ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0327/99

by Alexander Falconer (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Costs of EU information services

What are the annual costs and total costs since they started, including staff time, research, development, programming, hardware (distributors' and users'), promotion, training, travel and overheads for each of the following information projects: Eurolib, BREL, CASE, ECHO and Euronet? What are the costs of each to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

Eurolib is the grouping of European institutional libraries, created on the initiative of the Parliament's Secretary general in 1988. Participation in its meetings and the group's work has never been costed through specific budget allocations or expenditure, since these are subsumed in the general running costs of the participating institutions. The Commission and the other institutions consider that, particularly at a time of rapid change in the library world, the current twice-yearly contacts between professional colleagues bring important added value to their work, for example, through the launching of Eurolib pages on the inter-institutional world wide web site Europa. To seek to separate out in a meaningful way the specific Eurolib component in the work of the staff of 18 libraries, including that of the Parliament, which provided the secretariat of Eurolib from 1988 to 1994, is virtually impossible.

BREL (Bibliothèque de recherches européennes de Luxembourg) is under the responsibility of the Parliament and the Luxembourg national library.

ECHO (Electronic case handling in offices) is a RACE project and Euronett (Evaluating user responses on new European transport technologies) was a DRIVE 1 project, which ran from 1980 until 1984. A detailed breakdown of expenditure for each project is sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission does not recognise the acronym CASE as identifying any European information project.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1917/99

by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council

(15 October 1999)

Subject: Custody and repatriation detention practices in China

Each year in China hundreds of thousands of people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds including street children, the homeless, those suffering from mental illness and migrants, are arbitrarily arrested and held without specific charge or trial. This repressive practice, known as custody and repatriation, became even more widespread in the weeks leading up to the 50th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. People may be held for several months in appalling conditions. Prisoners are subject to constant physical violence, live in disgraceful sanitary conditions, work extremely long hours and are held in almost complete isolation. In addition, they must pay the costs of their detention in the custody and repatriation centres.

What measures has the Council taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the Chinese authorities put an immediate end to this form of administrative arrest which is contrary to the spirit and the letter of international conventions ratified by the People's Republic of China?

What action does the Council intend to take to ensure that, pending total abolition of this form of arbitrary imprisonment, the Chinese authorities guarantee freedom of access for international organisations to the custody and repatriation centres?

More generally, what measures will the Council take to ensure rigorous and verifiable compliance by China with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Reply

(17 December 1999)

1. The EU has expressed its concern about Human Rights violations in China on several occasions, in multilateral fora as well as in bilateral contacts with the Chinese authorities, and in particular in the framework of the EU-China Human Rights dialogue. Through this dialogue, the EU regularly raises among other issues the questions of administrative detention and arbitrary arrests. The EU strongly urged the Chinese authorities to change their policy in this area and to comply with the provisions of the UN Covenants on political and civil rights and social, economic and cultural rights it has signed over the last two years. It also underlined the importance of giving follow-up to the recommendations made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention following its visit to China. The EU further encouraged China to pursue cooperation with the ICRC regarding access to detention centres. Finally, the EU proposed to China that technical assistance projects be developed to help the Chinese government to ratify and implement the UN Covenants mentioned above.

2. The last round of the EU-China Human Rights dialogue was held on 19 October in Beijing. On this occasion, the Chinese authorities briefed the EU on envisaged reforms in administrative detention. They

also reported good cooperation with the ICRC concerning access to detention centres and their willingness to continue such cooperation. Finally, they expressed readiness to receive legal assistance and expertise from the EU with a view to the ratification and implementation of the UN Covenants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Competition policy in the retailing sector

Can the Commission please provide details of any initiatives recently taken or shortly to be taken in this sphere?

Is the Commission policy in this area being reviewed and if so, on what basis?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 1999)

In 1997, following the publication of the green paper on vertical restraints(1), the Commission launched a policy review exercise with a view to reconsidering the Community competition rules applicable to distribution agreements, including the retailing sector. In the light of the indications arising from the wide public consultation, the Commission adopted on 30 September 1998 a communication on the application of Community competition rules to vertical restraints(2) which describes the policy the Commission intends to adopt in this field.

The main aim of the proposed new policy is a shift to a more economic oriented approach, resulting in a much broader coverage of vertical agreements by one block exemption regulation. Such a policy will lead to a reduced regulatory burden, a simplification of the applicable rules, a reduction of the notification requirements and a more effective control of vertical restraints implemented by companies holding significant market power.

The Commission also follows the developments in the retailing sector, with particular reference to the implications that the exercise of buying power may have on the application of Community competition rules.

(1) COM(96) 721 final.

(2) COM(98) 544 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1791/99

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Arms exports

In the light of the recent debate concerning the export of arms by Britain and other EU Member States to countries perpetrating in human rights abuses and involved in serious conflict e.g. Indonesia and the East Timor Crisis, does the Commission plan to tighten legislation on the sale of arms in future?

