ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Launching a case under the WTO's dispute settlement procedures (Council of Ministers' instruction)

When the Council of Ministers instructs the Commission to launch a case within the WTO's dispute settlement procedures, what procedures are in place to ensure that the reasons for launching the case are immediately made available to the public?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0746/01 and E-0747/01 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member knows, there are two possible ways for the Commission to ensure the enforcement of the rights of the Community through World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement procedures.

The first one is action under the Trade Barriers Regulation, i.e. Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the WTO(1).

Article 8 paragraph 1(a) of that Regulation provides that when the Commission considers that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an examination procedure, it publishes a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities giving a summary of the information received and inviting interested parties to submit comments.

If, at the end of the examination procedure, the Commission decides to initiate a WTO dispute settlement procedure, Article 12 paragraph 4 of the Council Regulation provides that such decision shall state the reasons on which it is based and again be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. A similar publication happens in case no action is undertaken.

As the guardian of the Treaties, including international agreements, the Commission may also enforce the negotiated rights of the Community outside the specific framework of the Trade Barriers Regulation (see Article 15 of the Council Regulation).

In that case, the Commission consults the special committee established under Article 133 paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty.

In both instances, the current Commission has decided, in a spirit of increased transparency, to make available on the website of Directorate General for Trade the texts of the requests for WTO consultations and of the requests for the establishment for a WTO panel submitted by the Commission on behalf of the Community. These documents provide a description of the measure or practice challenged in the WTO, as well as the indication of the legal provisions which allegedly are breached.

(1) OJ L 349, 21.12.1994. A description of that regulation is also available on the website of DG Trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The Fléchard affair

What measures has the Commission taken to resolve the Fléchard affair and to find possible culprits among the Commission's own officials?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The so-called Fléchard case has during more than two years been exhaustively examined by the Commission, the Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control, the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The Commission has over this time on numerous occasions supplied information to the various bodies. The Honourable Member is advised to consult this comprehensive documentation available to the Parliament, f. ex. the Commission reply of 10 May 2000 to the Court of Auditors presidential letter, the reply of 19 March 2001 to the questionnaire addressed to the Commission by the Fléchard working group of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the member responsible for Budget's statement to the Parliament in April 2001 for the 1999 discharge. In addition, OLAF transmitted in March 2001 its report concerning the minutes of the Commission interservice meeting of 7 January 1994 to the Commission and to the Parliament.

The Commission is of the view that the case is thoroughly documented and does not see any possibility, nor need, to take further measures to resolve it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1582/01

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Protection of workers from organic solvents

Many European workers, painters among them, are exposed on a daily basis to hazardous substances and materials, including organic solvents.

One of the main features of European work environment legislation is an emphasis on substituting hazardous with non-hazardous substances. However, it is not always possible to do so.

Is the Commission considering the possibility of submitting a proposal to improve protection against organic solvents, and is the Commission familiar with national systems which provide employees and employers with easily assimilated instructions on the safety measures to take if it is not possible to substitute hazardous with non-hazardous substances?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Commission is familiar with the problem raised by the Honourable Member, which concerns the replacement of a hazardous substance by one which is not hazardous or less hazardous to workers' health.

This is also one of the employers' obligations set out in Article 6 (2) of Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work(1).

The Honourable Member is correct in stating that substitution is not always possible, in particular because of the specific characteristics of certain chemical substances. However, Article 6 (2) requires other protection and prevention measures to be taken in such a situation.

With particular regard to organic solvents, the Commission is aware that certain Member States have produced guidelines to be followed by employees in order to minimise the risks associated with the use of these chemical substances.

Taking account of experience in the Member States, and in accordance with Article 12 (2) of the above-mentioned Council Directive, the Commission will in the near future draw up practical guidelines of a non-binding nature, which will cover inter alia the subject raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Regional Air Traffic Control Centre in Thessaloniki

On 17 November 1999 a cooperation agreement was signed between the governments of Greece, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to set up a regional air traffic control centre in Thessaloniki. Such an initiative would markedly improve air travel conditions in the Balkans and in south-eastern Europe, since it has been acknowledged that the existence of a disproportionately large number of FIRs and air traffic control centres in the region is causing problems for strategic planning and the overall coordination of flights. Although the agreement has been welcomed by the relevant major international organisations (ICAO, Eurocontrol and IACA) as a model of regional cooperation in the field of air travel, this initiative has made no progress so far.

Will the Commission say:

- Has it received any information about this particular issue and, if so, what information?

- Is there any scope for funding this initiative and, if so, under which Community programme?

- Have any requests been made so far for this kind of funding?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Commission has indeed received notification from the Greek Government that a regional cooperation agreement on air traffic control has been signed, and is therefore aware of the specific problems that this region of Europe currently faces in this matter.

At present, priority must go to air traffic control in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which can be described as being in a state of crisis, operating only thanks to the efforts of the stabilisation force (SFOR) and Croatia. Similarly, Kosovan airspace is still under the control of the International Security Force in Kosovo (KFOR). Clearly, a permanent solution must be rapidly found for the airspace of both regions, hence the urgent need for discussion of the matter at regional level. The cooperation between Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania is an encouraging example of this.

