ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/00

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Persecution of 13 Iranians of the Jewish faith in Iran

For approximately one year, 13 Iranians of the Jewish faith have been imprisoned without trial on charges of spying and have been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on a daily basis. The latest reports indicate that most of them are not being allowed to choose a lawyer to defend them at their trial, which is scheduled for 13 April. In the light of the critical dialogue that has been initiated between the Union and Iran, will the Commission say what measures it will take to obtain guarantees of a fair and open trial and the safeguarding of the right to choose a defence lawyer?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1088/00, E-1209/00 and E-1251/00 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Commission follows closely the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights have an important place and are always raised by the Union.

Concerning the 13 Iranian Jews and 8 Muslims detained in Shiraz on charges of espionage, a number of demarches have been made by the Union as well as by individual Member States in the last year. Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a fair and open trial and the Iranian authorities are undoubtedly aware of the strong international reaction that would follow a negative outcome of the trial. Three of the detained Jews were recently released on bail.

The Union has repeatedly addressed with the Iranian authorities the importance of ensuring a fair and open trial including the issue of legal representation of the detainees. It is regrettable that earlier promises of an open trial have not been met.

While the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, it is necessary to avoid creating an impression of foreign interference, which would not serve the best interest of the detainees. This being said, it is clear that the outcome of this trial, and the international assessment of how it has been conducted, will be a determining factor in the perspectives for any further improvement in relations with Iran.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2145/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: No-renewal contracts at the JRC

How many three-year no-renewal contracts have been awarded at the JRC?

How many former holders of such contracts continue to work at the JRC and on what basis?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

At 1 July 2000 the Joint Research Centre (JRC) had awarded a total of 237 three-year no-renewal contracts, of which 137 were still running and 100 had expired.

To date, a total of four former holders of such contracts, all of whom successfully passed a research selection procedure or a competition, have been recruited to the JRC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1935/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3023

The European Union Youth Forum receives a total of 2 million from Item A-3023. Could the Commission indicate the objectives and members of this organisation and how youth organisations are selected to receive Community funds?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

As can be seen from its statutes, the European Youth Forum seeks to uphold and promote the rights and interests of young people and the organisations representing them. The Community consults the Forum on issues concerning young people and youth organisations.

The Forum must take action to help integrate youth policy into overall Commission policy, to influence Community policy on matters affecting young people, to boost the involvement of young people and youth organisations in framing Community policy, to fight for equal rights for all citizens of the Community and promote mutual understanding among them, and to promote democracy and genuine participation in Community affairs. In order to achieve this, the Forum must establish a working relationship with the Community, which will serve as a basis for consultation, coordination and information.

The European Youth Forum's special role as a key contact body for the European institutions is reflected in the many initiatives and activities organised by the Commission in which it is asked to participate (as a body which can distribute information to young people about the Youth programme, which can be consulted on issues concerning young people and which can help draw up policy proposals).

Membership of the European Youth Forum is open to National Youth Committees (NYCs) and International Non-Governmental Youth Organisations (INGYOs) which meet certain criteria as regards their function, objectives, operating method and size.

The conditions determining the eligibility of youth organisations for Community funding other than those laid down in the corresponding remarks vary from one budget item to another. With regard to item A-3029 Support for international non-governmental youth organisations, the Honourable Member should refer to the answer to his written question E-1934/00(1).

(1) See p. 116.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1742/00

by Mary Honeyball (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Closure of the Ford plant at Dagenham

What European funding will be available to minimise job losses at Ford's Dagenham, London, plant?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

As regards the issue of minimising job losses among employees at the Ford Dagenham plant in London, no special or additional funding is made available in the light of the recent announcements. However, it is important to point out that a considerable amount of European social fund (ESF) support will be available to London through objective 3 which can be used to address, amongst other issues, the potential unemployment problems resulting from announced job losses at the Ford Dagenham plant. The London Region will receive a considerable share-out of the United Kingdom objective 3 programme worth 4 500 million.

