ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1105/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Effects of exposure to asbestos

Asbestos was banned in western Europe in the nineteen seventies. However, as an Italian epidemiologist has pointed out, the effects of exposure to asbestos on various groups of workers in the last few decades are continuing to grow. The development of asbestos-related cancer takes many years to produce a clinically manifest tumour. In the United States, where asbestos was banned about 20 years earlier than in Europe, the mesothelioma epidemic has already peaked. In Europe it is still growing and the number of deaths caused by this kind of tumour is forecast to double in the next twenty years.

What steps will the Commission take to tackle this situation and to help the families of the workers affected?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the health effects of asbestos. A significant body of Community legislation already exists which aims to protect the health of workers and the public from the effects of asbestos. In particular, Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC)(1) as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991(2) covers the protection of workers exposed to asbestos at work.

In response to the Council conclusions of 7 April 1998 on this subject(3) the Commission is drafting a proposal to amend the above Directive with a view, in particular, to refocusing protective measures on those who are now most at risk, improving training and information for the workers concerned, lowering the limits for permissible concentrations in the air at the workplace and reviewing the assessment of asbestos fibres.

Although the Commission Recommendation 90/326/EEC of 22 May 1990 to the Member States concerning the adoption of a European schedule of occupational diseases(4) refers to all diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, compensation for occupational diseases and possible help for the families of workers affected are matters of Member State competence.

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.

(2) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991.

(3) OJ C 142, 7.5.1998.

(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1339/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Employee consultation legislation

Does the Commission feel that the announcement made by Commercial Hydraulics Ultra Division on 6 March that their factory in Cheltenham (UK) would close with the loss of 252 jobs and that they would commence consultation after the announcement had been made, fits with the spirit of the law on employee consultation legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0883/00(1).

(1) See page 178.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Direct foreign investment

What was the total of direct foreign investment in each of the Member States in each of the last five years? What was the breakdown of direct foreign investment by other Member States of the European Union and by third countries, and what was the amount in each case from Japan and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

The answers to the questions put by the Honourable Member are to be found in three statistical tables sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

Table 1 gives the foreign direct investment (FDI) in all the Member States from 1994 to 1999 as well as the FDI undertaken by the various Member States during the same period.

Table 2 gives the FDI for 1998 undertaken in each Member State by (a) the other Member States (overall figures) and (b) all third countries (overall figures). The specific figures for the FDI in each Member State by Japan and the United States are also given.

Table 3 sets out in detail the FDI in each Member State by each of the other Member States.

Given the interest shown by the Honourable Member in foreign direct investment in the Community, it seems appropriate to bring to his attention the recent publication by Eurostat of a book containing the most recent statistics on the matter (European Union direct investment yearbook 1999 Data 1988-1998. Theme 2: Economy and Finance)(1).

(1) ISBN 92-828-8310-8.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/00

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Directive on food supplements announced in the White Paper on food safety

In paragraph 105 of its White Paper on food safety published on 12 January 2000 (COM(1999) 719 final), the Commission announced that it would be submitting to the Council and the Parliament a directive on food supplements. It set itself a deadline of March 2000.

This planned directive forms part of the development of a Community nutritional policy, and nutrition is to be one of the priorities of the French Presidency of the European Union. To date, the directive has not been adopted by the Commission.

Does the Commission intend shortly to adopt this text and submit it to the Community legislative authorities?

Will the Commission be following the advice of the scientific committees concerning maximum levels of nutrients which may be taken daily?

Is the Commission back-pedalling under pressure from pharmaceutical companies opposed to this directive?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The Commission has adopted on 8 May 2000 the proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on food supplements(1) and will transmit it to the Parliament and the Council imminently.

The proposal foresees the adoption of maximum levels of nutrients on the basis of a number of criteria. One of those is upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals established by scientific risk assessment based on generally acceptable scientific data. The Commission has asked the scientific committee for food (SCF) for advice on such levels for vitamins and minerals. As always the Commission will give its full attention to the advice of the SCF.

(1) COM(2000) 222 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/00

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Information and direction signs for international traffic on the trans-European road network (TERN)

One of the main features of the trans-European network is interoperability. The European Commission, working together with the Member States, has made considerable efforts to achieve this, in accordance with the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. The Motorway Working Group and the Action Start subgroup were established to work towards the creation of Community rules to harmonise various technical aspects, including information and direction signs within the trans-European road network (TERN), in order to ensure interoperability.

However, despite the efforts of the Action Start subgroup, information and direction signs within the TERN continue to be characterised by a lack of continuity and harmonisation.

Does the Commission intend to draw up Community rules to reflect the conclusions of the work of the Action Start subgroup?

