ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3539/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: The euro crisis revising the date for replacing national currencies and reducing the staff of the European Central Bank

In view of the fact that:

- the independence of the European Central Bank (ECB) means that its directors should be responsible for the results of efforts to preserve the purchasing power of the euro;

- the value of the euro is falling against not only the dollar but also the other major currencies;

- the transition from the virtual to the cash euro is a delicate process;

- the launching of the final stage may be seriously compromised by the crisis of faith currently affecting public opinion;

- a strong signal must be given to the markets in order to bring about a reversal of the trend.

1. Does the Council not consider that it should ask the Governing Council, the Executive Board and the General Council to submit to the European Parliament a detailed report on the state of the euro, in particular indicating whether it might be appropriate to revise the dates envisaged for replacing national currencies with the euro?

2. Does it consider that the staff of the ECB should be reduced from 770 to 300 people, which would be enough to carry out the work required?

3. Does the Council not feel that the nations in the euro zone, who are the victims of inappropriate policies, might be able to demonstrate their dissatisfaction by means of referenda?

Reply

(24 April 2001)

1. Art. 113 § 2 (ex art. 109 B) of the Treaty provides that the ECB shall annually report on its monetary policy of both the previous and the current year to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European Council.

In accordance with the Treaty, since the start of the third stage of EMU on 1st January 1999, national currencies of participating Member States have been replaced by the euro at the irrevocably fixed conversion rates laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2866/98 of 31 December 1998.

2. The Council has no role to play in determining the number of staff employed by the ECB.

3. In accordance with the Treaty, the ESCB, which is composed of the ECB and the national central banks and which primary objective is to maintain price stability, has exclusive competence in order to define and implement, in full independence, the monetary policy of the Community.

The Treaty thus obliges the ECB and the national central banks to refrain from taking any instructions for the exercise of this basic task of the ESCB, either from Community institutions or from Member States, even if they were to be formulated in a possible national referendum on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3881/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: BSE in Germany

As the German newspaper, Frankfurter Rundschau, reported in its 25 November 2000 edition, it was known on 24 November 2000 that, seven

weeks previously, a bovine animal born in Saxony-Anhalt and subsequently exported to the Portuguese Azores had been diagnosed as suffering from BSE. According to information from the Ministry of Agriculture in Portugal, the animal, which was born in September 1995, had been shipped to the island of Sao Miguel in 1998. It was slaughtered on 2 October 2000. Pursuant to the European legislation requiring notification of cases of BSE, the case should have been notified immediately to the European and German authorities.

1. When and by whom was the Commission notified of this case of BSE?

2. Was the infected animal, which originated in Germany, entered in both the Portuguese and German BSE statistics?

3. When were the German authorities informed of this case by the Portuguese Government?

4. As a result of this case of BSE, 2800 cattle were slaughtered on the Azores. Have any claims for compensation been submitted to the German Government or to the agricultural supplier of the infected animal?

5. Pursuant to the European legislation requiring notification of cases of BSE, farmers in the respective countries should have been informed by the authorities. To what extent were farmers in Germany so informed?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

The rules on notification of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases in the Community are laid down in Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2000/556/EC of 27 September 2000(2). According to those rules each Member State shall notify directly the Commission, at least on the first working day of each week, of all BSE cases confirmed on its territory. The notifications are made by a computerized system and are simultaneously distributed to the veterinary authorities in all Member States.

The BSE case recently detected in the Azores was confirmed in an animal which had been exported from Germany in October 1998. The Portuguese authorities informed the Commission of this case by fax on 23 November 2000, the day after the diagnosis had been confirmed in their national reference laboratory. The computerized report was received on 24 November 2000.

The case was entered into the Portuguese BSE statistics as an imported case. As the exact limits of the incubation period for BSE are not known, BSE cases in animals imported from other countries are normally not entered into the BSE statistics of the exporting country. Such information has, however, been taken into account in the assessment of geographical BSE risk carried out by the Scientific Steering Committee, which advises the Commission on BSE related matters.

The Honourable Member must refer to the relevant national authorities to secure the information requested in part 4 and 5 of the question.

(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982.

(2) OJ L 235, 19.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3966/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Commission's refusal to renew freelance interpreters' contracts

Without giving any notice, the Commission's recruitment service has refused to renew the contracts of freelance interpreters of 65 years and over who wished to continue working. Freelance interpreters are covered by Council Regulation (EC) 268/2000(1) as far as tax obligations are concerned, but they are still not entitled to a pension, paid annual leave or medical cover. It is thus unfair to treat them in the same way as staff interpreters who are obliged to cease working at the age of 65.

1. Will the Commission say why has it decided not to continue employing freelance interpreters of 65 years and over, without giving any notice?

2. What is the legal basis for this measure?

3. Does it consider that there are enough interpreters of a sufficiently high standard to meet interpretation requirements for all languages?

4. Is it endeavouring to devise arrangements to minimise the social problems facing the people affected by this measure who have contributed to the smooth running of the European Union institutions?

