ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2692/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Conversion of usufruct into ownership

Privatisation in Poland has been organised in such a way that the land holdings belonging to an enterprise have in many cases not been transferred forthwith to private ownership. Instead, a statutory right of usufruct has been conferred on the buyer of the enterprise. Conversion of this usufructuary enjoyment into a full ownership right has since been discussed in Poland on several occasions.

Could the above debate spill over into the accession negotiations, and, if so, how would the issue make itself felt?

Does the Commission, in any event, know how matters currently stand in the discussion, which in the final analysis also affects Union firms operating in Poland?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The question of transforming leasehold, granted in the course of privatisation, to full property rights is not covered by the acquis. In particular, it is not subject of Article 157 (ex Article 130) EC Treaty and thus not subject of the accession negotiations. For this reason, the Commission is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member on this question.

However, under the negotiation chapter Industrial Policy, the European Union highlighted the importance of complying with the principles of Community industrial policy based on open and competitive markets. In that respect the European Union noted Poland's statement that it will apply effectively Article 157 of the EC Treaty and conduct privatisation and industrial restructuring in conformity with these principles. The Commission will, throughout the negotiations, monitor general progress in the privatisation and restructuring of Polish industry.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2770/99

by Alima Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(10 January 2000)

Subject: Readmission clauses

At its meeting of 3 December the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted by the procedure without debate (A items) a decision on readmission clauses in Community agreements or joint agreements. Under this decision, such clauses would in future be compulsorily included in all Community agreements and agreements between the EC, its Member States and third countries.

Can the Council give details of the scope of this decision, which was taken without consultation of the European Parliament?

Does the decision apply to agreements currently in force?

Does it concern all agreements of a commercial nature, including those with countries offering insufficient guarantees regarding respect for democracy and fundamental rights?

Are we to understand that all the countries with which the EC is negotiating or has already concluded agreements are regarded as safe?

How are the standard readmission clause and the obligations of the EU and its Member States under the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees to be reconciled, particularly as regards access to the asylum procedure and the principle of not turning away asylum seekers?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

1. The Council decision mentioned by the Honourable Member makes reference to the Council conclusions of 4 March 1996, in which the Council agreed that the insertion of standard readmission clauses in mixed agreements was to be considered on a case-by-case basis when adopting the directives for the negotiation of such agreements. The Council decision adapts these conclusions to the new situation arising from the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. It was necessary to revise the standard clauses agreed in 1996 to take account of the fact that the European Community is now empowered to conclude readmission agreements with third countries. Under this decision, the revised standard clauses should in future be included in Community agreements and in association agreements or cooperation agreements between the European Community, its Member States and third countries. From the legal point of view, these are negotiating directives adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 300(1) TEC, which does not provide for consultation of the European Parliament.

These new directives are applicable as from adoption to current as well as future negotiations.

2. The clauses do not lay down any obligation to expel illegal migrants. They are only intended to commit the contracting parties to readmit own nationals and to conclude readmission agreements including obligations for the readmission of third-country nationals and stateless persons. As far as the expulsion of illegal migrants is concerned, it is the responsibility of each Member State to ensure that expulsions are carried out in accordance with its obligations arising from the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2315/99

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Financial aid to Mali and, in particular, to the Itema company

Will the European Commission inform the European Parliament as to the exact amount of financial aid that has been given to the Government of Mali under any of the EU-backed development aid programmes and the Lomé Conventions over the past five years and, more specifically, whether any of these monies were given directly or indirectly to a company called Itema in which the Malian Government is a substantial holder?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The attached table provides a breakdown of European development fund (EDF) and Community budget funding to Mali since 1986. None of these funds were given either indirectly or directly to Itema.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Management of the vocational training programme Leonardo

Vocational training is one of the EU's strategic weapons for successfully combating unemployment.

One of the instruments available for this is the Leonardo programme which, unfortunately, hit the headlines as a result of the serious charges of fraud brought against the Commissioner responsible, Mrs Cresson, and was rightly considered to be one of the main reasons behind the Commission's forced resignation.