As regards financial support, the construction of an air traffic control centre in Thessaloniki cannot be funded under the CARDS regulation, since Greece is not a beneficiary under that regulation.

There is little scope for any other Community funding. The strategic plan to prepare for the future extension of the trans-European Transport Network to candidate countries (TINA, opening the way to funding under Phare and ISPA, the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) does not apply to the countries covered by the regional cooperation agreement to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/01

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

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Revision of the rules on the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament

The European Parliament has proposed revising the rules on Members' expenses and allowances in such a way as to indicate clearly and openly the amount of remuneration payable to Members and to refund travelling expenses in accordance with actual costs.

Will the Council approve the revision of these rules? What is the intended timetable for the Council's decision? What practical obstacles are there to a Council decision on the matter?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

In the framework of the draft Statute for Members of the European Parliament, the Council is currently giving careful consideration to the rules on Members' expenses and allowances proposed by the European Parliament. As the Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware, the draft Statute is the subject of regular contacts between representatives of the Parliament and of the Council. These contacts are progressing favourably, but it is too early to predict when a conclusion will be reached.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0664/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and the promotion of inclusion

The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited the Council and the Commission to mainstream the promotion of inclusion in Member States' employment, education and training, health and housing policies. What specific steps have been taken in this regard and what action has been taken at Community level by action under the Structural Funds?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

With the assistance of the Social Protection Committee, the Council already:

- adopted in October 2000 objectives for combating poverty and social exclusion which were subsequently endorsed by the Nice European Council; on the basis of those objectives, the Member States were invited to submit by June 2001 national action plans covering a two-year period;

- adopted in October 2000 conclusions on structural indicators for employment and social cohesion, and invited the Social Protection Committee and the Employment Committee to press ahead in the future in a concerted manner with their work on this subject;

- adopted in November 2000 a progress report on the future evolution of social protection (pensions), which was subsequently submitted to the Nice European Council, and in March 2001 a preliminary study on the long-term viability of pensions, which was subsequently submitted to the Stockholm European Council; a more comprehensive report on the sustainability of pensions will be presented to the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001.

During 2001, work will be initiated on the remaining priority areas of modernising and improving social protection which were identified in the Council conclusions of 17 December 1999, namely:

- to make work pay and to provide secure income, and

- to ensure high-quality and sustainable health care.

As regards the Structural Funds, the Regulation on the Economic and Social Fund provides for supporting and complementing the activities of Member States directed towards developing the labour market and human resources in the fields mentioned in Article 2(1)(a) to (e). These concrete measures are to be defined by each Member State in accordance with its priorities and in cooperation with the Commission, within their respective Community Support Framework and Operational Programmes and/or Single Programming Documents.

In general terms, the European Council, at its Lisbon meeting on 23 and 24 March 2000, referred to the position it had consistently taken, emphasising that people are Europe's main asset and should be the focal point of the Union's policies. On the same occasion it also stated that investing in people and developing an active and dynamic welfare state would be crucial both to Europe's place in the knowledge economy and for ensuring that

the emergence of this new economy did not compound the existing social problems of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty. In the same spirit, at its Stockholm meeting on 23 and 24 March 2001 the Council also stressed that paid employment for men and women offered the best safeguard against poverty and social exclusion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1976/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Compulsory civil liability insurance for the liberal professions

Many actions by members of the professions result in significant disadvantage to their clients, who are not protected against the risks involved.

For this reason, many user and consumer groups are calling for the introduction of compulsory civil liability insurance for all members of the liberal professions in the EU.

Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate to adopt an initiative obliging certain categories of professionals within the Community to take out civil liability insurance, in order to protect their clients from any disadvantage that may result from their actions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The civil liability of service providers, in particular members of the liberal professions, is not currently regulated at Community level.

A proposal for a directive on service providers' liability presented to Parliament and to the Council in 1990 was withdrawn by the Commission in 1994 in view of the difficulties encountered.

The Commission feels that it is now time to re-examine the requirements, priorities and options for Community action in the area of service safety. It plans to present a report on this matter to Parliament and to the Council in 2003, accompanied, where necessary, by relevant proposals. The safety of services provided by members of the liberal professions will be looked at in this context. However, it would be premature at this stage to comment on whether Community action relating to compulsory civil liability insurance for the liberal professions would be justified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/01

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights

In 1996, Mr Mario Rainaldi lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights. That complaint was received by the secretariat on 8 August 1996 and recorded under the number 33698/96 on 7 November 1996.

Given that almost five years have gone by since then, and that Mr Rainaldi's lawyer, Andrea Martire, not only sent a registered letter on 27 October 2000, politely asking for news of the complaint, but has also repeatedly telephoned the secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights, can the Commission say:

1. how such a situation has come about;

2. why no action has yet been taken on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

It is not for the Commission to express an opinion on a matter concerning a Council of Europe organisation based in Strasbourg.

