ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/00

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Recognition of the denturologist's (or denturist's) profession

Denturology, a medical profession which is recognised in several European countries (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain), consists in producing and fitting full or partial removable dentures and providing the full range of related dental services. In countries where it is recognised, denturology is a fully-fledged profession, distinct from dental surgery and stomatology.

The denturologist's (or denturist's) profession is not recognised in France. This has given rise to disparities not only on the dental services market but also in terms of recognition of occupations and equivalence of qualifications at European level.

Is the Commission aware of such disparities in the European Union?

Does it intend to ensure that all Member States recognise the denturologist's profession and the relevant qualifications?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission is aware that denturology is not a recognised profession in all the Member States. The fact that this situation may lead to certain disparities on the dental services market and in terms of recognition of qualifications does not affect the fact that giving official status to that profession and drawing up regulations governing it are matters for which the Member States are competent. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-2564/99 by Mr B. Staes(1), on the same profession.

As regards possible Community-level harmonisation of the profession through specific directives coordinating training and mutual recognition of diplomas, the Commission, in accordance with the approach set out in the directives on a general system for the recognition of diplomas (89/48/EEC(2) and 92/51/EEC(3)), will not consider proposing harmonisation measures that are specific to a given profession unless the circumstances are entirely exceptional and only if the following conditions are met: first, the proposal for a directive in question would need to substantially improve the scope for free movement by the practitioners concerned, Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC having proved inadequate to ensure recognition of diplomas and freedom of establishment for these persons, and second, the underlying principle and the main components of the proposed harmonisation measures would have to win an adequate consensus among those working in this field in all the Member States and between the Member States themselves.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/00

by Kurt Lechner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Rules on the right of residence in the EU of spouses from non-member States (applicant countries)

It is well known that under the German law on foreign nationals, when permission is granted for spouses who are nationals of non-member States to stay in Germany, there are restrictions and time limits which must be observed if the marriage breaks down. In many cases the spouse would have to leave Germany and would have no individual entitlement to stay. In this connection the question arises whether the beginning of accession negotiations with countries such as Poland and Hungary, which may join the EU in the foreseeable future, has already brought about an improvement in the situation of spouses from these applicant countries.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

1. Under current Community law, the rules governing family reunification of nationals of non-member countries, including the rules on the acquisition by the spouse of a status independent of that of the person whom they have joined fall within national legislation. But nationals of a non-member country married to a Union citizen who has exercised his/her right to free movement falls within Community law. However, in the event of divorce, Community law does not provide protection for a spouse who is a national of a non-member country, in particular with regard to right of residence, which, in this case, falls within national law. In the Diatta case(1) the Court of Justice ruled that Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(2) does not confer on the members of a migrant worker's family an independent right of residence.

2. In December 1999 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on the right to family reunification(3). this is currently under discussion in the Council and Parliament. The proposal is based on Article 63(3) (former Article 73k) of the EC Treaty and lays down the conditions governing the right of nationals of non-member countries to family reunification. It determines which members of the family are eligible, the procedure to be followed, including the means of appeal, the rights of the family members in particular with regard to the acquisition of an independent status following a given period of residence in a Member State. The Commission proposal also contains a provision relating to the family reunification of Union citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement.

3. The opening and conducting of negotiations with a view to accession by the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe does not have an immediate effect on the legal status of their citizens. This will change following accession when the provisions relating to free movement of Union citizens become applicable.

(1) Case 267/83, 13. February 1985.

(2) OJ L 295, 7.12.1968.

(3) COM(1999) 638 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/00

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: ACP States

In which African, Caribbean and Pacific States does the EU maintain permanent offices?

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-2051/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Labelling of wine, spirits, and other alcohol products

Would the Commission please state why there is no requirement to label the contents, including additives, of wine, spirits and other alcohol for consumption in contrast to the situation for foodstuffs?

Would the Commission also state whether it has any plans to improve the amount of information available on labels on alcohol for consumption so that consumers may better judge the contents of the product that they are drinking?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

In its original version, Article 6(3) of Directive 79/112/EEC(1) stipulated: In the case of beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall, before the expiry of a period of four years following notification of this Directive, determine the rules for labelling ingredients and, possibly, indicating the alcoholic strength.

The reason for this lies in the particular nature of these products, which makes it impossible to apply to them the provisions as set out in the Directive regarding the listing of ingredients in foodstuffs in general.

The Commission consequently submitted to the Council, in October 1982, an initial proposal requiring the labelling of alcoholic beverages to indicate the alcoholic strength and the list of ingredients. The part of the proposal relating to the listing of ingredients failed to obtain approval. It was resurrected in a new proposal submitted to the Council in April 1992, but once again failed to obtain a qualified majority.

A new proposal was therefore submitted by the Commission to Parliament and the Council in February 1997(2). In the wake of Parliament's examination of this proposal at first reading in February 1999, the Commission submitted an amended proposal to the Council in July 1999(3).

