Commission state what legal status currently applies to land purchases, viz. the purchase of both land and forestry areas, by EU nationals in the two applicant states

of Bulgaria and Romania? The Commission is asked in particular to indicate what legal personality (private individual, company, joint-stock company, etc) must be enjoyed by the purchaser, and what ceilings are applicable to such land purchases? The Commission is also asked to indicate whether the current legal situation in Bulgaria and Romania in this connection is comparable with that in the EU Member States, or if approximations will still be required in this connection as part of the accession process before the legislation applicable in those two countries becomes compatible with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2000)

Community companies established in Bulgaria, including those with 100 % foreign participation are entitled to buy real estate including agricultural land for business purposes. Foreign individuals and legal entities may also acquire buildings and limited property rights on Bulgarian land, subject to authorisation by the Bulgarian authorities. No ceilings apply to the value of the purchase. Any other acquisition of land by foreigners is forbidden by the constitution.

According to the Romanian constitution, foreign citizens have no right to acquire land. In general, non-residents (legal or natural) cannot buy real estate. According to Law No 18/1991 on land assets, those individuals who are not Romanian citizens and are not domiciled in Romania as well as those legal entities which have not Romanian nationality and have not their headquarters in Romania cannot acquire property of any kind. However, Community companies, established in Romania, can acquire land necessary for the conduct of the economic activities for which they are established. No ceilings are applied to the value of land purchases by Community companies.

The current legal situation on the acquisition of real estate is therefore not comparable with that in the Member States and is not compatible with the acquis. To make the legislation compatible with the acquis, by the time of accession, Romania and Bulgaria will have to grant national treatment to Community citizens with regard to the purchase of land.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2235/00

by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Problems in implementing the Culture 2000 programme

There have been a number of problems in implementing the Culture 2000 programme involving an absence of clear planning and priorities for the following call for proposals for 2001. In addition, the European cultural contact points may face financial problems because of the lack of adequate financial support. Finally, the Commission has failed to make payments for the year 2000.

1. Can the Commission give the reason for the lack of clear planning for the call for proposals for 2001?

2. How is the Commission going to improve the financing of the European cultural contact points?

3. When can the projects for the year 2000 receive their contracts and payments?

4. What does the Commission intend to do about the problems referred to above?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Decision establishing the Culture 2000 programme (No 508/2000/EC) was signed by the President of Parliament and by the President of the Council on 14 February 2000 and published in the Official Journal on 10 March 2000(1). Only then was the Commission able to publish the call for proposals for the year 2000. This was done using the emergency procedure on 8 April 2000(2).

1. The Commission had intended to publish the call for applications for 2001 in July 2000. However, in order to allow operators from the applicant countries to participate in the Culture 2000 programme, in accordance with Parliament's wishes, the Commission decided to publish the call for proposals for 2001 in the autumn of 2000, to coincide with the adoption of specific Association Council decisions allowing applicant countries to participate in the programme from 2001. The priorities for 2001 will be specified at that stage.

2. In order to improve procedures for the funding of cultural contact points and to take account of the fact that these are mentioned specifically in the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission has decided, for the year 2000, to define its contractual relations with these contact points more precisely. Furthermore, it is important to note that the level of financing is approved every year by the Culture 2000 management committee. The Commission's contribution is determined by the contributions made by the Member States to their respective contact points, with each side providing 50 % of total financing.

3. As specified in the call for proposals for 2000, in the section entitled Indicative timetable, the Commission plans to be able to dispatch the first contracts in September 2000.

4. The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, so far, it has met all deadlines under difficult circumstances. Furthermore, it endeavours constantly to adapt the programme and to bring it into line with reality and the legitimate needs of cultural operators, while at the same time observing the administrative and financial rules in force.

(1) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.

(2) OJ C 101, 8.4.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Distribution by the Spanish Government of ERDF Objective 1 resources earmarked for Galicia

In his reply of 21 December 1433/99(1) on the above subject, Commission Barnier said that, during the 1994-1999 period, Spain allocated to Galicia ERDF resources amounting to 553,86 million. According to the information provided by the Commissioner, this is equal to 12,09 % of the total amount allocated to Objective 1 autonomous communities in Spain, given that Galicia accounts for 11,67 % of the population of those territories.

