ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities: violation of the principles of equality and freedom of establishment and infringement of pension provisions governing establishment

In view of the fact that Article 83(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials and the corresponding article of the rules applicable to other servants of the European Communities specify a contribution by all officials to the pension scheme amounting to 8,25 % of their basic salary , the weightings provided for in Article 64 not being taken into account; and bearing in mind also that, despite the fact that all officials are required to pay a uniform contribution, Article 82(1) of the Staff Regulations provides for variations in the amount of the pension awarded to be based solely on the future place of residence selected by officials retiring from the service after the award of the pension and the standard of living there,

will the Council say:

- What steps does it intend to take to put an end to the violation of the fundamental principle of equality under which every official should receive the same pension benefits for the same pension contributions and the violation of the principle of freedom of establishment in the territory of any Member State through the introduction of weightings?

- How will it tackle the violation of pension provisions by officials who chose a bogus place of residence in order to receive a higher pension, without, however, meeting the essential conditions for the implementation of the pension weightings?

- Does it intend to call for a proposal amending the Staff Regulations in order to abolish the unfair provisions concerning the weightings so that all officials receive the same pension since they pay the same contributions?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 283 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of those Communities are laid down by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned. The emoluments and social security benefits of officials are set out under Title V of the Staff Regulations.

On 29 June 2001 the Permanent Representatives Committee adopted a report(1) on the Commission reform drawn up by the Working Party on the Staff Regulations. Inter alia, it emerges from this report that:

The Working Party welcomes the Commission's wish to review the application of economic parities to pensions, as well as its exploration of other savings to the scheme: changes in the invalidity scheme, survivor's pensions, pension rights bonus, system of weightings for pensions.

The Council will continue to study this issue in the framework of the major reform of human resources policy and in particular on the basis of official proposals to be submitted by the Commission.

(1) 9954/01 STAT 29 FIN 187 + ADD 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2338/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Restrictions on freedom of religion

Given that choice of religion is a fundamental freedom and therefore a basic human right enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, does the Council believe that the law adopted by France regarding restrictions on freedom of religion (adopted text No 676, 30 May 2001) is in breach of the Charter?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to declaration No 11, annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations in which the European Union states that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. In the same declaration it adds that it equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

The Council is not aware of the specific case raised by the Honourable Member.

Moreover it would remind the Honourable Member that, apart from cases referred to it in the context of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, it is not for the Council to comment on Member States' respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2461/01

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

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Megalomaniac expansion of central airports by the Member States, and the issue of sustainable development in the EU

Given the megalomaniacal tendency of the Member States to expand both their central airports and their flag-carrying airlines a trend which even includes deliberate centralisation of economic power, as Spain is doing with Madrid what is the Commission's strategic position, in view of the sustainable development approach and programmes to which the Union has officially committed itself?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2001)

Decisions on expansion of airport capacity fall mainly within the competence of Member States. Expanding capacity at certain hub airports is one possible answer to the demand for more airport capacity. Such projects are subject to the obligations of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2) which makes sure that the authorities in the Member States integrate environmental considerations into the planning and realisation of new airport capacity.

In the recently issued White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(3), the Commission identifies scarcity of airport capacity as one of the main problems for air transport in Europe. The White Paper advocates a balanced strategy, which has to rely not only on the construction of new infrastructure but also on a better use of existing capacity as well as on the promotion of air-rail intermodality.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1727/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Rare diseases

What is the position of rare diseases in the Public Health framework? How will the Commission ensure action on such diseases and what further calls will there be for proposals in this area?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The programme of Community action for 1999-2003 on rare diseases represents an important step in the consolidation of the Community policy for this area of public health. This programme was adopted by Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on 29 April 1999(1) and is one of the eight programmes of Community action in public health.

During the forthcoming months a common call for proposals for 2002 for the eight existing programmes will be published, including a call for proposals on rare diseases. In implementing these programmes, the Commission will ensure that actions undertaken are complementary and consistent with the scope and the objectives of the Community's Health strategy and the proposed new Public Health programme(2), which was proposed last year with a view to achieving a better focused approach and synergy between various actions. This programme will replace all the eight existing public health programmes.

The new programme has three main strands of actions:

- Improving health information;

- Responding rapidly to health threats;

- Addressing health determinants.

Once the new Public Health programme will be adopted, the current eight programmes will be repealed. Work on rare diseases will be continued under the new programme.

The Community strategy in the domain of rare diseases has been developing also in two other policy areas:

- Research on rare diseases conducted within the Community Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development; the proposal for the next Framework Programme (2002-2006), as was the case for the 5th, contains an explicit reference to rare diseases,

- Pharmaceutical policy; the Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of 16 December 1999, on orphan medicinal products(3) is now an acquis communautaire that is producing concrete benefits for rare diseases patients.

