ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1762/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Reorganisation of the DG for Energy and Transport

Further to the information given in the Commission's reply to Question E-0344/00(1) and in spite of the claim made in the reply that, overall, promotion of renewable energy has been strengthened in the new organisation, it should be pointed out that:

1. the ratio between the number of officials assigned to the energy sector (142) and those assigned to transport (189) is much less favourable to the energy sector than was the case prior to the reorganisation, when the numbers were much more equal;

2. the number of staff specifically assigned to renewables and energy efficiency has been cut by approximately 20 %.

Given the repeated complaints about increasingly long delays in the processing of documents relating to contracts being performed under various energy programmes (with particular reference to payments, which in many cases are made over six months late), does the Commission intend to take immediate action with a view to solving such problems once and for all? If it does, what will that action involve?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 134.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The comparative figures presented by the Honorary Member are not complete as they disregard the number of officials working in the horizontal services linked with the development of new energies and demand management. Their work includes the following activities: financial management and control, environment, technological development and dissemination and utilisation of the results of programmes and technologies.

The delays in payments are not connected with the merger. For instance, the backlog of Altener contracts and payments dates back to July 1999, therefore predating the reorganisation.

Quite the contrary, the merger of the Energy and Transport directorates-general has made it possible to remedy this situation. A detailed list of payments was compiled, showing that at the end of February 2000 there were nearly 1200 financial transactions pending, relating to various Energy programmes including for renewable energy. A task force was set up early March 2000 to catch up. To date, more than 750 transactions have been settled and 200 transactions are in abeyance pending additional information from the contractor; evaluation of the balance will be completed shortly. In the coming weeks, work will continue to regularise the situation so as to eliminate any remaining delays as soon as possible;

In order to prevent such situations arising in the future, new financial procedures have been put in place within the directorate-general. They are based in particular on decentralisation of the expenditure authorisation process at directorate level, making it possible to shorten the administrative circuit and strengthen the central function of financial control.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/00

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

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Spain: market unity and self-rule by the Autonomous Communities and their relationship to central government

In a speech full of hair-raising references to the French eccentricity of laying down legal arrangements to promote a 35-hour working week, overgenerous German wages, and the extraordinary benevolence of the US economic system, the President of the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organisations (CEOE), Mr José María Cuevas, called on the Spanish Government to uphold market unity by doing away with socio-economic policies being pursued by the Autonomous Communities in accordance with the Constitution and their autonomous status.

Does the Commission consider such views, which are tantamount to wholesale denial of political and economic autonomy in the name of a self-interested interpretation of market unity associated with outmoded centralism, to be compatible with the law and institutional reality of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The distribution of powers between central government and regions does not come under Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Checks at the Suben motorway frontier crossing point

Queues of heavy goods vehicles wishing to enter Germany have recently been forming mainly when the Austrian gendarmerie and the Bavarian police carry out joint checks. These checks are usually made at the entrance to the customs office parking area.

The formal operation is undertaken by the Austrian gendarmerie, but it takes account of shortcomings referred to it by the Bavarian police. As the checks are made at the place referred to above, a line of HGVs immediately forms on the motorway when several of them in a row are flagged down and have to queue up to be checked.

Is the Commission aware that artificial tailbacks of this kind occur only at this frontier crossing point?

What does the Commission intend to do in this context to gain full acceptance for the idea of the internal market? These stoppages at the frontier do, after all, cost hauliers money as well as causing them considerable losses of time.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission is aware that controls, such as those to which the Honourable Member refers, are being carried out in cooperation between German and Austrian police forces. According to information supplied by both administrations, such checks take place to ensure

compliance with the traffic regulations and other provisions. They are carried out spontaneously and at varying places (border as well as anywhere inside national territory) and are thus in full compliance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport(1).

If checks occur on the border itself, it is with the intention of causing the least disturbance to commercial and other traffic because of the spacious parking and other installations available at the former border posts. Despite these precautions, the controls may in exceptional cases lead to queues. Localised problems with tailbacks should be seen in the context that roadside controls ensure much greater respect of the appropriate technical standards for lorries and social legislation for drivers. This has positive effects both on road safety and the elimination of disreputable operators.

(1) OJ L 390, 30.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Creating dual posts for Directors-General and their staff

In Paul Van Buitenen's recent book Blowing the Whistle, Mr Van Buitenen gives examples of where two EU countries were lobbying for their candidate to get a Director-General's job, and where the only way agreement could be reached was by dividing the job in two.

