ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0480/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Availability for questioning of Commission official by Swedish legal authorities

The former head of the Commission's Stockholm information office is now based at the Commission in Brussels. The Public Prosecutor in Stockholm wishes to question the official about irregularities at the Stockholm information office which have been exposed in the Swedish media for over a year.

The former head of the office has, however, announced that she does not have time to travel to Stockholm and is therefore unable to attend the inquiry. The Stockholm Public Prosecutor therefore wishes to travel to Brussels to question the official but this requires authorisation from the Belgian legal authorities, which takes time to obtain.

To the Swedish public, it appears absurd that Commission officials can sidestep a legal inquiry in this manner.

Can the Commission instruct the former head of the Stockholm information office to assist the Swedish Public Prosecutor with his investigation into irregularities at the Stockholm information office so that the entire affair can be clarified and laid to rest once and for all?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

At the request of the law enforcement authorities in Sweden, the Commission withdrew the immunity of the official in question, and the prosecutor then approached the official direct asking to be allowed to interview her in connection with the matter of the Commission Representation in Sweden. No formal application was made to the Commission in this regard.

The situation described by the Honourable Member is consequently the result of a personal decision by the person concerned, for which the Commission is in no way responsible.

There is no common Union policy in criminal matters, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the Swedish law enforcement authorities should have to obtain the authorisation of the Belgian authorities in order to conduct investigations in Belgium. If they have do so, it is not because the person concerned is a Commission official, but solely because of the rules that currently govern cooperation between criminal law enforcement authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0228/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Trade, development and EU forest policy

Ninety percent of the world's 1,2 billion extreme poor those living on USD 1 a day or less depend on forests for their income or are significantly dependent on forest resources. How is the Commission going to ensure that no EC projects go ahead without a rigorous environmental and social impact assessment and that EC aid is given after consultation not only with receiving country governments, but also with civil society?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of forest resources to the livelihoods of the most disadvantaged inhabitants of our planet and of the need to ensure that the projects it finances in the developing world do not adversely impact on them.

In 1993 the Commission decided to phase in environmental impact assessments for all proposals for development projects. An Environment Manual describing the procedures and environmental methodology governing Lomé IV development cooperation projects was accordingly introduced in the Commission. Similar methods were applied to cooperation projects with the countries of Latin America, Asia and the Mediterranean. A new guide on integration of the environment, merging and updating the contents of the two previous documents, is currently under development and due to start initial testing in the coming months.

The guidelines in these documents are intended to establish whether the implementation of a project might be detrimental to the environment. If so, the project proposal must include an impact study to a level of detail which depends on the complexity of the project. The results of this study, which must be conducted independently, should enable the Commission either to recommend specific measures to prevent or mitigate the project's adverse impact on the environment or, if that impact is excessive, to conclude that the project should not be financed. The new guide currently being prepared also recommends analysing not only the project's impact on the environment, but also the environmental improvements to which it might contribute.

Environmental impact analysis also involves public consultation of interested parties and, in particular, of target groups. Consultations must be held to obtain the opinions of regulatory bodies (e.g. national ministries responsible for environmental protection), NGOs and representatives of the general public and other interest groups involved. Appropriate and recognised methods must be used for this purpose to ensure that the opinions of interested parties are identified and taken into account.

The process recommended by the Environment Manual is complex and demands substantial human resources. The Commission endeavours to apply its provisions before any decision is taken on contributing to the financing of development projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0268/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Opel Netherlands

Following the fines imposed by the Commission on Opel last September, is the Commission satisfied that Opel has now ceased to hinder cross-border trade in its products?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

The Commission has currently no information to indicate that Opel has not now ceased to hinder cross-border trade in its products following the adoption by the Commission of its decision establishing an infringement of Article 81(1) (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty in this respect and imposing fines.

The decision against Opel Nederland B.V. and General Motors Nederland B.V. helps to secure the right of consumers to buy a new car in the Member State of their choice. It obliges Opel Nederland to refrain from repeating or continuing any of the measures objected to, and to refrain from applying any measures having equivalent object or effect. The Commission would not hesitate to act should it become aware of any violation of this obligation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Fisheries indicators

Considering that there has been little development of indicators to-date and that they are necessary to measure long-term sustainability, what indicators is the Commission developing to monitor (a) the state of fisheries and marine ecosystems, (b) policies (response) and (c) fishing activities (pressures)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0180/01 and E-0205/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000(1) establishes a Community framework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the Common Fisheries Policy.

This Regulation intends to develop a harmonised system of data with the involvement of the scientific community Scientific technical and economic committee for fisheries (STECF), the Member State administrations and the profession Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA). The data collected cover the whole sector and are of a biological and economic nature. The Regulation completes the previous regulations in this area, which include provisions for the collection and management of data relating to fishing vessels, for their activities and catches and for price monitoring.

