ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2916/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Transport licences for traffic between Austria and Romania

Since 1991 trade across the border between Romania and Austria has increased three-fold. However, for years the scope of 4 500 transport licences has hardly been increased. In comparison, there is an effective demand for approximately 8 000 licences per annum. Transport is being forced to make the shift to rail traffic ('rolling road'), but this brings with it considerable delays and irregularities. Developments make speedy solutions necessary: in the first quarter of 2000 alone, Austrian exports to Romania increased by over 13 %.

How does the Commission assess this situation, both in relation to its Internal Market policy on the one hand, and in view of the accession efforts of Romania on the other?

What can and will the Commission undertake, in order to bring about an increase in the number of annual transport licences?

Alternatively, does the Commission consider the improvement of the rolling road to be a way to protect trade across borders?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

The Honourable Member points out that transport licences between Austria and Romania are insufficient in light of increasing trade.

Shortages of bilateral transport authorizations between Romania and Austria fall under the competence of Austria, as does the preference Austria accords to the usage of the rolling road by third country transports under bilateral agreements.

In fact the relevant Community law, i.e. Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States(1), expressly states that, pending the conclusion of agreements between the Community and third countries, the Regulation shall not affect bilateral agreements concluded by Member States with third countries.

At present, given the continuous resistance of the Council in general, there are no negotiations taking place between the Community and Romania with a view to the conclusion of a road transport agreement replacing completely the bilateral agreements concluded between Member States and Romania.

(1) OJ L 95, 9.4.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2885/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: European Consumer Infocentres

In 1991, the Commission launched a consumer information pilot programme providing for information of a legal nature, legal aid and advice. It was for this purpose that the European Consumer Infocentres were set up.

Through its Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, the Commission provides 50 % of the funding for this programme, with a ceiling of 160 000 per case. In 1997, a proposal was made to increase the ceiling to 200 000 and to set up at least one centre per Member State.

Today, three years later, there are centres in only nine Member States.

Nine years after its launch, why are the results of this programme so disappointing? What is the reason for this situation and what does the Commission intend to do in future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

In 1997, the Commission carried out an assessment of the cross-border Infocentre or Euroguichet pilot project, launched in 1991.

On the basis of this assessment and in the interests of completing the single market, the Commission decided to reform these cross-border advisory structures, developing them into a Community network of European consumer centres.

While it is still the job of these centres to assist and advise consumers in the event of disputes, particularly of a cross-border nature, their main purpose now is clearly to disseminate information on consumer affairs at Community level in the Member States, and to allow information exchange between the Member States.

I would also point out that the opening of European centres in all Member States does not depend solely on the good will of the Commission. National government funding is generally essential since the national consumer organisations do not have the necessary resources.

A Euroguichet is soon to be opened in Sweden and the Commission is also involved in discussions with Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands.

The Commission will send the 1999 report on the activities of the Euroguichets directly to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2354/00

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and competition in connection with the situation of teachers in schools officially recognised as equivalent to State schools

The perpetuation in officially recognised schools in Italy of blatant disparities and discrimination contrary to the spirit of the Italian Constitution and European legislation on competition has prompted the questioners to raise the following issues at a higher level.

The question is therefore not intended to refer to or interfere with Article 126 of the EC Treaty, since the aim is not to deal with the organisation of school systems but with the infringement of the right to work caused by discrimination between the teaching staff of State schools and of those officially recognised as equivalent.

1. Teachers in these officially recognised schools have been allowed access to the competitive qualifying examination, in which, incomprehensibly, only half the years of service are recognised the overall mark includes both the level achieved in the examination and half the number of years of service. Why, when the final list is drawn up, is the service is ignored?

2. Can the Council explain why the Italian Ministry of Education does not systematically allow teachers in officially recognised schools access to competitive examinations by qualification only since, once again, the years of service do not count?

3. Why, in the provincial authorities' lists of supply teachers, does service in officially recognised schools only count for half (why not one third or two thirds? Does a teacher in such a school only work half time?).

4. Why, when a teacher passes the ordinary competitive examination, are the marks relating to teaching not recognised?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The Honourable Member's question concerns a domestic Italian matter which does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Council. If a Member State has failed to fulfil one of the obligations imposed on it by the Treaty, it is for the Commission, in accordance with Articles 211 and 226 of the EC Treaty, to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and any provisions laid down by the institutions pursuant to the Treaty are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Recognition of typical products from Emilia-Romana and policy on the recognition of typical products

The Italian Minister for Agriculture, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, recently extended recognition to more than 2000 typical local products and asked the European Union to grant them the status of products of registered and protected designation of origin. 73 of these are typical products from Emilia-Romagna, including the traditional spongata cake, which was the subject of a previous question.

