ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2012/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Lack of uniform legislation governing the use of mobile machinery

1. Why is the marketing of mobile machinery (e.g. trailer-mounted cranes) which really means the use of such machinery subject to divergent national laws? Why is only the manufacture of such machinery regulated on a Europe-wide basis by Directive 98/37/EC?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to combat discrimination against manufacturers who cannot sell their machinery because of variations in the national laws governing the use thereof?

3. How would the Commission further defend the impeding of low-cost serial production and the unnecessary costs which manufacturers of such machinery have to bear because they are obliged to manufacture specific models for different countries?

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The conditions for marketing and commissioning machinery and mobile machinery fall within the competence of the Community. That is why Directive 98/37/EC on machinery(1) harmonises such conditions. Consequently, any machine that complies with the essential requirements of the directive can be sold in any Member State.

The use of such machines is also harmonised at Community level. However, Directive 89/655/EEC(2), as amended, provides that the Member States can lay down requirements needed to ensure people's protection, provided it does not involve any modification of the machines.

On the other hand, regulations governing the use on public roads of mobile machinery fall within the competence of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The Member States may thus lay down the requirements they consider necessary to ensure safe use on the roads, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty and especially Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has on a number of occasions asked the manufacturers of mobile machinery for information on the difficulties they apparently have to cope with. No information has yet been received. Consequently, given the lack of any hard evidence, the Commission does not share the honourable Member's view on the existence of barriers to trade that apparently stem from national rules governing the use on public roads of mobile machinery.

(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ L 207, 23.7.1998).

(2) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (OJ L 393, 30.12.1989).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Statistics on unemployment in Greece

Eurostat has repeatedly reminded the Greek Government that the National Statistics Service of Greece (ESYE) had not, by the end of April 2000, provided details of the level of unemployment in Greece in 1999, not even indicative data for the first quarter.

1. What is the Greek Government's official explanation for this delay in providing data on unemployment in Greece in 1999? What are the Commission's views on these explanations?

2. Have there been other instances in the past of delays in providing statistics by the ESYE? If so, what were the causes of those delays?

3. What is the most recent data that the Commission has on Greece and what is the unemployment trend in that country in the light of the statistics for the most recent period?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

1. Two explanations were given by the Greek statistical office for the delay in transmitting the 1999 Labour force survey (LFS) results. In the second quarter of 1999 the LFS data collection was for the first time conducted by external staff. The recruitment and training of this staff took more time than expected and the data collection started late. At the moment the data is collected using paper questionnaires and the control between answers given in two consecutive quarters has shown to be difficult and has taken some extra time. The LFS is regulated by the Community legislation. Deadlines should be respected but it is up to the Member States to decide how the national surveys are conducted.

2. This is the first time there have been this kind of problems with the Greek Statistical Office concerning the LFS data collection. The problems are mainly due to the transition to a continuous survey.

3. Number of unemployed and unemployment rate in Greece

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1744/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Haemophiliacs

Would the Commission provide the following information on haemophiliacs in EU countries:

1. The number/percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State

2. The percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State infected with the HIV virus

3. The percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State infected with the Hepatitis C virus

4. Which Member States pay compensation to haemophiliacs who have been given either of these viruses through contaminated blood products.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The Commission does not collect information on the number of haemophilia patients in each Member State, the percentage infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), nor the percentage infected with hepatitis C. The incidence of haemophilia in the general population, however, is estimated to be approximately 1 in 10 000.

It is understood that compensation or financial assistance has been provided to people with haemophilia who are infected with HIV through blood products in nearly all the Member States.

In relation to hepatitis C virus (HCV) compensation, an information compiled by the European Haemophilia Consortium in 1999 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/00

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Fishery resources

In recent years fishermen's associations in the Valencia region have been observing close seasons, which have proved to be a satisfactory means of conserving fishery resources.

The close season observed by fishermen in the Valencia region ought to be extended to cover the Mediterranean as a whole, and Spanish areas thereof in particular, so as to render it more effective and replenish fishing grounds in that area of the Mediterranean.

The close season in the Valencia region enjoys direct funding from the Autonomous Community of Valencia, with earmarked resources virtually amounting to nothing.

Does the Commission intend to authorise set periods in which fishing activity would cease and make them compulsory in the Mediterranean basin?

Is it considering allocating financial resources to assist fishermen and fishermen's associations during the close season, so as to ensure that fishing grounds in the Mediterranean are properly maintained and replenished?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

Seasonal closure of fishing activities is a technical measure that might benefit fishery resources assuming that it is suited to the target species, with respect to the temporal coverage and the geographical area. Thus it is always required to state which species are meant when dealing with such measures. In addition it must not be considered as a panacea since like other measures it has limits (e.g. increase of effort out of the closed season). Seasonal closures must be part of an overall integrated management system which includes other measures.

