ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/01

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Pedestrians' rights

What results have been forthcoming in the Member States from the implementation of the European Charter of Pedestrians' Rights?

What legislative steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the rules protecting pedestrians' rights in public thoroughfares are properly implemented?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Charter of Pedestrians' Rights was drawn up by the European Parliament in 1988. The Member States and the authorities in question have sole responsibility for complying with the provisions which concern them, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

The Community, for its part, has taken a number of measures which are in line with the objectives of the Charter. It has adopted a number of instruments aimed at reducing polluting emissions(1) and noise levels(2) of vehicles used in town, from private cars to delivery vehicles, buses and two or three-wheel vehicles. It has negotiated a proposal for a voluntary agreement(3) on the protection of pedestrians in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle, a proposal which is currently being examined by Parliament. It has also revised the criteria for obtaining driving licences(4) with the aim of ensuring that drivers are better prepared for responsible driving. Moreover, in January 2001, the Commission adopted a programme(5) which aims to review and prepare Community legislation on air quality. Through its research and development (R & D) initiatives, it is also promising measures to promote the development of sustainable mobility policies. An example of this Community support for pioneering towns and cities is embodied in the Civitas (City Vitality Sustainability) project.

The safety of vulnerable road users is an aspect which will also be dealt with in the third action programme on road safety which will cover the period 2002-2010.

(1) Directive 98/69/EC (light commercial vehicles); Directive 1999/96/EC (heavy vehicles); Directive 97/24/EC (two- or three-wheel motor vehicles); Directive 98/70/EC (quality of fuels).

(2) Directive 70/157/EEC (last amended by Directive 96/20/EC).

(3) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Pedestrian protection: Commitment by the European automobile industry (COM(2001) 389 final).

(4) Directive 2000/56/EC amending Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences. An annex with more detailed references is being sent to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.

(5) Clean Air For Europe programme (CAFE).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Language discrimination in the recruitment of TACIS staff

The European Commission's TACIS and PHARE communications centre is looking for an English-speaking member of staff. This recruitment process deliberately discriminates against non-English speakers. They are excluded from the selection procedure in advance, even if they have more than a good command of English. Speakers of other languages are obviously not eligible for these posts. It is inconceivable that the European Commission's TACIS and PHARE programmes should be guilty of discrimination of this kind.

Is the Commission prepared to suspend the current discriminatory procedure immediately and to publish a new non-discriminatory notice of vacancy? If not, why is the Commission maintaining this procedure which is in flagrant breach of Community law on free movement of workers (E-0779/01(1), E-1681/01 and E-1682/01(2), E-1356/01(3) and E-4100/00(4))? If so, will the Commission publish a non-discriminatory notice of vacancy?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 245.

(2) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 19.

(3) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 132.

(4) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 233.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2901/01 and E-2944/01given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The vacancy notice the Honourable Member is referring to was issued by the PHARE & TACIS Information Centre on Enlargement, managed by a company called East West Consulting. The notice did indeed

make reference to the recruitment of a native speaker of English. The Commission readily agrees that such a wording was inadequate, as the aim of the advertisement was simply to recruit someone with a good enough level of English to be able to deal with the written and oral enquiries addressed to the Centre in English, given that it was proving impossible to deal fast enough with the sheer number of such enquiries.

This apparently discriminatory wording should have been formulated differently in order to make clear that considering the nature of the vacancy to be filled, a high standard of knowledge of a particular language was required. In that situation, as the Commission stated in its answer to written question E-0779/01, such a requirement is not considered discriminatory.

Nevertheless, the recruitment procedure was carried out openly through interviews with candidates, many of whom had a good knowledge of English without English necessarily being their mother tongue. Even though the person recruited is in fact a native English speaker, he also has many other qualities, including language abilities, in that he has a very good knowledge of another EU official language.

In any case, the Commission has notified East West Consulting that the wording of the notice was inappropriate and has asked the company to take all necessary measures to prevent such an incident from reoccurring.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2553/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Action to bring Community citizens closer to the European institutions

The EU Foreign Ministers recently agreed that there is a gulf between the public and the EU institutions and that they must react quickly to ensure that Europeans attach more value to the historic objective of constructing a united Europe.

One of the main conclusions of the debate was the emphasis placed on the need for the EU to be included in education and training programmes in all the Member States.

Can the Commission say whether, making use of its right of initiative, it considers it necessary for the Member States to define, on a compulsory basis, teaching material to be imparted to pupils on the nature of the EU, its institutions and its tremendous achievement of guaranteeing peace for so many decades and making the EU the prime area of peace and freedom in the world, not to mention impressive economic development?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the organisation of education systems, including the content of teaching, is the responsibility of the Member States, as provided in Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty: the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States () while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems ().

