ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1273/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Aid for Mozambique

The World Food Programme has been highlighting the poor response to the appeal for aid to the victims of the floods in Mozambique, while at the same time various NGOs have, according to the press, been denouncing the fact that the world has already forgotten the problems in that country as a result of the tragic events of only a few weeks earlier. Does this criticism also apply to European Union action? What is the European Union doing to improve the situation in Mozambique, particularly as regards to repairing the infrastructure destroyed by the flooding caused by the Limpopo and Save rivers?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

The Council discussed the situation in Mozambique on 20 March. It had followed closely and with great concern the situation in Mozambique and expressed its solidarity with the people and Government of Mozambique and other countries in the region as they grappled with the devastating consequences of the flooding and its sympathy with them as they set about rebuilding their lives.

The Council recognised the broader impact this catastrophe was likely to have on Mozambique's economy. It endorsed the Mozambique Government's twin-track approach aiming at meeting needs for relief while working to rehabilitate affected areas and to ensure both macro-economic stability and maintenance of on-going assistance.

To this end virtually all the Member States and the Commission participated in the International Reconstruction Conference for Mozambique hosted by the Government of Italy in Rome from 3 to 4 May and convened by the Government of Mozambique in collaboration with the United Nations.

This Conference was a great success, meeting its target of $ 450 million, in large part because of the active and positive contribution of the Community and the Member States who together pledged 228,5 million, representing approximately half of the total of 495 million.

It is proposed that the Community aid include funds for flood protection and urban roads in Gaza province as well as budget support for the Reconstruction Programme and funds for projects for transport, rural telecommunications, basic social services, rural production and de-mining.

These funds are in addition to the 100 million disbursed in 1999 in Mozambique under the Community's cooperation programme and up to 150 million are expected to be disbursed in 2000.

The Council will continue to follow the situation in Mozambique closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2135/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Greece's failure to observe the CITES regulation

In a leaflet published by the RSPCA, a British organisation, Greece is accused of not complying with the regulation governing the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (No 338/97 CITES(1)). The RSPCA accuses Greece of failing to provide for an advisory committee covering this area, protective limits, fines for violations or customs checks. Its investigations on the Greek market have revealed that a large number of products derived from protected species (chiefly fur and ivory) are being freely traded without the relevant permits or certificates.

Can the Commission confirm or deny the information given by the above-mentioned organisation? In the event that the information is valid: (1) which parts of the arrangements as a whole does it consider to be the most deficient and (2) what steps does it intend to take to put a stop to this illegal trade in Greece?

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

The Commission has been informed by the Greek authorities of the introduction of the national legislation (Law 2637/1998, accompanied by Ministerial Decisions where necessary) required to supplement the Community regulations on trade in wildlife.

In accordance with the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein and the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), a scientific committee has been set up. Furthermore penalties and administrative sanctions for infringements of the provisions of the Community regulations on trade in wildlife have been put in place, protective limits have been set and the number of ports of entry and exit have been reduced.

Of course, illegal trade remains a factor of concern and should be pursued vigorously. The Commission intends to follow this matter up in the framework of the activities of the enforcement working group established by Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Resolution of Religious freedom

Following Parliament's adoption on 11 February 1999 of a resolution on religious freedom (B4-0131/1999(1)) which refers specifically to news of persecution of religious minorities in India, what action has the Commission taken to ensure that the Indian Government protects religious minorities and that the relevant human rights clauses in treaty agreements with India are rigorously implemented?

(1) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 385.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

Since a number of attacks on Christian families and facilities in 1998 the delegation of the Commission in New Delhi, in close consultation with the missions of the Member States, has been monitoring the situation regarding religious minorities in India. Particular attention has been given to assessing the implication of any discriminatory legislative measures that could affect the freedom of faith

of Christians as well as other religious groups in India. On various occasions, the Commission delegation and Union ambassadors have expressed their concern to the Indian government.

Moreover, the forthcoming Union-India Summit in Lisbon on 28 June 2000 will be an occasion to reaffirm joint commitment to universal values of democracy and respect of human rights, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, traditions of diversity, plurality and tolerance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1728/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE), Ulpu Iivari (PSE) and Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding of European music copyright in the United States

According to existing legislation in the United States, restaurants, bars and similar enterprises in the country are exempted from paying copyright fees on music played at their premises. Consequently, European music played at these enterprises loses its share of copyright payments. Recently, the WTO accused the USA of violating the international copyright standards on music. To date, no measures have been taken in the United States to correct the situation. Therefore, European music production still loses a large amount of income.

What measures will the Council take to safeguard the rights of European music played in the aforementioned enterprises in the United States?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

In the matter referred to by the honourable Parliamentarians, i.e. Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act (enacted on 27 October 1998), the EC and its Member States have consistently acted to bring about changes to this law which would ensure that the interests of European singers and songwriters would be effectively protected in the United States.

In particular, in the framework of the WTO, the EC and its Member States have requested and obtained the establishment of a panel under Article 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article 64.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The panel has made a report which was circulated on 15 June 2000.

