ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/99

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU support for the launch of the Latin American Stock Exchange

Sponsored by the leading financial players in Spain and Latin America, the recent launch in euros of the Latin American Stock Exchange provides the legal and administrative wherewithal for diversifying numerous European portfolios, a particularly desirable development in view of the fact that the economic cycle of Latin American countries is unrelated to that of Europe, and indeed, varies greatly from country to country within Latin America itself.

Given the Latin American Stock Exchange's importance for EU-Latin American financial relations, what is the Commission's position with regard to this initiative and to what extent is it prepared to help consolidate and expand it?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

The Commission welcomes the launch of the Latin American stock exchange as this initiative may provide additional sources of capital to Latin America through external investments, contribute to portfolio diversification by offering new areas of investment to European investors, and contribute to the visibility of the euro on the international financial markets.

The Commission follows with interest developments of this sort. However, as a commercial operation of the private sector it is not for the Commission to support or to be directly involved in the expansion of this initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2675/99

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Commission policy on takeovers

Following the announcement of the Vodaphone bid for Mannesmann, Commissioner Monti was quoted in a British newspaper suggesting that the controversy this bid had provoked highlighted the necessity of finding agreement on the proposed takeovers directive (the 13th company law directive concerning takeover bids).

The British business community has opposed this proposed directive on the basis that it would impose costly legal burdens on them and override the UK's Takeover Panel, which has a proven track record of successfully dealing with takeover questions on a non-statutory basis.

How will the Commission's proposals resolve these issues and ensure that takeovers are policed effectively at national or European level?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The amended proposal for a thirteenth Directive of the Parliament and the Council on company law concerning take over bids(1) aims at establishing equivalent minimum safeguards for the protection of minority shareholders in the case of a transfer of corporate control.

The proposed directive requires Member States to designate one or more supervisory authorities which must supervise the bid. Because of differences in legal tradition, the question

to what extent recourse against the decisions of a supervisory authority is possible before the courts is left to Member States. The proposed directive does however contain guidance on how to police cross-border take over bids which involve supervisory authorities in more than one Member State.

(1) OJ C 378, 13.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/99

by Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE), Miguel Martínez Martínez (PSE) and Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Protecting jobs in the Carrier multinational company in Guadalajara (Spain) in the face of management plans

A delegation comprising the President of the regional parliament of Castilla-La Mancha, the regional secretaries-general of the CO and UGT trade unions and delegates from the works council at Carrier's Guadalajara plant have visited Brussels in order to outline to representatives of the various Community institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) their opposition to the closure plans drawn up by the multinational company's management for that production centre.

If they were to be implemented, the plans would entail the loss of more than 700 jobs in the company itself and the indirect loss of several thousand more (a jobs genocide), which would

have an enormous social and economic impact on the province and region, bearing in mind that Carrier is now one of the main industrial undertakings in Castilla-La Mancha. Furthermore, the closure plans drawn up by the firm's managers appear all the more unjustifiable bearing in mind that the company holds a significant market share and has been extremely profitable.

The institutions in Castilla-La Mancha (starting with the regional government and parliament), the Spanish Congress of Deputies (in a series of declarations) and the citizens of Guadalajara, who have organised a variety of demonstrations, have all called for the closure plans to be abandoned and for production and jobs to be preserved.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- does it consider that Carrier should take account of all social and economic factors in relation to its plant in Guadalajara and respond to the demands of workers, trade unions, the general public and institutions and withdraw its closure plans?

- will it take the appropriate steps and approach Carrier to that end?

- does it know whether Carrier has received any state or European aid which would oblige it to act to protect jobs?

- can it say whether Carrier has complied in this process with the directives on the information and consultation of bodies representing workers and labour organisations?

- does it take the view that this case, or the earlier Michelin case, strengthen the European Parliament's proposals on relocations aimed at preventing socially irresponsible business decisions?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 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-2746/99

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Appointment of a Greek Director-General at the Commission

The Commission is responsible for 36 Directorates-General and departments. Following the recent changes nationals of the following Member States have been appointed to head them: United Kingdom (eight), France (seven), Germany (six), Italy (four), Denmark (three), Spain (two), Netherlands (one), Sweden (one), Finland (one), Belgium (one) and Luxembourg (one). As of 1 January 2000 there will be no Director-General or Head of any of these 36 important departments from Greece (or two other small countries), although there was Greek representation until the only Greek Director-General, Mr Spyros Pappas, was removed somewhat unjustifiably, as it turns out.

Can the Commission explain this unfair treatment, which discriminates against Greece, Portugal and Ireland and favours certain large countries, particularly the United Kingdom? Can it state whether there will be a Greek Director-General or Head of any of its Directorates-General or departments in the immediate future, and if so, to which of them the person concerned will be appointed?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

The Commission has taken note of the concern expressed by the Honourable Members, although it would not be accurate to say that any treatment of the issues raised in their question has been unfair or discriminatory.

