ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3899/00

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Coin exchange on introduction of the euro in 2002

On return from visits abroad EC Member State residents frequently have coins which, unlike banknotes they are unable to change into the currency of their own country, since the costs related for the exchange transaction would be too high. These coins are generally kept for use on a subsequent visit. However, after 1 January 2002, it will not longer be possible to use them.

Does the Commission not consider that measures should be taken to ensure that these coins can be exchanged for euro coins in all Euroland countries during the transitional period? Is the Commission prepared to issue banks with instructions or recommendations on the matter so as to avoid the situation arising where banks refuse to exchange the coins and ensure that coins from the twelve Member States converting to the euro can be exchanged without additional charges?

Failure to do this will mean that European Union citizens who have accumulated German marks, French francs, Italian lire, Belgian francs, etc.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2001)

There is little prospect of the commercial banks exchanging all coins in the euro zone free of charge: such an operation would entail handling costs out of all proportion to the low face value of the coins. Article 5(3) of the Commission Recommendation of 11 October 2000 on measures to facilitate the preparation of economic operators for the changeover to the euro therefore calls on Member States to make arrangements to ensure that coins can be exchanged at official institutions after they cease to be legal tender for long enough to allow holders of coins living abroad to return them(1).

(1) OJ C 303, 24.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4018/00

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

(12 December 2000)

Subject: Relations with the State of Israel

Relations between the Community and Israel are based on the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement signed on 20 November 1995 between the Community and the Member States, on the one hand, and the State of Israel on the other, which entered into force in June 2000. In the agreement the signatories consider the importance of the existing traditional links between the Community, its Member States and Israel and the common values that they share. They declare their desire to strengthen those links, confirm the free-trade arrangements for industrial goods, envisage new agricultural concessions, establish for the first time institutional political dialogue and agree on extending cooperation to new spheres.

Can the Commission say whether it considers that recent events in the region may change relations between the Community and Israel, as might be deduced from certain reports in the media?

Can the Commission say whether there has been any contact between Commissioner Patten and the Foreign Ministers of the Member States on this issue?

Can it say whether it has considered the possibility of imposing sanctions on Israel, or even suspending the application of the Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

As the Honourable Member says, the Association Agreement between the Community and Israel entered into force on 1 June 2000. It strengthens EU-Israeli ties significantly and has made a large number of cooperation activities possible.

The first Association Council meeting took place in Luxembourg on 13 June, bringing together the Israeli Prime Minister and his 15 EU partners. The Association Council confirmed the launch of a number of cooperation activities including: a meeting of customs experts on 11 September; the first meeting to negotiate greater liberalisation of agricultural trade on 6 November; the third meeting of the Scientific and Technical Joint Committee on 22 November; the first meeting of the Joint Committee on the Agreement on good laboratory practices on 27 November and the first meeting on economic dialogue on 5 December.

Recent events in the Middle East have resulted in a number of EU and European Parliament declarations, which make no mention of a change in EU-Israeli relations.

Naturally, the Commissioner for external relations and foreign ministers from the Member States meet regularly, particularly at the General Affairs Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3502/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Compensation for criminal injuries

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation regarding harmonisation of criminal injury compensation schemes, or the setting of minimum criteria thereof?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The situation of crime victims in the Union has been addressed on several occasions in the Parliament and by the Commission. In 1998 it was discussed in the Council and victims' rights were included in the Vienna Action Plan on Freedom, Security and Justice(1). The plan suggests that a survey of compensation schemes and an assessment of the feasibility of taking action within the Union are issues that should be addressed within five years.

Following this, the Commission presented a Communication to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee in July 1999(2).

The importance of the issue is reiterated in the conclusions of the European Council of Tampere (point 32) that focus on the protection of victims of crime, in particular on their access to justice and their rights to compensation for damages, including legal costs.

Following the conclusions of Tampere, the Commission attended a Union experts' seminar in Umea, Sweden, organised by the incoming Swedish Presidency in October 2000. The aim of the seminar was to address the issue of compensation for crime victims from different angles in order to form a basis for subsequent strategic considerations and initiatives.

Taking into account the conclusions of the seminar and ongoing discussions with experts, the Commission will present a green paper on the subject in 2001, as indicated in the updated version of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union(3).

(1) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999.

(2) COM(1999) 349 final.

(3) COM(2000) 782 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3822/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: The Nordic Passport Union and Article 45 of the Schengen Convention

Will the Nordic Passport Union be undermined by Article 45 of the Schengen Convention which requires all participating countries to ensure that all hotels, campsites, hostels and other overnight accommodation register all foreign guests and require them to show valid papers?

In other words: will the Schengen Convention mean that Danish citizens, for example, will have to take their passports to Sweden if they wished to stay overnight, thus changing the rules curently applying under the Nordic Passport Union?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

Under the terms of the Nordic Passport Union, nationals of the Nordic countries are entitled to travel within the territory of the Nordic countries without being required to produce a passport.

