ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Implementation of legislation on equal treatment in employment and occupation

Could the Commission explain to the best of its knowledge the current state of implementation in the Member States, and in the United Kingdom in particular, of the provisions of the Council directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation?

How would the current state of implementation of this directive in the UK affect a citizen who had been the victim of discrimination in access to employment on the basis of their age?

Is there any other existing European legislation which could protect citizens against such cases of discrimination in the labour market or does the Commission intend to bring forward any such further measures in this field?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1) must be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. Moreover, in order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of six years, to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. In that event they must inform the Commission forthwith and must report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation.

No Member State has so far notified its transposition of the Directive to the Commission.

The Commission understands that there is currently no legislation in the United Kingdom which specifically protects individuals against discrimination in access to employment on grounds of age. This situation will change with the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC. The Commission currently has no plans to bring forward further measures in the field of age discrimination in employment.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1666/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Ban on concluding public contracts with media companies

A new law adopted by the Greek Parliament prohibits the conclusion of public contracts with natural or legal persons who are primary shareholders in media companies. The same law defines a primary shareholder as anyone holding as little as 5 % of the total share capital of a media company.

Given the difficulty of identifying primary shareholders at both Community and international level, will the Commission say:

- whether the new law is consistent with Community law and to what extent it infringes the principle of equality as a general principle of law in view of the fact that it will not be possible to scrutinise either companies with registered offices in a Member State or off-shore companies as opposed to domestic companies,

- whether the Member States are required to cooperate with the corresponding national authorities in identifying primary shareholders (provide information, carry out inquiries, etc), especially when no corresponding scrutiny is provided for in their national legislation,

- whether any delay in carrying out checks on Community companies constitutes an infringement of the principle of equality and discrimination against them in relation to domestic companies, and to what extent it is practicable and legally valid to preclude Community companies from concluding public contracts if it is impossible to scrutinise them effectively?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission does not have a copy of the text of the Greek law referred to by the Honourable Member, given that the law in question has just been adopted by the Greek Parliament. The Commission is, therefore, unable to comment on this matter at this time, but does intend to inform the Honourable Member of its conclusions once it has conducted the necessary investigations into the problem raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/02

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Subject: State aid case concerning the Terra Mítica theme park: loan from the Spanish government

Over the last few days the Valencia press has been publishing reports on the interest-free government loan of over 4 million for the Terra Mítica theme park in Benidorm (Alicante).

The loan was made by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology in 2001, as part of the Profit programme aimed at supporting new businesses.

The apparent objective of the programme is to offer aid to render the productive sector more competitive, by developing new technology and by incorporating new technology into businesses.

Bearing in mind the case opened by the Commission in relation to Terra Mítica under Article 88(2) of the Treaty, is the Commission aware of the loan from the Spanish government, and of the terms of the loan opted for by the above-mentioned company? Does the Commission consider that this information alters the case file profile and that it could be investigated?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The Spanish authorities have not notified the Commission of the interest-free loan to which the Honourable Member refers. Accordingly, the Commission will contact the Spanish authorities with a view to ascertaining whether this loan has actually been granted and, if so, to examine it in the light of the state aid rules. It will inform the Honourable Member of its findings in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/02

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Signing of the Euratom Treaty

Does the Commission consider that, by signing the Euratom Treaty, a Member State recognises the legitimacy of civil nuclear establishments in other Member States, provided that they have complied with the provisions of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The declared objective of the Euratom Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community is the promotion of nuclear energy.

Member States are free to decide, following their own political orientation, whether or not to produce nuclear energy. Whatever decision they take, they must respect the obligations of the Euratom Treaty and the decisions of other Member States who may decide to operate civil nuclear installations on their territories, as long as these are in conformity with all relevant national, Community and international law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2002)

Subject: 'Hors classe' advisers

Could the Commission provide information on the recruitment procedures for hors classe advisers, say how many such advisers are already working at the Commission and state the period for which they have been taken on?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Within the Commission, the denomination A1 official covers three different functions, namely Director General, Deputy Director General and Hors Classe adviser.

As a general rule, Hors Classe adviser posts are filled using the provisions of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, whereby officials are assigned to these posts in the interest of the service.

As at the end of May 2002 five A1 officials occupy Hors Classe adviser posts. Three of these functions were recently created in the context of the Commission decision on the mobility of senior staff (announced on 24 April 2002).

