ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3954/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Minority languages in Slovakia

According to the 1997 Commission opinion on Slovakia's application for membership of the EU, the various minorities represent between 18 % and 23 % of the population.

The current law on minority languages requires that minorities must represent more than 20 % of the population in the administrative capital of the region concerned for those languages to be treated as joint official languages. Does the Commission take the view that linguistic minorities may be discriminated against as long as they remain below 20 % in an administrative capital?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The Commission has noted in its two latest Regular Reports(1) that there has been considerable progress in Slovakia in developing a good minority policy, in setting up the appropriate legislation and in establishing and supporting the relevant institutions.

The Law on Minority Language can be seen in this context as an important step forward, bringing back national legislation into conformity with applicable international standards and specific recommendations from the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the Commission. The Commission also welcomes the adoption of the Slovak action plan to prevent all forms of discrimination as well as the initiative of the Slovak government to draft a specific Anti-Discrimination Act.

However, the Commission has remarked a remaining gap between good policy formulation and implementation on the ground. In its last Regular Report, it has called Slovakia on increasing its efforts in implementing legislation in various sectors as well as strengthening budgetary means and on paying more attention to the protection of minorities at the local level.

(1) COM(2000) 711 final, COM(1999) 511 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Internal Drainage Boards in the United Kingdom

Does the Commission feel that these Boards meet the normal criteria of democracy? Election to these Boards is dependant on certain land ownership criteria, meaning that votes are determined not on the principle of one person one vote but on wealth (in terms of land).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

After examining the Honourable Member's question, the Commission considers that the action of the Member State in question does not fall within the scope of Community law. It is the consistent practice of the Court of Justice, in accordance with its case law, not to monitor respect of fundamental rights by Member States when they are acting outside the scope of Community law. Consequently, and quite apart from whether a fundamental right has been violated, the Commission is not competent in this instance to open infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that once all national remedies against the act in question have been exhausted, it is possible to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Introduction of blind-spot mirrors

In the Belgian Federation, fifteen people have already been killed on the roads this year because truck-drivers failed to see them in the blind spot left by their wing-mirrors. According to the Belgian Road Safety Institute, a truck-driver on average fails to see a road-user to the right of his vehicle in his wing-mirror five times every day.

Yet there is a simple solution to the problem, the special blind-spot mirror. This is a small convex mirror which is also used when taking dangerous hairpin bends. However, in order to make it compulsory to instal these mirrors on vehicles notably trucks Directive 71/127/EEC(1) (last amended by Directive 88/321/EEC(2) of 16 May 1988) would have to be amended.

Would the Council support a proposal by the Commission to amend Directive 71/127/EEC (last amended by Directive 88/321/EEC of 16 May 1988) so as to make it compulsory for vehicles notably trucks to be fitted with blind-spot wing mirrors? If not, why does the Council not consider it necessary to introduce such mirrors in order to reduce the number of deaths on the roads caused by this problem? In its opinion, what more effective ways might there be of solving the problem of the blind spot in the field of vision of drivers?

(1) OJ L 68, 22.3.1971, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 147, 14.6.1988, p. 77.

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The Council shares the opinion of the Honourable Member. It considers that a solution to the problem of the blind spot in the field of vision of drivers of motor vehicles is among the measures which could make a major contribution to a reduction in the number of road accidents.

On 26 June 2000 the Council adopted a Resolution on the improvement of road safety(1) which enlarges upon the priorities indicated by the Commission in the communication it submitted in March 2000 in the context of the second Community action programme promoting road safety in the European Union for the period 1997 to 2001.

In its Resolution, the Council invited the Commission to submit seven legislative proposals as quickly as possible and to continue work on a number of investigative and information measures. The legislative measures include the one referred to by the Honourable Member, namely to amend Directive 71/127/EEC in such a way as to increase the field of lateral and rear visibility of vehicles, thus reducing blind spots.

The Council is awaiting a proposal from the Commission along those lines and will certainly accord that proposal due priority.

