ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2107/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Reforming the Commission

Can the Commission give its opinion on Paragraph 41 of the Van Hulten report which calls for the individual political responsibility of Commissioners to be enshrined in the Treaties?

What progress, if any, has been made to date, and what future action would the Commission envisage to attain this objective?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

In its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference(1), the Commission proposed that the political undertaking given by the Members of the present Commission to resign if asked to do so by the President be written into the Treaty. To that end, it proposed an amendment to Article 215 of the EC Treaty. In its Resolution of 13 April 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference(2), Parliament proposed that any Member of the Commission guilty of serious misconduct in the performance of his duties should be required to tender his resignation when asked to do so by the President of the Commission (point 12.6).

The matter is now being discussed by the Intergovernmental Conference. As stated in the report by the Presidency to the Feira European Council, delegations remain divided on whether or not a formal procedure should be included in the Treaty(3).

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the answer to his Written Question E-1348/00(4).

(1) Adapting the Institutions to make a success of enlargement. Commission Opinion in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2000) 34.

(2) Resolution A5-0086/2000.

(3) Report by the Presidency on the Intergovernmental Conference on Institutional Reform (Confer 4750/00, 14 June 2000).

(4) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 29.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3172/00

by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Obstacles to the contracting of non-EU workers by sports clubs

Recent press reports have highlighted the problems encountered by sports clubs in contracting non-EU players, notably nationals of the candidate countries.

Can the Commission provide a list of the third countries with which the Community has association agreements in force which include provision for nationals of those countries being treated on an equal basis with Community citizens from the viewpoint of conditions of work, including non-discrimination on grounds of nationality?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Europe agreements between the Communities and their Member States and the countries of association(1) provide that workers from these countries shall be free from any discrimination based on nationality as regards working conditions once they are legally employed in a Member State.

This means that workers from candidate countries who are legally employed in a Member State are to be treated in the same way as nationals of that Member State as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal.

(1) List of candidate countries with association agreements: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia. Co-operation between Turkey and the European Communities is based on an association agreement, an additional protocol and Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association on the development of the Association.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3274/00

by Vittorio Sgarbi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Air services to and from Pantelleria

Given that:

- in view of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92(1) the Italian state is to make provision for the establishment, subject to public service obligations, of scheduled air services between Pantelleria and Palermo and Pantelleria and Trapani, as these are vital for the economic development of the island;

- in the course of the Conferenza di Servizi (consultation of bodies concerned) duly held on 21 June 1999, a project for the establishment of adequate scheduled air services was approved which mainly concerned the standards to be met by carriers in terms of regularity and pricing.

Does the Commission consider that it would be appropriate for it to look into the delay in implementing the projected introduction of adequate scheduled air services, given that such services are absolutely essential for the island's inhabitants and for tourists?

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The scope offered to the Member States to impose public service obligations as laid down by the provisions of Article 4 of Council Regulation No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1) is left entirely to the discretion of the Member States concerned provided that these follow the procedures provided for by those provisions and their scope. It is therefore not for the Commission to examine or to state any views on the duration of the prior internal procedures chosen by a Member State wishing to invoke those provisions article.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3040/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against PVC products in Denmark

New legislation has been introduced in Denmark to prohibit and impede the trade in PVC products, inter alia by imposing higher tax duties and introducing a new criminal offence. The effect of this legislative measure is to hinder the trade in PVC products in Denmark or to ban their sale completely.

1. Does the Commission regard this Danish legislation as compatible with EU law?

2. If not, does the Commission propose to initiate proceedings for breach of Treaty obligations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3811/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Prison reform in Russia

Russia holds an extraordinarily high proportion of its population 1,1 million in prisons and prison camps. The latest figures show that, out of every 100 000 Russians, some 750 are imprisoned. A special report by the official Russian human rights body estimates that 85 000 prisoners in Russian prisons have no beds, 91 000 suffer from TB, and 5000 have AIDS. From these figures, it is obvious that the Russian prison system is failing and is in serious need of reform and financial assistance.

At the EU-Russia Summit which took place in Paris at the end of October, the Joint Declaration by Mr J. Chirac, Mr R. Prodi and Mr V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation, stated that, the primary objective of cooperation, which is entering into a new phase, will be to support the institutional, economic and social reforms, with a view to strengthening the rule of law and meeting the democratic requirements of a modern economy and society. With respect to this statement, can the Council explain what future plans it has to tackle Russia's prison crisis?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The Council is concerned by the situation in penal establishments in Russia. One of the EU's priorities in its cooperation with Russia is support for institutional reforms. A joint project of the Commission and the Council of Europe relating to the reform of penal institutions in Russia is currently under way as part of the TACIS programme. The Council also regularly reminds Russia of the importance it attaches to respect for human rights, which is one of the foundations of the partnership between the EU and Russia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Unfair competition in the tourist accommodation sector

The Antwerp Provincial Administration intends to invest BEF 440 million in the renovation of the campsite on the Province's own land at Zilvermeer Mol. The Commission is to bear BEF 110 of this amount through the ERDF. This ERDF subsidy could be regarded as unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp.

