ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Belgian visas

The injudicious issuing of Belgian visas is a matter which needs to be looked at under the third pillar of the European Union (justice and home affairs), in particular because the temporary right of residence in the Belgian Federation automatically confers access to all Schengen countries. Such rights of residence are worth their weight in gold to criminals and they throw the immigration sector wide open to corruption.

Last year Belgium issued some 9 500 visas to Moroccan applicants. Roughly 88 % of these visas (for both short-term and long-term periods) were issued by the Aliens Service in Brussels, despite an opinion to the contrary from the consular services in Morocco. Hence, despite the fact that the applications fail to satisfy the criteria, such opinion is systematically ignored.

Some applicants have openly said that they have no intention of travelling to Belgium, but rather to one of the other Schengen countries where the issuing of visas is subject to stricter rules.

This is why the opinion of the consular services is negative, but the Aliens Service invariably replies that the visa still has to be issued to the applicant. It is feared that more and more traffickers in humans will try to enter the EUJ via Morocco.

This will render null and void action by the EU to stop lucrative routes for human trafficking.

In view of the facts set out above, has the Council urged the Belgian Federation to include fundamental preventive measures in its visa policy, such as a rotation system for sensitive posts, dual checks and the screening of officials?

- If so, when did the Council make this request to the Belgian Federation?

- If not, why has the Council not yet urged the inclusion of fundamental preventive measures in the Belgian Federation's visa policy, given the importance it has for the third pillar of European Union (justice and home affairs) and the policy of the Schengen countries? Will the Council now urge the Belgian Federation to take such measures?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0621/01 and E-0622/01

(30 May 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, matters relating to immigration, visas and asylum fall within the Community's sphere of competence under Title IV of the TEC. It is therefore for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether Member States fulfil their obligations in respect of those matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: A thermal power plant to be built in Tordesillas, Spain

The American multinational ENRON wants to build an 800 megawatt natural gas and diesel oil power plant on the outskirts of Tordesillas which, according to data supplied by the company, will release 2 540 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the main cause of climate change), 2 100 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 191 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 545 tonnes of carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere every year.

This project is being planned in an Autonomous Region which produces three times more electricity than it consumes. It is therefore obviously already producing a surplus.

The plant would be located only 2 kilometres from Tordesillas, a town with 8 000 inhabitants, and 5 km from the only protected natural area in the province of Valladolid the Riberas de Castronuno nature reserve and only a few kilometres from the vineyards producing wine under the registered designation of origin Rueda.

The EU Renewable Energy White Paper sets a target of 12 % for renewable energy sources. In Spain it is estimated that if this target is reached by 2010 all the expected increase in demand for electricity would have to be covered by renewable energy.

If this is true, can the Commission say:

- how it can ensure that the aim of replacing conventional energy sources with renewable energy is achieved in the Member States?

- whether there is any Community monitoring system to prevent the Member States from authorising new power plants which would make it impossible to achieve the 12 % target for renewable energy by the year 2010?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

In its proposal for a Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market(1)(2), the Commission proposes a 22 % contribution by renewable energy to the total electricity consumption. Under Article 8 of the proposed Directive, the Commission would follow-up and monitor the progress made by Member States to meet their renewable energy objectives. The Council adopted its common position on the Directive on 23 March 2001. The text of the common position was approved by the Parliament in second reading on the 4 of July 2001(3).

(1) OJ C 311, 31.10.2000.

(2) OJ C 142, 15.5.2001.

(3) OJ C 142, 15.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: The Luxembourg compromise and the Ioannina compromise after the ratification of the Nice Treaty

What is the status of the Ioannina compromise and the Luxembourg compromise after the ratification of the Nice Treaty?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council decision of 29 March 1994 on qualified majority decision-making by the Council(1) as amended by the Decision of 1 January 1995(2), commonly known as the Ioannina Compromise, is mentioned in Declaration No 50 annexed to the Final Act to the Amsterdam Treaty relating to the Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union, which is attached to that Treaty. According to this Declaration Until the entry into force of the first enlargement it is agreed that the decision of the Council of 29 March 1994 (the Ioannina Compromise) will be extended and, by that date, a solution for the special case of Spain will be found. It is recalled that the Council decision of 29 March 1994 does not have an expiry date.

The results of the IGC of Nice will have the following consequences.

The Protocol on the institutions, to which this Declaration is related, will be repealed with the entry into force of the Protocol on the enlargement of the European Union annexed by the Treaty of Nice to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities. Furthermore, Article 3 of the same Protocol on the enlargement provides for new Council vote weightings which will be applicable in January 2005.

Therefore, the Ioannina Compromise will no longer be applicable from 1 January 2005.

As for what is commonly called the Luxembourg Compromise (Conclusions of the extraordinary session of the Council in Luxembourg on 17, 18, 27 and 28 January 1966), its status will remain the same after the entry into force of the Nice Treaty.