Can the Commission confirm or deny that the UK violated the 13 September embargo on the sale of arms to Indonesia in the light of reports that three British Hawk warplanes were delivered secretly to Indonesia last week? If these reports are correct, can the Commission explain what action will be taken against the United Kingdom's breach of the embargo?

Does it recognise the urgent need for the EU to strengthen the 1998 Code of Conduct on the export of arms and, more importantly, the adoption of measures to prevent any attempts to circumvent the Code of Conduct?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1999)

Trade in arms has, up to now, on the basis of Article 296 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 223) been exempted from the scope of application of Treaty rules, thereby preventing Community action. The arms trade is currently discussed in the context of the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with which the Commission is fully associated.

The Commission possesses neither the authority nor the means to confirm or deny possible violations of embargoes. Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports belongs to national governments.

The Code has completed one year of existence and, as acknowledged in the first annual report, initial experiences of the Member States from its operation during this period are positive. It is undeniable, however, that there are grounds for continued strengthening of the code and its implementation. The aim of the annual review process is to identify such potential improvements. Naturally, any amendments to the Code need the support of all Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2138/99

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 November 1999)

Subject: Chad/Cameroon oil pipeline

According to our information, the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project is on the agenda of the next meeting of the World Bank's executive committee in mid-November. At a press conference of 30 September 1999 Mr Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, expressed his organisation's support for the project. According to our information, a positive decision to grant the necessary credit to the governments of Chad and Cameroon can be expected.

In December 1998 Parliament requested a moratorium on the project until certain guarantees concerning the distribution of revenue, the compensation and transfer of the population concerned, the specific arrangements for the environmental risks and the actual participation of civil society in the decision-making process were fulfilled.

What is the Council's position with regard to future developments in this matter?

Is the Council aware of the methods of the World Bank which, according to a publicised internal correspondence, despatches emissaries as interlocutors to appease critics of the project while at the same time preparing for its launch at the highest level? Which, at a public meeting of 30 September 1998, presents as representatives of Cameroon's civil society two persons who are employed as consultants for the World Bank?

Are there, at the level of the Council, consultations on the position taken by the Member States within the executive committee? If not, why not? If there are, was the project the subject of consultations? What is the position of the fifteen Member States regarding the decision to finance the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

The matter referred to by the Honourable Member has not come before the Council, which consequently has no knowledge of the discussions on the financing of the Chad/Cameroon oil pipeline project.

Formal consultation meetings on the position taken by the Member States within the Executive Committee of the World Bank are not organised by the Council, since not all the Member States have a seat on the Committee: some are represented by another country which is not necessarily a Member State of the Community.

Finally, for the reasons mentioned above, the Council as such has no position on the decision to finance the pipeline in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2633/99

by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Application of cable television directive 93/83/EEC

The incorporation of cable television directive 93/83/EEC(1) into Austrian law has had solely negative effects on cable television operators. As a result, instead of a single overall contract there are now 927 separate contracts, legal uncertainty has increased and there is greater distortion of competition between cable and satellite.

1. When will the Commission be submitting the report on the application of Directive 93/83/EEC to Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee?

2. Does the Commission intend to introduce a technology-neutral approach, thereby ensuring equal treatment of satellite reception and cable distribution?

3. Does the Commission envisage revising Directive 93/83/EEC to take account of the protests of cable TV operators throughout Europe?

(1) OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission has not received any objections by Austrian operators against the practical application of the Austrian measures implementing Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission.

Concerning the practical application of Directive 93/83/EEC, at present a study is being undertaken by external consultants. This study includes the application of Council Directives 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights(1), 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property(2) and 93/83/EEC.

On the basis of this study which is expected for the end of March 2000 the Commission will submit the communication to which the Honourable Member refers. In this context, the proposals made by interested parties will be considered in the event of any proposals for modification by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993.

(2) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2103/99

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Collective redundancies at Michelin

In view of the numerous scandals concerning collective redundancies (for example, the Renault Vilvorde affair), in particular redundancies which are merely aimed at boosting shareholders' profits, what does the Commission intend to do in order to update the directive on collective redundancies so as to improve protection for employees' rights and to avoid jobs being axed?

In the specific case of Michelin, what measures does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that the company complies in full with the provisions of the directive?

Does the Commission not consider that it would be appropriate to introduce provisions enabling employees to challenge the justification for redundancies on economic grounds before they are implemented?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its proposal of 11 November 1998 on informing and consulting employees in the European Community(1) aims precisely to complement Community and national rules in force in this area and to make them more effective, particularly the provisions of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(2).

Parliament delivered an opinion on this proposal at first reading and a common position from the Council is now awaited; the Commission considers that the Council should speed up its work on this.

The Commission does not have any information to suggest that the provisions of Directive 98/59/EC and those which transpose this Directive into French law have been contravened by the company mentioned, due to the general nature of the announcement that 7 500 jobs will be cut in the next three years.