What additional measures does the Commission intend to take, in the light of the report of the Action Start subgroup, to ensure interoperability within the trans-European road network and minimise the confusion which the current lack of harmonisation of information and direction signs creates for the international traffic which uses it?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2000)

The Vienna Convention on road signs and signals(1) establishes a common system for warning, priority, prohibitory and mandatory road signs, but contains only very general rules for direction signs.

The Start Action, in 1994, which aimed at evaluating the interoperability needs for the establishment of the Trans European road network (TERN), firstly recommended that Member States apply this Convention, and secondly proposed that the Community complements it with other requirements. The Commission recognised that the harmonisation of road signs would be perceived by European citizens as a strong symbol of European integration, it considered however that such legislative action was not opportune as two Member States have not signed the Vienna Convention (Ireland, Netherlands) and three others have not ratified it (Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom), even if they largely apply it.

However the current revision process for the Community guidelines on the development of the Trans European transport network offers the opportunity to reassess this position. The Commission will consider how best to ensure the interoperability and quality of the TEN-T in its report on the revision of the Community guidelines that will be submitted to the Parliament and Council in the middle of 2000.

(1) Convention on road signs and signals, adopted by the United Nations Economic commission for Europe, of 8 November 1968, revised in 1993 and 1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0988/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Waste water and small creameries

Small creameries in peripheral parts of the Union will have short term difficulties in adjusting production methods to satisfy requirements imposed under Community regulations and directives regulating waste water. The problem of converting surplus whey into reusable protein is technically solvable but will take time to yield a commercially viable process useable by small-scale producers. There will be quite widespread damage to SMEs and farms and diminution of employment opportunities in peripheral areas if creameries are forced to close. This will almost certainly happen if they have to meet new standards immediately.

Will the Commission look favourably upon requests to defer full operation of the law in cases where remoteness guarantees minimum ecological damage arising from such delay, and where production will become prohibitively expensive if immediate implementation is demanded?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

At Community level, the discharge of waste water produced by the milk-processing industry is governed by Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment(1).

Article 13 of the Directive, adopted in 1991, provides that by 31 December 2000 biodegradable industrial waste water from plants in certain industrial sectors, including the milk-processing industry, which does not enter urban waste water treatment plants before discharge into receiving waters, must meet conditions established by the competent authority or appropriate body in the Member State. This requirement concerns discharges from plants representing biodegradable organic pollution of 4 000 p. e. or more (p. e. = population equivalent, a unit of measurement corresponding to the average organic pollution discharged per person each day into domestic waste water).

The requirements for the discharge of such waste water had to be set by the competent authority or appropriate body by 31 December 1993 at the latest. Those in charge of the plants concerned will therefore have had seven years to comply with the requirements. The Directive does not provide for any possibility of extending the deadline.

There is no Community legislation governing discharges from industrial plants in the sectors covered by the Directive which produce pollution of less than 4 000 p. e. The proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, presented by the Commission on 15 April 1997(2), provides for the possibility of making discharges subject to prior authorisation in cases where they are likely to have an adverse effect on the receiving waters.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ C 184, 17.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1517/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Infringements of human rights in Vietnam

On 6 April the Vietnamese Committee on Human Rights informed the Commission of Human rights in Geneva of the measures destructive of human freedoms which had been taken by the Vietnamese Government, for example the prohibition on religious publications, the confiscation and destruction of a book entitled Story of the Year 2000 by the writer Bui Ngoc Tan describing the detention conditions and the re-education policy in Viet Nam, the passing of a law relating to the press aiming to strengthen State control over some 500 official publications and enabling any person to bring proceedings against newspapers and journalists and have them ordered to pay compensation for the publication of information which might affect them adversely, even if such information is true. In addition, the Patriarch of the EBUV (Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam), Mr Thich Huyen Quang, has been detained without trial for the last 18 years. Finally, the number of death sentences is on the increase, 194 having been passed in 1999 alone (113 executions in 1996, 150 in 1997 and 170 in 1998). Is the Commission aware of this serious deterioration in the human rights situation in Viet Nam? If so, what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to persuade the Vietnamese authorities to guarantee freedom of opinion and expression in Viet Nam, to release Mr Thich Huyen Quang, to suspend capital punishment and, in general, to begin a genuine democratisation process in Viet Nam?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Delegation of the Commission in Hanoi, together with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, follows closely matters of concern in the field of human rights and participates fully in all actions to convey the Union concerns to the Vietnamese authorities.

The Commission is aware of the restrictions on publications in Vietnam, although it has not yet been possible to confirm the report on the confiscation and destruction of the book Récit de l'An 2000. Nor has it been possible to obtain independently verified figures for executions in the year 1999. The maintenance of the Patriarch of the Buddhist Unified Church, Mr Thich Huyen Quang, under house arrest is, of course, known to the Commission. It is not all clear, however, that these developments amount to a severe deterioration in the human rights situation in Vietnam.