The Commission's reply only seems to take account of the funds which the Spanish Government was allocated for direct administration by the autonomous communities. However, given that these resources only account for 45 % of the total amount allocated to Spain by the European Union, my question referred in particular to the use of the 55 % set aside by the Spanish Government for centralised policies which, in many cases, have nothing to do with Objective 1.

Will the Commission therefore state what proportion of the remaining 55 % of ERDF Objective 1 funds received by the Spanish Government were allocated to Galicia in the 1994-1999 period? To what extent will this information be taken into account in approving the Community support framework for the 2000-2006 period?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 2.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

During the 1994-1999 programming period, the amounts allocated to the autonomous communities in Spain for them to manage direct reached 35 % of the total resources allotted to Spain from the European Regional Development Fund the remainder being managed by the Spanish Government as part of cross-regional assistance.

According to the latest available figures, during the same period the community of Galicia received 10,55 % of the multiregional funds i.e. 1 140 million.

The Community support framework for regions eligible under Objective 1 is currently being negotiated for the 2000-2006 programming period. However, the Spanish authorities have already made a provisional allocation to each region from the overall Structural Fund resources concerned, according to which Galicia would receive 13,8 % of the total.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Capital investment

Would the Commission list capital investment, since 1988, within each Member State in the following categories:

- Oil and gas extraction;

- Manufacturing;

- Distribution;

- Hotels and catering;

- Financial business services;

- Transport and communications;

- Private dwellings?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament' Secretariat. However some clarifications are needed. The national accounts system on which the data are based is ESA 79 and the nomenclature of branches is the general industrial classification of economic activities within the European Communities/classification and nomenclature for input/output (NACE-CLIO).

They show investment (GFCF/gross fixed capital formation) by the economic branches concerned rather than spending on capital goods.

The branches available differ slightly from what was requested: construction makes no distinction between private owners and others, financial services includes only credit and insurance, and transport and communications are often grouped together.

It should also be pointed out that the new national accounts system, ESA 95, has broadened the concept of investment by including certain intangible investments (software and databases, literary or artistic works) expenditure on mineral or oil exploration, regardless of whether or not it is successful, expenditure on software development and civilian and military equipment (buildings, airports, hospitals, vehicles, etc.).

This explains why the figures under ESA 95, which should all have reached Eurostat by September 2000, are up for 1995 by between 3,8 % for Portugal and 17,1 % for Denmark.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1492/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Breda-Omeca case

From 1965 to 1992 the Breda-Omeca factory in Reggio Calabria used asbestos and materials containing asbestos in standard insulation for railway carriages. Italian laws 257 of 1992 and 271 of 1973 confirm that the use of asbestos as a building material is illegal

and entitle those who have worked with the mineral for at least ten years to special social security benefits. Workers employed by Breda-Omeca have not yet been granted entitlement to the social security benefits provided for by Italian law, despite the fact that numerous technical expert's reports have found traces of blue asbestos in the factory. The firm's employees are continuing to work in premises that have been declared on several occasions to be contaminated by asbestos and never decontaminated.

The Commission:

1. Will it ascertain whether or not this is true?

2. Will it check whether the presence of many workers in factories contaminated with asbestos is not in breach of the Community legislation in force to protect workers against the risks of exposure to carcinogenic agents at the workplace?

3. Will it also ascertain whether the workers in the factory, many of whom have worked with asbestos for many years, are not entitled to specific social security benefits under Community provisions?

4. If necessary, will it take the matter up with the Italian authorities to ensure that workers in Breda-Omeca in Reggio Calabria are entitled to the social security benefits provided by the law referred to above?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the specific case reported by the Honourable Member.

However, the protection of workers against risks related to exposure to asbestos at work is covered by Council Directive 83/477/EE(1) of 19 September 19831 as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EE(2) of 25 June 19912 which contains specific provisions to prevent the health effects of asbestos. This Directive has been transposed correctly into Italian law.

Any possible infringement of the national provisions transposing the above Directive must be notified to the Italian authorities responsible for their enforcement, which must organise and carry out the inspections and checks necessary for the proper implementation of these measures.

Although Commission Recommendation 90/326/EEC of 22 May 1990 to the Member States concerning the adoption of a European Schedule of occupational disease(3)3 refers to all the diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, compensation for occupational diseases and specific social security benefits are matters for the Member State.

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.

(2) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991.

(3) OJ L 160, 26.6.1990.