(1) No 1295/99/EC (OJ L 155, 22.6.1999, p. 1).

(2) COM(2000) 285 (final) of 16.5.2000.

(3) OJ L 18, 22.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2733/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Seizure of a motorised fishing boat in the Sicilian Channel

For some years now Sicilian fishing boats have been unjustly seized by the Tunisian authorities in the international waters of the Sicilian Channel, in violation of the basic principles of the international law of the sea. Last week another motorised fishing boat from Mazara del Valle, the most important port in Italy, was seized by them. The seizure of fishing boats causes serious economic damage to Sicilian fishermen.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it is aware of these problems; whether it can take steps to ensure that regrettable incidents of this kind no longer occur?

2. What new rules on fishing in the Mediterranean Basin does the Commission intend to introduce, in particular concerning issues related to fishing in the Sicilian Channel, the most important of which is the partnership with the countries bordering on the Mediterranean?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the incidents involving Sicilian fishing vessels that have been taking place in the international waters of the Sicilian Channel for several years.

The limits to the action the Commission can take in situations of this kind were examined recently in a study carried out by its departments (see Commission working paper on the current responsibilities of the Commission and the Member States in relation to fisheries agreements with third countries(1). The study was also sent to Parliament and discussed by its Committee on Fisheries). While it is concerned primarily with incidents occurring under fisheries agreements, the study deals also with the steps the Commission can take where incidents occur in circumstances unconnected with fisheries agreements, as in the cases involving the Tunisian authorities. The above working paper examines the roles of the various parties concerned, namely the flag Member State, the Commission and vessel owners, and states that the Commission is not involved and therefore bears no responsibility in the event of the arrest of fishing vessels in such a situation.

However, because of its geographical location and potential marine and economic resources Tunisia could be one of the few Mediterranean countries potentially interested in a bilateral agreement with the Community. The Community is ready to explore possible potential developments in bilateral fisheries cooperation with the Tunisian authorities. At the same time, it is interested in expanding its fisheries cooperation in the Mediterranean Sea. In this regard it is working with the Tunisian administration on the reform and improvement of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), which is the only regional organisation in the Mediterranean that could develop a multilateral framework for the management of fisheries resources in the area and contribute to reinforcing international cooperation between Mediterranean Basin countries.

(1) SEC(2000) 1943.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1220/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Cancellation of employment contracts by the Agrinion public cultural development company for a project funded by the Commission

By decision 75 of 4 November 1999 the Agrinion public cultural development company (DEPAA in Greece), as the body responsible for implementing the action for the establishment and operation of new structures or new sections in existing crèches and/or day nurseries and/or children's creative play centres which is co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, announced a competition for filling the posts at these establishments. On 18 December 1999 the assessment board announced

the candidates who fulfilled the conditions it had set and the contract for these posts was signed. All of a sudden the administrative board of the DEPAA by decision 1 of 12 January 2000 revoked the assessment board's decision 88 of 18 December 1999 and by decision 3 of 15 January 2000 selected other candidates without denouncing the employment contracts concluded with the candidates previously selected. Furthermore, by decision 246/2000 it partially accepted the appeal by the injured parties, forcing the DEPAA to pay compensation.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of the above issue?

2. Are the decisions taken by the DEPAA compatible with Community law?

3. What actions does it intend to take to ensure that the programmes in question are implemented in a more transparent manner?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Commission has asked the Greek authorities for information on the case to which the Honourable Member refers.

It has emerged that this action was not financed by the European Social Fund after all and that the Structural Fund regulation does not apply in this case.

Moreover, the assessment of applicants with a view to signing employment contracts, together with the termination of such contracts, is a matter for national law, and it is up to the national courts and/or administration to resolve all disputes arising from this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: GM food in Swedish shops

In January 2001 the Swedish Nature Conservation Society (SNF) published the findings of a survey it had carried out among Swedish local authorities. Its conclusion was that checks on GM labelling of food were not working. Under the 1997 EC regulation food containing more than 1 % GMOs had to be labelled. The local authorities were responsible for that labelling. However, the SNF survey showed that only four of the 214 local authorities who replied to the questionnaire were actually checking labelling during 2000. They were Stockholm, Landskrona, Torås and Skurup.

Sweden is probably not unique in the way the labelling of GM food is being monitored. Has the Commission carried out any enquiries into how GM labelling operates in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 on novel food and novel food ingredients(1) which includes genetically modified (GM) food) and Council Regulations (EC) No 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC(2), Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC(3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 50/2000 of 10 January 2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings that have been genetically modified or have been produced from genetically modified organisms(5), are directly applicable in all Member States. The requirements for placing on the market and labelling GM food are therefore uniform in all Member States. As foreseen by the EC Treaty, the responsibility for enforcement and control lies within each Member State.

