ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Common foreign and security policy (chemical weapons for Turkey)

In answer to Question P-2910/00 the Council informed me that under the provisions of Article 22 of the TEU any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council. In view of the importance of the specific points in Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 for the common foreign and security policy it would seem appropriate for the Commission to make use of this possibility.

1. Will the Commission submit proposals to the Council in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU to obtain information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depfag) of the shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack against the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999? If not, why is the Commission refusing to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU given the importance of this question for the common foreign and security policy?

2. Will the Commission submit proposals to the Council in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU to obtain information from the German Ministry of Defence on the aid from this ministry in the construction of a new military chemicals laboratory in Turkey? If not, why is the Commission refusing to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU given the importance of this question for the common foreign and security policy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

According to Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission and the Member States have the right to submit proposals to the Council related to common foreign and security policy (CFSP) matters. However, the case under consideration refers to the alleged export of dual-use or possibly military items from one Member State to Turkey. In this context, it should be noted that, while legislation in the field of dual-use exports is a Community competence (c.f. Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology(1)), the implementation remains with the Member States. It is, therefore, for the Member State where the exporter is established to decide on authorisation requests and to monitor their implementation.

(1) OJ L 159, 30.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3867/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: WEEE electronic waste proposal access to spare parts

With regard to the Electronic Waste (WEEE) and Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) proposals, can the Commission clarify whether electronic products which have been put on the market before the suggested date (2008) for substitution of several hazardous substances will not have to be discarded prematurely for lack of the right spare parts? Can the Commission guarantee that the proposals will not have an adverse impact on consumers?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3867/00, E-3868/00 and E-3869/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Article 4 of the Proposal for a Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment(1) foresees the substitution of certain heavy metals and brominated flame retardants in this equipment with effect from 1 January 2008. Clearly, this requirement refers only to new equipment placed on the market after 1 January 2008 and does not affect equipment already on the market at that date.

It is not the intention to prohibit the use of spare parts containing one or more of the substances targeted by the Proposal if the functioning of electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market for the first time before 2008 would be jeopardized without such spare parts. The Commission agrees that otherwise electrical and electronic equipment might have to be discarded unnecessarily.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4054/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 January 2001)

Subject: Central European Bank: how much do its directors earn?

On several occasions questions have been asked concerning the salaries of the European Central Bank (ECB) directors (in 1999, 2000 and 2001). On each occasion the Council has glossed over its replies, taking refuge behind abstract formulas and incomprehensible parameters.

Could a clear reply now be given? How much did they receive in 1999 (under all headings, without any exceptions) and in 2000?

Figures are required, not words.

Reply

(12 March 2001)

It is not for the Council to fix the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board of the ECB. Indeed, in accordance with Art. 11 (3) of the Protocol of the Statute of the ESCB and ECB, these are subject to contracts with the ECB and are fixed by its Governing Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3897/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Advance supply of?5 and?10 banknotes

According to a recent report by the committee responsible for monitoring the introduction of the euro, it has just been realised that it will not be possible to adapt most automatic cash dispensers in the EU Member States to issue 5 banknotes and, in certain countries, 10 banknotes also. In other words cash dispensers will generally only be able to issue 20, 50 or 100 banknotes. This will cause a major problem for the retail trade which, after 1 January 2002, will be receiving payment in large denominations and require to give change in 5 or 10 banknotes, which will rapidly become very hard to obtain. In view of this apparently unforeseen situation should the question of advance issuing of 5 and 10 banknotes in particular be reconsidered? In certain countries from 15 December 2001, the public will be able to purchase a kit containing all euro coins with which they will thus be able to familiarise themselves. In the weeks leading up to 1 January 2000, would it not be a good idea to enable the European general public to purchase 5 and 10 banknotes, thereby facilitating the transition to the euro?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

On 8 November 1999 the Council took note of the fact that participating Member States consider it helpful to provide financial institutions and certain other groups, notably cash in transit companies and retailers, with notes and coins some time before 1 January 2002. Participating Member States underlined that this must not lead to putting Euro banknotes and coins into circulation before 1 January 2002.

Details of Member States changeover plans to the Euro are summarised in the Commission report to the European Parliament, the Council and the ECB in particular of 18 July 2000 (COM(2000) 443 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3791/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Repair of churches

Is the Commission prepared to consider providing funds for the repair of cathedrals and churches of major historical importance throughout the European Union, given the importance of the role which they have played in the development of a common European heritage, their architectural value and the role which they continue to play in the life of many communities?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission may provide support for cultural initiatives, including for the protection, preservation and development of the cultural heritage, under the Culture 2000 programme and in accordance with its criteria, this programme being the Community's main instrument for financing and planning in the area of cultural cooperation.

In this connection, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that a call for proposals for projects running in the year 2001 was published in the Official Journal in January 2001(1). Consequently, cultural operators will be free to submit projects to be considered for funding.