(1) OJ C 105, 13.4.1994, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 1, 1.1.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Food aid programme for Russia

In the winter of 1998-1999 the EU decided evidently in order to use up its stocks to grant food aid to Russia. It was agreed with the Russian government that 20 % of the income from the sale of this food would be directed to a special social fund. Has the Commission had any details of the use of the resources from this fund?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

In the context of the Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 provides for the sale of product delivered and the use of sale proceeds for social measures.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) further provides for Special Account receipts to be disbursed for the payment of pensions (80 %) and for specific social purposes (20 %). The MoU also obliged the Russian authorities to provide regular reports on receipts to and disbursement from the Special Account. These reports are presented by the Ministry for Finance to the Joint Working Group (JWG), which meets regularly to manage the Programme. No disbursement from the Special Account can be made unless approved by the Commission upon the recommendation of the JWG.

According to the latest reports the disbursement of funds from the Special Account to the agreed areas is as follows:

- Pension Fund: 177 million,

- Ministries for Health and Labour: 44 million (22 million to each).

The current balances remaining on the Account are:

- Pension Fund: 13 million,

- Ministries for Health and Labour: 3,2 million.

Reports relating to disbursement to the Pension Fund include details as to the amount and date of receipt from the Special Account, payments from the State Pension Fund to regional branches including the amount and date of transaction. In the context of control the Commission's Technical Assistance Unit has undertaken a number of audit missions to beneficiary regions. These missions have verified that there is a clear audit trail identifying the flow of funds from the State Pension Fund to the final recipient i.e. the pensioner.

The reports received in respect of usage of Special Account funds by the Ministries for Health and Labour clearly show that these funds have been dedicated for the purchase of equipment for hospitals, medical institutions and children's clinics/schools. The equipment purchase includes wheelchairs, computers for boarding schools, beds for hospitals, clothes and laundry equipment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0148/01

by Florence Kuntz (UEN) to the Commission

(23 January 2001)

Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium

The national federation representing French servicemen and women, concerned for their well-being and that of their European comrades in arms, has called for a clinical case definition of the Gulf War and Balkans syndromes.

In view of the various statements made by the medical authorities in the various countries of the European Union, would the Commission state its views and its position as soon as possible on the possible or known effects on public health of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium, i.e. the Balkans syndrome affecting some French servicemen and members of the armed forces of other European Union countries who have served in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

Could the Commission state, as speedily as possible, the exact number of European servicemen and Yugoslav civilians affected by the use of such munitions, and the areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerned?

If a direct link is established between the use of this type of munitions and the Balkans and Gulf War syndromes, could the Commission state what priority public health measures it intends to propose to the Member States as a matter of urgency?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/01, E-0062/01, E-0063/01 and P-0148/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission has invited the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty to give an opinion on the possible health consequences of exposure to ionising radiation emitted by depleted Uranium. It has also facilitated a round-table discussion between international organisations with programmes in this area.

The responsibility for soldiers who have served in the Balkans is with Member States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The responsibility for taking action for the protection of people visiting the region is also with Member States. The Commission will transmit any relevant information it receives from international organisations and the opinion of the Group of Experts under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty in order to help Member States to decide on appropriate actions. The Commission itself will take account of the scientific advice in offering medical follow-ups to its civil servants and contractors sent to the region.

The information available at this stage does not provide any indication that foodstuffs are contaminated with depleted Uranium.

The Commission is thus following developments relevant to the assessment of the possible link between cases of ill-health among those who have carried out missions in the Balkans and the use of depleted Uranium in missiles fired on targets in the region. Among the principle sources of information is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which has carried out a sampling campaign in the region, the results of which be available in March 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Slaughterhouse inspections

Will the Commission indicate with respect to each Member State the charge to slaughterhouses for inspections carried out under the Fresh Meat Directive, noting, for example, whether the charge is a flat rate for the inspector's time or a charge per animal slaughtered?

Is the Commission considering infringement proceedings against any EU country for failing to levy charges?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission does not currently have an overview of the charges to slaughterhouses in each Member State for inspections carried out under Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat(1). The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office is conducting a survey on the subject of the financing of veterinary controls within the Community. This survey has, however, not yet been completed.

Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985, on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultry meat(2), as last amended by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996(3), lays down rules for these charges.

The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty against all Member States which have not adopted the national measures necessary to ensure transposition of the Directive in question.

At the moment, infringement proceedings are still pending in respect of transposition delays in Germany, Greece and Ireland.

(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964.

(2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985.