The Commission is carrying out enquiries into how GM labelling operates in the Member States, in the context of its responsibility for ensuring the proper functioning and development of the single European market

The Commission intends to include the control of correct labelling of foodstuff that may contain GM ingredients in the coordinated control program for 2002 under Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs(4). The aim of this Directive is to ensure that Community food law is enforced with the same rigor in all Member States. This initiative is designed to improve the harmonised implementation of the official controls by Member States

The Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission has also started to carry out mission in Member States in order to evaluate official control systems on GM food, including labelling.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2) OJ L 159, 3.6.1998.

(3) OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.

(4) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989.

(5) OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Establishment of a special European force to deal with demonstrations

Mr Otto Schily, the German Minister of the Interior, recently put forward a proposal which was endorsed by Claudio Scajola, his Italian counterpart, to set up a special force with primary responsibility for dealing with demonstrations of trouble-makers opposed to globalisation.

This proposal, which is underpinned by other schemes, such as (Council Decision of 13 July 2001) the establishment of files for each country on the individuals concerned and the monitoring of these individuals by the authorities owing to their involvement in similar types of demonstration, is without any legal justification and is a violation of the provisions on the free movement of persons within the European Union. In the light of the above, will the Commission, as guardian of Community law, say whether the proposal in question is compatible with the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of a proposal presented by the German federal government to the Council regarding special units to guarantee the safety of meetings of the European Council and other comparable events. This proposal has not yet been adopted by the Council.

As to the question of whether the Commission, as guardian of Community law, considers this proposal to be compatible with the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Commision would like to underline, first, that the issue of maintenance of public order and security is the competence of Member States, as established in article 33 of the Treaty on European Union and in article 64 (ex Article 73l) of the EC Treaty. The German document, which proposes the establishment of common standards for the training and equipment of existing special units in the Member States entrusted with the task of ensuring public safety and order, is compatible with article 30.1, paragraphs a, b, c and d of the Treaty on European Union.

Regarding the Honourable Member's claim that the measures agreed on by the Council on 13 July 2001 are without any legal justification, the Commission would like to point out that these measures are based on existing legal instruments, in particular the provisions of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (article 46) and the Joint Action 97/339/JHA adopted by the Council on 26 May 1997 on the basis of article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union with regard to cooperation on law and order and security(1).

(1) OJ L 147, 5.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: The promotion of renewable energy sources

The formal adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources is now clear. An understanding was found that non-separated municipal waste should not be promoted under a future support system, if this undermines the hierarchy.

When may we expect a Commission position on the future support system, and how will it include separated waste?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Directive 2001/77/CE of the the Parliament and the Council on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market was adopted on 27 September 2001 and will enter into force the day of its publication.

Directive 2001/77/CE stipulates in its Article 4 that the Commission shall, no later than four years after its entry into force, present a well-documented report on the experience gained with the application of the different national support systems. In that report the Commission will assess the success, including the cost effectiveness, of the national support systems. According to Article 4, this report shall, if necessary, be accompanied by a Commission proposal for a Community framework with regard to support schemes for electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission will not propose in the short term a Community framework with regard to support schemes as mentioned in Article 4. Experiences need first to be gathered on the implementation of the Directive and on national support schemes before making a decision as to how separated waste would be treated under a possible future proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1404/01

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Business impact assessment

Can the Commission identify which pieces of legislation have been subject to a business impact assessment since it came into existence in 1986 and can they supply a summary of what effect such assessments have had in relation to legislation?

How does the Commission see business impact assessments in relation to the proposals on European Governance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

The Commission is sorry to have to tell the Honorable Member that there is no centralised information on this subject in the Commission, and that the research that would have to be done in order to provide a detailed response to his question would be out of all proportion to the result desired, and would exceed the requirements of a response to a written question.

As to the second part of the question, the Commission considers that the business impact assessment (BIA) has since 1986 proven to be useful in assessing the impact of legislation on enterprises, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, in light of the recognised shortcomings and the broader debate on governance and especially on regulatory simplification, the Commission launched a pilot project for reviewing the existing BIA system in September 2000. It will run until February 2002, with preliminary conclusions to be drawn in the autumn of 2001. The objective of the pilot project is both to improve the existing system (with a particular focus on external consultation and economic analysis) and to feed experiences into the broader debate initiated by the White Paper on European Governance adopted by the Commission on 25 July 2001(1).

(1) COM(2001) 428 final.