Article 117 of the Italian constitution stipulates that responsibility for vocational training lies with the regions. It would appear, therefore, that the programme, which up until now has been overseen in Italy by the Ministry of Education, has been managed improperly to say the least and certainly in an unconstitutional manner.

In the light of the above, can the Commission check:

1. whether the Italian Ministry of Education was actually the sole administrator of the Leonardo programme in Italy;

2. whether the programme's funds were sent to the Ministry of Education directly by the Commission or through the intermediary of the Ministry of Labour;

3. whether the Ministry of Education used these funds for the testing of pilot projects;

4. what relationship the Ministry of Education had with Commissioner Cresson?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

The Leonardo da Vinci programme is managed directly by the Commission and, in the Member States, by National Coordination Bodies.

In Italy, this is the Istituto Formazione Lavoratori (ISFOL), Via Morgagni 30, I-00161 Rome. For the purposes of the Leonardo da Vinci programme, this public body comes under the authority of the Ministries of Labour and Education, whose representatives sit on the Leonardo Committee, which meets in Brussels and is chaired by the Commission.

The answers to the Honourable Member's four questions are as follows:

1. The Ministry of Education did not therefore administer the programme directly.

2. The Commission sends the funds to the project promoters, except for those measures relating to decentralised mobility, in which case the Commission sends the entire grant to ISFOL, which then concludes contracts with the national promoters.

3. As stated in points 1 and 2 above, the ministries do not receive funds directly from the Commission.

4. Only the usual relations between ministries in the Member States and Members of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2693/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: The Russian Federation's ultimatum to the city of Grozny

The whole world has condemned the ruthless ultimatum given by the Russian Federation's political and military authorities to the 50 000 inhabitants and the resistance groups in the city of Grozny. However, the only reactions to this ultimatum on the part of the Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP and the Commission have been verbal condemnations and expressions of concern, warnings and the 'studying' of possible counter-measures.

The changes to the terms of the ultimatum made on 7 December by the Russian authorities do not affect the threat of extermination faced by tens of thousands of civilians because it is virtually impossible to evacuate them under the bombardments.

Does not the Council believe that actions speak louder than words and that it should suspend, temporarily but immediately, the partnership and cooperation agreements entered into with Moscow as well as any form of direct or indirect aid to the Russian Federation?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The European Council on 10 and 11 December in Helsinki strongly condemned the intense bombardments of Chechen cities, the threat levelled at the residents of Grozny and the ultimatum set by the Russian military commanders.

In the light of the situation in Chechnya, the European Council decided that the implementation of the Common Strategy on Russia should be reviewed, the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement be partly suspended and the trade provisions applied strictly. On TACIS, the European Council asked the budgetary authority to consider the transfer of some funds from TACIS to the humanitarian assistance. Moreover, financing from the budget for 2000 should be limited to priority areas, including human rights, the rule of law, support for the civil society and nuclear safety.

However, it has to be kept in mind that many of the cooperation programmes under the Common Strategy and the PCA are in the strong interest of the European Union, e.g. on nuclear safety, disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as democratic institution building and civil society.

These decisions of the European Council were notified to Russia in a letter from Prime Minister Lipponen and Secretary-General/High Representative Solana to Prime Minister Putin on 11 December. On 24 January 2000 the General Affairs Council invited the Commission to re-focus the Tacis 2000 programme on core areas directly promoting democratic values, and to transfer uncommitted balances to humanitarian assistance and promoting networking in civil society, as well as to suspend consideration of the possible extension of additional GSP preferences for Russia. It expressed its concern about the increasing number of trade disputes originating in infringements by Russia of the PCA as well as sectoral agreements and noted the Commission's intention to bring forward counter-measures against the Russian tax on exports of ferrous scrap. It invited the Commission to press ahead with similar action in other areas of EU concern.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding

Knorr Bremse has announced several hundred redundancies in Kingswood, Bristol (UK), in order to transfer work to its factories in France, Italy or Germany and Hungary.

