ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against European companies by the United States Aviation Security Act (S1447)

Can the Commission indicate what action it intends to take against the United States in regard to the discrimination that is being practised against European companies by the US Aviation Security Act (S1447)? Further, what pressure is the Commission exerting on the

US Government to reinstate the liability cap for aviation security companies and would it consider retaliatory action against US-owned companies should the US administration fail to act to end this blatant anti-European policy?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1820/02 and P-2080/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

Following the events of September 11 the United States (US) authorities passed new legislation on aviation security entitled the US Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

The act removes the liability cap for aviation security companies, while leaving it for adjacent activities.

After a period of nationalised operation of the sector, Section 108 of the act permits private companies to undertake security screening at airports on the condition that the private screening company is owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

Under its commitment to opening world markets in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) the United States has signed up to full market access in the field of security services (with specific exceptions for the states of Maine and New York).

Therefore, it would appear that the new US legislation does conflict with these commitments taken by the United States under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The Commission in the first instance will contact the US authorities to seek a solution to this issue. It is, therefore, not appropriate to envisage retaliatory action at this stage of proceedings.

The Commission is in regular contact with the European providers of security services, and will continue consult both on the issue of discrimination on the access to the US security market once this market is again being opened to private operators, and on the efforts to have the liability cap for security operators re-instated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1237/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Emergency phone number in the EU

The telephone numbers which may be called in an emergency vary from one Member State to another in the European Union. As a result, people rarely know the relevant emergency number when staying in other Member States.

On 22 March 2002, 16 men and women from Austria were caught in a snowstorm in the Ortler region in South Tyrol (Italy). The group leader believed that the emergency phone number 112 was also valid in South Tyrol. This was not the case. The call was answered by the carabinieri in Sondrio who only spoke Italian and were therefore unable to help the group in distress.

This is intended as an example of how differing emergency phone numbers in the individual Member States make it difficult to call for assistance and may even have fatal consequences.

The Commission:

1. How does it view the fact that, although it was decided to introduce 112 as a single European emergency phone number (Council Decision 91/396/EEC(1) of 29 July 1991), this basic decision has not yet been implemented?

2. Does it have any plans to change the situation?

(1) OJ L 217, 6.8.1991, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

In principle, and pursuant to Council Decision No 91/396/EEC of 29 July 1991(1), the single European emergency call number is 112.

According to this Decision, as indicated in Article 1(2), the single European emergency call number shall be introduced in parallel with any other existing national emergency call numbers, where this seems appropriate.

The 112 number had to be made available by 31 December 1996 at the latest. It is now fully functional in all the Member States. In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the person calling the 112 number did in fact get through to an agency authorised to deal with emergency calls.

However, the Community legislation imposes no obligations on the 112 telephone operators as to which languages they must use when responding to the calls. In practice, these operators use the official language or languages of their country, plus in virtually all the Member States English. Other Member States also permit the use of French, German or other languages.

(1) OJ L 217, 6.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1903/02

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 June 2002)

Subject: Unemployment among young people and youth policy. The situation in Greece

In its White Paper on a new impetus for European Youth, the Commission points out that autonomy for young people depends on the resources placed at their disposal and that their interests should be taken into account by employment and other policies(1). Recently(2) the European Statistical Office published data showing that unemployment among young people had reached particularly high levels: 15,5 % in the European Union as a whole and 16,6 % in the Euro-zone countries (April 2002) with the highest figures occurring in Greece.

What measures will the Commission take in response to this? Does it consider that the relevant employment guidelines are being implemented effectively? How does the Commission explain the major discrepancies regarding youth policy between the Member States both inside and outside the Euro zone? Does it intend to adopt the open method of coordination?

(1) COM(2001) 681 final, p. 16.

(2) 'Euro-zone unemployment up to 8.3 %', Eurostat news release, 4 June 2002.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

There has been a significant improvement in youth unemployment since 1997, when the European employment strategy came into force. The youth unemployment rate fell from 20 % in 1997 to 14,7 % in 2001(1).

Combating youth unemployment is a priority of the European employment strategy. The first guideline of the strategy provides that, in order to prevent long-term unemployment among young people, every young person should be offered a new start before reaching six months unemployment in the form of accompanying individual vocational guidance or any measure considered necessary (training, job offer, retraining or work practice). These preventive measures may be combined with others, such as measures to help women or other groups under-represented on the labour market. Other guidelines for young people concern activation measures for young unemployed people, education, training, equal opportunities and, more generally, the improvement of job quality.