(1) OJ L 29, 4.2.2000, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

1. The Commission is unable to recruit conference interpreters over the age of 65 by reason of Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), which states that the employment of auxiliary staff shall cease automatically at the end of the month in which they reach the age of 65 years. The conference interpreters employed by the Commission have all been notified of the fact that they are now covered by the CEOS.

2. The legal basis of the Decision is Council Regulation(EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of 20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities(1), which states that conference interpreters engaged on behalf of the Commission, like those engaged by Parliament, should be recruited as auxiliary staff.

3. The Commission does not consider that its ability to meet interpretation requirements is adversely affected by the amendment of the arrangements applicable to freelance interpreters.

4. Yes. The Commission would point out that, in accordance with the Agreements concluded almost 30 years ago with the interpreting profession, it pays an old-age and life provident contribution of approximately 100 per day worked to the Scheme of the interpreter's choice, and that it also contributes 4 a day to a sickness and invalidity insurance covering interpreters for each day that they work for the Institutions.

(1) OJ L 76, 25.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/00

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone

Despite the Peace Agreement in Sierra Leone, there are reports of continued killing, mutilation, rape, abduction and child abuse.

1. Will the Council indicate what actions are being undertaken at EU level to help to secure the implementation of the provisions of the Peace Agreement?

2. Will the Council use whatever means are open to it to put pressure on the armed opposition Revolutionary Front and its leadership to end all human rights abuses against civilians and to find a just and fair solution to the current problems?

3. Will the Council issue a statement condemning the rapes and sexual violence against girls and women committed either by rebel forces or police forces?

4. Will the Council address the issue of impunity of human rights abusers as a matter of priority?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3839/00 and P-4143/00

(12 March 2001)

The Council, which is following developments in Sierra Leone very closely, approved at its meeting of 18 September 2000 the elements of the European Union strategy for that country. This strategy document sets out the AEU's general approach to the situation in the country, including the issues and concerns raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3884/00

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Ban on wearing headscarves at work

Does the Commission take the view that it is consistent with the directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation for an employer to ban employees from wearing headscarves which they wish to wear on religious grounds when the ban is not based on considerations of safety?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2001)

On 27 November 2000, the Council adopted Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1). It is planned that this Directive will come into force on 2 December 2003.

Article 2 of this Directive prohibits any direct or indirect discrimination based on religion. Wearing an Islamic headscarf (Hijab) is considered to be a distinctive sign of belonging to a certain religion. In principle, an employer banning its employees from wearing such Islamic headscarves or veils could be seen as a case of discrimination based on religion and therefore contrary to Directive 2000/78/EC.

However, in certain occupations, workers must adopt a specific dress code, or even a uniform, in order to do their job (for example in hospitals) for reasons relating in particular to the protection of health and safety. In such a case, an employer banning its employees from wearing such Islamic headscarves does not appear to be a case of discrimination based on religion and would not come under the scope of the Directive.

It will be up to national judges to assess the facts and circumstances of individual cases and to rule on the issue once the Directive is in force.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Repayment of fees in the Cresson case

Ex-Commissioner Cresson's personal friend Mr R. Berthelot was called upon to repay some of the fees of SEK 1,2 million he received in relation to his appointment as an AIDS expert.

Have any repayments yet been made?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

The Commission is pursuing its claim for the reimbursement of sums due to it because of the fact that M. Berthelot did not satisfactorily fulfil his visiting scientist contract.

The Commission's claim has been contested and the matter will consequently be pursued before the relevant jurisdiction. Following the launch of recovery proceedings there was no reaction to the initial summons to pay the sums due. A formal decision requesting payment is therefore about to be adopted.

No sums have been recovered to date.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3544/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 November 2000)

Subject: Olympic Games

The Commission's replies to my previous questions on the possibility of projects and activities connected with the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens being funded by Community appropriations, perhaps at the expense of funding for regional development and the environment, stated that, in the first place, the Greek Government had made no requests for such funding and in any case that such requests would not be looked on favourably. For some weeks now the Greek press has been saying constantly that significant Community funds will be directed towards covering the costs of the Olympic Games budget.

Can the Commission say whether it now intends to fund specific projects or actions connected with the Olympic Games, and state the amounts concerned? What are the developmental aims of this funding? From which appropriations originally allocated for other purposes will funding be diverted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

Holding the Olympic Games in 2004 presents Greece with both an opportunity and a challenge. The Structural Funds, although not directly involved during the previous programming period 1994-1999, have already been contributing substantially to preparing for the Games by part-financing major public work such as Spata airport, the outer ring road for Athens and the underground railway, as well as the motorways linking Greece's main cities to the capital. These projects have a major role to play and will help to make the Olympic Games a success.

In the context of implementing the Community support framework (CSF) for the current programming period 2000-2006, it is likely that some of the infrastructure projects to be part-financed will be indirectly useful to holding the Olympic Games. However, the main selection criterion remains the positive impact on sustainable socio-economic development in the Member State, which means that facilities purely for sports cannot be funded.