The objective 3 plan is structured according to the five policy fields contained in the ESF Regulation. In relation to the Ford case, two policy fields are particularly relevant. Under policy field a), active labour market policies, one of the strategic objectives is precisely to reduce the flows into (long-term) unemployment through the use of active labour market measures targeted at those recently unemployed or threatened by unemployment. Possible types of intervention vary from advice and guidance to providing support through integrated approaches including the provision of vocational and social skills. Under policy field d), adaptability, one of the strategic objectives is to improve the skills base and adaptability of the employed work force.

In addition, further structural funds of 259,9 million will be available under the objective 2 programme for London for the programming period 2000-2006 to counterbalance job losses in the area. The draft proposal to be negotiated this summer aims at tackling barriers to economic opportunity in key areas suffering industrial decline. Priorities proposed include community and neighbourhood economic development, business development and competitiveness, innovation and technology as well as skills and access to jobs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Substandard European Union publications

An article headlined Full funding for Quick Start Package in South East Europe published in European Union Newsletter No 9 (Sarajevo, April 2000 Delegation of the European Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina) makes no reference whatsoever to the Egnatia Highway, an EU-funded development project which will be highly instrumental in bringing the Balkan peninsula out of its isolation and underdevelopment. The map accompanying the article shows the ports of Thessaloniki and Alexandropoulos together with their planned links to the rest of the European network but fails, bizarrely, to show the Egnatia Highway.

Is the Commission aware that by publishing such unsatisfactory and absurd reports, its departments responsible for the promotion of EU projects, which further development inside and outside the Union, are essentially undermining the significance of those very projects and the impression they make on European public opinion?

What measures will the Commission take to monitor the officials responsible for the above omission to ensure that there is no repetition of such blunders in the future?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The article entitled Full Funding for Quick Start Package in South East Europe, as contained in European Union Newsletter No 9, was designed to give an overview of the impact of the Quick Start Package on regional transport networks and on pan-European Transport Corridors, particularly those relevant to Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Commission agrees that particular attention should be given to connecting pan-European Transport Corridors and Trans-European Networks (TENs). In this context, Via Egnatia and its vertical links will play an essential role in the development of south east Europe and in reducing regional isolation.

Given the above, it would indeed have been perfectly conceivable to provide a broader view of Community action to promote infrastructure development in south east Europe. However, Via Egnatia does not pass through Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, given space constraints, the Commission believes that it would be inconsistent to highlight this route without mentioning the many other connections to the Transport Corridors which affect Bosnia and Herzegovina. For the same reason, the map accompanying the article (which is, in fact, an official publication of the European Investment Bank available at http://www.eib.org/pub/news/btf/transp.jpg) does not mention the Via Egnatia.

The Commission therefore contends that the report and map published in European Newsletter No 9 were sufficient to convey the most important information concerning Quick Start aid to road development in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While trying to ensure that all published material is reliable, it does not appear that corrective measures are required in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/00

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Development of the A6 as an international trunk road from Paris to Prague assistance for the section in the Czech Republic

1. How much financial assistance has the Czech Republic received from the European Union for the development of the motorway from Prague via Pilsen to the Czech-German border at Rozvadov (Waidhaus)?

2. What percentage of the total investment in the development of the motorway has been paid by the European Union in the case of this section?

3. When was the assistance provided?

4. On what grounds was the assistance provided?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

1. The European investment bank (EIB) has provided the Czech Republic with a loan of 165 million in support of the construction of the section of motorway from Pilsen to the Czech-German border close to Rozvadov. No other Community support has been provided.