Operators may find information at the following site: http://europe.eu.int/com/culture/index_en.html

Furthermore, as part of the assistance provided to regions under the Structural Funds, cultural projects may obtain Community support. However, these projects will only be eligible if it is clearly demonstrated that they make a direct contribution to the economic and social development of the region.

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3896/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Further question concerning late payments by the Commission

Concerning my question E-2571/00(1) concerning late payments by the Commission, the reply given by the Commissioner was not only three months in coming but was also, in my opinion, incomplete and inconsistent.

Can the Commission give its reasons for stipulating a 60-day deadline with regard to its own transactions while recommending, in Directive 2000/35/EC(2), that the deadline for all commercial transactions be set at 30 days? What are the Commission's justifications for giving itself so much more favourable treatment than the private sector?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(2) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Directive 2000/35/EC of 29 June 2000 on combating late payments in commercial transactions does not set a 30-day deadline for all commercial transactions in the private sector. The public authorities and the private sector continue to enjoy the right to negotiate payment deadlines in their commercial relations. A 30-day deadline applies only if the contract is silent on this point. By setting a payment deadline of not more than 60 days for its own contracts, the Commission has not, therefore, given itself more favourable treatment than the private sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Development of railway network in Greece

The development of a modern railway network is an important priority in development programmes throughout the European Union and particularly in those concerning Greece,

and there are obvious economic, regional and environmental reasons for this. However, particularly in Greece there have been unacceptable delays and substantial cost overshoots in the projects that had been planned (tunnels, stations in the Thriasian Plain, the Athens-Corinth line, etc.).

How does the Commission view these constant delays and cost overshoots, in view of the fact that these do not appear to be in keeping with present Community law on public contracts and the awarding of such contracts? How does the Commission intend to intervene so that the Greek railway development programme is reviewed and brought into line with the priorities agreed with the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Commission attaches great importance to the development of a modern rail network in Greece. During the period 1989-2006, this sector should receive investment of some 3 billion from Community funds plus a national contribution of approximately 2 billion.

The Greek authorities and the Commission are aware of the problems encountered both in carrying out work on restructuring and improving the services provided by the body responsible for the Greek railways (OSE) and in the carrying out of infrastructure projects by the subsidiary company created in 1977 to manage them (Ergose). These have meant that the results initially expected with regard to rail transport in Greece have not been obtained.

The Greek authorities are currently examining the measures which will have to be taken by these two agencies to rectify this situation. These measures should include both the restructuring of Ergose and OSE to make them more effective and compliance with Community and national law on public procurement. It has also been clearly established that whenever the legislation in force has not been respected, related expenditure will not be eligible under the Community Funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: Refusal of a derogation allowing the Turks and Caicos Islands to export small quantities of rice

An investment of £ 4 million towards the cost of a rice mill was made in the British Overseas Territory of Turcs and Caicos Islands under an EU scheme to help Overseas Territories by allowing them to export high quality milled rice to Europe, but after some pressure from some Member States the limited export quota for the Turcs and Caicos Islands was reduced to almost nothing, even though the long-grain rice grown there does not compete with the short-grain rice grown in Southern Europe. Although a derogation is possible, this has been refused, even though the tiny production levels proposed would fall within the limits of the derogation.

Could the Commission explain the reasons behind the decision not to allow the derogation, which has put sixty people out of work and made it more difficult for these small islands to achieve economic self-sufficiency? Can it indicate whether the refusal to allow a derogation is legal under the terms of the European Treaties, and, if so, what avenues of appeal are open either to the employer whose investment in the mill has been made worthless or to the governor of the Turcs and Caicos Islands?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

The Commission would like first of all to point out that, when the enterpreneurs concerned consulted it well in advance of making their investment, they were told about the risks entailed given the current situation in the Community rice sector. A Commission report to the Council had already gone into these issues back in 1993(1).

On 21 June 2000, the United Kingdom Government requested a derogation from the rules of origin for rice as laid down in Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories(2).

The purpose of this derogation was to enable the Turks and Caicos Islands to import rice from third countries (Uruguay, China, Thailand and Vietnam) for processing and subsequent export as a finished product (milled rice) to the Community, free of customs duty.

Having examined the application in detail and consulted the other Member States via the relevant committee, on 11 September 2000 the Commission refused to grant the derogation, inter alia because the Turks and Caicos Islands already have the option of supplying their industry with rice originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) for export to the Community duty-free under the existing mixed origin arrangements with those countries.

The Commission would also like to point out that its proposal for a Council Decision to replace Decision 91/482/EEC as from 1 March 2001 adopted on 15 November 2000(3) provides for the current arrangements to be improved in due course by introducing a reserve of 10 000 tonnes within the quota of 35 000 tonnes for the least developed OCT, which include the Turks and Caicos Islands.

(1) COM(93) 555 final, 25.11.1993.

(2) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991.

(3) COM(2000) 732 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Amounts allotted under and implementation of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

Can the Commission say what aggregate amounts were allotted to each Member State under the ERDF during the 1994-1999 programming period and what was the out-turn in each country?