(1) OJ C 218, 31.7.2000, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4078/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: EU aid to enhance the safety of nuclear reactors

As part of EU economic aid to the countries of Eastern Europe to enhance the safety of their technologically obsolete nuclear reactors, the Commission has decided to make available funds for this purpose to Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia which are candidate countries for accession to the EU.

What stage have the procedures relating to this economic aid reached? What is the take-up rate of funds by the countries concerned? On the basis of the funds taken up so far, how does the Commission judge the effectiveness of these funds in enhancing the safety of the nuclear reactors in the candidate countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Under the PHARE financial instrument, the Commission launched Special Programmes to Support the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and Consequential Measures in the Energy Sector established for Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia in 1999 (for Lithuania and Slovakia) and in 2000 (for Bulgaria), respectively, in response to the closure commitments undertaken by the three candidate countries with regard to the Kozloduy 1-4, Ignalina 1-2 and Bohunice V1 NPPs.

The bulk of this financial assistance is being provided via international decommissioning support grant funds with the European Bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) taking a role of the Fund Manager. The three funds were established in June 2000. The first meetings of the Assemblies of Contributors of the three funds

will be convened early 2001, beginning with the Kozloduy and Ignalina Funds. As a prerequisite, the beneficiary countries are in the process of agreeing framework grant agreements with the fund manager and of finalising the project pipeline. This process is most advanced in the cases of Bulgaria and Lithuania. The three decommissioning support programmes do not contain elements to directly enhance the safety of the respective reactors, but aim to support their early closure and decommissioning.

As mentioned, the three special country programmes were started in response to the beneficiary countries' closure commitments. Following to these political decisions, the project proposals needed to be developed. Thus, these programmes follow the inverse sequence of other more traditional programmes for which project proposals are the starting point. As the project pipelines to be submitted to the Assemblies of Contributors are still in their final phases of preparation, the questions of the Honourable Member on the take-up rate of the financial assistance cannot yet be answered at this juncture. The programmes will indirectly be effective in enhancing the safety of nuclear power generation in the candidate countries, as they will enable the beneficiaries to implement their decisions on the early closure of reactors that have been qualified as non-upgradeable at reasonable cost.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3624/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Payments of family allowances for migrant workers

In the case of a Turkish migrant worker employed and living in Austria, with his wife and children resident in Belgium, is it incumbent on the Austrian or the Belgian authority to pay family allowances/children's allowances?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and its Additional Protocol of 1970 contain certain social security provisions. Under this agreement the Association Council adopted in 1980 social security provisions for Turkish workers moving within the Community and for their families residing within the Community (Decision No 3/80)(1).

As the Commission's proposal for implementing these provisions has not been adopted by the Council, the question of whether individuals can rely directly on the provisions contained in Decision No 3/80 has been tried by the European Court of Justice in a number of cases. As Community law now stands (judgement of the Court of 4 May 1999 in case C-262/96 Sema Sürül v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit)(2), Turkish nationals falling under the scope of the above-mentioned provisions can rely on the principle of equal treatment, as contained in that decision, for their social security rights under the national legislation of the Member States.

In the situation mentioned by the Honourable Member, any right to family benefits for those concerned (presuming that the Turkish migrant worker's wife and children are also of Turkish nationality) needs to be answered on the basis of national legislation in Austria and Belgium with due consideration to the application of the above-mentioned principle of equal treatment.

In practice this means that an Austrian or Belgian institution, when applying its own national legislation on family benefits, must put the Turkish migrant worker and his family members on an equal footing with its own nationals.

(1) OJ C 110, 25.4.1983.

(2) ECR 1999 p. I-2685.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2796/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Top rate of personal inheritance tax in each country of the European Union

Would the Commission please draw up a table showing the top rate of personal inheritance tax, or other comparable tax at death, in each country of the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2795/00, E-2796/00 and E-2797/00 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The three questions mainly relate to taxation of individuals. There is a great diversity among Member States on the way this taxation is organised. This has to do with the progressivity of the tax scales, the definition of the tax bases, the exemptions (e.g. for some social security benefits), the tax deductions such as family allowances, and special schemes for capital income or real estate. Given the complexity of these issues that are not harmonised at Community level, it is difficult to make comparisons of specific tax provisions in the Member States and to draw conclusions on the tax burden on the basis of the top marginal rate of these taxes.