The accession agreements of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and the agreement between the Council of the European Union, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Iceland on the association of those two countries with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis include a provision whereby those agreements should not prejudice the cooperation within the framework of the Nordic Passport Union, in so far as such cooperation does not conflict with, or impede, the application of the agreements(1).

Under Article 45(1)(a), Title III, Chapter 1, on police cooperation, of the Schengen Convention, the Contracting Parties undertake to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that the managers of establishments providing accommodation or their agents see to it that aliens accommodated therein, including nationals of the other Contracting Parties and those of other Member States of the European Communities, with the exception of accompanying spouses or accompanying minors, personally complete and sign registration forms and confirm their identity by producing a valid identity document.

The application of the Schengen acquis by the Nordic countries neither conflicts with nor impedes the Nordic Passport Union. When the acquis is implemented by the Nordic countries (as from 25 March 2001), nationals of those countries will still be entitled to travel within the territory of the Nordic countries and stay overnight at hotels, camp sites etc. without being required to produce a passport.

However, the manager of an establishment providing accommodation or his employee is required to ensure that nationals of other Contracting Parties personally complete and sign declaration forms and confirm their identity by producing a valid identity document, in accordance with Article 45 of the Schengen Convention.

(1) See OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 115 et seq. and OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 36 et seq.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3696/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: By-catches

The answer of 16 October 2000 to my question E-2584/00(1) states that At the Council of 16 June 2000, the Member responsible for fishery expressed his deepest concern on this [by-catches and the action to reduce by-catches] and similar issues. To follow up, Member States will be contacted to request information to the Commission about actions they have taken or intend to take at national level.

Have the Member States yet been asked to produce this information, and will it be accessible to the public, pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Habitats Directive?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Member States have been recently asked to produce information about the actions they have taken or intend to take at national level to reduce and mitigate cetaceans by-catches. The Commission has not yet received the requested information.

Such information will be made available to the Commission's scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF) that is going to convene a meeting on this issue in 2001.

STECF's report will be made available in accordance to Commission policy of public access to documents.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3999/00

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Heritage and museum railways

Would the Commission agree that throughout the European Union heritage and museum railways play an important part in preserving our industrial heritage and in providing a service to tourists, young and old. With this in mind, would the Commission consider giving a blanket derogation to these railways from any future EU transport regulations or directives, in order that they may authentically preserve Europe's railway heritage?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Heritage and museum railways are part of the European industrial and cultural heritage. The Commission shares the view that this heritage should be preserved and made accessible to the public.

The European legislation, in particular the recent proposals for directives on rail transport (mentioned below), does not prevent the preservation of historic railways.

The proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system(1) only covers new equipment or the upgrading of existing equipment.

Moreover, the so-called Infrastructure Package clearly mentions certain derogations which could cover the case of heritage and museum railways: Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways(2) as amended(3) states that Member States may exclude from the scope of this Directive railway undertakings whose activity is limited to the provision of solely urban, suburban or regional services. The proposal for a Council Directive(5) replacing Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees(4) states that Member States may exclude from its scope the local and stand-alone networks used for passenger transport. Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings(6) as amended(7) states as well that Member States may exclude from its scope railway undertakings which only operate rail passenger services on local and stand-alone railway infrastructure.

Consequently the existence of heritage and museum railways, running most of the time on local and stand-alone infratructures, is not endangered by any Community legislation.

The Commission will also continue to bear in mind the existence of heritage and museum railways when drafting future legislation.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.

(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(3) OJ C 321, 20.10.1998.

(4) OJ L 143, 27.6.1995.

(5) OJ C 321, 20.10.1998.

(6) OJ L 143, 27.6.1995.

(7) OJ C 321, 20.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Serious deficiencies in hygiene conditions relating to farmed poultry in Greece (to be clarified)

The investigation carried out in Greece by the EU Food and Veterinary Office between 28 February and 10 March 2000 revealed serious deficiencies in hygiene conditions relating to farmed poultry in Greece.

What deficiencies did the EU Food and Veterinary Office's investigation detect?

What implications do the deficiencies observed have for consumer and animal health?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that hygiene conditions relating to farmed poultry are improved?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2001)

A mission on poultry meat was carried out in Greece from 28 February 2000 to 10 March 2000. This mission addressed a number of issues with regard to the production of poultry meat and laying hens.

All the deficiencies that were found by the Food and veterinary office (FVO) are listed in detail in that report, including those regarding hygiene, or hygiene supervision, in poultry slaughterhouses and/or cutting plants, as well as all the recommendations made to Greece to ensure their complete correction. The measures taken by the Greek authorities to rectify the deficiencies, from the date of the visit until the publication of the final report are listed in the Addendum to the report. The report of this mission to Greece has been published in the Internet, at the address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/greece/vi_rep_gree_1133-2000_en.pdf.