In the report, the panel concludes that parts of the relevant US legislation do not meet the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and recommends that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body request the United States to bring its Act into conformity with US obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

A party to the dispute has sixty days from the date of circulation of the report to appeal to the WTO Appellate Body. This period will elapse on 14 August 2000 and the Council will then be able to take stock of the situation and assess, notably through the Article 133 Committee, how best to pursue European interests in this matter, in accordance with WTO rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1977/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Agricultural production model for regions like Galicia

Does the Commission intend to promote a rural development model for regions with a farming sector based on livestock, like Galicia, embracing specific concrete measures such as making it easier to buy and sell land, setting up a land bank and banning the afforestation of agricultural land?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1975/00 and E-1977/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The common organisation of the market in milk and milk products contains no provision for any kind of agreement with regional authorities in the Member States to develop local dairy industries.

However, the forthcoming operational programme for regional development in Galicia will include, in the section on agriculture and rural development, possible measures to support and strengthen the structure of the milk and cattle sector and its downstream industries (dairy and meat enterprises).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1545/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act and freedom of movement of persons in the EU

The answer to Written Question P-0706/00(1) does not indicate clearly whether the amendment to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) is a violation of the free movement of persons within the Union. In the Netherlands everyone is covered by the provisions of the AWBZ. However, with effect from 1 January 29000 Netherlands nationals living in other EU Member States are no longer covered by the provisions of the AWBZ.

Does the decision by the Netherlands government to exclude Netherlands nationals resident overseas from the provisions of the AWBZ, with effect from 1 January, violate the basic European principle of the free movement of persons within the EU? If so, what action will the Commission take to ensured that the AWBZ is brought back in line with the basic European principle of the free movement of persons within the EU? If not, what are the Commission's (legal) arguments for stating that the Netherlands AWBZ is fully in accord with the basic European principle of the free movement of persons within the EU?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 207.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that the right of residence in another Member State of Netherlands nationals who reside or wish to reside there without working (pensioners, students or other non-active persons), which, pursuant to Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence(1), Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity(3) and Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students(2), is contingent on their having health insurance covering all the risks in the Member State, is not called into question because the abolition planned by the Netherlands legislation concerns exceptional medical expenses, which are not covered in several Member States. Furthermore, as these persons are exempt from the payment of contributions for exceptional medical expenses, they may, if they so desire, take out additional insurance (of a private or other kind) in the Member State in order to cover these exceptional medical expenses, by paying as insurance premiums the contributions that were previously paid to the Netherlands social security scheme. It follows that the amendment to the Netherlands legislation in question does not constitute a violation of the freedom of movement of non-active Netherlands nationals.

(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.

(2) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Tractors

What is the number of tractors per hundred hectares of arable land in each of the Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2723/00, E-2724/00, E-2725/00, E-2726/00 and E-2728/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Action against Paul Van Buitenen

At a recent launch in England of Paul Van Buitenen's book Blowing the Whistle, Mr Van Buitenen said I have been warned, and threatened, and my home has been ransacked, and I am told that if members of the Commission decide to take legal action against me, the Commission will back them.

Does the Commission intend to take any action against Paul Van Buitenen?

Does the Commission utterly renounce the actions of anyone who may have warned or threatened Paul Van Buitenen, or ransacked his home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Disciplinary action was taken against Mr Paul van Buitenen because he breached the existing rules by causing documents that related to on-going criminal investigations and disciplinary proceedings to be transmitted outside the Commission. Mr van Buitenen was formally reprimanded for that breach of the rules and that concluded the case.

Mr van Buitenen has not formally notified the Commission that he has been warned or threatened or that his home has been entered illegally. Naturally, the Commission would strongly deprecate abusive behaviour of the sort alleged in the Honourable Member's question, or of any other kind.

Article 24 of the Staff Regulations specifies that The Communities shall assist any official, in particular in proceedings against any person perpetrating threats, insulting or defamatory acts or utterances, or any attack to person or property to which he, or a member of his family, is subjected by reason of his position or duties. Such assistance must be formally requested by the official.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1983/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Dance teachers

Could the Commission please indicate whether any plans exist for a Europe-wide registration scheme for dance teachers who instruct in a range of dance disciplines?

Could the Commission also indicate whether plans exist to ensure that qualifications obtained by dance teachers in one Member State are recognised in another?

Are there any plans to introduce European Union funding for dance schools and institutions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

There are no plans for a Europe-wide registration scheme for dance teachers who instruct in a range of dance disciplines. There are no plans to ensure that qualifications obtained by dance teachers in one Member state are recognised in another.

On 21 December 1988, the Council adopted Directive 89/48/EEC 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). The general system was supplemented in June 1992 by Council Directive 92/51/EEC(2) which covers regulated professional activities for which training is less than the minimum period of three years. In practice, whether the former or the latter Directive is applied in a given case depends on the level of training required in the host Member State for access to a particular profession.