Bearing in mind that food is an element in the culture of peoples, nations and regions and that enhancing the value of typical products is of vital importance in the interests of safeguarding cultural diversity in Europe to encourage peaceful cooperation between different peoples:

- will the Commission grant all the products from Emilia-Romagna listed by the Italian Ministry for Agriculture and all those from other regions of Italy the status of typical products of protected designation of origin?

- will it draw up a European policy giving the various regions and local communities responsibility for safeguarding and enhancing typical products, so as to ensure greater respect for cultural diversity within the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the request by the Italian Minister for Agriculture concerning the registration of more than 2 000 local products as protected designations of origin, including a product named Spongata for which the reply to Written Question E-2631/99(1) by the Honourable Member is still applicable.

The Honourable Member is reminded that, since 1992, the cultural characteristics of the various regions of the Community are already highlighted and protected at Community level by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(2).

To date, it must be noted, more than 540 protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs) in the Member States have been registered under the abovementioned Regulation.

In particular with regard to the recognition of Emilia Romagna products as PDOs or PGIs, the Commission is ready to examine any applications for registration sent by the Italian Ministry under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.

(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2711/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Employment in the business, public and other sectors

What are the employment figures in each quarter for the last ten years for each Member State in

- the business sector (private business and publicly-owned enterprises producing marketed goods and services);

- the public sector;

- others (voluntary, etc)?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Community statistics on employment are not broken down into the sectors referred to by the Honourable Member. They only cover paid employment (and therefore not the voluntary sector) and they are categorised according to NACE Rev. 1, which does not make a distinction between business and non-business activities.

Data that do distinguish between business services, non-business services and the public sector are available in the national accounts for the period from 1987 to 1997. These are sent directly to the Honourable Member as well as to the Parliament's Secretariat. Currently, these data are available on an annual basis only.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2914/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Austria/sanctions

During their session of 10 July 2000, the EU foreign ministers decided to release Russia's frozen funds, despite their constant concern about the situation in Chechnya. Only in December last year, the Union froze financial aid in the region of 58 million, in order to induce Russia to put an end to the fighting in the Caucasus region and strike up a political dialogue with the independence fighters. However, this measure has now been rescinded. Consequently, despite continuous violent repression, Moscow is this year entitled to receive the full amount of 90 million in financial aid.

As a result, a distinctive change has come about in the EU's Russia policy: it discards its long implemented sanction policy one which has, after all, been somewhat unsuccessful due to its half-hearted measures and demonstrates readiness to negotiate with a country, whose political views and inhuman approach in Chechnya it does not wish to condone, yet one which is essential as a partner for peace and stability in Europe.

In so far as the relationship between the EU Member States is concerned, the Fourteen are persisting with their policy of sanctions against Austria.

The Council:

- would it be prepared, in accordance with its new foreign political position on sanction issues, to also consider that is, abandon the sanction policy concerning Austria, and

- would the Fourteen be willing to fully re-establish the bilateral political dialogue with its partner?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The Council has not taken a view on the two issues raised by the Honourable Member, and is not therefore in a position to respond to the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Delays in second Community support framework projects

The completion of the construction the hospitals in Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu and their provision with medical equipment were deleted from the second Community support framework because of various delays in completion. Can the Commission say what the main reasons were for the delays to these projects? Have the obstacles been removed yet? Is provision made in the new Community support framework for further funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

According to the information supplied by the national authorities, the three hospitals mentioned by the Honourable Member will not be completed under the Community support framework (CSF) for 1994-1999 because of various performance delays, ranging from technical difficulties to accumulated hold-ups on the part of those carrying out the work.

To ensure that no funding is lost as a result of these delays, the funding not used up by these projects has been reallocated to others within the Operational Programmes (OPs) concerned.

The Commission is disappointed that projects of such importance for Greece's socio-economic development should be so far behind schedule. It will ask the Greek authorities to supply detailed information on the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects and it will not shirk from taking corrective financial measures, if necessary.

As the various OPs are currently being negotiated it is not yet possible to state whether these projects will be part-funded under the CSF for the current programming period (2000-2006).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3229/00

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: Sanctions in Austria

Paragraph 115 of the report by Mr Martti Ahtisaari, Mr Jochen Frontin and Mr Marcelino Oreja on the situation in Austria emphasises that the measures implemented by the 14 EU Member States have strengthened awareness of the importance of shared European values. In addition, there is no doubt that in the case of Austria the measures taken by the 14 Member States have encouraged the Austrian Government to step up its efforts. Moreover, they have also prompted civil society to defend these values.

On 16 September, the press reported a statement made by the President of the Commission in which he seemed to regret the measures implemented between January and December 2000, and considered that in future cases of a similar nature such decisions should be avoided. Through these remarks, is Mr Prodi seeking to question the assessment of the EU's actions drawn up by the Three Wise Men?