On 17 July 2002(2), the Commission adopted a Communication taking stock of the European employment strategy, including an analysis of the effectiveness of these measures.

Responsibility for youth policy rests exclusively with the Member States. However, following the publication of the Commission's White Paper on a new impetus for youth, the Council, on 30 May 2002, adopted a resolution establishing a framework for European cooperation in youth policy. This provides in particular for the use of an open coordination method for the four themes specific to the field of youth: participation, information, voluntary work and research.

(1) Annual averages of the monthly unemployment estimates.

(2) COM(2002) 416 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1779/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Provisions on hang-gliders and paragliders

The use of hang-gliders and paragliders has become widespread in all the EU Member States in recent years, and the areas in which they fly often straddle different European countries.

This field is nevertheless governed by quite different national provisions, and this is true both for the machines and for the people who fly them. Would the Commission not agree that a set of common European rules should be defined for hang-gliders and paragliders?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

As the Honourable Member points out, hang-gliding and paragliding are sports which have grown in popularity in recent years, as have other outdoor sports. This has brought to light the difference in national approaches to rules concerning these disciplines.

However, the Commission does not plan to draw up a set of common European rules, as the EC Treaty does not expressly provide for Community powers relating to sport. It is up to Member States to adopt rules which they consider to be appropriate in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0788/02

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Effects of enlargement on the European Schools

What efforts is the Commission making to incorporate the languages of the applicant countries in the European School system in accordance with the principle of equal treatment for all languages?

Can the Commission confirm that the children of future EU colleagues from the current applicant countries will be taught in their mother tongues in the same way that education is provided in all languages at the moment.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the preamble to the Convention signed by all the Member States and the Communities on 17 June 1994, which clearly states that the Contracting Parties fully acknowledge the Member States' responsibility for the content of teaching and the organisation of their educational system, and for their cultural and linguistic diversity within the European School system.

As with all previous Enlargements of the Union, the Commission will do its utmost to ensure that the languages of the applicant countries are incorporated into the European schools system in accordance with the same principles that apply to the languages currently used.

The Commission will also make all efforts to ensure that the children of staff of the future Member States are educated in their mother tongue in a non-discriminatory fashion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: Closure of Selby coal mines and EU structural funding

Will the Commission give active consideration to redeploying structural funding to Yorkshire to take account of new developments, and in particular, the announcement of the closure of the Selby coal mines with the loss of thousands of jobs?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2313/02 and E-2397/02given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Selby is not included in the areas eligible for the Objective 1 or 2 structural funds programmes for the years 2000-2006 in the United Kingdom. Objective 3 funds are available (EUR 4,111,592,600) for England for the period 2000-2006.

Objective 3 funding can be used to support the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and employment as stated in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) (Article 1.3). More specifically, the scope for the European Social Fund that finances Objective 3 programmes has been set out in Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund(2) (Article 2). It refers to promoting active labour market policies, social inclusion, lifelong learning and entrepreneurship.

However, these funds are not managed by the Commission but by the governments of the Member States and, in the case of Selby, by their local government office for Yorkshire and Humberside. Applications for funding should be made to them directly or via any co-financing organisations that are active in the region. The Commission does not take any initiative in any way in the allocation and deployment of these funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/02

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Criteria for the selection of directors-general and other senior staff in the Commission

In its answer of 13 December 2001 to Written Question E-2973/01(1) the Commission pointed out that it had already taken measures to further strengthen procedures for selection and nomination of officials to senior posts in December 2000.

The Commission subsequently decided to use outside consultants to draw up individual job profiles and, if appropriate, to assist the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA) during interviews with candidates to ensure the appointment of candidates who are of the highest qualification and merit, and that proper account is taken of the quality of their record of performance in management.

In this context, the union representing R & D officials has repeatedly expressed severe criticism of the procedures and methods for assessing and selecting candidates for senior posts.

How does the Commission view the attitude of the R & D union and what steps has it taken or does it intend to take to reestablish the facts if the accusations of nepotism inside and outside the Comission made by the union (advance knowledge of the names of candidates to be chosen) should prove to be groundless?

If they do not, does the Commission not consider this is precisely what causes serious, lasting imbalances affecting any nationality in terms of appointments of senior managers, as emerges from the list of Italian senior officials?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 71.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

The Commission re-affirms its commitment to abiding by the provisions of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations which explicitly states that no posts are to be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State. The Honourable Member is aware, from the answer to his written question E-2973/01(1), of the measures which have been introduced to further strengthen procedures for the selection and nomination of officials to senior posts.