Those Directives set up a procedure to facilitate the recognition of diplomas throughout the Community when the profession a migrant wants to exercise is regulated in the host Member State. A profession is regulated when the taking up or pursuit of that profession is subject by virtue of national laws, regulations or administrative provisions to the possession of certain qualifications.

The candidate must submit an individual application to the host Member State authorities. Then, the procedure for examining this application has to be completed as soon as possible and the outcome communicated in a reasoned decision no later than four months after presentation of all necessary documents by the candidates. A remedy has to be available against this decision, or the absence thereof, before a court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of national law.

Conditions for recognition vary depending on the level of the qualification required in the host Member State and on the level of qualification held by the migrant. Basically, the rule is that recognition must be granted unless there are substantial differences between the host Member State and the home Member State training. In such cases compensatory measures may be applied. However, a refusal cannot be excluded under exceptional circumstances e.g. the level of the qualification required in the host country is much higher than the qualification held by the migrant.

There are no plans to introduce Community funding for dance schools and institutions.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/00

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Motorcycle safety equipment

A motorcycle is a form of transport which is particularly vulnerable in a traffic accident. In addition to helmets, a number of other safety devices are used.

What provisions are in force in the Member States concerning the use of motorcycle helmets and other safety devices? Does the Commission have any research-based figures on the effectiveness in accidents of the use of safety devices (other than helmets)? Does the Commission feel it necessary to harmonise the provisions governing safety devices and their use in the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

In its communication of 17 March 2000 entitled Priorities in EU road safety: Progress Report and Ranking of Actions(1) the Commission takes the view that protecting vehicle occupants in the event of an impact is an absolute priority for the Community. This applies inter alia to the wearing of helmets by motorcycle riders.

In its resolution of 26 June 2000, the Council considered that progress needed to be made in adopting a directive on the wearing of helmets by motorcycle and moped riders.

The Commission's information shows the wearing of helmets to be compulsory for all motorcycle riders in all the Member States. For vehicles with smaller engine sizes, the Commission will over the next month be putting together a picture of the regulatory situation and of studies under way in the Member States on compliance with, and the effectiveness of, helmet legislation and on the use of other protection devices. After this initial stocktaking it will examine whether any harmonisation measures need to be taken.

(1) COM(2000) 125 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1797/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Cutbacks in Swedish customs service

What are the Commission's views on the proposal for cutbacks in the Swedish customs service, which include a risk that Gotland, for example, will be left completely unmanned? Since Gotland should be regarded as an external EU border, has the Commission examined the customs service's reductions in staff and its plans for future activities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The legal basis for protecting the external borders of the Community when it comes to matters of Community competence is contained in the relevant Community legislation. Member States, acting on the basis of such legal provisions, apply any resulting measures on behalf of the Community. The manner in which they do this and the resources allocated to such actions fall under the responsibility of Member States. The Commission is then able to check the application of any such measures through control visits to Member States under its own resources responsibilities. The Commission also works with Member States under the Customs 2002 programme on means of ensuring greater effectiveness of controls across the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Proposals by the German Minister Joschka Fischer concerning the future of the EU

The Portuguese media have reported that the Portuguese Foreign Minister Jaime Gama wrote to his German opposite number Joschka Fischer congratulating him heartily for the views he had expressed publicly in Berlin on 12 May this year concerning the future of the European Union.

The Portuguese Minister's position was reported as representing the views of the current Portuguese presidency.

Naturally enough, the Portuguese media only published what they were told directly.

Various elements of Mr Fischer's proposals contrast sharply with views expressed previously by the Portuguese presidency concerning the drafting of the agenda for the forthcoming IGC and the debates on this subject held in the Council and among the Member States. In particular they conflict with the views expressed by the Portuguese Foreign Minister himself on behalf of the Portuguese presidency when he spoke to the European Parliament in Strasbourg at the April part-session.

Can the Council therefore say whether the apparent and publicly expressed enthusiasm for Mr Fischer's proposals indicates a change of position if so, it would be an absolutely radical one on the part of the Portuguese presidency and/or the Council as such, regarding the agenda, content and general drift of the preparations for the forthcoming IGC?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member will appreciate, the Council can only take a position on specific matters where it has expressed a view or taken a decision. It would be inappropriate for the Council as an institution to comment on views expressed by any individual member.

The Honourable Member is will be aware, that the Council has no role in the work of the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level.

Regarding the Presidency's evaluation of the work of the IGC, the honourable member should refer to the report produced under the Presidency's responsibility for the Feira European Council which was made public on 14 June.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Working Time Directive (93/104/EC)

Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104/EC(1) states that, for employees working more than 48 hours per week, the employer must keep up-to-date records of all workers who carry out such work.

Is the Commission satisfied that this provision has been fully transposed into UK law through SI 1999/3372?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

Article 18(6) of Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time provides that, every five years, the Commission shall submit to the Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of the Directive in all Member States.

The Commission is in the final stages of preparing this implementation report. Once the Commission has adopted the report, it will transmit it to the Parliament.