2. The EIB loan provided cover for 50 percent of the total investment involved in the project.

3. The loan agreement was signed in 1997.

4. The loan was provided at the request of the Czech governement. The section of motorway concerned is part of Corridor IV and has been identified as a priority investment by the second pan-European Conference on transport in Helsinki in 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1350/00

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Council

(3 May 2000)

Subject: The Commission's challenging of the principle of assumption of employment for performing artists laid down in Article L 762-1 of the French Labour Code

France is threatened with legal proceedings before the European Court of Justice for its refusal to waive the assumption of employment for foreign artists referred to in Article L 762-1 of the French Labour Code.

1. Is this measure not excessive, given that to apply this article exclusively to French artists in effect puts them at a disadvantage in their own country?

2. In fact, it means that those who employ foreign artists would no longer have to pay social costs but would have to do so when employing French artists.

3. This downwards harmonisation will prejudice French performing artists. Is this not tantamount to a sentence of death for this specifically French provision which offers performing artists one of the highest standards of social protection in Europe?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

Article 211 of the EC Treaty requires the Commission to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied. The Council is therefore unable to comment on the way in which Community law provisions are implemented by Member States, especially when such implementation is or shortly will be the subject of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1898/00

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Subsidies and their allocation in the crane manufacturing industry

In Austria there are many very successful undertakings operating at international level, the crane manufacturing industry being an example. Some criticism has been voiced concerning EU-wide requests for tenders and the EU subsidisation policy.

If a firm is unsuccessful in an EU-wide request for tenders abroad, it is not told why its bid was rejected or how close it came to the prices quoted by the successful bidder.

Despite the current overcapacity in the crane manufacturing industry, the Commission grants subsidies in this sector. One result of this is that, with the Commission's support, certain crane manufacturers engage in massive price dumping.

The Commission is therefore requested to answer the following questions:

1. Why are firms which bid unsuccessfully not informed of the reasons for their rejection?

2. Are there any plans for measures that are transparent and close to the citizen to be taken in this sector in the near future?

3. Does the Commission monitor the offers made by the enterprises which it subsidises with the taxpayer's money?

4. If so, does this also affect crane manufacturing?

5. If not, does it not see a need for reform here?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts(1), the contracting authority must, within 15 days of the date on which the request is received, inform any eliminated candidate or tenderer who so requests of the reasons for rejection of his application or his tender, and, in the case of a tender, the name of the successful tenderer.

Moreover, according to a recent judgement by the Court of Justice(2), it must be possible to make an application to have a decision awarding a contract set aside, which implies in practice an obligation on the part of the contracting authorities to inform all tenderers of this decision.

The Commission does not monitor bids submitted by companies receiving Community subsidies. Instead, under Article 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC, the contracting Authority, having the power to reject tenders, must request, in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender if, for a given contract, tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works.

It should also be noted that the fact of having received a subsidy that enables a firm to submit substantially lower bids than the other tenderers is not in itself contrary to Community law on public procurement or the principle of equal treatment(3).

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) Judgment of 28 October 1999 in Case C-81/98, Alcatel Austria and others.

(3) See the conclusions of Advocate-General Léger in Case C-94/99, ARGE Gewässerschutz, presented on 15 June 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1699/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Rules governing fish handling

At the beginning of 1999, the Swedish Food Administration (SFA) announced that small fish traders had to comply with the same stringent EU rules as the fishery industries. For small fish traders in Skåne, for example, this entailed converting their premises at the cost of several million kronor and being forced to stop smoke-curing their own fish. One of the EU rules on fish handling is that no area in which a person fillets fish may be entered by any other person. Neither may fish at any stage of preparation other than fillet be taken through that area. The SFA first thought that smaller operations would not be affected but, in 1999, concluded that the strict rules apply across the board.

Does the Commission share the view that small fish traders must comply with the same rules as the fishery industries in regard to the gutting, drying and smoking of fish?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The rules for the hygienic handling of fish and fishery products are contained in Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1), as amended by Directive 95/71/EC(2). Certain of the requirements laid down in the Swedish legislation to which the Honourable Member refers, and in particular the rule that no area in which a person fillets fish may be entered by another person, seem to be more detailed than those contained in Directive 91/493/EEC. Differences between Community rules and national law could be explained by changes that have occurred during the process of implementation of Community directives into national law.