The Commission reaffirms its ambition, reflected in its decision of 8 December 1999 on appointments to senior management posts in the Commission, to make appointments on merit whilst maintaining a broad balance of all Member States' nationalities at all levels of staff within the Institution in order to ensure the essential cultural diversity and cohesion of the European public service. To this end, the Commission has specifically stated its desire that suitably qualified civil servants from each Member State nationality are appointed at Grade A1 level as Director-Generals, Heads of Department or similar.

In the very nature of civil service appointments systems in all Institutions, the Commission is never in a position to state which person from which nationality will be appointed to which head of service position before the conclusion of the appropriate appointments procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2029/99

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Community subsidies for school milk

The press and various associations are currently drawing attention to the present and planned further reductions in Community subsidies for school milk following a decision by the Commission.

Child nutrition experts and specialists argue that milk is essential for children's growth and that school milk schemes make it possible to reach sections of the population which, even today, do not have a sufficiently rich or balanced diet.

The Commission's plans, which are worrying both from a farming point of view and with regard to public health, raise a number of questions:

1. The Agriculture Council of 14 and 15 June 1999 took the view that the consumption of milk should be encouraged because of its high nutritional value, particularly for children and young people.

Why, then, has the Commission gone against the general opinion of the Member States and taken a decision that could jeopardise school milk schemes?

2. Just as the Treaty of Amsterdam has elevated public health policy to the rank of a horizontal Community policy, how can the Commission, in the name of narrow budgetary considerations, risk endangering the health of European children who benefit from the nourishment that school milk provides?

3. From a financial perspective, how can the consumption of milk be encouraged in a cost-effective way, taking account of the overall availability of budgetary resources? Could the subsidies concerned conceivably be transferred from the CAP budget to the health budget so that school milk schemes may continue with due regard for the budgetary constraints?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-2029/99 and E-2054/99 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Based on the theory that the Community aid scheme would be discontinued from 2000 as recommended in an evaluation report, the Commission's budget proposals for 2000 included a reduction in appropriations for Community expenditure on subsidising school milk.

In the light of the arguments put forward during the resultant detailed discussion of the scheme's future at the Council meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 14 and 15 June 1999 (to which the Honourable Member refers), the Commission has re-examined the issue and now proposes that aid for school milk should continue but that Member States should part-finance the expenditure entailed.

This new approach is justified firstly by the need to observe the budgetary constraints governing agricultural expenditure, under which priority must be given to less expensive market support measures than the school milk scheme. Secondly, the Commission wishes to emphasise that national part-financing could improve the scheme's combined effectiveness. The Commission regards the Honourable Member's suggestion of alternative funding under health policy as an interesting idea which merits further examination, and sees national part-financing as the only viable way of taking non-agricultural objectives into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Shutdown of the unsafe nuclear reactor in Bohunice (Slovakia)

The Commission originally said that Slovakia's accession to the European Union depended on the extremely unsafe nuclear reactor in Bohunice being shut down by next year. However, in mid-October the Commission said it would be satisfied with a shutdown in the period 2006-2008. Considerable opposition has been prompted by this decision.

1. Why has the Commission gone back on its original position that the extremely unsafe reactor should be shut down next year?

2. Does the Commission feel that shutting down the extremely unsafe reactor is no longer a prior condition for accession? If so, why does it consider that the shutdown is no longer necessary?

3. What is the justification for postponing the shutdown of this reactor?

4. What time limit does the Commission now propose for shutting down the reactor?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The Commission has never stated that Bohunice V1 reactors should be closed down in 2000 as a condition for Slovak accession to the Community.

In Agenda 2000, the Commission called upon the candidate countries operating non-upgradable reactors to close them at the earliest practical dates. Although Bohunice V1 belongs to this category, it is to be noted that western experts have acknowledged the progress made since 1996 in improving Bohunice V1 safety levels.

The Commission considers that the commitment made by the Slovak authorities to close down Bohunice V1 in 2006 (unit 1) and 2008 (unit 2) is realistic and balanced, taking into consideration the economic, social and political implications for Slovakia of the early closure of these reactors, as well as the safety improvements recently made at this plant.

The Slovak commitment on the closure of Bohunice V1 will be carefully monitored in the framework of the accession process. The Commission will make every effort to ensure that the closure dates announced by the Slovak authorities are met.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Implementation of programme for tourism under the CSF for Greece

What progress has been made in implementing the subprogramme for tourism forming part of the operational programme for tourism and culture within the Community support framework for Greece (take-up, any delays, cuts, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Financial implementation of the Tourism and culture operational programme (OP) of the Community support framework for Greece for the 19941999 programming period improved appreciably during 1999, mainly thanks to an amendment to its contents and to reallocation of Community aid between the two subprogrammes on tourism and culture. The new detailed financing plans will be annexed to the Commission Decision which will be signed soon.

This amendment will result in a reduction in the overall budget for this OP of about 34 %, to EUR 520,1 million.

Community aid will be increased by EUR 5,9 million (2,6 %), (a reduction of EUR 16 million for tourism and an increase of EUR 21,9 million for culture).