With regard to checking the justification for collective redundancies, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that rules allowing employees to contest a redundancy that is unfounded or improper are in place in all Member States. This subject is mentioned in the Commission Communication of 25 November 1998 entitled Modernising the organisation of work A positive approach to change(3), among the questions which the social partners are invited to examine in the context of allowing new forms of contractual relationships and career paths to develop... while providing security to workers, e.g. in terms of employment continuity mldr (point 2.1.3 of the above Communication).

(1) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999.

(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(3) COM(98) 592 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2279/99

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Penalties imposed on Spain for its failure to transpose Community directives on the environment

The Spanish Environment Ministry has not taken the necessary steps to ensure the transposition, within the specified time limits, of three important directives relating to the environment: monitoring of industrial emissions (which should have come into force on 31 October), a law on environmental impact assessment (which should have been transposed by March at the latest) and access to environmental information (a matter in respect of which the Commission served notice on Spain in July 1996 for restricting the right to such information).

Has the Commission opened a disciplinary procedure against Spain to punish the latter for its failure to transpose the three directives in question?

What has the Spanish authorities' response been to the various letters of notice served on them by the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

As a matter of course the Commission brings an action where Member States fail to provide information of the steps taken to transpose directives within the deadlines set for these.

Since Spain has still not informed the Commission of any action to transpose Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September1996 concerning integration pollution prevention(1) and control, the Commission will shortly introduce an infringement procedure in accordance with Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has already introduced infringement proceedings against Spain under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in connection with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment(2). The Spanish state was served notice of this matter in August 1999, but has so far not replied. In view of the above the Commission is shortly due to decide on notifying Spain of the reasoned opinion that is the second stage of the infringement procedure.

Since it did not consider the reply given by the Spanish authorities to the reasoned opinion concerning the incorrect transposition of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(3) to be satisfactory, the Commission has lodged a formal request with the Court of Justice. The case bears reference No C-189/99.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2548/99

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Monopoly purchasing practices in Olympic sailing classes

Monopoly practices are emerging in the sport of sailing. with the consent of the International Sailing Federation (ISAF), relating to purchasing practices in a number of Olympic classes.

The problems arise from the fact that practitioners of sailing with Olympic aspirations are obliged to purchase from certain shipyards designated by ISAF; the organisation justifies this on grounds of ensuring quality and uniform standards.

It appears clear that significant interantional pressure exists for these monopoly practices to be blocked and ended, since they give rise to various problems, including the following:

- the brands chosen do not have to promote themselves;

- sportsmen and women are deprived of opportunities as regards promotion, sponsorship, etc, since all are obliged to use the same equipment;

- prices are unduly high thanks to the absence of competition;

- technical development is lagging behind because the rules of the market do not operate.

Can Commissioner Monti state, given that this is a problem at world level that has effects in Europe, what action the Commission can take to put an end to this monopoly on supplies and enable individual practitioners of sailing to obtain their supplies where they see fit, provided the rules applying are observed, thus ceasing to damage the vessel construction industry?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing to its attention the requirements covering purchase of sailing equipment for the Olympics.

A number of sporting competitions are governed by strict requirements covering the equipment which may be employed. These requirements may be dictated in the interests of safety, or in order to ensure that differences in equipment do not have undue influence on the outcome of competitions. Sporting authorities may accordingly impose such requirements without infringing competition law.

It is suggested in this case that participants are obliged to obtain their equipment from a single supplier. It is not clear how this obligation is imposed in practice.

The information at the Commission's disposal is accordingly not now sufficient for it to intervene in the instance to which the Honourable Member refers. However, were a duly-substantiated complaint to be made, this would naturally be examined in accordance with the prescribed procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2577/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Transport of animals

It is clear from recent television pictures of horse transport that the provisions of the Transport of Animals Directive are not being properly enforced in many Member States.

The Commission has a duty to monitor the way that Member States are enforcing this Directive. However, for some years now, only one Inspector from the Food and Veterinary Office has been given this task. When will the Commission take its responsibilities in this area more seriously and increase the number of Inspectors to 12, as demanded by the Council of Agriculture Ministers in June 1995?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to animal welfare reported by different television broadcasters in Europe. Reports by its food and veterinary office (FVO) and complaints from various animal welfare organisations also indicate that problems continue to exist in this domain.

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's views on the importance of protecting animal welfare in the field of transport.

The Commission is still in the process of recruiting inspection personnel and a number of new staff have specific responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of animal welfare legislation which applies in the Member States. The Commission is aware of the increasing importance attached to animal welfare by consumers and will continue to ensure that, amongst its other responsibilities, animal welfare will be given corresponding importance.

Given the importance of the issue, inspectors take account of animal welfare issues during missions in Member States. The practice of performing combined inspections will increase the level of information available concerning the enforcement of Community legislation in this field.