The Commission is working on an improvement of information on the tax systems in the Member States. As a first step, the national data collected in the Inventory of Taxes levied in the Member States of the European Union(1) have been updated (rates as percentage as of 1 January 1999). The top rates of state tax on personal income with their respective thresholds of income, according to information received from Member States, are listed below. In some countries, regional or local taxes are also levied. These may be quite substantial. The top rate of these regional and local taxes may be higher than the top rate of the state tax.

>TABLE>

The top rates of personal inheritance tax are as follow:

>TABLE>

Furthermore capital gains are usually taxed as personal or corporate income. A few Member States do not levy tax on capital gains at all. There is wide range of tax rates on these revenues.

(1) Next edition 2000 (situation on 1.1.1999) will be published in the near future by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3945/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Euro conversion costs

Will the Commission please estimate the costs of converting national notes and coins into physical euro notes and coin including the costs of printing notes, minting coins, amendment IT systems and so forth in each participating Member State and express this as a percentage of GDP?

If it has not made such estimates itself, will the Commission please cite such estimates as are available from private sector and academic sources, giving their full range, and pointing to the uncertainties involved?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2001)

The Commission has not made estimates of the costs of the changeover to the euro.

The Commission is of the opinion that such costs, to be undertaken by the public authorities and private economic actors, should be seen as an investment which accrues significant overall economic benefits as a result of the creation of the single currency.

In addition, the Commission refers to the answer it provided to the Written Question No E-2741/00 by Mrs Villiers(1).

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 219.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3503/00

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Number of European Commission officials working on the cancer programme

1. Following up on your reply to my question P-2798/00(1) regarding the WHO Report on Influence of the Tobacco Industry, in which the Commission replied that at this moment in the Cancer Programme the Commission employs in addition to the head of the service and his deputy one A official, one part-time B official and one part-time national expert, can the Commission confirm that on 10 September 1993 the cancer programme employed a total of 32 officials?

2. If so, can the Commission explain the decrease in the number of officials in this programme within seven years from more than 30 to less than five, when at the same time this programme had a priority in the work of the Commission as is shown by the legislative initiatives taken by the Commission?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

It is not appropriate to make the kind of comparison the Honourable Member seeks to make. In the early 1990s, the only public health programmes managed by the Public Health Directorate were the cancer and aids programmes. Since then, programmes relating to health promotion, drugs, health monitoring, rare diseases, injuries prevention and pollution related diseases have been adopted and required management by that same Directorate.

Moreover, until the summer of 1999, the Public Health Directorate benefited from the support of a technical assistance office (TAO), comprising around 30 staff. The contract with the TAO was not renewed last year, in accordance with the Commission's overall approach to TAOs.

The Public Health Directorate was integrated into the new Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection on 1 October 1999. The resources allocated to work on the cancer programme have not been decreased since then. Indeed, during 2000, additional external personnel have been added on a temporary basis to assist with the programme's budgetary management.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3792/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Public health considerations and French beef

Has either the Scientific Veterinary Committee or the Veterinary Standing Committee considered whether French beef poses a threat to public health? Is so, what are their conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The question of the safety of cattle meat in general has been addressed in several opinions of the Commission's independent Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). The safety of meat is of primary concern for the Commission and extensive measures have been put in place to safeguard public health in the Member States, including in France. A number of issues arising from measures introduced in France, or in relation to measures introduced in other Member States relative to French beef, were addressed by the SSC at its meeting of 27/28 November 2000.

At that meeting an opinion was adopted on:

- the scientific basis for import bans proposed by three Member States with regard to BSE risks in France and Ireland;

- the scientific basis for several measures proposed by France with regard to BSE risks;

- the scientific basis for banning animal protein from the feed for all farmed animals, including pig, poultry, fish and pet animals.

This opinion is available on the internet website http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc. The safety of French meat-on-the bone is addressed in section 2.a. The SSC agrees that some risk reduction can be considered in France by means of the removal from human consumption of the meat-on-the-vertebrae (T-bone steak).