Within Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean(1) and successive amendments (in particular Regulation (EC) No 812/2000(2)) there is a temporal closure for the bluefin tuna fishery with encircling nets from 1 to 31 May in the Adriatic Sea, and from 16 July to 15 August in the whole Mediterranean excluding the Adriatic Sea.

At present the Commission does not intend to implement other seasonal closures within the Mediterranean basin. However Member States may continue to legislate by adopting measures supplementary to, or going beyond the minimum requirements of the system established by Regulation 1626/94, provided such measures are compatible with Community law and in conformity with the common fishery policy.

Seasonal closure of fishing activities, as part of the ongoing management of fisheries, being a recurrent seasonal suspension of activity cannot be supported by Community funds.

(1) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994.

(2) OJ L 100, 20.4.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 May 2000)

Subject: Risk posed by NATO warplanes to nuclear power stations in Western Slovakia

NATO aircraft have, according to numerous accounts by the local population, been seen and heard flying over the high-risk nuclear power stations in Western Slovakia.

Any NATO aircraft which came down could be a threat to the nuclear power stations at Jaslovske Bohunice and Mohovce which in all comprise five obsolete USSR-technology WWER 440 reactors, none of them with appropriate secure containment, plus the Jaslovske Bohunice A1 nuclear plant which was damaged in 1977, with unprotected buildings, inadequate stores containing high-level radioactive substances and nuclear waste, 20 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel which cannot be manipulated, and an even higher quantity of spent fuel rods in cooling ponds, which have accumulated since the early Eighties.

Western Slovakia, with these two nuclear power station sites, is being used by NATO military aircraft as a transit and in-flight refuelling zone, and the population of this small poor country is understandably highly alarmed at these dangerous round-the clock flights over the nuclear installations. A disaster at the heart of Europe, which might be even worse than Chernobyl, cannot be ruled out.

What is the Council's assessment of this grave problem?

What steps has the Council taken to avert this potential catastrophe?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council is not competent to express a view on matters relating to NATO's activities or their possible consequences such as referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Estate agents

Given that the estate agent sector has grown considerably in recent years, both in terms of turnover and the number of employees, will the Commission provide all possible information on the new European provisions regarding estate agents, particular as regards qualifying exams for the profession?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

As regards the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the profession of estate agent is covered by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988, on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration(1), and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992, on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC(2). Which of these two Directives applies depends on the levels of training required in the Member State where the professional acquired his or her qualifications (Member State of origin) and in the Member State where he or she wishes to exercise this profession (host Member State).

These Directives have not harmonised the training conditions for estate agents, so each Member State remains free to regulate the profession on its own territory, and specifically to make exercise of the profession dependent on possessing a specific diploma or specific qualifications. Nevertheless, under these Directives, a professional who is fully qualified to exercise the profession concerned in his or her Member State of origin should, in principle, be able to exercise the same profession in another Member State that regulates access or practice. However, as the training conditions have not been subject to harmonisation, in the event of substantial differences between the training the migrant has followed and that required in the host Member State, the latter may require the migrant to demonstrate professional experience or to undergo a compensatory measure. This compensatory measure can take the form of an aptitude test or an adaptation period. In principle, it is for the migrant to choose between these two options.

As the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications operates on the whole satisfactorily, the Commission does not intend to change its principles.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1751/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Location of a high-voltage underground electrical power line in a residential area

Residents of the municipality of Rio, who have appealed to the State Council, protest that a decision has been taken to run the main South Greece-Pelopponese high-voltage electrical power line along the Phidias road to the area of Kastellokampos, where two underground 175 000 volt cables will be placed at a depth of only 1 metre.

The cables will pass very close to houses in a purely residential area and this is causing serious concerns about the health of the residents, threatened by future carcinogens. In view of this, can the Commission:

1. say whether the necessary technical studies and environmental impact assessments have been carried out and whether all the necessary permits have been granted for the work?

2. intervene to bring about a review of the decision to route the line through a residential area and a search for an alternative solution that will not pose a threat to the health of the residents, and will in addition safeguard the balance of the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The placing of underground electricity cables is not covered by Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC(1).

However, in response to a complaint received recently the Commission will examine the environmental impact of the whole DEI (public electricity company) project concerning energy transfer in the region.

(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/00

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: ACP States

What is the total annual cost of maintaining the buildings accommodating the EU offices in each ACP State?