How many times has this happened?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Commission's rules and procedures relating to high-level appointments are based on the Articles of the Staff Regulations governing recruitment and promotion and are set out in Commission decisions SEC(1999) 1485 and SEC(1999) 1876.

Under those rules, appointments to Director-general are on merit and the process includes mandatory reference to qualifications and professional and managerial experience. In keeping with the Staff Regulations and Commission decisions, the Commission takes account of the need for broad geographical balance at all levels of staff in order to ensure that the Institution reflects the multinational character of the Union, and of the commitment to the promotion of equal opportunities.

The Commission is aware of only one case in which a Directorate general and, accordingly, the Director general's post was divided in two: In 1995 a decision was made to attribute the responsibility for External relations to two separate Directorates-general. The decision was adopted on the objective grounds that it was evident that the diversity and complexity of the tasks that had developed over previous years, together with a necessary geographical division of External relations responsibilities, made it inappropriate for all of the relevant responsibilities to continue to be dealt with by a single Directorate general.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1186/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Scarcity of melatonin on the market

There have been numerous reports in press articles and readers' letters of the difficulty of finding pure melatonin in European Union countries, and there is even talk of a possible sales boycott.

Can the Commission state:

- whether it has prohibited the sale of this substance, or published any information concerning its adverse effects on human health?

- what are its views on the subject?

- can the Commission state, finally, whether it is possible that the current situation was created by commercial interests as a means of pushing up prices?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission has not made any general pronouncement on melatonin. Like the Member States, however, it considers that, given its function and presentation, this substance meets the definition of a medicinal product and may not therefore be marketed without authorisation.

As melatonin was in fact being placed on the market without authorisation, most of the Member States wanted to draw consumers' attention to the risk of using a product which had not been evaluated. Accordingly, they took measures which have in some cases resulted in the substance being withdrawn from the national market, and in others in appropriate information being given out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1075/00

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Accession negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of Slovenia

In its opinion on Poland's application for accession, the Commission pointed out that Poland had to complete the procedures for compensating persons who had been expropriated.

Will the Commission say whether it has made similar demands to the Republic of Slovenia which has not yet provided any such compensation for expropriation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question P-1048/00(1).

(1) See page 63.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1156/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

Existing legislation enables Member States to collect fees for controls of products of animal origin (sections 86-87). There is a lack of uniformity in setting and charging fees. The legislative review will extend application of this principle to other areas.

Whether producers should contribute to the cost of official controls of their products is an old question. If this principle is applied unevenly it will result in a distortion of competition. In some quarters it is felt that food control is a central task of the State and should therefore be paid for entirely from public funds to avoid any hint of a conflict of interests.

Does the Commission advocate full public funding for official controls? If not, what funding mechanism does it prefer? In what way will the Commission avoid a situation whereby the funding of public controls leads to a distortion of competition because the different Member States use different funding systems?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1984/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Participation of Commission officials in local elections in the Belgian Federation

Under Article 19(1) of the EC Treaty EU citizens have the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections in the Belgian Federation.

The Commission, however, is said to have adopted an internal regulation making it very unattractive for its officials to stand as candidates in elections. If they do so, they must take three months' unpaid leave.

This measure is inconsistent with the concern that EU citizens, including Commission officials, should integrate into the social fabric of their local community. It also seriously erodes officials' involvement in local decision-making.

1. Does the Council accept that a regulation of this kind is inconsistent with the concern that EU citizens, including Commission officials, should integrate fully into the social fabric of their local community? If so, will it ask the Commission to withdraw the regulation concerned? If not, how is the requirement that three months' unpaid leave be taken to be reconciled with the concern that EU citizens, including Commission officials, should integrate into the social fabric of their local community?

2. Does the Council accept that a regulation of this kind seriously erodes officials' involvement in local decision-making? If so, will it recommend the Commission to withdraw the regulation concerned? If not, how is the requirement that three months' unpaid leave be taken to be reconciled with the concern that Commission officials should be fully involved in local decision-making?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The question put by the Honourable Member concerns an internal Commission regulation. In accordance with the principle of the organisational autonomy of each institution, the Council believes that the question should be directed towards the Commission.

However, in the event that the regulation referred to by the Honourable Member is Article 15 of the Staff Regulations of officials, which stipulates that: An official who is a candidate for elective public office shall apply for leave on personal grounds for a period not exceeding three months, the Council would emphasise that this provision applies to officials of all the institutions and can be amended only by amending the Staff Regulations on the basis of Article 283 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1901/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) and Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 June 2000)

Subject: Agreement between Spain and the United Kingdom on Gibraltar and participation in the UK in certain aspects of the Schengen agreements

At the meeting of Coreper of 19 April the ambassadors of Spain and the UK announced the signature of letters of agreement about certain matters related to Gibraltar which had hitherto prevented agreement in Council on a number of legislative acts in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.