With the same aim, the Commission and the Member States are participating in a sustainability study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Committee for Fisheries on socio-economic indicators for fisheries, which will be finalised in 2002. In addition, the Commission is launching a study on socio-economic indicators in the fisheries sector with the purpose of acquiring as complete an understanding as possible of the various data connected with the socio-economic aspects of the fisheries sector and of evaluating the comparability of these data within the EU.

A work programme for the establishment of environmental indicators relevant for the integration of environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy will be the subject of a forthcoming Commission Communication.

(1) OJ L 176, 15.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Chiropractic healthcare provision in the EU

Would the Commission provide information and data on the legal status of chiropractic healthcare in the Member States of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The legal provisions governing chiropractic healthcare vary from one Member State to another. In a significant number, the activities in question are exclusively reserved for doctors whereas, in others, this form of healthcare is provided by suitably qualified professionals.

The Commission has no general information on the current legal status of chiropractic healthcare in the Member States, but would refer the Honourable Member to the Resolution on the status of non-conventional medicine adopted by Parliament at its sitting of 29 May 1997(1), which outlines the situation at that time.

Nevertheless, since certain changes have been, or are being, introduced, the Honourable Member may wish to contact the relevant European association of qualified professionals not holding a diploma in medicine (the address will be sent directly both to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat-General).

(1) Doc. A4-0075/97.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Gender balance in the EuropeAid Cooperation Office

Did the Commission follow any particular procedures, intended to ensure a gender balance, when the Directors in the new EuropeAid Cooperation Office were appointed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The EuropeAid Cooperation Office was set up on 1 January 2001. This followed the decision taken by the Commission on 16 May 2000(1) to reform the management of the Community's external assistance programmes.

The reorganisation took place within the RELEX family, involving the former SCR (Joint Relex Service) and some of the staff of the Directorate-General for External Relations and the Directorate-General for Development.

The six directors of the former SCR, a director from the Directorate-General for Development and a principal adviser administratively attached to the Directorate-General for Administration and due for reassignment were redeployed and assigned to the new administrative body in the interests of the service.

The Commission is aware of the present situation regarding gender balance in the Office. Every effort is being made to apply equal opportunities policy when filling vacant posts, particularly at middle management level, in the Office.

(1) SEC(2000) 814.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0901/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Situation of the Spanish company Sintel S.A.'s workforce

The Spanish telecommunications company Sintel S.A., a former branch of the Spanish firm Telefónica S.A., which was at the time a public company, was sold in 1966, to the Mastec group, a company founded by the President of the Cuban-American National Foundation, whose headquarters are in Miami (USA). Mastec undercapitalised Sintel S.A., neglected the company's management, and brought it to bankruptcy, resulting in dismissal proceedings for 1201 of its 1800 workers.

In protest against this situation, over one thousand of Sintel S.A.'s workers have been camping in the Paseo de la Castellana in Madrid for 40 days, while their partners have been staging a sit-in in the Almudena Cathedral, demanding that they be paid the seven months' salary which the company owes them, and calling on the Spanish Government to intervene to find a positive solution to this situation.

The Lisbon European Council established a European Union growth and employment strategy and the Commission has always been particularly vigilant with regard to rules safeguarding workers' rights when companies merge or are privatised.

Does the Commission intend to approach the Spanish authorities with a view to achieving a possible solution to the appalling situation in which the workforce of Sintel S.A. finds itself?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0647/01 and P-0901/01 given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, exercises its powers whenever Community law is concerned.

Industrial restructuring, including the safeguarding of the level of employment, continues to come under the powers of the national authorities, which, where appropriate, exercise these powers within the framework of the national legislation of the Member State concerned.

In any event, it should be pointed out that the provisions on workers' rights, as referred to in Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(1), amended by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998(2) and Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(3), especially concerning information and consultation, must be complied with.

Given that Spain has appropriately transposed these Directives into national law, it is primarily up to the national courts to resolve any disputes arising from this affair.

(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0435/01

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Role of the national parliaments and the European Parliament

Having set up the necessary temporary committee of inquiry, the Spanish Parliament considered the issue of flax subsidies in Spain and wound up its proceedings with the decision that the Minister of Agriculture at the time in question, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, should be absolved of all political responsibility.

It endorsed these conclusions at a time when no party had an absolute majority. Because no new information or additional evidence has emerged since the investigation, it has not thought fit to set up a second committee of inquiry.

The Treaty of Nice stipulates that the role of the national parliaments in relation to the European Parliament is to be reviewed at the next intergovernmental conference.