The Council has not yet examined this latest proposal. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that consumers should be more amply informed about the ingredients in alcoholic beverages.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind the difficulties of achieving harmonisation in this area, Member States may, while adhering to the rules of the EC Treaty, adopt national measures requiring ingredients to be listed for certain alcoholic beverages which are not subject to specific Community labelling legislation.

(1) Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (OJ L 33, 8.2.1979), Directive codified by Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 (OJ L 109, 6.5.2000).

(2) OJ C 106, 4.4.1997.

(3) COM(1999) 339 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2618/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Force feeding of ducks and geese in the production of foie gras

The report by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare aspects of the production of foie gras in ducks and geese, which was published in December 1998, concluded that force feeding as currently practised is detrimental to the welfare of birds and stated that it is very important for the future of the further development of foie gras production to introduce alternative techniques that do not involve force feeding.

Will the Commission come forward with a proposal for a directive to prohibit the force feeding of ducks and geese in the production of foie gras without delay?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2183/00 and E-2618/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

Two Recommendations for the protection of ducks and geese bred for the production of foie gras were adopted in June 1999 in the framework of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. The Commission and the Member States actively participated in the process of drafting and adoption of these Recommendations.

The report mentioned by the Honourable Member was used as reference for the finalization of the above mentioned Recommendations.

The Recommendations recognize the necessity to keep the birds in social groups and prohibit the use of small individual cages which are currently used. This prohibition will come into effect on 31 December 2004 for new or replacement accommodation and for all accommodation on 31 December 2010 at the latest.

The Recommendations also call for further research to develop alternative techniques that do not require force feeding for the production of foie gras. It has been agreed that until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available, the production of foie gras shall be carried out only where it is current practice and then only in accordance with standards laid down in domestic law.

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998(1) provides the main principles for the protection of all species of animals kept for farming purposes in the Community. It constitutes a legal instrument for the preparation of future proposals in the field of animal welfare ensuring the uniform application of the Council of Europe Convention on the same subject in the Community.

The Directive currently addresses the welfare requirements to be applied for the protection of animals kept for the different types of production, including the production of foie gras. Based on the same Directive the owner or keeper of the animals has to ensure that minimum welfare requirements are respected.

If necessary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of Directive 98/58/EC, the Commission will submit to the Council further appropriate proposals for the uniform application of the above mentioned Recommendations.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/00

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Personnel changes in the European Commission

On 4 May 2000, Commission Kinnock informed the EP of the Commission's personnel policy with regard to senior appointments:

Candidates for A1 and A2 jobs are interviewed by a panel of senior officials which is now assisted by an advisory external expert with relevant experience in executive selection. That panel makes an objective assessment of the professional and managerial qualities and capabilities that are relevant to the post and recommends a shortlist. The shortlisted candidates are then interviewed by the portfolio Commissioner who is most directly concerned with the post (and also, in the case of A1 officials, by the Commissioner for Personnel). The Commissioner responsible for Personnel then formally proposes to the College the candidate who has been agreed upon with the portfolio Commissioner and with the President of the Commission.

Can the Commission explain how this procedure was followed with regard to the previous day's appointment of Mr O'Sullivan, Mr Trojan, Mr Petite and Mr Levi?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The procedure for reassignment of posts properly applied in the case of Mr Ricardo Levi, who was the subject of written question P-1557/00 from the Honourable Member, was also applied in the cases of Mr O'Sullivan as new Secretary General of the Commission and of Mr Trojan as new Head of Delegation in Geneva, with the only difference being that Mr Levi's appointment is confined to Mr Prodi's term of office while the appointments of Mr O'Sullivan and Mr Trojan are not time limited.

As pointed out to the Honourable Member in the answer to question P-1557/00, when transfers are made to posts that are not vacant the procedures set out in Articles 4 and 29 are not applicable.

Under the normal Staff Regulations procedure applied for posts in Cabinets taken up by Commission officials, Mr Petite has been detached to become Head of Cabinet of Mr Prodi. The appointment is confined to Mr Prodi's term of office.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1908/00

by Neena Gill (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Joint Research Centre

The author understands that the current Director-General of the Joint Research Centre is retiring in October. What arrangements have been made for the recruitment to this post?

How many people employed at the Joint Research Centre are employed on three-year temporary contracts, and how many on five-year temporary contracts? What proportion of these temporary contracts are renewed?

Could the Commission give an outline of its future strategy for the JRC? What measures have been implemented to ensure that the Joint Research Centre is managed more effectively?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The current Director-General of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) is due to retire on 31 October 2000. The Commission will take the necessary steps to fill the post as soon as possible.

The JRC applies the research staff policy adopted in 1996 for the whole of the Commission's research budget. It employs 832 temporary staff including 155 on three-year temporary contracts (not renewable), 183 on initial five-year contracts, 143 on second five-year contracts and 451 on open-ended contracts.

On the future of the JRC, a high-level panel under the chairmanship of Mr Etienne Davignon has recently reported and made recommendations on ways in which the implementation of the JRC's mission could be improved. The Report was made available to the ITRE Committee of the Parliament by letter of Commissioner Busquin of 4 July.

