ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1180/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Children on aircraft

Airlines observe various different practices with regard to the safety of children on board aircraft who do not have their own seats. Some do not permit children to be transported in safety seats attached to seats by means of safety belts. In this case, children have to be held in the lap during take-off and landing. Some airlines require children to be attached to adults' seatbelts by means of a separate belt. Other airlines do not allow this.

What methods does the Commission have at its disposal for improving the safety of very young passengers on board aircraft belonging to airlines operating within the territory of the Union? What will the Commission do to ascertain how it can be made easier for small children to travel by air, for example by means of measures relating to seats?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The regulation of the safety of passengers on board civil aircraft used for the purpose of commercial air transport by an operator established in the Community is currently the responsibility of each Member State, and this explains the diversity of treatment mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Harmonised technical requirements and administrative procedures in respect of certain aspects of civil aviation safety are already laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) no 3922/91 of 16 December 1991(1). Recently the Commission proposed to Council and Parliament(2) an amendment of this Regulation, aiming at extending its scope to include common requirements on operations by commercial airplanes. Further studies on this issue are being currently conducted.

In respect of children and safety belts these requirements prescribe that a seat may only be occupied by two people if one is a child, and provided this child is properly secured by a supplementary loop belt or other restraint device. This implies also that children should in other cases be treated like any other passengers and be installed in a seat with their own seat-belt. No specific provision is however made for safety seats to be put on an aircraft seat.

Adoption of this amending regulation will result in a harmonised set of legally binding operational safety requirements in the Community in this field.

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(2) COM(2000) 121.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2234/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Reduction of Austrian state pension as a result of voluntary contributions made to UK state pensions

In a letter dated 9 November 1999 to Commissioner Diamantopoulou, I asked the Commission to resolve a very serious problem being faced by a constituent, Mr R.J.E. Girdler. His case concerns his Austrian state pension and the fact that the Austrian Government is ignoring Regulation (EEC) No 574/72(1) which, according to the United Kingdom Department of Social Security, means that voluntary contributions made to state pension funds of one country should not be taken into account by another country when calculating their own pension liability: Mr Girdler made voluntary contributions to the UK social security pensions scheme, since moving back to the UK from Austria, between 1992 and 1997.

Mr Girdler has received numerous letters, many since November 1999, from the Austrian State Pensions Office upholding their view that they could reduce his Austrian State pension because of the voluntary contributions which he had made. Despite assurances that this is matter is being looked into, I have still not received a satisfactory response from the Commission.

Firstly, can the Commission state whether it has looked into the questions raised by my letter of 9 November 1999?

Secondly, is the Austrian Government contravening Regulation (EEC) No 574/72?

Thirdly, if it is found that the Austrian Government is acting unlawfully, what will the Commission do to remedy this and ensure that the loss in pension which Mr Girdler has suffered is refunded to the full and lawful amount?

(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, on receipt of her letter of 9 November 1999, it wrote to the Austrian authorities asking them to submit their observations on the case she raised. The Austrian authorities have not yet replied but have informed the Commission that they will do so shortly.

Once the Commission receives a reply from the Austrian authorities, it will examine whether there has been an infringement of Community law in this case, in particular of Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1) and (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(2). If it considers that there has been an infringement, it could then open proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 164) of the EC Treaty.

With regard to the question of compensation for a loss in pension, responsibility for ensuring that national authorities comply with Community provisions, including the payment of damages to individuals, lies primarily with the national courts.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1997 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1824/00

by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Microsoft Word and restrictive practices

Has the Commission received any complaints about the behaviour of Microsoft Word 2000 and, in particular, the fact that it destroys the small disk partition required to run competing operating systems?

If so, what action is being taken?

If not, does the Commission intend to take any future action?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2000)

Word 2000 is Microsoft's newest word processor. It is announced on Microsoft's homepage as providing powerful tools for creating and sharing professional documents that anyone with a Web browser can view, making it easy for team members to collaborate online.

The Commission is not aware that Microsoft word 2000 destroys the small disk partition necessary to run competing systems nor has it received complaints in this respect. If allegations to this effect are submitted, the Commission will examine them with due attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0923/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Funding application

The group Research into Ageing were promised an EU grant almost 4 years ago? They have yet to receive the funding which they were promised. The reference numbers of the agreements are SOC 96 102180 and SOC 97 101790. Research into Ageing ws subsequently informed that the grants could not be made until the judgment on case C-239/96 was received from the European Court of Justice. This case challenged the Commission's call for applications for grants from budget line B3-4104, concerning elderly people.

The UK withdrew case C-239/96 in October 1998. The grants made conditional on the outcome of the case (including SOC 96 102180 and SOC 97 101790) have yet to be paid.

When will the Research into Ageing group receive its funding pursuant to SOC 96 102180 and SOC 97 101790? Surely, this is contrary to the established Community principle of legitimate expectation?