Nevertheless, while the Member States have full responsibility for the content of teaching, it is clear that the achievements of European integration, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, deserve to be given a high profile using all possible means, including education. Moreover, Socrates, the European programme for cooperation in education, is helping to develop a European dimension via its actions in school education.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2627/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 20 July 2001

Will the Council state whether any votes were taken in the Budget Council on 20 July 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2625/01 and E-2627/01

(12 February 2002)

As a preliminary remark, the Council should like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the replies given to his questions E-3938/00 and E-3939/00, in which it is stated that the General Secretariat of the Council draws up monthly summaries of Council acts which contain lists of legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its capacity as legislator. As from January 2001 they also include references to the voting procedure followed for the adoption of the acts by the Council (unanimity, qualified or simple majority). These monthly summaries can be obtained directly from the Council's website (http://ue. eu. int, under Transparency and Summary of Council acts). Furthermore, the results of the votes on legislative acts are published in the press releases which are issued after the Council meetings.

As for the Honourable Member's specific questions concerning the votes taken in several Council meetings held in June and July 2001, the following answers can be given:

- 2362nd Council meeting of 25/26 June 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2364th Council meeting of 27/28 June 2001:

- Adoption of the Council Regulation supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, with three votes against (DK, FIN, S) and one abstention (A).

- Adoption of a Common Position on the directive amending for the 20th time the Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, with three votes against (B, DK, NL).

- 2365th Council meeting of 10 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2367th Council meeting of 16 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2368th Council meeting of 20 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Maritime safety

Amongst the EU's proposals concerning transport safety is the Erika I package of measures, which includes a proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hulls for oil tankers, which is not in line with IMO rules.

The Commission has proposed going it alone and adopting the regulation in the event of it not being possible to reach an agreement with the IMO.

Can the European Union adopt maritime safety rules which are inconsistent with those of the IMO?

Answer given by Mme de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission wishes to underline that the measures relating to single-hulled oil tankers are in line with international law. To this end it points out that its original proposal, like the approach adopted by the Council and Parliament, should be regarded as seeking to lay down a condition for entry into Member States' ports or waterways.

As regards the follow-up to its original proposal, the Commission wishes to point out that, following a decision of the Maríne Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the timetable for the withdrawal of single-hulled oil tankers has, broadly speaking, been brought into line with that recommended by the Commission. Accordingly, and following the opinion of Parliament, the Commission has amended its original proposal(1) to align it with the new IMO rules.

Following a favourable opinion by Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, at its meeting on 9, 10 and 11 October 2001, regarding the common position of the Council of 7 August 2001, the new regulation should be formally adopted by the end of the year.

Given the global dimension of shipping, the Union is endeavouring to align its regulations with those of the IMO. However, it is possible that it will adopt, if necessary, provisions which go beyond those of the IMO, in accordance with the legal bases conferred by the Treaty.

(1) COM(2000) 848 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2763/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: VAT on exchange trips

The Swedish press reports that in February 1999 that a case heard by the Court of Justice might result in language businesses having to charge VAT on all exchange trips for young people to the USA and other countries. In 1999 operators of language courses abroad did not pay VAT on exchange years, which were regarded as cultural exchanges and therefore fell under different rules from for example shorter language courses abroad. If operators of language courses abroad are forced to charge VAT on exchange years this will probably produce higher prices which will hamper cultural exchanges and integration, which is meant to be the point of the EU itself.

Has the Commission been following events in this case and does it take the view that exchange trips should be subject to VAT?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

As far as the Commission knows, no case concerning the charging of VAT on exchange trips for young people has been brought before the Court of Justice.

Any answer to the question whether such exchanges should be subject to VAT depends on the individual circumstances or conditions under which such trips are organised. Given that we do not have more detailed information we cannot give a definitive answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3448/01

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Export of live animals to third countries

Will the Commission please state how many of the live cattle exported from the Community to third countries in 2000:

1. were for (a) slaughter, (b) further fattening and (c) breeding;

2. how many in each of these categories were exported from each Member State;

3. how many in each of these categories did each exporting Member State send to each individual third-country destination?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2540/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Reconstruction of destroyed road and rail networks

The Nato bombings of Yugoslavia destroyed the road network which used to connect Greece to central Europe; this begins in Thessaloniki and traverses FYROM, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Austria, but is now only functioning along 53 % of its total length. The railway network has also suffered the same damage, with only 52 % of its total track length in operation.

Has the Council examined the issue of the damage suffered by the Member States of the European Union because of the destruction of the network, and the resulting transport difficulties?

Does the Council have any proposals for the reconstruction of the destroyed network which include specific amounts and timetables for putting right the damage done to the road and rail networks and, if so, where will these appropriations be taken from?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2540/01 and E-2542/01

(12 February 2002)

On several occasions in recent years the Council has stressed the importance of the European Union taking a regional approach to the Balkan region. The need for efficient regional infrastructure, especially in terms of transport and the supply of electricity, has been noted several times in the context of the Council and the Stability Pact, in which the European Union plays a leading role.

As regards the restoration of road and rail networks, and more specifically the network linking Greece to Central Europe (Corridor X), and the possibility of contributing to any priority projects put forward by the States concerned, the Honourable Member is invited to address his questions direct to the Commission.