With regard to the views of the R & D union concerning these selection procedures, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply of 25 March 2002 to written question E-0286/02 by Mr Cossutta(2).

The Commission re-affirms its commitment to the principle of avoiding any serious, lasting imbalance affecting any nationality in terms of appointments of senior managers, as set out in its decision of 21 December 2000(3).

In accordance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations the Commission is continually monitoring the geographical balance with regard to all senior officials. The Commission does not consider that the current situation warrants exceptional measures but will, of course, keep the matter under constant review.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 71.

(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 102.

(3) SEC(2000) 2305/5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1895/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Wind power and defence security

According to a Reuters report on 26 May 2002, the UK defence ministry halted a project for a planned wind farm in Britain because wind farms have been shown to damage air force radar activities. A similar claim was made earlier in Norway, inter alia. At the same time the Commission is arguing forcefully in favour of renewable energy sources, including wind power.

In the tense world situation following the events of 11 September, even greater stress is placed on the importance of security aspects. What measures does the Commission propose to take in order to take better account of security policy aspects when considering energy issues amongst others?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Any large, moving structure can produce electromagnetic interference (EMI). This may occur in the case of wind turbines by reflection of signals from the moving rotor blades so that a nearby receiver picks up both a direct and reflected signal. EMI is more severe for metallic materials/blades, and least for wooden blades. Glass reinforced plastic (GRP) which is used in most modern wind turbine blades is practically transparent to electromagnetic waves and therefore intermediate in its EMI effects.

Experience has shown that careful design and siting of wind energy projects will avoid any disturbance to telecommunication systems. Nevertheless, the Commission, via its energy support programmes has supported in the past research and demonstration projects on innovative materials for wind turbines and can in principle continue to support such projects through the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0814/02

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

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Cohesion strategies and fisheries policy: the case of Galicia

The first progress report on economic and social cohesion, published in January 2002, considers that the cohesion strategies should not be confined to structural policy and mentions, as part of this strategy, other Community policies which should make greater efforts to achieve the cohesion objectives, in particular agricultural policy and rural development, as well as environment and transport policies.

In this context, why does the report not consider fisheries policy, which has a substantial impact on coastal mainly Atlantic regions, which in certain cases, for example Galicia, belong to both the Objective 1 regions and the cohesion countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

The First progress report on economic and social cohesion, adopted by the Commission on 30 January 2002(1), is not a full update of the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion(2) but a response to the desire expressed by the Member States to be informed of the preparation of the Commission's proposals on the future cohesion policy.

The First progress report updated the figures on the regional disparities in economic and social terms and on certain factors affecting the competitiveness of the regions using the latest available statistics. The report also provided an opportunity to give information on the progress of the discussion on the future of cohesion policy launched by the Commission when it published the second cohesion report referred to above.

There is, however, no question of altering at this stage the analyses of Community policies set out in the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. The references to the common agricultural policy and rural development, the environment and transport which appear in the interim report, are derived from the documents sent to the Commission in the course of the discussion which began a year ago

(1) COM(2002) 46 final.

(2) COM(2001) 24 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Repression of trade union movements

A recent report by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) notes a disturbing increase in the repression of trade union movements worldwide and the growing tendency towards persecution of trade unionists, refusal to recognise trade unions or negotiate with them, dismissals, imprisonment and even the physical elimination of trade unionists. According to the report, trade union rights are being curtailed in a number of applicant countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Romania) as well as in Member States (Spain, the UK, Germany).

Given that the Copenhagen criteria stipulate that respect for fundamental rights is an essential condition for the applicant countries and that the Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular Article 12 thereof states that Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, will the Commission say whether the applicant countries fulfil the above criteria and whether and to what extent trade union action is persecuted in those countries? What is the situation in the Member States in the light of the report's indication that some of them have a poor record in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 August 2002)

The Union is made up of states which, as stipulated in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), are founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.

In accordance with Article 6(2) TEU, the Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. These fundamental rights include the right of association. In addition, Article 12 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters.

As Community law now stands, it is up to national courts to punish violations of fundamental rights, for example union rights. According to established case law, the Court of Justice is responsible for ensuring that fundamental rights are observed by the Community's legislative and executive powers and by the Member States only where they fall within the scope of Community law.

As part of the enlargement process, regular reports provide updates on the situation in the candidate countries in terms of compliance with the Copenhagen criteria and, in particular, fundamental rights.