Can the Commission say whether any financial assistance of any kind has been asked for by this company or given to this company for job creation in France, Italy or Germany or through TACIS and PHARE programmes in Hungary?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1784/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Civil aviation safety

When measured by time spent travelling, the passenger death risk of flying in civil aviation in the EU is higher than the risk of dying as a car occupant. It has been estimated that 40 % of all fatal civil aviation crashes are deemed to be survivable and that over 80 % of crashes occur during landing or take-off phases.

Will the Commission ensure that the EU takes the steps required to reduce these risks by bring proposals forward as soon as possible on:

- a single European Safety Authority,

- a common flight-time limitations scheme which reflects scientific research on fatigue and represents best practice,

- a confidential human incident reporting scheme,

- an EU strategy for improving survivability?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

The Commission has noted the statistics provided by the Honourable Member and the conclusions that he draws as regards the risk arising from civil air travel.

Although many others consider aircraft to be one of the safest forms of transport the Commission recognises that the risk inherent in this mode requires particular monitoring and attention; This explains, in particular, why it has frequently taken action in this area including those instances referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is in the process of drawing up a draft convention on the basis of the Directives, negotiations and the procedures adopted by the Council on 16 July 1998. It has done so in connection with setting up the European Air Safety Authority. That document is currently being discussed with Member State experts. The Commission is planning to start negotiating with the other European States involved as soon as that initial drafting stage has been completed.

The Commission has been working for three years on flight and rest times in conjunction with the major interested parties in order to reach a consensus. Since this has not borne fruit the Commission will now base itself on the work so far done in examining whether it is appropriate to put forward a proposal on its own initiative.

For more than five years the Commission has been developing tools and procedures enabling information on human incident reporting to be acquired and exchanged. On this basis the Commission will examine

the suitability of putting forward proposals for legislative action in this area in the light, in particular, of the financial and human resources available to it for implementation and follow-up purposes.

The Commission has already done a great deal of work on survivability as part of the research and development programmes and intends to continue to do so in order to make progress as regards aircraft design and certification requirements, together with their operating procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Shellfish hygiene directive

Is the Commission aware of the impact of Directive 91/0492/EEC(1) on shellfishermen in waters classified as Category C? Classification is determined by monitoring using E.Coli, a testing process which is not an adequate indicator in the case of shellfish where the disease-causing organism is a virus and not a bacterium. Furthermore, the application of the standard to mussels which are cooked and therefore pose less threat to public health than oysters which are traditionally eaten raw is considered to be inappropriate. The livelihoods of fishermen on the River Teign, which is on the border line between Categories B and C, is threatened by the application of the standard to mussels. Will the Commission urgently review the Directive so that the long tradition of shellfishing may survive?

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The monitoring of production areas for the classification foreseen in Chapter I of the annex to Council Directive 91/0492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs is based on the total number of faecal coliforms or E coli. This classification relates to production areas for live bivalve molluscs, and determines whether live bivalve molluscs can be intended for direct human consumption or must be purified or relayed.

The microbiological criteria applicable to the production of commercially cooked mussels are established by Commission Decision 93/0051/EEC of 15 December 1992 on the microbiological criteria applicable to the production of cooked crustaceans and molluscan shellfish(1).

On the other hand the Commission, to ensure an effective monitoring system with regard to virus testing and the establishment of standards for virological and bacteriological contamination, presented a proposal for a Parliament and Council Decision on reference laboratories for monitoring bacteriological and viral contamination of bivalve molluscs(2). The Parliament gave its opinion(3) and the Council adopted the proposal, after changing the legal basis from Article 100a to Article 43 of the EC Treaty, on 29 April 1999, by Council Decision 1999/0313/EC of 29 April 1999 on reference laboratories for monitoring bacteriological and viral contamination of bivalve molluscs(4).

The Commission is currently preparing a general revision of the Community legislation on food hygiene including a revision of the legislation governing the production and placing on the market of products of animal origin.

The River Teign has recent been designated under Council Directive 79/0923/EEC on the quality required of shellfish waters. The protection afforded by this shellfish water quality designation should in time lead to a reduction in pollution.