The JRC has already undertaken several reforms aimed at more effective management including total quality management, transfer of management tasks to the institutes and the introduction of internal auditing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Working groups

Will the Council supply a full list of all working groups, with their terms of reference?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

Under the second subparagraph of Article 19(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure of 5 June 2000(1) The General Secretariat shall update and publish the list of preparatory bodies. Only the committees and working parties on this list may meet as Council preparatory bodies.

The General Secretariat of the Council will send the Honourable Member the latest version of the list.

(1) OJ L 149, 23.6.2000, p. 21.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Incorporation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union

Does the Commission accept that the wording of Article 6(2) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union which states that: The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law constitutes an incorporation of the aforementioned European Convention into the Consolidated Treaty on European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union to which the Honourable Member refers, requires that fundamental rights be respected as general principles of Community law. The Commission feels that this provision, which raises previous decisions by the Court of Justice to primary law status, does not have the effect of incorporating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the consolidated version of the Treaty. The same goes for fundamental rights resulting from common constitutional traditions to which Article 6 also refers.

The Commission would point out that the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is now being drafted will, in accordance with the mandate given by the Cologne European Council, contain the rights to freedom and equality as well as procedural rights guaranteed by the European Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/00

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Rules concerning dangerous dogs

Does the Commission have statistics on the number of people attacked by dogs within the EU each year, broken down by numbers of deaths and injuries and the ages of the victims?

Laws concerning the control of potentially dangerous dogs vary considerably from Member State to Member State. Does the Commission consider it necessary to propose uniform minimum standards to protect, in particular, children travelling within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Commission must inform the Honourable Member that it does not have statistics relating to the number of accidents in the Community involving attacks by dogs.

There is no provision in the Commission's current work programme to propose legislation laying down minimum Community standards to protect against aggressive dogs.

In the opinion of the Commission, it is up to the Member States, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, to take any necessary measures; these must also respect the provisions of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2439/00

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

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Porto airport and solving Galicia's international air links problem

The Galician press has reported that the Portuguese Government intends to invest in extending Porto airport so that it will be able to handle six million passengers in the year 2003. This involves attracting a large part of the Galician international air travel market. Meanwhile, the Spanish authorities and the flag-carrying Spanish airline refuse to allow Santiago de Compostela airport to have any direct international links, which have to be made via Madrid or Barcelona.

Does the Commission believe that the almost 3 million inhabitants of Galicia should have no alternative, at a time when the single European sky project is being developed, than either to bow to Porto's ambitions, with its airport only one hour from Vigo and two from Santiago, or to put up with the absurd centralisation of air traffic in Madrid? What are the political and business reasons preventing Galicia from having its own international airport in Santiago itself, capable of meeting present and future needs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

Since 1 January 1993, Community air carriers are entirely free to establish the air services they consider as commercially meaningful between any Community airport open to commercial operations.

The capability of an individual Community airport to develop direct air links to destinations in other Member States depends on factors determining its commercial potential and on its capacity to draw the attention of potential operators to such possibilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1967/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: New policy on Indonesia

On 12 April, the Commission replied to my question (P-0926/00)(1) on new relations between the EU and Indonesia.

The Commission's reply was not entirely clear in respect of certain questions raised.

In a clearly delicate and sensitive area, it is essential that it be made totally clear that the new EU policy on Indonesia will depend, inter alia, on:

1. A guarantee that there will be full, unrestricted repatriation of the tens of thousands of East Timorese who wish to return, without any type of coercion or discriminatory treatment with regard to acquired rights and without any disinformation, conditions regarding or involvement of the militias and former TNI;

2. A guarantee that directly or indirectly, support from Indonesian military groups to the militias, or any other provocateurs capable of destabilising the area, has ceased entirely.

In view of all the violence which the Timorese have suffered, it is utterly essential that the European Union and the whole human-rights-supporting international community should not forget the facts of what actually happened, and must be particularly demanding and rigorous in these areas; effective means of verifying on the spot that the situation is genuinely developing in a positive way are required.

Is the Commission able to give an absolutely clear and firm assurance that such minimum guarantees will be consistently demanded and effectively verified on the ground, as a precondition for developing a new policy on Indonesia designed to encourage the consolidation of civil democracy in that country, full self-determination and progress for East Timor, and peaceful conditions throughout the region?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 79.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern for a speedy solution to the problem of refugees in West Timor. It should be stressed that responsibility for implementing voluntary repatriation and for the safety of refugees in camps in West Timor still lies with the Indonesian Government. It is vital that the refugees be given free and objective information on the current situation in East Timor to allow them to choose freely whether they wish to return or to be resettled in Indonesia. The Commission is sorry to say that this condition has not been met.

The Commission has pointed out to the Indonesian authorities that it is willing to assist the bodies responsible for setting up a voluntary repatriation programme. The Commission has also taken the initiative, together with the Member States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), of examining the scope for assisting some of the displaced persons to resettle in Indonesia.