Bearing that point in mind, and the fact that ratification of the Treaty of Nice by the national parliaments is well under way, does the Commission believe that the European Parliament can set itself up as a higher court to sit in judgment on matters already dealt with by national parliaments, as was the case with the alleged political responsibility of the present Commission Vice-President at the time when she headed a Spanish ministry?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

The Commission is aware of the conclusions reached on 17 August 1999 by the temporary committee of inquiry set up by the Spanish Government, which exonerated the Minister of Agriculture from all political responsibility in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission attaches great importance to the contribution made by national parliaments to the construction of Europe and recalls that the Treaty contains a protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union. Moreover, one of the topics to be examined as part of the wider and more in-depth debate which has been taking place since the negotiation of the Nice Treaty will be the role of national parliaments within the European architecture.

The Commission does not wish to speculate on hypothetical situations. On the contrary, it recently stated in its answer to Oral Question H-0059/01 that it felt that it was of prime importance to ensure that any debate on matters such as those referred to in the Oral Question by the Honourable Member were based on objective and tangible facts.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/01

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Approval of state aid to combat classical swine fever

The European Commission is aware of the recent outbreaks of classical swine fever in the Eastern Region of the United Kingdom. Rules governing the legality of state aid designed to compensate producers with an outbreak on the farm and those in the exclusion zone seem to be fairly clear.

In the United Kingdom we also have farmers who rear pigs by contract for primary producers/owners. These contract rearers have been denied any form of compensation from the UK Government because they have not had to forfeit their own property. However, the pigs under their care have been slaughtered and their source of income has completely dried up rendering them as economically hard-hit as primary producers by this epidemic.

If the UK Government were to submit a plan for some degree of financial assistance to be made available to contract pig rearers, would this financial assistance be legal under EU state aid rules? If so, to what degree?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Point 11.4 of the Community Guidelines for State aids in the agriculture sector(1) concerning aids designed to compensate farmers for the losses incurred in the case of animal diseases does not on principle exclude the type of beneficiaries described by the Honourable Member. The actual possibility to authorise State aids in their favour as well as the scope and extent of such aids could however only be determined after examining the specific nature of the contractual relation existing between the owner of the pigs and the contract rearers.

(1) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Sustainable fisheries

Is the Commission planning to develop and propose an EU-wide programme of financial incentives to encourage more sustainable fishing practices?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0178/01 and E-0207/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

Financial aid to the fisheries sector is provided under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

The FIFG provides financial assistance to restructure the fisheries sector and hence to ensure its sustainability. Measures to do this include support for fleet capacity reduction programmes and accompanying measures to minimise the social impact of the restructuring. Temporary cessation of fishing activities are also eligible for assistance when these are necessary for the recovery of the stocks. In addition, financial compensation may be granted to fishermen and vessel owners in order to cover technical adjustments when the Council imposes restrictions on the use of certain gear or fishing methods.

These measures will remain in place at least until 2006.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Supplementary measures to restrict the transport of live animals and to improve checks on such transport

1. Does the Commission draw the conclusion from the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of Council Directive 95/29/EC(1) amending Directive 91/628/EEC(2) concerning the protection of animals during transport(3) that given the low priority assigned by Member States to transposition of the Directive, the problems with transport from third countries and the fact that it is difficult to monitor application of the existing rules supplementary measures are needed in the short term?

2. How does the Commission intend to bring about changes to the annual transport of 140 000 live horses for slaughter from Eastern Europe to the Member States of the European Union in particular from Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary and Romania to Italy when there is inadequate protection in the exporting countries and the transit countries and when the minimum standards of welfare applicable to long-distance transport are not observed?

3. Is the Commission considering reducing, and if possible completely terminating, the increase in the maximum journey time of eight hours, permitted under Directive 91/628/EEC (provided special vehicles are used, there are resting periods, food and drink), thereby adopting the important principle that slaughtering should take place within a certain distance and/or travelling time from the start of the transport, or immediately on first entering a Member State of the European Union, so that the transport of live animals can be entirely replaced with transport of meat?

4. Pending any further scientific research into the transport of animals, and any review of transport arrangements, and pending accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport (ETS 65), is the Commission prepared to take any action in the immediate future towards restricting such transport?

5. Is the Commission also prepared to make immediate improvements to monitoring of compliance with the intention of existing rules, for example through a better exchange of information between the Member States and by making it compulsory for recognised transport companies to be able, at any time, to submit documentary evidence of their qualifications, the origin of their transport and the duration of the journey etc.?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(3) COM(2000) 809 final of 6.12.2000.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0117/01 by Mrs Paulsen(1).

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 189.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0857/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Exports to the USA

Will the Commission indicate the value of exports of goods and services (specifying each separately, but not including income) from each EU member state to the United States of America and to NAFTA as a whole for the latest five years for which figures are available and express this also as a percentage of each country's GDP?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.