Does the Commission regard ERDF support for the renovation of the campsite on the Province's land at Zilvermeer Mol (BEF 110 million) as constituting unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

If so, will the Commission withdraw the ERDF aid for this project in order to prevent unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

If not, what are the Commission's arguments for not regarding the use of ERDF aid for the renovation of the campsite on the Province's land at Zilvermeer Mol (BEF 110 million) as unfair competition with private campsite owners in the Province of Antwerp?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

On the basis of information provided by the Flemish authorities, the possibility of renovating the Zilvermeer camping ground was suggested in the context of local discussions to prepare the objective 2 programme for the province of Antwerp, which is still under negotiation. No application for a project to be realised in this area has yet been submitted.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the structural funds(1), in particular Article 8, paragraph 3, the implementation of assistance is the responsibility of the Member States, at the appropriate territorial level. Therefore, if the Zilvermeer project would eventually be submitted, its appraisal for funding via the future objective 2 programme for the province of Antwerp is first and foremost a matter for the Flemish managing authority.

In accordance with Article 34, paragraph 1(g) of the above mentioned Regulation, the managing authority has to ensure that all operations funded in the context of the programme are in compliance with Community policies, including in particular Community legislation in the area of State aid. If the managing authority has any doubts as to whether a particular operation is in conformity with Community State aid, it would be prudent for it to seek advice from the department dealing with State aid issues in the regional or national administration or from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/00

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Free movement of workers

In Sweden, repayment of State study loans is governed by the Study Finance Act (1973: 349) and the Study Finance Decree (1973: 418).

People residing in Sweden are required to repay study loans at an annual rate of 4 % of their combined income from service, employment and capital. However, people residing abroad, including therefore in other EU Member States, are required to repay them at an annual rate of 1/20 of the debt.

Admittedly, these rules apply to all, irrespective of nationality, but in reality they make it unaffordable for those on low or middle incomes, or part-time workers, who have studied for a medium length of time (four to five years) to live and work in another Member State, as they are required to repay a considerably larger amount per annum than they would if they remained in Sweden (for those on high incomes, the situation may of course be reversed). Person A has a debt of about SEK 300 000 from a study loan (a normal amount for a person who has studied for four or five years) and an annual income of SEK 168 000 (SEK 14 000 per month). If this person lives and works in Sweden, he/she will have to repay SEK 6 720 per annum. However, if the same person happens to live and work in France, the annual repayment will be more than twice as much: SEK 15 000. Thus Sweden's repayment rules favour those in high income groups, while those on low or middle incomes or who work part-time cannot afford to take advantage of the fundamental freedom to live and work in another Member State (cf. ECJ judgment in the case of Kraus, C-19/92).

Do these repayment rules violate the fundamental freedom to seek employment and to live and work in another Member State (Article 39 of the EC Treaty)?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2001)

The Commission apologises for the delay in replying to the Honourable Member's question and asks her to refer to the answer to Question P-0599/01, which answers the questions asked in March 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Council

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Terms and conditions of employment of members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

According to Article 11(3) of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks, the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board must be fixed by the Governing Council on a proposal from a Committee comprising three members appointed by the Governing Council and three members appointed by the Council.

1. Does the Council have a detailed knowledge of the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board (benefits, salary, social insurance cover, etc.)?

2. Does the Council know 1) whether there are any rules which members of the Board should observe to ensure that confidential information is not used to their personal advantage and 2) whether appropriate enforcement mechanisms exist?

3. Does the Council consider the salaries and benefits paid to members of the Executive Board to be excessive or commensurate with their duties?

4. Given that the ECB is financed from public funds, is the Council willing to make this information available to the European Parliament and the public at large?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

As the Honourable Member states in his question, in accordance with Article 11(3) of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, it is the Governing Council which is responsible for fixing the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board. The Council is not involved. In accordance with the same provision referred to above, the Council's only role is to appoint three members to the Committee on the basis of whose proposal the Governing Council fixes the above terms and conditions of employment. This being so, the Council believes that it is not the institution best placed to reply in detail to the questions put.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3939/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Outvoting under QMV

Will the Council update its previous answer to question E-917/00(1), giving the number of occasions on which each Member State had been outvoted under a qualified majority procedure, to include all votes taken by qualified majority until the end of November 2000?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 131.

Reply

(12 March 2001)

The Honourable Member will find below an updated version of the summary of the abstentions and votes against cast by delegations on the adoption of legislative acts by the Council. These statistics include data until the end of November 2000.

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the General Secretariat of the Council draws up monthly summaries of Council acts which contain lists of legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its capacity as legislator. These monthly summaries can be obtained directly from the Council's website (http://ue.eu.int, under Transparency and Summary of Council acts).