The Scientific Steering Committee re-assessed on 12 January 2001 the safety of the vertebral column and T-bone steak, in the light of the additional risk reduction measures coming into force in 2001. This opinion is also available on the above-mentioned website under the title Opinion on the questions submitted by EC-services following a request of 4 December 2000 by the EU Council of Agricultural Ministers regarding the safety with regard to BSE of certain bovine tissues and certain animal-derived products.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3673/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Anti-paedophilia projects Daphne Programme 2000-2003

Everyone agrees that crimes against children should be considered, to all intents and purposes, crimes against humanity.

Two European conventions are relevant in this regard the 1950 Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Children's Rights, which entered into force on 1 July 2000, but which Italy has as yet failed to ratify.

Meanwhile, despite an ever-increasing number of protocols, initiatives and proposals, as yet few measures have had a real impact on the situation.

The European Union has also taken action by adopting the Daphne Programme, whose priorities for 2002-2003 include child protection.

Many European associations and voluntary organisations have likewise taken a considerable and firm interest in the matter: this year the Commission's technical committee has selected a grand total of 415 projects.

Given that Italy as yet has no national centre to monitor the social evil of paedophilia and promote practical initiatives with a view to training staff to support children who are victims of violence, together with their families, can the Commission say how many and which of the 415 projects selected were submitted by Italian partners and have been given final approval?

During the final selection, what criteria were used to choose those projects?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

For the year 2000, the Commission received 415 proposals under the Daphne programme. Amongst those, 308 were eligible. After evaluation, 47 projects were selected for funding, for a total amount of 4 590 045.

The evaluation was based on the assessment of the following elements: relevance to the Daphne programme's objectives; clarity and pertinence of the project's objectives; usefulness of the expected results; appropriateness and feasibility of approach, methodology and timeframe; Suitability and experience of partners; European added value; dissemination of results, lessons learnt, acquired know-how; planning of follow-up and sustainability; value for money.

In addition to the individual merit of the proposal, the final selection should take into account an appropriate equilibrium between the target groups (children, young people and women), the duration of the projects (1, 2 or 3 years) and the geographical spread of the projects to reach an optimal European added value.

Amongst the 415 proposals received, 111 (26,7 %) were promoted by an Italian organisation; 94 out of these 111 were eligible. The final selection of 47 projects includes 5 projects lead by an Italian organisation. Furthermore, amongst the 361 organisations involved in all the selected projects, 47 (13 %) are Italians.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3793/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Transparency of negotiations

Can the Commission confirm the press reports that it is taking part in unofficial negotiations with the WTO in Geneva with a view to liberalising a whole range of health and education-related services? Can it also say what kind of brief has been given to the Member of the Commission responsible for trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

Since January 2000, multilateral negotiations on the liberalisation of trade in services have started within the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The Community and its Member States are participating actively in that work, while continuing to pursue their overall objective of launching as early as possible a comprehensive Round of trade negotiations. The negotiating mandate for the Commission was adopted by the Council on 26 October 1999. It was confirmed by the Parliament. Regarding the state of the negotiations, the Commission has reported regularly to the plenary and to various committees of the Parliament.

The GATS 2000 negotiations cover all commercially traded services. However, services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority are excluded from the scope of the GATS. Regarding commercially traded services, the Community has decided that no sector should be excluded a priori. With regard to health and education services, no specific negotiations have been held so far. It should be noted, however, that in the course of the negotiations of the Uruguay Round, the Community and its Member States have already taken some market access commitments for privately funded education services and for some health services. These commitments mean for instance that foreign suppliers can establish privately funded schools or hospitals in the Community and that such schools and hospitals will be treated as if they were owned by Community nationals. However, Member States have listed appropriate limitations and conditions to the commitments in order to protect specific domestic concerns. Moreover, the commitments do not prevent Member States from establishing the appropriate regulatory framework to meet objectives of public and social policy, such as guaranteeing affordable and qualitative services to the entire population.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that, as in the Uruguay Round, the Community will not undertake any new commitment in the next GATS negotiations which would impair Member States' capacity to regulate the provision of health and education services and to intervene financially in the sectors concerned.