The absorption rate on the ground currently stands at 59,1 % (EUR 307,7 million). The various adjustments listed above make it likely that all the commitment appropriations will be used.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/99

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 period and the reasons for the rejection of Italy's proposals

The Commission has declared the Italian government's proposals concerning the areas eligible for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 period inadmissible, has refused to examine their contents, and has asked the government to rewrite them all.

This refusal is likely to delay considerably the allocation of funds to the regions and the subsequent implementation of structural policies, and also to jeopardise, perhaps to the benefit of other countries, the funds' commitment and expenditure capacities.

When the framework regulation on the Structural Funds was adopted, the Commission was supposed to have committed itself to taking into account the particular circumstances of individual Member States when making an overall examination of the eligible zones.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What are the reasons that have led to this drastic decision, for which there is not even any provision in the above-mentioned regulation?

2. Does the Commission not consider that it has failed to take sufficient account of possible opportunities for derogation connected with Italy's particular circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

1. The proposed list of areas eligible for Objective 2 sent to the Commission by the Italian authorities on 1 October 1999 was considered not to be acceptable because it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1). This paragraph stipulates that in each Member State the areas meeting the Community criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) must contain at least 50 % of the population eligible for Objective 2 assistance. However, the areas put forward by the Italian authorities in compliance with these criteria contained only 2,2 million people (i.e. only 29,6 % of the total eligible population).

2. The Commission considers that the Regulation, which was adopted by all the Member States and received the assent of the European Parliament, provides considerable scope for accommodating the specific circumstances of Italy and that it is not necessary to resort to derogations from the regulatory framework.

For example, the Italian authorities are not obliged to submit a proposal for all of the areas meeting the Community criteria (the population of which is 5 021 900). All they are required to submit is a list of areas satisfying these criteria in which the total population is at least 3 701 000.

They are also permitted to calculate 50 % of the eligible population according to national criteria laid down in Article 4(7) to (9) of the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2812/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The Commission's Office in Milan

Is the Commission aware that its representation office in Milan, located at 59 Corso Magenta, was found to be closed by a member of the general public who wanted to consult an Official Journal on 6 Decmber 1999, and that there was a notice on the door saying closed until 10 December for the long holiday weekend?

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to ensure that this kind of inconvenience does not occur again?n

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

The Commission Office in Milan was closed on 7 December 1999 (Saint Ambrogio, patron of the city) and on 8 December 1999 (Feast of the Immaculate Conception), both of which are official public holidays. The documentation service, open to the public Monday morning, Wednesday afternoon and Friday morning was closed exceptionally on Monday 6 December 1999, owing to a staff shortage. It was open on Friday 10 December 1999.

A notice was posted on the outside of the building on 22 November 1999 to inform the public that the Commission Office in Milan will be open to the public until Friday 3 December 1999 and will re-open on Friday 10 December 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2096/99

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: The Y2K problem

The YTK problem is caused by the inability of many computer systems correctly to process dates after 31.12.1999, owing to the widespread practice of having only two digits to indicate the year.

Since the problem may have consequences for the internal functioning of the Community institutions and also for the implementation of certain Community policies, such as for example, the internal market, e-commerce, banking transactions, etc., will the Commission say:

1. What measures does it intend to take to address the Y2K problem and publish information about it?

2. How does it intend to notify the authorities of the Member States and public opinion about matters which fall within the Community's purview and to take coordinating measures, where appropriate?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The Commission has published on the Europa server at http://europa.eu.int/comm/y2k/preparation a summary of the measures it has taken to ensure its own internal preparedness and continued functioning.

As for the other institutions, the inter-institutional committee for informatics (CII) continues to co-ordinate year 2000 (Y2K) activities to ensure a common approach to the problem. The Commission also organised in July 1999 a symposium with Member States and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on the adaptation of European information systems to the year 2000 and the Euro.

In general, the responsibility for resolving the Y2K problem within the Community as a whole lies with the individual enterprises and organisations concerned, whose progress is monitored by Member State authorities. Nevertheless, in recognition of the need for co-ordination between countries in critical services with a cross-border aspect, such as finance, telecommunications, energy, and transport, the Commission has carried out several activities.

Firstly, workshops involving Community industry and public authorities have been taking place since 1997. In particular, two large workshops with infrastructure providers from all major sectors throughout the Community were organised in April 1999 and September 1999 to examine cross-border issues, especially contingency planning. The results of these workshops are posted on the Commission's special Y2K website at http://www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro/y2k.htm.

Secondly, since July 1999, the national Y2K co-ordinators in the Community and European economic area (EEA) countries have met on a monthly basis to share information and exchange ideas on how to address various issues associated with the problem. Specific attention has been paid to the co-ordination of contingency plans between Member States.

Finally, the Commission has recently published communications(1) which provide an overview of the evolution of the situation of critical infrastructure sectors in the Community in the first, second and third quarters of 1999.

(1) COM(99) 545 final COM(99) 639 final COM(99) 651 final.