Will the Commission please give general clarification as to when the grants made conditional on the outcome of C-239/96 will be paid? What action does the Commission intend to take in light of the withdrawal of C-239/96? Will all conditional grants now be paid out and how does the Commission intend to avoid similar unacceptable delays in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The two agreements mentioned by the Honourable Member were only concluded conditionally, following cases brought by the United Kingdom (cases C-239/96 and C-240/96) and in accordance with the consequent order made by the President of the Court of justice. These cases challenged the Commission's call for applications for grants from two budget lines, concerning elderly people (B3-4104) and social exclusion (B3-4103) respectively. These challenges were made on similar grounds to case C-106/96 also brought by the United Kingdom, where on 12 May 1998 the Court found against the Commission. This ruling was followed by the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 13 October 1998 between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the legal bases and implementation of the Community budget(1).

Having regard to these considerations and in particular to the very close similarity between the expenditure contemplated by the above-mentioned conditional agreement and that in case C-106/96, the Commission was regrettably left with no choice but to refrain from making the payments concerned. The Commission is writing to Research into Ageing and all organisations with similar agreements to inform them of the position.

Regarding future action, the introduction of a mandate for Community action to help combat social exclusion by the Amsterdam Treaty has clarified the basis for action in this area, and as set out in the Commission's communication Building an Inclusive Europe(2) the Commission intends to present proposals for Community action implementing this new mandate. This will provide a solid basis for future Community action helping to combat social exclusion.

(1) OJ C 344/1, 12.11.1998.

(2) COM(2000) 79 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1679/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Introduction of a Community patent

In the recent debate concerning the communication on a European Research Area, the introduction of a Community patent was raised.

How does the Commission propose to ensure that the Community patent is introduced as soon as possible in the EU? What does the Commission estimate will be the eventual timetable for the project? By what means does the Commission propose to ensure that the Community patent system becomes as unbureaucratic, user-friendly and profitable as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Community patent is a priority issue for the Commission. A proposal for a regulation on the Community patent is due to be adopted by the Commission in early July 2000. The final timetable for the introduction of the Community patent will depend on many factors, not least on the success of the on-going revision of the EC Treaty concerning the establishment

of a new, centralised Community jurisdiction to deal with litigation on validity and infringement of Community patents. An integrated jurisdictional system that provides maximum legal certainty for the unitary Community title is one of the most essential requirements for the success of the Community patent. The Commission is still evaluating the different options available to ensure that the Community patent system will be as accessible and affordable as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Future of Kosovo

One year after the start of the war in Kosovo and the setting up of a European Agency for Reconstruction for the Balkans, does the Commission intend to report on the resources placed at the disposal of the agency and to present regular reports on action carried out by the later?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Commission is already reporting on the implementation of Obnova reconstruction programmes in the former Yugoslavia. The last report was sent to the Parliament and the Council in January 2000.

Also, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 of 25 July 1996 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(1), the Director of the European Agency for reconstruction will present a quarterly activity report to the Parliament and the Commission will submit, on a yearly basis, to the Parliament and the Council a report of the activities of the Agency. The first annual report will be due in April 2001.

Furthermore, the Commission is regularly submitting to both institutions a detailed financial overview of the assistance programmes implemented by the European Agency for reconstruction since its establishment in February 2000.

(1) OJ L 204, 14.8.1996, as last amended by (EC) No 2454/1999 of 15 November 1999, OJ L 299, 20.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/00

by Harlem Désir (PSE) and Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Commission position on common organisation of market in bananas

In adopting the Dary report (A5-0093/2000) by a large majority, the European Parliament expressed its opposition to the proposed amendment to the regulation on the common organisation of the market in bananas (Regulation (EEC) No 404/93(1)) which had been submitted to it by the Commission and which, in order to ensure compliance with World Trade Organisation rulings, would lead to the abandonment, by 2006, of the tariff quota scheme which protects banana producers and, therefore, the economies of, and jobs in, many ACP countries and several of the EU's outlying regions.

In the light of Parliament's vote, does the Commission intend to adopt the same position as Parliament and to submit to the latter a fresh proposal which will maintain the EU's commitments with the ACP countries unbroken, preserve the special nature of EU-ACP cooperation and safeguard the economic future of the outlying regions concerned?

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Members that from the very beginning of discussions in Parliament it had made quite clear the serious difficulties involved in the choice of tariff quota management measures.

Negotiations with the commercial partners in question have not yet led to a mutually satisfactory agreement. As stated in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on common organisation of the market in bananas(1), the Commission will in due time draw up a report on the outcome of negotiations with the partners on the tariff quota system.

The Commission remains fully aware that in this reform of import arrangements it must respect its commitments to both Community growers and the ACP countries.

(1) COM(1999) 582 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2382/00

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Death of refugees at the EU's external borders

1. How many refugees were found dead, and how many found injured, at the EU's external borders in 1999 and in the first six months of 2000? (Please give a breakdown by month, origin of the refugees, where found (country and region) and nature of injuries).

2. What action is the Commission taking to prevent future tragedies such as the death of 58 refugees in Dover?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

It is not possible to produce a statistical breakdown on the number of refugees found dead at the external borders of the European Union because such statistics are not available at Community level. The Statistical Office of the European Community (Eurostat) neither collects, nor otherwise possesses, figures on this issue.