With the entry into force of Protocol No 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Commission of Human Rights was dissolved. The Honourable Member should accordingly seek a reply to her questions from the European Court of Human Rights(1).

(1) European Court of Human Rights, The Council of Europe, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1218/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Integrated policy against crime

I am referring to the Council's reply to my Written Question E-3889/00(1). The Council establishes that the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam raise potential problems, related to the division of responsibility between the first and third pillar. Does the Council agree that this ambiguous situation should be clarified at the political level, before serious problems arise between the services involved and before other damage is done to the detriment of the image of the European Union and the interests of its citizens?

If so, what initiative does the Council propose?

Is my interpretation of the Council's answer to my first and second questions correct when I conclude that the tasks of Eurojust encompass all types of crime, including judicial cooperation in matters concerning criminal investigations regarding the financial interests of the EC, so called EC fraud? This would be the constitutional consequence of the creation of the third pillar and it would avoid duplication of effort.

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

Reply

(20 July 2001)

In its reply to the Honourable Member's previous question on the same subject(1) the Council confirmed that difficulties could arise from the Treaties' division of responsibility between the European Union's first and third pillars; it pointed out that this state of affairs was the result of the political decisions that had led to the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. The Council seeks to ensure that the Treaties in their present form are complied with.

With regard to the tasks of Eurojust, it may be noted that the initiative of the Portuguese Republic, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious organised crime was submitted to the European Parliament for its opinion. Article 5(f) of the Decision includes among Eurojust's responsibilities the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, as defined in the Convention of 26 July 1995 and in the Protocols thereto of 29 November 1996, 19 June 1997 and 27 September 1997.

Article 16, which deals with the relations between Eurojust and its partners, states among other things that the Commission (European Anti-Fraud Office) may, on a case-by-case basis, be involved in the processing of a case, either on the initiative of Eurojust or at its own request, where the national members concerned do not oppose such participation(2).

(1) Written Question E-3889/00.

(2) OJ C 243, 24.8.2000, pp. 15 to 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/01

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Appointment of Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs

On 15 January 2001, Renouveau et Démocratie reported that the post of Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs is to be filled by somebody currently working in a German ministry.

In view of this, will the Commission please answer the following questions:

- Is there nobody currently working in the Commission who is qualified to occupy this post?

- Why was the post not advertised internally before being opened to candidates outside the Commission, in accordance with the normal procedure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

In order to widen its choice of candidates for the post of Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs the Commission decided to publish the post in question within the Institution, within the other Institutions and externally, with advertisements in the national and international press as well as in the specialised press. The Commission has proceeded in a similar manner since September 1999 on three occasions when seeking applicants for the Heads of the European anti-fraud office (OLAF), the Joint Research Centre and the Internal Audit Service.

The Consultative Committee for Appointments, assisted by three independent experts of international reputation in economic and monetary policy, together with management consultants, established a short-list of candidates which it considered to be those most qualified for the post.

The short-listed candidates were then interviewed by the President, the Member of the Commission responsible for Economic and Financial Affairs, and the Member of the Commission responsible for Personnel and Administration, who together made a recommendation for appointment to the Commission. In accordance with the rules set down in the Staff Regulations, the Appointing Authority had first to consider the internal candidates before taking into consideration the external ones(1).

(1) According to Article 29.1 of the Staff Regulations the appointing authority is first obliged to consider whether a vacant post can be filled by promotion or transfer within the institutions. It shall then follow the procedure for competitions. Article 29.2 foresees that a procedure other than the competition procedure may be adopted by the appointing authority for the recruitment of grade A 1 or A 2 officials, and, in exceptional cases, also for recruitment to posts which require special qualifications.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) and Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Business impact assessment on the introduction of the euro

1. Could the Commission please state if it has undertaken a business impact assessment on the introduction of the euro?

2. If the Commission has undertaken such an assessment, could it please state how this was conducted and present any results?

3. If the Commission has failed to undertake such an assessment, could it explain why not, given that the introduction of the euro is likely to have a profound effect on businesses in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

1. and 2. The Commission has not undertaken a formal Business Impact Assessment on the introduction of the euro, insofar as this procedure is designed for legislative proposals only. However, the effects of the creation of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) were thoroughly assessed by the Commission in various reports and working parties, e.g. the report of the working group on technical aspects and cost of dual pricing(1), the report of the working group on small enterprises and the euro(2). This issue has also been discussed at various Round Tables, notably the ones organised by the Commission in Brussels in May 1997 and February 1998 where the favourable impact of the euro on the different economic sectors of the economy was recognised. The Parliament has been closely associated and has given its full support to the process of euro introduction.

3. The achievement of EMU will definitely have a positive effect on businesses in Europe, as illustrated by various reports such as: One market, one money (Cecchini report). The removal of exchange risks, higher price transparency, increased competition and,

thus better functioning of the Single Market are important benefits for businesses. In addition, the macro-economic framework deriving from EMU has led to significant achievements (see: EMU: The First Two years, Euro Papers No 42) which are of benefit to businesses, such as the reduction of interest rates.

(1) Euro paper No 13.

(2) Euro paper No 21.