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights

Protocol 9 to the Treaty of Amsterdam (which relates to the role of national parliaments) requires that a full economic impact statement should be provided wherever new legislation is contemplated. Since the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights clearly proposes new initiatives which could impact on a national level (e.g. national works councils) why has Protocol 9 not been complied with?

Europe purports to be competing with trading blocks such as Japan and the US, but in reality will such initiatives not run counter to the spirit of Lisbon? Will they not effectively fetter the competitiveness of EU undertakings on world markets, by adopting social practices which can only be adversely reflected in the price and competitiveness of our goods abroad?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

In the Commission's opinion, Protocol 9 on the role of national parliaments, to which the Honourable Member refers, does not contain any provision requiring an economic impact statement to be drawn up wherever new legislation is contemplated. This applies to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in particular.

As regards the substantive issue, the Commission is convinced that the visibility which the Charter confers on fundamental rights, far from being an obstacle to the Union's economic development, is in fact entirely favourable to such development, in line with the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council to which the Honourable Member refers.

This approach was reaffirmed by the Nice European Council, which approved the European Social Agenda for the next five years. According to the conclusions reached at Nice, this Agenda is an important step towards reinforcing and modernising the European social model, a key feature of which is the indissoluble link between economic performance and social progress.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4041/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Charter of Fundamental Rights/Electromagnetic fields

Bearing in mind the precautionary principle and Article 24 of the Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights, which reads:

1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well being.

2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interest must be a primary consideration.

Can the Commission indicate whether there are any plans to halt the Europe-wide construction of mobile telephone masts, since it remains unclear to what extent the proximity of mobile telephone masts causes serious health risks, especially for children?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

The Council adopted on the 12 July 1999 Recommendation 1999/519/EC limiting the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (from 0 Hz to 300 GHz)(1).

Based on the best available scientific data, the text provides in its technical annex, specific requirements for emissions levels of devices emitting non-ionising radiation to prevent the public from being exposed to health effects.

The implementation of the Recommendation falls under the responsibility of Member States. This includes rules of location for transmitter masts.

Further studies are being conducted under the fifth Research and Technological Development Framework programme to fill existing gaps in the scientific knowledge. The scientific steering committee of the Commission will deliver by July 2001 an update on its previous opinion published in 1998 to establish whether or not the scientific basis used for the Council Recommendation needs to be reviewed in the context of the development of mobile telecommunications technology. Taking into account Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission will react to any new scientific evidence endorsed by the scientific steering committee not yet taken into account.

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3398/00

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

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Overcharging by mobile oeprators

In the light of recent studies showing European mobile operators overcharging for call termination by at least 40-70 %, which resulted in fixed operators subsidising mobile operators by at least 4,5 billion in 1999, what immediate initiatives and actions is the European Commission considering to:

- assist national regulatory authorities in setting cost-oriented mobile interconnection charges where European law requires this; and

- promote best practice in ceiling rates for termination of calls from fixed to mobile networks based on existing LRIC models, or on the cost of mobile-to-mobile termination?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Community law requires that the charges for terminating calls on a mobile network should be cost-oriented if the mobile operator has significant market power on the national market for interconnection (Directive 97/33/EC on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP)(1), Article 7(2)).

It is for the national regulatory authority (NRA) in each Member State to decide which mobile operators fall into this category. To date, NRAs have notified the following mobile network operators as having significant market power in the national market for interconnection:

>TABLE>

The Commission has issued a recommendation on interconnection in a liberalised telecommunications market Part 1: Interconnection pricing(2) which recommends that, where cost orientation is imposed, interconnection charges should be calculated on the basis of long run average incremental costs (LRIC).

The recommendation also indicates best current practice interconnection charges for call termination on fixed networks. However the cost structure of mobile networks is different to that of fixed networks, and the best current practice interconnection charges in the recommendation do not apply to call termination on mobile networks.

The Commission has issued a call for tenders for a study on cost structures in mobile networks, and the results of this study will be published and made available to national regulatory authorities during 2001. On the basis of the study results, the Commission will consider whether it needs to take further action.

The Commission is in parallel assessing a complaint of a fixed operator against a number of mobile operators for alleged charging of excessive prices. Since the opening of the proceeding most of the operators concerned have decreased their fixed to mobile termination rates.

(1) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997.

(2) OJ L 73, 12.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3651/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Tuberculosis in Eastern Europe

Does the Commission know which countries in Europe (including the accession countries, Russia and Ukraine) have laws which authorise the state to detain individuals with infectious tuberculosis?

Which countries in Europe have laws which authorise the state to detain individuals with non-infectious tuberculosis?

Of those countries with the authority to detain, are these detention periods of limited duration, and if so to what length are they limited?

In those countries in which the state has the authority to detain individuals:

(i) how many individuals are detained each year?

(ii) for what periods?

(iii) where (prison, hospital, at home, other residential facilities)

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

The Commission regrets that it is unable to answer the Honourable Member's question for lack of information on the matter.