Is Mr Prodi implying that the measures taken against the Austrian Government following the inclusion of an extreme right-wing party in the ruling coalition should not only have been rescinded once their main objectives had been reached, but should never have been taken in the first place?

If so, what grounds does the Commission President have for disputing the Wise Men's assessment?

If not, how does he justify his swingeing condemnation of the commitments to democracy made by the 14 Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission, which took good note of the conclusions of Three Wise Men's report, welcomes the outcome of this procedure, re-establishing, as it has, the traditional ties of friendship between the Member States. The Commission would stress the importance of action by the Member States in helping to promote shared values, including in the context of the specific problems and developments in Austria. It would also reiterate its commitment to respect for fundamental rights and democratic principles, particularly within the Member States of the Union.

The Honourable Member's attention is, nonetheless, drawn to the context in which the situation arose, namely outside the scope of the Treaties, which lay down the conditions and procedures for the Union to take action regarding compliance with fundamental rights and democratic principles. These conditions and procedures were not called on in the situation under discussion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2680/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Breast-feeding

Complaints have been made to the Commission about the marketing activities of a number of European companies promoting baby food/milk in developing countries. However, no action seems to have been taken thus far against them.

Will the Commission indicate its policy on breast-feeding and the baby food industry with regard to developing countries?

Will it also indicate what action it has taken to encourage breast-feeding in developing countries, especially since Unicef has reported that reversing the decline in breast-feeding could save the lives of 1,5 million infants around the world every year.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

The Commission continues to stress the importance of protecting, encouraging and supporting breastfeeding. This method remains clearly and without any doubts the single best method for feeding infants, certainly for sero-negative mothers or mothers who do not know their human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-status. The Commission maintains its efforts towards the baby food industry to accept and respect this policy, with regard to developing countries.

As for HIV sero-positive mothers and their infants, there is a need to study further, to monitor or to identify the conditions in which breastfeeding influences their health and life expectancy. Alternative solutions for breastfeeding for HIV sero-positive mothers can only be carefully addressed in this context of improved knowledge and reconsideration of needs and feasibility.

The Commission is supporting widely actions in the field of mother and child health, where the issue of breastfeeding may be considered. The bulk of this support is currently covered by the Community programmes targeting comprehensive health services delivery or the health system in general. These include several complementary instruments, ranging from non-governmental organisation (NGO) project support to programme or budget aid, all aiming at equitable access to appropriate health services, including health education.

The propagation of the importance of breastfeeding and the inherent caution for inappropriate use or introduction of undesirable baby food is an integral part of the Commission support.

An important part of the Community efforts in the area of HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is channelled through the special HIV/AIDS and Population budget line B7-6212.

Specific collaborative research activities with developing countries geared to reproductive health are also covered by the Community international cooperation with developing countries (INCO-DEV) programme, which is administered under the regular Community research budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3098/00

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

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Commission linguistic policy and the safeguard and promotion of minority and regional languages

In its reply to parliamentary question E-1730/00, the Commission states that the timetable for a study dealing specifically with the needs of regional and minority language communities in the European Union depends on resolving the legal difficulties surrounding the execution of the budget heading in question (B3-1000).

Will the Commission say precisely what legal difficulties are involved and which financial year they relate to?

Will it say exactly what needs to be done before these legal obstacles can be removed, and within what period they might be removed?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The question of the existence of budget headings having no legal basis, which, inter alia, concerns measures in support of regional and minority languages and cultures, was thoroughly examined by the Commission in the context of the execution of the 2000 budget and in the light of the interpretation of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999(1) between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

In the case of the topic raised by the Honourable Member, this examination resulted in the publication of a call for proposals on 16 September 2000.

The invitation to tender for the study in question was published on 20 October 2000.

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Council

(29 September 2000)

Subject: Harmonisation of hallmarking provisions for goods made from precious metals

The adoption of the European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning working in precious metals (COD 93/0472)

has been held up in the Council of Ministers for some years now. In particular the continuance of divergent hallmarking provisions in some Member States are forming a considerable obstacle to intra-Community trade in products made from precious metals by imposing costly and time-consuming certification procedures before such products can enter the market. Although these obstacles to the free movement of goods have been known about for some time, a number of Member States are apparently holding up the urgently needed efforts towards harmonisation.

1. What reasons does the Council consider are currently still standing in the way of the rapid adoption of the common position?

2. Is the Council prepared to deal with this topic under the French Presidency and to ensure the rapid adoption of the common position which has been outstanding since 1994?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

1. As the Honourable Member's question states, the Commission submitted a proposal on goods made from precious metals in 1993.

The Council has considered the proposal on several occasions with a view to reaching a common position.

However, it has not been possible to resolve the issue as two major problems have been encountered the provisions on marking and certification procedures.

2. At present, the Council has no plans to resume its consideration of the proposal.