Upon appointment, Hors Classe advisers receive a written mandate/work programme. As permanent officials of the Commission they do not have a contract of fixed duration. Such advisers are, of course, eligible to fill other A1 vacancies, which may arise over time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0348/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Destruction by Israel of EU investments in Palestinian territory

European investments to the value of 17 million euro have already been destroyed by Israeli attacks on Palestinian territory. The absolute limits of pure cynicism are reached with the unremitting accusation by the Israel government against the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat that they are not moving repressively enough against Hamas and Jihad terrorists. It is precisely the Israelis who are deliberately destroying all the Palestinians' means of deploying repressive and preventive measures for the purpose of reining in violence and terrorism.

Can the Commission state if it will support moves to demand that Israel refund the monies paid?

The Council should do more than just ask Israel to explain how destroying civilian infrastructures can help to combat terrorism. The Council must impose damages so as to sent a clear political signal to Sharon that he is making a strategic miscalculation.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-0284/02 by Mrs Morgan(1).

The Commission views the destruction of basic infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, much of which has been financed by the Community and Member States as counterproductive in the effort to achieve peace. It sets back efforts to ensure sustained social and economic development in the region, which is in the interests of both parties; and this plays into the hands of extremists who are only too willing to exploit a growing resentment among certain sectors of Palestinian population.

Regarding claims for compensation, property and equipment funded by the Community budget belongs to the beneficiary. Therefore, in strict legal terms, it would be up to the beneficiary (which is in most cases the Palestinian Authority) to take legal recourse.

On the political level, in accordance with the General Affairs Council conclusions, the Union has reserved the right to claim reparation in the appropriate fora.

(1) See page 29.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1319/02

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Access to information on fisheries policy

Publication of the first package of legislative reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy is currently delayed for at least another month. However, copies of the proposals under discussion have been circulating freely for the some weeks. Many NGOs and industry organisations apparently have access to drafts but MEPs cannot officially obtain copies even of those parts of the package not still under negotiation. In the interests of a level playing field of information and meaningful consultation with MEPs will the Commission formally review its procedures of providing draft copies to interested parties, including MEPs?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-1319/02, P-1325/02 and P-1341/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Members that it has not given access to or sent out copies of its draft proposals on the Common Fischeries Policy (CFP) reform to non-governmental organisations (NGO's), industry organisations or to any other stakeholders.

The CFP reform proposals will be published upon adoption by the Commission, in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1526/02

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

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Regulation of foreign language courses

As Summer approaches, we will again witness countless offers for foreign language courses in numerous Community locations, without having any system of comparing the educational merit of the courses in question.

There is therefore an ever more pressing universal call for a system of approving those courses deemed by experts to be of sufficient educational value for students.

Can the Commisson indicate if the eagerly awaited objective of a system of approval for language courses throughout the European Union will be realised in the short term, in order to safeguard users who are seeking to learn a foreign language, and not just to go on a fairly pleasant holiday at a centre which lacks the proper qualifications for language teaching?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

One of the Commission's objectives has for a long time been to promote an improvement in the quality and an increase in the quantity of foreign language teaching and learning.

The Commission understands concerns about the varying standards of teaching in language courses in Europe. For this reason, the brochure How you can learn languages (Así se puede aprender idiomas), which was published as part of the European Year of Languages 2001, contains specific advice to the learner about how to choose a good course. It has also supported the establishment of European associations working to improve standards in this field (such as the European Association for Quality Language Services, the Association of Language Testers in Europe).

The Commission intends to bring forward by early 2003 proposals for actions to promote linguistic diversity and language learning, and with this aim it will soon launch a process of consultation on all aspects of this field. More generally, it is undertaking a number of initiatives connected with the quality of education and training in Europe and the transparency of validation systems. The Commission will bear in mind the issues raised by the Honourable Member in these activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Conditions attached to EU aid

Commissioner Patten has expressed concern about the implications for recipients of EU aid of conditions specifying where this money must be spent.

What is the cost to developing countries of insisting that aid must be spent within the EU? Is it also correct that some Member States insist that purchases be made only within those states, and, if so, how is that consistent with the EU's own Competition Policy requirements?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

According to the World Bank's estimates, the untying of bilateral aid could increase the efficiency of aid by up to 25 %. Community aid would be less affected since the Commission already tenders in the 15 Member States, and the framework agreements that the Union has established with developing countries have already anticipated this potential by opening-public procurement under Community co-operation to entities from the recipient countries.