(1) OJ L 13, 21.1.1993.

(2) OJ C 267, 3.9.1997.

(3) OJ C 304, 6.10.1997.

(4) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1782/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Transport safety

Concern has recently been expressed that insufficient attention is being given to important transport safety issues by other Commission directorates with key responsibilities, for example DG III which is responsible for vehicle safety legislative standards and DG XIII which runs the telematics research programme.

What steps can the new Commission take to ensure that transport safety is given adequate attention in these matters and that the appropriate coordination is taking place between all directorates?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

The Commission has added security standards concerning frontal and side impact that are among the most ambitious in the world to the technical rules on vehicle safety, with regard to which it has exclusive powers. The Commission is also poised to put forward a Directive aimed at reducing the consequences of accidents involving pedestrians which has no equivalent in any other country.

The Community's telematics research programmes are helping to build up a body of high-value knowledge and skills which should enable the Community and its Member States to adopt a transport safety policy that is rooted in scientific bases and solid technologies.

Therefore the Commission does not share the views expressed by the Honourable Member.

Transport safety is being dealt with as a matter of urgency while the progress made in technology or the social sciences enable resources constantly to be allocated at the various levels of responsibility for safety. It thus goes without saying that the Commission is constantly examining other potential means of improving transport safety. In this assessment process, which is complex because it has several scientific, technical, industrial, behavioural, social and economic aspects, cooperation among the Commission's various specialist departments continues to be essential in order to guarantee the maximum long-term effectiveness of the measures adopted, proposed or recommended by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Responding to parliamentary questions

1. How long, on average, has it taken the Commission to respond to non-priority written questions tabled by MEPS over the last year?

2. How comparable is this to similar procedures within the parliaments of the Member States?

3. What proposals does the Commission intend to put forward with a view to reducing the time taken to answer such questions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1999)

1. The Commission gave 3 013 answers to non-priority questions forwarded by the Parliament in 1998, taking on average six weeks and four days for each of these answers.

2. The Commission does not possess information about questions asked in Member States' parliaments. It may, however, be observed that the situations of the Commission and national administrations are not really similar, given in particular the need for coordination between Commission services, the adoption procedure ensuring collegiate responsibility, and the requirement to answer in the language of the author of the question.

3. In the context of the nomination of the new Commission, the Vice-President responsible for relations with the Parliament indicated her clear intention to speed up answers to parliamentary questions. Since then changes have been made to the Commission's internal procedures which should result in a real reduction in the average reply time. The Commission agrees however that it should be possible to answer all written questions within the six week period identified in Parliament's procedures, and it will continue to tighten up its procedures to achieve this.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Rejection of citrus fruit restructuring programme in Greece

According to published information the Commission has finally rejected the restructuring programme in the citrus fruit sector in Greece worth DRA 77 billion. which was submitted on 7 July 1998.

In his reply to a previous question of mine on this topic (E-0002/99, 4.3.1999(1)), Mr Fischler, the Commissioner responsible, mentioned that this programme was still being considered.

Will the Commission say whether the above programme has been rejected and, if so, for what reasons?

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 57.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

By letter dated 7 July 1998, the Greek administration submitted to the Commission a draft programme for the improvement of citrus fruit production in Greece. The cost of this programme was EUR 294 million and Greece proposed that 75 % of this amount be financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section while it would pay the remaining 25 %.

By letter dated 23 November 1998, the Commission informed the Greek authorities that the amounts involved and the budgetary restrictions on this Section meant that the programme could not be financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

It pointed out that the operational programmes to be implemented by producers' organisations under the new market organisation introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) may include restructuring and reminded the Greek authorities of the opportunities offered by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

Following a meeting with the Greek authorities in December 1998, the Commission undertook a technical mission to the main production areas in Greece from 9 to 13 January 1999. Consideration of the results of the mission confirmed the conclusions sent in November 1998, which were therefore notified to the Greek authorities by letter dated 15 July 1999.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.