On the issue of electricity supply networks, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that the strengthening of electricity links between Greece and, respectively, Albania, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia, including the reconstruction of links with the northern part of the former Yugoslavia and the UCPTE network, forms part of the projects of common interest as designated in Decision 1254/96/EC (amended by Decision 1741/1999/EC) laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks.

Also, Regulation (EC) No 2236/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999, lays down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks. Article 15(2) stipulates that the Commission and the Member States concerned shall systematically monitor progress with projects, where appropriate with the cooperation of the European Investment Bank or other appropriate bodies.

The Honourable Member is invited to contact the participants mentioned above in order to ascertain the current situation.

The Council would stress that it has no competence to answer the point raised in the last part of the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3102/01

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(15 November 2001)

Subject: Supply to third countries of equipment which might be used for internal repression

The Council has already adopted regulations banning the supply to certain third countries of equipment which might be used for internal repression. It did so in the case of Indonesia in October 1999.

Is the Council minded to adopt this type of regulation in the case of other countries which carry out campaigns of internal repression, for example Turkey, against the Kurdish population, and Morocco, against the Western Saharan population?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

1. The Council has never had occasion to consider the question raised by the Honourable Member in relation to the countries to which she refers. However, on 16 September 1999, it did adopt Common Position 1999/624/CFSP based on Article 15 of the TEU, Article 2 of which specifies that a ban on the supply of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism will apply to Indonesia.

2. In the third annual report according to Operative Provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, noted by the Council on 19 November 2001, Member States identified a number of guidelines on topics requiring consideration or action in the near future. These included agreement on the definitive adoption of a system for controlling exports of non-military security and police equipment.

In this connection the Commission has recently announced a proposal for a Community mechanism for controlling exports of non-military equipment which may be used for internal repression.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2485/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Suspension of international adoptions in Romania

The Romanian Government has suspended international adoption procedures for one year as of 21 June this year, on the basis of Decision No 55.

However, according to Article 2 of the decision, the suspension will not affect legal adoption proceedings concerning applications for which the Romanian Adoption Committee assigned children before 14 December 2000. Nevertheless, the government Decision does not make any reference to the international adoption applications which were approved by that date but for which the placement of a minor is still pending. For this reason, in Spain alone, 1200 adoption proceedings have been suspended, thereby preventing 1200 Romanian children from escaping the poverty in which they are living and from becoming part of a stable and prosperous family environment, as is the case for applications made by 100 families in Galicia.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission not consider that the applications which have already been approved should be brought to a successful conclusion, with all the necessary guarantees, bearing in mind the plight of the children concerned and the favourable conditions offered by the Spanish applicant families?

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2001)

I would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's answer to written question E-2240/01 from Ms Rodriguez Ramos and others(1).

(1) See page 18.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Assessment of Dutch ESF expenditure without correct accounts

1. Can the Commission confirm that the claim for repayment of NLG 447 million (more than 200 million) in subsidies paid in the Netherlands from the European Social Fund in 1994-1996 is based on data supplied by

the audit department of the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment indicating that 7 % was allocated incorrectly while no correct accounts could be supplied for a further 34 %, so that the Commission concluded that 41 % of the total must be regarded as having been paid without justification?

2. In the light of the Commission's data or assumptions, what percentage of ESF subsidies was spent on maintaining existing organisations in the Netherlands, particularly that concerned with promoting employment, Arbeidsvoorziening, with the result that ESF funds were used to compensate for national spending cuts?

3. On what basis does the Commission in its assessment distinguish or not between incorrect expenditure and expenditure in relation to which no proper accounts can be submitted?

4. Does the Commission now regard the sum of 200 million as definitive if the Netherlands Government cannot account for the 34 % which may have been correctly spent but in relation to which no correct accounts can be submitted?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

1. The article 24 calculation(1) is based on the report of the accountant of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, whereas the systemic nature of the irregularities is also evident from the control reports of the Commission. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question E-2451/01(2) and to the list of control reports contained therein.

2. The Commission does not make any assumptions on the suggested misuse of European Social Fund (ESF) subsidies to maintain existing organisations in the Netherlands. The Commission examines all ESF expenditure strictly in the light of the Structural Funds regulation.

3. Projects are rejected either because the declared expenditure is not eligible or because there is no proof for the eligibility of the expenditure. Both are examples of irregularities that are specifically mentioned in the Structural Funds Regulation.

4. The Commission has asked the Dutch authorities to present evidence to the contrary that the article 24 claim of the Commission is not justified.

(1) Out of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the Europen Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

(2) See page 87.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Tobacco subsidy

How much money has been allocated to tobacco production over each of the past 10 years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

The total amounts of Community tobacco premiums paid to farmers during the last 10 financial EAGGF years, running from 16 October n to 15 October n+1, are listed below:

- 1991: ECU 1 330 million,

- 1992: ECU 1 233 million,

- 1993: ECU 1 165 million,

- 1994: ECU 1 057 million,

- 1995: ECU 993 million,

- 1996: ECU 1 026 million,

- 1997: ECU 998 million,

- 1998: ECU 870 million,

- 1999: 908 million,

- 2000: 988 million.