Despite the fact that the DAC Recommendations unfortunately cover only 2 % of the total of ODA, the Commission has committed itself to implement the recommendations. Indeed the Commission's approach goes further than these recommendations as it covers all Developing Countries, and includes food aid and technical assistance.

The Commission has launched a step by step approach to implementing this which is based on partnership and regional integration. This process aims at opening EU co-operation as a first step to all developing countries on a regional basis; in a second step to all developing countries; and in a third step to all countries including other donors on the basis of reciprocity. Horizontal budget lines are currently being opened to all developing countries. Changes will be proposed to the appropriate legal framework to achieve this.

As for the approach of some of the Member States to their own bilateral aid, Community internal market rules apply to the conditions attached to aid, except where the tender is organised by a Member State on behalf of the recipient. According to the Directives on Public Procurement(1), Community individuals must have equal access to and equal treatment in public procurement within the Union.

The Conclusions of the Council in view of the International Conference on Financing for Development stipulate that the Member States shall continue the discussion in view of a further untying of bilateral aid.

(1) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1687/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: ECB, EIB and directives on public procurement

Can the Commission indicate whether the EU directives on public procurement also apply to the European Central Bank (ECB) and to the European Investment Bank (EIB)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

The Community directives on public procurement are aimed at regulating the behaviour of awarding authorities in the Member States (State, regional and local authorities, bodies governed by public law and associations formed by one or more of the aforementioned authorities or bodies) so that their public contracts are open to enterprises from other Member States.

In consequence, the Community directives on public procurement are not addressed per se to international organisations such as the Union and its institutions, which do not fit the Community definition of awarding authority.

In the interests of sound financial management and transparency, the Council nevertheless considers that, when awarding contracts, the institutions must comply with the same obligations as are incumbent on bodies in the Member States by virtue of the Council directives coordinating procedures for the award of public works, supply and services contracts with a value equal to or higher than the thresholds established by those directives.

This obligation was introduced by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2333/95 of 18 September 1995, amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1) and has been incorporated in Article 56 of the above-mentioned Financial Regulation.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out to the honourable Member that the ECB and the EIB are not subject to the provisions of the above-mentioned Financial Regulation. However, according to the information at its disposal, the Commission would like to point out that these two institutions have adopted their own contract-award regulations which, whilst taking account of the specific nature and objective of their tasks, draw heavily on Community legislation on public procurement and the above-mentioned Financial Regulation.

(1) OJ L 240, 7.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1628/02

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Toxic substance in food

Results from recent research by Swedish scientists and the British Food Standards Agency have revealed the presence of a particularly toxic substance, acrylamide, suspected of causing genetic mutations, in prepared food available on the market and widely consumed.

On the basis of the above and in view of the precautionary principle, could the Commission say whether it is aware of this issue, comment on the reliability of the research and say whether it intends to take measures to correct matters, such as screening foods for this substance and instituting compulsory labelling?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to the written question E-1404/02 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse(1).

In addition, regarding the possible use of labelling, it should be noted that labelling is not an acceptable alternative to providing safe food. In this instance, further investigations are necessary and are underway to clarify the extent of the risk posed and to determine how best to manage that risk.

(1) See page 201.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Iberian lynx

What is the Commission's estimate of the number of these creatures still surviving in the wild in relevant Member States, and how have population numbers changed in each decade since 1950?

To what extent have policies, projects and schemes supported by EU subsidies and funding played a part in increasing threats to the survival of the species?

What programmes and measures is the Commission supporting with a view to try and sustain the species, and what is the Commission's assessment of the prospects of success?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The population estimates of the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) are as follows:

>TABLE>

The main threats to the Iberian lynx are the destruction of its habitats and the scarcity of its prey animals (especially rabbits). There are several types of development projects, also partly or entirely funded by the Community, that might have a negative effect on the Iberian lynx populations. Such are e.g. transport projects and water regulation projects as they tend to fragment the habitats favourable to the lynx. The Commission has insisted on adequate impact assessments and mitigating actions to be taken in these projects but it is obvious that they do affect the lynx populations.

Among the different environment-related Community funding possibilities LIFE Nature targets directly nature conservation and the conservation of species. During the period 1994-2001 funding has been given to two projects for Iberian lynx in Portugal and 18 projects in Spain. Their main aims have been to protect and maintain the lynx habitats and to enhance the number of its prey animals.

The sustainability of a species with a low number of individuals and isolated subpopulations is always doubtful but as can be seen from the number of projects the Commission considers the survival of the Iberian lynx is a priority issue.