These letters covered the areas of:

- the authority competent to represent Gibraltar (postbox in London);

- Gibraltar's identity documents;

- questions to participation in the Schengen acquis, and

- police cooperation in the framework of the Schengen Convention.

Would the Council inform Parliament of the content of this agreement?

Will the Council now accede to the request by the United Kingdom to adhere to certain aspects of the Schengen agreement, and to cooperation in asylum and immigration policies under Title 4 of the EC Treaty?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The honourable Members of the European Parliament are informed that:

1. The agreed arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in the context of E.U. and E.C. instruments and related treaties is contained in document 7998/00 JAI 45 MI 73 which is herewith transmitted to the European Parliament for information. The document exists only in the original English and Spanish versions.

2. On 29 May 2000 the Council agreed to the request of the United Kingdom to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis. The relevant Council Decision is published in the Official Journal L 131 of 1 June 2000, page 43(1).

(1) OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Commission's examination of ban on Swedish professional boxing

Has the Commission examined the question of the ban on professional boxing in Sweden? Is it a breach of the internal market rules on freedom of movement?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that it has had occasion to study the compatibility of the ban on professional boxing in Sweden with the principle of the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty, which is a fundamental freedom for ensuring free movement within the internal market.

In accordance with this principle, in fact, nationals of the Member States can pursue professional activities as self-employed persons under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where establishment is effected.

In this connection, it is important to stress that in the absence of specific Community rules governing a specific activity each Member State is free to organise the pursuit of a professional activity in its territory (see, in particular, the Court of Justice judgment of 2 July 1984, Case 107/83, Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de Paris versus Klopp (1984)ECR2971).

According to the information available to the Commission, professional boxing in Sweden is not allowed by virtue of a law of 1 January 1970. This ban applies generally, both to Swedish nationals and to nationals of other Member States. A ban of this kind cannot therefore be regarded as contrary to the principle of the freedom of establishment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Information on the amount of EU subsidies flowing to the German Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in 1999

What level of appropriations, through which projects and funds, flowed to Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in 1999 from:

1. the European Regional Development Fund,

2. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee and Guidance Sections,

3. the European Social Fund,

4. the Community's research programmes,

5. the Community's programmes in the field of energy,

6. the Community's programmes in the field of the environment,

7. the Community's programmes in the field of transport,

8. the Community's programmes in the field of education and youth,

9. the Community's programmes in the field of health,

10. the Community's programmes in the field of social security,

11. NGO programmes,

12. cultural programmes,

13. programmes in the context of cooperation with third countries (CEECs, CIS),

14. town twinning programmes,

15. other Community programmes?

What is the Commission's assessment of the success of these measures?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Citizenship of Member States

Prior to the entry into force of the 1981 British Nationality Act which made provision for citizenship to be transmitted by descent in both the male and female line, nationality law in the United Kingdom was based on the principle that nationality should only be transmitted in the male line. It was decided that children born abroad to female British citizens prior to the entry into force of the 1981 British Nationality Act can not automatically become British citizens. Children born abroad to male British citizens prior to the entry into force of the 1981 British Nationality are, however, entitled to full British citizenship.

Would the Commission agree that the decision of the United Kingdom Government not to apply the Act retrospectively discriminates against the rights of British women? What action can the Commission take to correct this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission would point out that questions concerning nationality of a Member State are settled solely by reference to national law of the Member State concerned. This was specified in Declaration 2 on nationality annexed to the Treaty on European Union(1) and has also been confirmed by the Court of justice in the Micheletti case(2).

As this is a domestic matter, the Commission cannot comment on the alleged discriminatory character of the British Nationality Act of 1981.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not open to the Commission to take any measure in this field.

(1) OJ C 191, 29.7.1992.

(2) Case C-369/90, ECR 1992, page I-4239.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1158/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

It is necessary to consider whether the Commission needs to be given additional powers in the event of non-compliance with EU rules (section 94). This would enable the Commission to take rapid action.

1. What additional powers does the Commission feel are necessary for more rapid action in following up inspections?

2. Have any specific proposals been drawn up with regard to these additional powers? If so, what is the main thrust of these proposals? If not, when will the Commission have specific proposals on the additional powers it seeks?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/00

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: ACP States

What are the grades of all the full-time employees in each of the EU offices in the ACP States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2265/00, E-2266/00, E-2267/00 and E-2268/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 August 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.