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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2721/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: State aid in manufacturing industries

What is the Commission's estimate of the amount of state aid paid per manufacturing employee in each of the Member States each year for the last five years for which figures are available?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2000)

According to data provided by Member States for the Eighth Survey on State aid(1) that reported on the period from 1994 to 1998, the annual amounts of State aid per manufacturing employee in each of the Member States are as following:

>TABLE>

(1) COM(2000) 205 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Bid from Mr Geoffrey Weston and Mr Klays Pahlich Publication of Danube Watch magazines

Has the European Commission verified that the tender procedure initiated for the awarding of the contract referred to above, based on the bid put forward on 7 October 1998, fully conforms with European Commission rules?

Given that the project is funded by PHARE and TACIS, does the Commission accept that the contract must fully comply with EC auditing requirements?

Given that the Danube Programme Coordination Unit (Danube PCU) agreed that my constituents referred to above had produced a high-quality magazine, what justification can the Commission provide for withdrawing the contract from them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Commission did not have a contract with the Honourable Member's constituents for the publication of the Danube Watch magazine. The contract in question was between the firm Arquus Verlag (the employer of Messrs Weston and Pahlich) and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). This contract expired in October 1998.

The terms of reference for the PHARE service contract Danube project coordination unit 98/99 oblige the contractor (Netherlands Economic Institute) to produce three additional issues of the Danube Watch magazine. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Austrian Federal Chancellery decided to finance two and one further issues respectively. They also decided to follow the procedure chosen by the Commission's contractor for selecting a company that would publish and distribute these issues of the magazine. This procedure fully conforms with the terms and conditions applying to PHARE service contracts.

The Commission agrees that the Netherlands Economic Institute must fully comply with the provisions for financial control and audit as laid out in the Commission's general conditions for service contracts financed from PHARE/TACIS funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1251/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Legal guarantees and human rights of a group of Jewish Iranian citizens

On various occasions the European Parliament (which adopted a resolution on the matter in September 1999) and the media have considered the possibility that a group of Iranian Jews accused of spying may face trial on charges carrying a possible death sentence. Will the Commission give details of any measures that have been taken and initiatives it could adopt to ensure respect for human rights and, in particular, a fair trial for these citizens?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1088/00, E-1209/00 and E-1251/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission follows closely the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights have an important place and are always raised by the Union.

Concerning the 13 Iranian Jews and 8 Muslims detained in Shiraz on charges of espionage, a number of demarches have been made by the Union as well as by individual Member States in the last year. Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a fair and open trial and the Iranian authorities are undoubtedly aware of the strong international reaction that would follow a negative outcome of the trial. Three of the detained Jews were recently released on bail.

The Union has repeatedly addressed with the Iranian authorities the importance of ensuring a fair and open trial including the issue of legal representation of the detainees. It is regrettable that earlier promises of an open trial have not been met.

While the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, it is necessary to avoid creating an impression of foreign interference, which would not serve the best interest of the detainees. This being said, it is clear that the outcome of this trial, and the international assessment of how it has been conducted, will be a determining factor in the perspectives for any further improvement in relations with Iran.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/00

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Special protection zones for birds in the Valencian Autonomous Community

The Valencian Autonomous Community has dragged its feet for years and years over setting-up the special protection areas for birds (SPAB) established by the European Union.

At present, because the Commission itself has denounced the situation, the Valencian Government is seeking to extend the surface area to be protected as special protection areas for birds to include areas which are already protected, but even so, the protection provided for falls very far short of the European Union's own criteria. The report drawn up by SEO-Birdlife for the Commission envisaged 736 637 hectares of Valencian territory coming under the special protection area heading, while the Valencian Government is seeking to protect only 266 049 hectares.

Granting special protection area status in this way reduces the number of hectares protected, and leaves areas of major importance such as the Marjal d'Almenara, great swathes of the Alicante mountain range and the mountain ranges of La Marína and the ports of Morella and Beceit unprotected.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the policy on protection and the granting of SPAB status is complied with?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission does not know exactly how much of its territory the Council of the Autonomous Community of Valencia intends to designate as a special protection area (SPA) for birds.

As the Honourable Member indicates, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to designate or insufficient designation of SPAs in the country as a whole, including the Autonomous Community of Valencia. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take all the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with throughout Spanish territory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1741/00

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: The IGC

In a speech in Brussels on 10 May, the French Minister with responsibility for European Affairs promised to work actively and in good faith with the European Parliament.

In that case, why does Mr Moscovici believe that Parliament is not to be trusted with decisions about its own working arrangements?

What does he believe to be the essential qualities of a venue of an international parliament?

How does the Strasbourg venue assist the efficiency and effectiveness of the European Parliament?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member will appreciate, the Council can only speak on specific matters where it has reached a collective view or decision. As far as the venue of the European Parliament is concerned, this is laid down in paragraph (a) of the Treaty protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions. It would be entirely inappropriate for the Council as an institution to comment on views expressed by any individual member.