The Commission shares the feelings and concerns caused by the tragedy of Dover. It considers that this event illustrates in a particularly dramatic way the need for a common policy in the area of illegal immigration, balancing both the fight against the international criminal networks organising the trafficking in human beings, and the provision of appropriate protection to those falling victim to it.

The Commission recalls that the framework for such a balanced policy has already been outlined in the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15/16 October 1999. For the implementation of these conclusions, clear deadlines have been set by the European Council as well as by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Accordingly, in order to achieve sustainable results, any common policy in this field will have to pursue a global approach. This implies, as was explicitly recognised in the Tampere conclusions, that the Community will have to develop a closer partnership with countries of origin and transit on migration issues, to put in place a common asylum regime, to ensure a fair treatment of third country nationals legally residing on the territory of a Member State and to achieve a more efficient management of migration flows, in particular by tackling illegal immigration at its source, especially by combatting those who engage in trafficking in human beings and economic exploitation of migrants.

It would clearly go beyond the framework of this reply to list, in all details, the numerous actions and initiatives in the first and third pillar that have already been launched or planned. Instead, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its scoreboard, published on 24 March 2000(1), as well as to the joint declaration of the Council and the Commission on the events in Dover, delivered at the plenary session of the Parliament on 4 July 2000.

(1) COM(2000) 167 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Liability in the case of fraud

Users of credit and debit cards within the European Union are generally protected against fraudulent use of their cards with some limit on their liability.

Would the Commission please state which Member States currently apply similar limits on the liability that users face should they suffer hacking or other fraudulent use of their on-line e-banking accounts?

Given the likely growth of cross-border deposit-taking as a result of both the euro and the Internet, does the Commission envisage proposals to protect consumers from effective unlimited exposure in the case of fraudulent access to their Internet accounts?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/00

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Alleged fraud at the Stockholm Information Office involving 648

Now that it is aware of just how serious are the accusations made against officials of the Commission's representation in Stockholm and of just how huge was the amount allegedly embezzled, can the Commission indicate the cost of the inquiry conducted by OLAF (broken down by type of expenditure) and the procedures in accordance with which the officials were suspended, together with the cost relating thereto during the period concerned?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The Commission would point out that it is obliged to examine (via OLAF) any allegations of irregularities committed by its officials and other servants which are liable to damage the Communities' financial interests. As last pointed out in its communication of 28 June 2000 The protection of the Communities' financial interests The fight against fraud For an overall strategic approach(1), the Commission must pursue a policy of zero tolerance in this field if it is to maintain its credibility.

It therefore considers the cost of the Stockholm inquiry to be fully justified (expenses for the two missions carried out from 22 to 25 November 1999 and from 11 to 14 January 2000: 8 777; working hours spent on the inquiry: approximately 180 man/days).

The damage caused to the Community including financial losses cannot be assessed until the legal inquiries currently under way in Sweden have been wound up. However, the small sum referred to in the Honourable Member's question does not correspond to the sums under examination in the framework of the inquiry.

The Commission would point out that the procedures initiated in this case (disciplinary proceedings against the officials and dismissal of the local staff) are under way.

(1) COM(2000) 358 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Numbers of persons holding licences to drive motor vehicles

Will the Commission please state

1. The total number of persons currently holding full licences to drive motor vehicles, in each EU Member State,

2. The number of new full licences to drive motor vehicles issued in each EU Member State, in the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission does not have a complete set of the relevant statistics, and indeed in some Member States, where licences are or were issued locally, there are no complete statistics.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2389/00

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Commencement of work on a sewage treatment plant in Ulea (Murcia, Spain)

The latest developments in Ulea are evidence of the worrying situation there, with the regional government and town council determined to press ahead with the construction of a sewage treatment plant with European funding despite opposition from local citizens and the unfavourable views expressed by the Commission, which suspects possible irregularities and has given leave for a complaint to be filed against the installation.

Given that this plant contravenes European environmental rules and directives, does the Commission not see the urgent need for decisions and specific measures vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities, in order to put to an end to the uncertainty surrounding the application of the rules in question?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

It has yet to receive any complaint that Community directives have not been complied with in respect of the project the Honourable Member is referring to.

Accordingly, on the basis of the information supplied, the Commission is unable to identify an infringement of Community law in this particular case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Customs stamps in non-Community countries

Further to my question No E-0203/00(1), will the Commission say whether it intends to take steps to encourage the World Customs Organisation to keep continuously updated records of current customs stamps worldwide?

Does the Commission believe that the actual usefulness of customs stamps which can be stolen, copied or illicitly used in other ways as a means of verification, is in reasonable proportion to their economic importance?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

As regards the actual usefulness of customs stamps to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission considers that the customs authorities of the third countries are the party best placed to certify the completion of the customs import formalities into that country, to which, in the case of differentiation of the rate of the refund by destination, the payment of the refund is subject.

The Commission plans to raise the question of drawing up a world-wide catalogue of current customs stamps at a forthcoming meeting of the World Customs Organisation.