Selecting projects under the CSF is the responsibility of the authorities managing the various operational programmes to be approved by the Commission after negotiations with the Member State concerned. At this stage, it is thus not possible for the Commission to assess the volume of investment which will indirectly benefit the Games.

Checking the use made of the funds earmarked in the various operational programmes for sectors such as the environment, culture and rural development is the responsibility of the Monitoring Committee for each programme. However, within the limits of its competence in the matter, the Commission will be closely following the way in which these programmes are implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4119/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Fixed ratio between Member State populations and number of seats in the European Parliament

1. Can the Council confirm that the agreement reached in Nice from 7 to 11 December on the allocation of seats for Members of the European Parliament, under which the present Member States, with the exception of the largest and smallest, give up 91 seats and 106 new seats are created to provide 197 seats for the 12 new Member States expected to join in the near future, is not based on a mathematically objective model but is the outcome of horse-trading? In some cases was the number of Members of Parliament lower, the greater the weight of the country's vote in the Council?

2. Can the Council explain why Greece, Belgium and Portugal, which have populations of between 10 533 000 and 9 980 000, should each get 22 MEPs whereas two applicant countries with populations within this bracket (the Czech Republic with a population of 10 290 000 and Hungary with 10 092 000) should each be allocated only 20 seats, when throughout the run-up to Nice it was assumed that there would be equal representation so that the inhabitants of these five countries would carry equal weight?

3. Can the Council explain why there is a difference of 4 seats between Latvia and Ireland when the difference in their populations is 1,3 million and a difference of only 2 seats between Latvia and Luxembourg when the difference in population is 2 million? Has a difference in economic power been taken into account in the equation?

4. Can the Council explain why there is a difference of 8 seats between Romania and the Netherlands, with a difference of over 6 million inhabitants and a difference of only 3 seats between the Netherlands and Portugal with a difference in population of almost 6 million? Has the Netherlands been punished for its tactlessness?

5. Why was an objective ratio of seats to population size not taken as a starting point and a table drawn up establishing a fixed number of seats for a certain population, so that every five years a rise or fall in population bringing a country within a different bracket would automatically result in an adjustment in representation?

6. Is the Council still prepared to help ensure that before the 2004 elections a formula for the allocation seats is found that secures full public support, removes any suspicion of over- or under-representation and better reflects basic democratic principles?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The question put by the Honourable Member concerns a matter which does not come within the Council's powers. Under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, amendments to the Treaties are adopted by common agreement by a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Porpoise by-catches

By letter dated 3 May 2000 the Commission was called upon by 41 organisations in 18 countries to intervene against porpoise by-catches.

How did the Commission reply to this appeal, and does it intend to take the actions proposed therein?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

The concerns raised in the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member were brought to the attention of Member States representatives at the June 2000 meeting of the Habitats committee, stressing their seriousness. The problem of incidental catches of harbour porpoises was also dealt with at the October 2000 meeting of the Habitats committee.

As for the call for broadening the Commission's enquiries beyond the issue of Denmark's implementation of Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), the Commission requested the sender to provide more detailed information. No answer has been received yet.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4083/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Return of stability to Somalia

As a result of recent developments, Somalia is emerging from the state of anarchy which has prevailed there for the last decade. The installation of Abdiqassim Salad Hassan as President is the first step in a long and delicate transitional period which Somalia is now embarking on in order to return to the rule of law and peace. So far these first attempts by Somalia to return to the rule of law have been supported by the Arab countries. Following the tragic incidents in 1993 in which American soldiers lost their lives, European countries have stood aloof from the region.

Does the Commission intend to take some initiative to help Somalia's efforts to leave anarchy behind it?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The election of Mr Abdiqasim Salad Hassan as President of Somalia and the establishment of a transitional Government have been welcomed by the Commission as an important step towards the reestablishment of governance and national unity through peaceful negotiations and agreements.

The Commission fully agrees with the Declaration of the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on recent developments in Somalia issued on 8 September 2000.

This declaration contains the following points:

- the Union wishes the elected President success in the hope that he will contribute to the preservation of national unity and the restoration of the State,

- it is ready to enter into dialogue with the new authorities and to support their efforts of reconstruction whilst continuing to support rehabilitation activities in all areas of Somalia where stable conditions exist,

- it calls on the authorities of Somaliland and Puntland as well as on the transitional government to establish a constructive dialogue aiming at national unity in peace and with respect for existing stability,

- it invites all faction leaders to associate themselves with the peace process,

- the Commission continues its support to Somalia. In December 2000 it approved the Third Rehabilitation Programme with an amount of 24,8 million, which focuses on local communities and civil society.

Commission representatives have already established contacts with President Abdiqasim and the new government. During a mission to the Horn of Africa the Member of the Commission in charge of Development aid met President Abdiquasim in Djibuti the 7 October 2000. The ACP Group has reacted favorably to the Commission's proposal to allocate 50 million to Somalia which had not been possible to access 8th EDF funds. A request for some technical support to the transitional government is currently being examined by the Commission. The Commission is prepared to examine any reasonable request for support contributing to the restoration of the state and national unity by peaceful means.