The Commission is currently reviewing and consolidating all hygiene rules that are at present available in Community legislation. The need to provide for flexibility in particular for small businesses is being considered and any proposals will be submitted to the Parliament and the Council as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(2) OJ L 332, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2800/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Additives in cigarettes

According to Nederlands Algemeen Dagblad of 3 August 2000, the Danish cigarette industry has disclosed which substances are added to cigarettes to make smokers smoke more and, possibly, foster addiction.

Apparently there are 37 substances (some of which are being kept secret), including ammonium hydrotine to promote nicotine absorption into the lungs, liquorice extract, which suppresses irritation of the mucous membrane in the mouth and throat, cocoa extract, which appears to enlarge lung surface, and magnesium oxide, which gives exhaled smoke a neutral colour.

Is the Commission aware of this study?

Can the Commission identify the other 33 substances are and say what effects they have?

Does the Commission not think that smokers and non-smokers, the latter being, in many instances, passive smokers, are entitled to complete candour with regard to tobacco additives and, in particular, to know whether these additives are dangerous and especially addictive?

Can the Commission force such transparency on the cigarette industry, and, if so, how and when can it do so?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the enquiry mentioned by the Honourable Member. Consequently, it cannot comment on the substances concerned. Any information in the possession of the Honourable Member will, of course, be examined if communicated to the Commission.

The Commission has, however, proposed a directive in which rules are envisaged concerning non-tobacco ingredients in tobacco products(1), whereby manufacturers or importers would be required to declare such ingredients and their effects on health. The declaration on effects would cover both burnt and unburnt forms of such ingredients, and include an analysis of their addictive qualities if appropriate. A common position was adopted by the Council on 31 July 2000(2).

(1) COM(2000) 428 final.

(2) unpublished to date.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1157/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission says that the legal basis for (Union) border checks should apply to all products (section 93). This is the right attitude. It is important to avoid the frequently observed situation where some ports or airports are more popular than others because of less strict checks.

What specific measures does the Commission have in mind to make border checks uniform, and hence equally strict?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1122/00, E-1127/00, E-1128/00, E-1140/00, E-1141/00, E-1142/00, E-1143/00, E-1144/00, E-1145/00, E-1146/00, E-1147/00, E-1148/00, E-1150/00, E-1151/00, E-1152/00, E-1153/00, E-1155/00, E-1156/00, E-1157/00, E-1158/00, E-1160/00, E-1161/00 and E-1162/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member are being studied with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislation according to the time scale set out in the white paper on food safety.

It would be inappropriate at this stage to anticipate the details of each proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1044/00

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

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Chechen refugees

Recent press reports have highlighted the existence of 277 100 Chechen refugees, chiefly in Ingushetiya but also in other neighbouring republics such as North Osetiya and Dagestan, in addition to the 42 000 people housed in provisional camps in Chechnya itself, at Asinovskaia and Sernovodsk west of Grozny. What practical economic and political measures is the European Union taking as part of urgent and effective action to remedy this tragic situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Since the early stages of the present crisis, the Commission, through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), has been providing emergency assistance to the civilians displaced by the hostilities. While implementing the programme in co-operation with the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) the Commission faced considerable operational constraints (important security problems for aid workers, etc.). Nevertheless, the Commission managed to provide aid in a broad range of humanitarian fields (such as food, shelter, public health, water and sanitation, essential relief items).

Currently the total financial allocation stands at 7,4 million. So far, the programme has mainly focused on Ingushetia, but it has also covered Daguestan and Georgia. At present, the main operational priority is the resumption of operations in Chechnya itself, where activities had to be suspended in November 1999 due to security constraints. The Commission, in close co-ordination with other members of the international community, continues to advocate the role of humanitarian actors in this emergency in its negotiations with the Russian authorities.