A follow up FVO mission to Greece to verify the result of the measures taken by the competent authorities is provisionally scheduled for 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3412/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Support for information on EMU in Sweden

In 1998 the Commission paid a contribution of 84 317 to the Sweden in Europe Foundation (answer to my question E-1694/00(1)).

The Sweden in Europe Foundation is a body with strong party political links and the aims it is working for include Swedish membership of the EMU. In the interests of democracy and pluralism will the Commission consider paying a financial contribution to the No to the EU popular movement, and its political campaign against Swedish membership of the EMU?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 102.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

While it is correct, as the Commission informed the Honourable Member, that a grant of 84 317 was made to the Sweden in Europe Foundation, this occurred in 1998, before any partnership agreements had been signed with the Swedish public authorities.

The Commission does not reject a project a priori, provided that it satisfies the conditions for eligibility and the criteria for award and that the information disseminated is presented in an objective way, which is in keeping with Swedish tradition.

Two agreements were signed in 1999 and 2000, since when the Commission's policy has been to award no further direct grants to external institutions or organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3918/00

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Socrates/Erasmus mobility grants

Following my Written Question P-3174/00, to which I have already received a reply from the Commission, I should like to have the following point clarified.

The mobility of Erasmus students is organised on a decentralised basis and it is for the Member States to determine their grant-allocation policy within the Commission's general guidelines. In its earlier reply the Commission pointed out that, although it had encouraged the Member States to take the socio-economic situation of students into account when deciding on the value of grants and to top up the funding received from the Community using either national, regional or institutional sources, I have noticed that some of the Member States follow this recommendation whilst others do not, from which I have concluded that there are variations in the practices adopted by the Member States.

I should therefore like to know what the differences are between each of the Member States.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

According to the information provided by the national agencies responsible for implementing the Socrates programme, students' socio-economic circumstances are taken into account as follows in the allocation of Erasmus mobility grants: in countries where students automatically receive assistance from the state, which they retain when they go abroad as part of their education (generally the Scandinavian countries), socio-economic factors are taken into account essentially at this level. In countries where the state provides no systematic financial support, students who are less well-off generally receive supplementary assistance from their home university's own funds or from regional funds; some countries base calculations for the Erasmus grant entirely on students' socio-economic level by defining several categories and different grant levels for each, with the well-off students not receiving any grant but being entitled to the Erasmus label and all the advantages which go with it. The Commission is currently analysing the 1999 student mobility figures for the individual countries. When they have been finalised, the results of this analysis, particularly concerning the extent to which socio-economic factors are taken into account, will be forwarded directly to the parties concerned and to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3355/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Committee of Experts on reform of the Commission

I would like to thank the President of the Commission for his answer, given on 6 October 2000, to my Question E-2645/00(1) concerning the overall cost of the task carried out by the Committee of Independent Experts on reform of the Commission. In its answer, the Commission arrives at a total cost of 176 634,05, not including the various contributions in kind provided by Parliament.

However, the Commission omits to answer my question on the allowances, travel and subsistence expenses and other emoluments received individually by the five experts. In the interests of the transparency advocated by these experts, could the Commission also supply this part of the answer to the question?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 142.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission has taken note of the Honourable Member's request for further information.

As the Commission explained in its answer to Written Question E-2645/00, the financial and practical implications of the activities of the Committee of Independent Experts were determined by Parliament. The Commission was involved only indirectly in covering the Committee's expenses, as Parliament was directly responsible for the operational management of the contracts and all aspects of the Committee's operation.

For these reasons, the Commission believes that only Parliament is in a position to provide full and precise details of the operating expenses incurred by the Committee and of the individual distribution of the various allowances, travel and subsistence expenses and other emoluments received by the five members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3926/00

by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: European Social Fund and teacher training

Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds provides for measures to be taken in different spheres under the European Social Fund, including the promotion and improvement of vocational training and the encouragement of education as part of a policy of continuing education.

The Council:

1. Will the Council give details of the total amount allocated to training?

2. What sums have been allocated to the training of trainers and teachers in Spain?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Reply

(24 April 2001)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that it is not for it to decide how much European Social Fund aid should be allocated for training or for instructor- and teacher-training in Spain.

Pursuant to the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds to which the Honourable Member refers, decisions on Structural Fund contributions are adopted by the Commission, by agreement with the Member State concerned.

The Council is not therefore in a position to reply to the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council. Situation of managerial staff in the European Union.



Official Journal 235 E , 21/08/2001 P. 0010 - 0010



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council (22 November 2000) Subject: Situation of managerial staff in the European Union After the European Parliament's Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and the Working Environment had adopted report A3-0196/93, Parliament approved the resolution on the situation of managerial staff in the European Union contained therein on 25 June 1993(1). What action has the Council taken in response to Parliament's demands? (1) OJ C 194, 19.7.1993, p. 347. Reply (7 May 2001) To date, the Council has not received any proposal from the Commission concerning the situation of managerial staff in the European Union.