Can it say what aggregate amounts have been allotted to each Member State under the ERDF in 2000 and what has been the out-turn to date in each country?

What is its assessment of ERDF out-turn in each Member State during the 1994-1999 programming period?

How does the Commission view ERDF out-turn so far in the year 2000 in the individual Member States?

Does it have any means of rectifying implementation of the ERDF in Member States that are not implementing it fully or properly?

Could unused appropriations be transferred to Member States which are making full and effective use of the resources allocated to them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3495/00

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Council decision to raise the salaries of Europol staff

Adequate pay is an important factor in motivating staff. Europol staff do an excellent job under difficult circumstances. However, the Council has yet to honour its commitment to raise their salaries.

Why has a decision to do so not yet been taken?

When and to what extent will the Council raise the salaries of Europol staff?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is informed that Europol has taken up its activities on 1 July 1999, at which date the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees(1) became operational. The exact salary levels for Europol employees are determined in a table contained in these Staff Regulations.

By Decision of 2 December 1999(2) the Council decided to increase the salaries as laid down in the aforementioned Staff Regulations by 8,5 %. This increase applies retroactively as from 1 July 1999.

As far as further increases of the salary of Europol are concerned, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Staff Regulations in Article 44 provide that these increases have to be adopted by Council, acting unanimously according to the procedure of Title VI TEU. It is foreseen that any initiative tabled to increase the salaries of Europol employees will be submitted for an opinion to the European Parliament.

(1) OJ C 26 of 30.1.1999.

(2) OJ C 364 of 17.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4112/00

by Ioannis Theonas (GUE/NGL), Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) and Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Olympic Airways

Despite the three restructuring programmes implemented over the last decade and the recent announcement of a change in the ownership status of the airline, Olympic Airways is facing a crisis.

In view of this, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to seek solutions in collaboration with the Greek government which will not affect the jobs and insurance and pension rights of employees?

2. What, in its view, is the reason for the failure of previous restructuring programmes?

3. Does it have any responsibility to follow up these programmes and identify shortcomings? If so, what does this responsibility consist of?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The Commission has been uneasily following the changes made to the Olympic Airways airline for several years.

In its Decision of 7 October 1994 it authorised the payment of significant amounts of State aid to Olympic Airways, while taking account of a restructuring plan that had been drawn up in order to ensure the long-term viability of the company. On 30 April 1996, feeling, among other things, that the company's intended recovery plan was not working in a satisfactory manner, the Commission resumed the procedure in this matter. Then, on the basis of a new company restructuring plan, and of new commitments by the Greek authorities, the Commission again authorised State aid, on 14 August 1998, which had been covered by its earlier Decision of 7 October 1994.

In the wake of the difficulties encountered in implementing the company's restructuring plan, the Greek authorities decided to go ahead with privatising the company.

The Commission is in contact with the Greek authorities and is closely monitoring the current privatisation of the company in order to guarantee that this meets the requirements of Community law, more particularly with regard to State aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 November 2000)

Subject: The plight of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan

Is the Presidency aware of the infringements of the Ahmadiyya community's human rights in Pakistan? A number of laws passed in 1974 made it a criminal offence for Ahmadis to profess, practise and preach their faith. Several members of the community have been charged with blasphemy under Section 295C, which carries the mandatory death penalty. Recent religiously motivated murders committed by orthodox Muslims against the Ahmadis have not been investigated. What does the Council intend to do to protect the fundamental rights of the Ahmadiyya community?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

The Council shares the concern expressed in the question put by the Honourable Member regarding discrimination against religious minorities in Pakistan. However, given that the regular political dialogue meetings between the Union and Pakistan were suspended following a military coup in 1999, it has become more difficult for the Union to communicate its concerns to Pakistan's political leaders. Nevertheless, the subject of the protection of religious minorities has been raised, on several occasions, with high-level interlocutors from the administration and the Pakistani Government, notably during the Troika's ad hoc visits to Islamabad in November 1999 and November 2000. During its last visit, the Troika in particular stressed to the Minister of the Interior the importance of ensuring that religious minorities were adequately protected against all intra-community violence, that any incidents were investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. The Troika also raised the matter of continued legal discrimination against certain minorities in Pakistan, including the issue of separate voting.

During these interviews, Minister Haider assured the Troika that the administration wished to include all minorities in the political process. While recognising that the initial discriminatory decisions taken in accordance with the anti-blasphemy legislation had alarmed the groups concerned, Mr Haider emphasised that none of these controversial decisions had been upheld on appeal. The Minister also confirmed that the government would undertake to pursue the necessary reform of the legislation in question. As regards intra-community violence, the government was aware of the extent of the problem. It would continue to take a tough line against all forms of violence and would undertake to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators.

The Troika reminded the Minister that these problems were causing grave concern in Europe and that Europe's political leaders, NGOs and media would be keeping a close eye on the situation in Pakistan. The Council would continue to keep the situation in Pakistan under regular review and, if necessary, would raise these problems again with the relevant interlocutors via the European Ambassadors in Islamabad.