Observations over the past two years have, in fact, shown some signs of progress. Relations with the Catholic church have improved somewhat. The number of verified political prisoners has been significantly reduced. The Commission will nevertheless continue to monitor developments closely, including the specific issues raised in this question, and will take such action as may be agreed with the Member States to bring these concerns to the attention of the Vietnamese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Ad hoc working party on tax fraud

Could the Commission please state what meetings have been held in the last six months by the ad hoc working party on tax fraud established on the basis of a proposal by the Spanish Government, what conclusions have been drawn and when the final report of this working party is expected?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission takes part in the meetings of the ad hoc working party on tax fraud referred to by the Honourable Member and contributes actively to its work. As that working party has been set up under the aegis of the Council, and is chaired by the Council, the Commission feels that this question should be addressed to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Abolition of duty-free and tax privileges for diplomats.



Official Journal 046 E , 13/02/2001 P. 0011 - 0011



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (28 February 2000) Subject: Abolition of duty-free and tax privileges for diplomats With reference to Question E-1996/99(1) and the Commission's answer, which states that the tax privileges for which the 1961 Vienna Convention provides are no longer justified in the European internal market and should really be abolished, the Commission is asked to say whether, in accordance with the principle of fairness and political decency, it intends to extend the argument consistently advanced on the subject of the abolition of duty-free sales to all citizens of the EU and bring to an end the similar special privileges enjoyed by the EU's diplomatic staff? (1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 63. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (14 April 2000) On the issue of privileges granted to diplomats under the Vienna Convention, the Commission has nothing further to add to its reply to the previous Written Question E-1996/99 by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/00

by Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Council

(13 March 2000)

Subject: International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on the worst forms of child labour (No 182)

In June 1999 the ILO adopted a new convention on the worst forms of child labour (No 182).

Which Member States have ratified this convention?

Does the current Council Presidency envisage measures to encourage all the Member States to ratify this convention as soon as possible?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

At the end of March 2000, the United Kingdom, Finland and Ireland had ratified the Convention in question. In addition, two other European States and seven non-European States had ratified it. In Spain, the instrument of ratification is before the Parliament.

The Presidency underlines the importance of this Convention being ratified by as many States as possible, recalling its exceptional unanimous adoption by the International Labour Conference in 1999, and its significant role in the efforts to improve the situation of the children of the world.

Consequently the Presidency, although it is aware of the differences between the Member States as regards their ratification procedures, will use the means at its disposal to underline for them the necessity and importance of the ratification as soon as possible of this important Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/00

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Lucent Technologies

In mid-1999 Angela Elliot Mathis, a British citizen and a senior executive and board member of Lucent Technologies in Belgium, was dismissed without warning and with no reason given for the dismissal. She had been head hunted from outside Belgium into the company just 13 months earlier because of her excellent record in the IT sector and her record of performance with the company offers no explanation for her dismissal. Under Belgian law she had no protection or rights against dismissal under these conditions.

Does the Commission agree that individuals will be increasingly unlikely to take advantage of the possibility to move and work wherever they like within the EU unless minimum social guarantees, such as those on individual dismissals, are put in place throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

As regards protection against individual dismissals in the context of free movement of workers, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers

within the Community(1) provides that A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment.

According to the information available to the Commission, the protection against individual dismissals in Belgium depends, in some cases, on the earnings of the individual employee. For employees above a certain earnings ceiling the protection against dismissal is agreed in the individual contract of employment.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0297/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Situation of minorities in the Czech Republic

In Commission reports on the Czech Republic's progress on the way to accession (1998 and 1999), it is stated that the situation of minorities with the exception of the plight of the Roma people is satisfactory.

Is the Commission aware that the expropriation and deportation of ethnic German population groups in the aftermath of World War Two represents a continuing violation of compelling standards of international law that fundamentally infringes the rights of members of the ethnic German community living in the Czech Republic today?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0035/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Rearing of grouse and pheasants

Would the Commission inform me whether regulations governing the welfare of farmed animals also apply to the rearing of grouse and pheasants when they are farmed for the purpose of being shot for sport?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The minimum requirements concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes are provided by Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998(1).

In Article 1 paragraph 2 of the above mentioned Directive it is stated that it shall not apply to (mldr) animals intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities. Furthermore the Directive does not apply to animals living in the wild.

In conclusion pheasants and grouse farmed for subsequent release into the wild for the purpose of the sport or activity of shooting are not covered by the Directive.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.