(3) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/01

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Babcock Wilson España

On 13 June 2000 the Commission issued a press release stating that it was extending the existing investigation on aid to Babcock Wilson España SA to include the aid elements involved in its privatisation. Bearing in mind that the Basque Government has not been informed of this and that there is considerable alarm among workers (a large number of jobs are threatened) can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the investigations?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

On 13 June 2000 the Commission decided to extend for the second time the Article 88 (ex Article 93)(2) of the EC Treaty procedure No C 33/98 to include under the existing investigation the aid elements identified in the arrangements for the privatisation of Babcock Wilcox Española S.A. notified by the Spanish authorities. The investigation had been opened in 1998(1) and then extended for the first time in 1999(2).

Following this latest extension of the procedure, the Commission published its decision on the Official Journal(3). This publication had for objective to give third interested parties the opportunity to submit their comments to the Commission. As a third interested party, the Government of the region where Babcock Wilcox is located, the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, has submitted its observations. They will be taken into account when the Commission adopts its final decision in this case.

The investigation is currently in its last phase of assessment. In view of the time constraints imposed by the privatisation process, the Commission will try to speed up procedures with a view to adopting a final decision as soon as possible.

(1) OJ C 249, 8.8.1998.

(2) OJ C 280, 2.10.1999.

(3) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Cases of leukaemia and tumours among soldiers involved in the Kosovo war

There have recently been tragic cases of leukaemia and cancer among a large number of soldiers in the European armed forces who took part in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and there has been an exponential increase in the incidence of such diseases throughout the Community. Concern and fear have been aroused in the whole of Europe about the possible links between these

illnesses and the use of depleted uranium in the munitions used during the conflict. Furthermore, suffering was inflicted on the population by the bombardments and the use of depleted uranium has had disastrous effects on the civilian population, soldiers and hundreds of voluntary workers in Kosovo.

In view of all this, does the Commission intend to ascertain the truth about the effects of the weapons used in the Balkans and the various responsibilities for them?

Furthermore, will it ask the Member States to carry out health checks on all the soldiers who took part in the peacekeeping operation in the Balkans?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/01, E-0062/01, E-0063/01 and P-0148/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission has invited the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty to give an opinion on the possible health consequences of exposure to ionising radiation emitted by depleted Uranium. It has also facilitated a round-table discussion between international organisations with programmes in this area.

The responsibility for soldiers who have served in the Balkans is with Member States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The responsibility for taking action for the protection of people visiting the region is also with Member States. The Commission will transmit any relevant information it receives from international organisations and the opinion of the Group of Experts under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty in order to help Member States to decide on appropriate actions. The Commission itself will take account of the scientific advice in offering medical follow-ups to its civil servants and contractors sent to the region.

The information available at this stage does not provide any indication that foodstuffs are contaminated with depleted Uranium.

The Commission is thus following developments relevant to the assessment of the possible link between cases of ill-health among those who have carried out missions in the Balkans and the use of depleted Uranium in missiles fired on targets in the region. Among the principle sources of information is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which has carried out a sampling campaign in the region, the results of which be available in March 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1491/01

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Professional title of?non-medical practitioner' in Greece

1. Does a German non-medical practitioner resident in Greece require special authorisation to practise there?

2. Is a distinction made in Greece between the professional titles of non-medical practitioner and physiotherapist?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The two professions mentioned by the honourable Member are not common or governed in the same way throughout the Community. In fact, according to the information at the Commission's disposal, the profession of non-medical practitioner exists only in Germany, whereas the profession of physiotherapist is regulated in all the Member States. The two professions are quite separate in the health sector.

As for the recognition of professional qualifications and diplomas, Council Directives 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration(1) and 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC(3) set up a general system for recognition without prior harmonisation (except for some health professions which are covered by some basic coordination at Community level and by special directives(2)). One of the conditions of application of the general system for the recognition of diplomas is that the professions existing in the Member State where the person was trained and in the Member State where he will apply for recognition of his professional qualifications should in fact be identical.

Lastly, there are penalties in most Member States for non-compliance with the conditions of access and the exercise of health professions (a diploma and prior authorisation to practise are generally required for health professions). Any queries relating to practical information about the application of the general system for the recognition of diplomas in the Member States should be addressed to the contact points for professional recognition in the relevant Member States, the addresses of which can be found on the Commission's website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/contact.htm.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989 and OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2) Doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons, nurses in general medicine and pharmacists.

(3) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989 and OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Disciplinary action against staff

If the Commission will list all cases in which staff have faced disciplinary action, together with the actions taken, amount of time required to reach a conclusion, the nature of the allegation, whether whistleblowing activity was involved, and if further investigations were instigated and now concluded.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the comprehensive information provided in February for the purposes of the most recent discharge procedure which related to the 1999 Budget. Naturally, this information will be updated for the next discharge procedure.

In the follow-up to the budget discharge for 1999, the Commission stated that it would annually inform the discharge authority of all completed investigations which involve whistleblowing and would give details, inter alia, of any follow-up action taken, including the launching of administrative or disciplinary proceedings and measures taken to protect the legal position of the whistleblower in question.