ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/99

by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Work-related deaths in developing countries

Is the Commission aware that every year over one million work-related deaths occur around the world and hundreds of thousands of workers are injured in industrial accidents? The number of deaths caused by work-related injuries is particularly high in the developing countries.

Which projects aimed specifically at improving working conditions have been given support under the European Union's development policy, and in particular under the project cofinancing and decentralised cooperation programmes?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission is well aware of working conditions in developing countries and the number of deaths to which they give rise. However, the Commission is limited in the action it can take on the matter, notably via development cooperation programmes.

Nonetheless, specific, targeted action to improve working conditions has been taken with the support of the Commission and Parliament under budget headings B7-6000 and B7-6430. The Community supported some 40 operations over the last two years, involving awareness campaigns on the impact of globalisation on the labour market and the concept of fair trade, and highlighting working conditions in developing countries.

For example in 1999 almost EUR 1 million was allocated under budget heading B7-6000 on activities organised by the Brazilian trade union federation CUT relating to health and safety and environmental protection at work, as part of a national campaign costing some EUR 2 million.

The Commission would also point out that in negotiating a new partnership between the Community and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the parties will reaffirm their commitment to uphold basic standards set out in the relevant International Labour Organisation conventions, i.e. freedom to join a trade union, freedom of organisation and collective bargaining, elimination of the worst forms of child labour, and non-discrimination in employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Climate subsidy for egg producers

To offset the disadvantages of a cold climate and long distances, a special Norrland subsidy is paid to egg producers in northern Sweden. The subsidy is paid per hen. The EU has insisted that the subsidy be reduced on competition grounds. Is that a reasonable requirement given that production in the region is lower than consumption?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

In accordance with Article 142 of the Act of Accession, the Commission has authorised Sweden to grant long-term national aid with a view to ensuring that agricultural activity is maintained in specific regions covering the agricultural areas located north of the 62nd Parallel and some adjacent regions affected by a comparable climatic conditions rendering agricultural activity particularly difficult.

These aids are to be granted, in particular, to maintain traditional methods of primary production and processing, to facilitate the disposal of those products and to ensure that the environment is protected and the countryside preserved. These aids must not lead to an increase in production (physical limits) or in the level of overall support (monetary limits) recorded during a reference period previous to accession.

The long-term national aids were not authorised on the basis of Articles 87 and 88 (ex-Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty but in accordance with Article 142 of the Act of Accession.

The Commission by its Decision No 97/557/EC of 17 July 1997 amending Decision 96/228/EC on a long-term national aid scheme to assist farmers in northern areas of Sweden(1), determined the Nordic areas of Sweden, fixed the reference period to be used to ensure that Nordic aid does not lead to an increase in production or in the level of overall support and also determined the form and level of the aid and fixed the level of the agricultural production that may not be exceeded without the level of aid granted being reduced.

Sweden is implementing this decision by the so-called Norrland subsidy, which is a continuation of the aid regime in force before accession. Under this regime aid is granted per replaced laying hen. A national limitation is set so that the aid is granted only from 1,000 replaced hens per year onwards.

The Commission decision defines the maximum aid rates and the maximum allowed production amounts, which are based on the reference period. When the national implementation is in line with the Commission decision, the only possible reduction requirement comes in the case where the total amount of production is exceeded. Then Article 4 of the decision requires that Sweden shall reduce the aid granted proportionally in the following year.

The fundamental principle of the Article 142 is to maintain the traditional agricultural activity in northern regions and not to increase the production with the help of the aid.

(1) OJ L 230, 21.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/99

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Community action programme for youth

On 28 August 1998 the Commission submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action programme for youth (COM(98) 331)(1). After the European Parliament's second reading on 28 October 1999 the decision was submitted to the Council for its second reading.

1. Why will the Council meeting and thus the discussion on the action programme for youth be held not, as planned, on 23 November 1999 but in early January?

2. How does the Council imagine the various youth programmes forming part of the action programme for youth can be implemented effectively in accordance with its objectives with only EUR 350 million (rather than the EUR 765 million proposed by the Commission and the EUR 980 million proposed by Parliament) for the period 2000-2004?

(1) OJ C 311, 10.10.1998, p. 6.

Reply

(13 March 2000)

At the Youth Council on 23 November, no decision was taken to initiate the conciliation procedure for the proposed Youth programme. In view of the need to make the most effective use of the time available (six weeks with a possible extension of two weeks from the date of the first meeting of the Conciliation Committee as provided for in Article 251 of the Treaty), the Council subsequently proposed to the Parliament that conciliation should begin at a mutually convenient date in January. The first conciliation meeting was held on 27 January 2000.

As far as the Common Position figure of EUR 350 million for five years is concerned, this was agreed unanimously by the Youth Council on 27 May 1999. In the

Statement of the Council's reasons accompanying the Common Position(1) the Council indicated that this funding both granted its wish to see the programme become a success and its concern for a fair division of the available resources at a time of significant financial restraint.

(1) OJ C 210, 22.7.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/99

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Right to freedom of movement and Danish tax rules

When a Danish national moves to Spain and thus establishes his place of residence and centre of interests in that country, that person's pension is taxed according to Spanish rules but, should the same Danish national instead choose to set up residence in Portugal, his pension is taxed according to Danish tax rules. In view of the fundamental principle of freedom of movement laid down in the Treaty, will the Commission explain how a Danish national's lack of opportunity to enjoy freedom of movement in relation to the taxation of pensions is in accordance with the Treaty's fundamental and overriding principle of freedom of movement?

Although no Community legislation has been adopted on the right to tax income from pensions at EU level, is there not a risk in practice, as for instance in the above example, that a fundamental EU rule on freedom of movement is being contravened by national tax rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

It is true that in the absence of harmonisation of personal income taxation European citizens are confronted with different tax rules when they take up residence in another Member State. This implies a different level of taxation which may in some cases influence the decision to envisage such transfer of residence.

By virtue of mostly bilateral conventions, Member States have arranged the distribution of taxing rights for situations which are not purely domestic. These conventions distribute the taxing rights amongst the States concerned according to the results of the bilateral negotiations. A generally followed pattern is the model for a bilateral convention recommended by the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD). Article 18 of that model has been retained as article 18 of the convention between Denmark and Spain of 3 July 1972. It provides, subject to different rules for public remunerations and pensions, that pensions and other similar remuneration paid to a resident of a contracting state in consideration of past employment shall be taxable only in that Member State.

The same article was included in the convention between Denmark and Portugal of 3 March 1972. However, this convention has been terminated with effect from 1 January 1995 by Denmark so that Denmark is no longer bound to leave the exclusive right to tax Danish pensions of emigrants to Portugal.

Notwithstanding the absence of an applicable tax convention, the two Member States are bound by the EC Treaty principle of free movement within the Community to avoid and eliminate double taxation, at least by imputing a tax paid in the other Member State on their own charge to tax. Cases have come to the knowledge of the Commission in which Portugal has indeed refrained from applying its tax rules to Danish pensions already taxed in Denmark.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/99

by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Control over currency reserves

The national central banks of countries taking part in the Euro (third stage) are to transfer control over a specified proportion of their currency reserves to the ECB.

If a Member State is obliged to leave the Euro, will control of its currency reserves automatically return to its central bank free of any charges, financial penalties or the like?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The EC Treaty makes no provision for a State in the euro area to leave that area. Consequently, it contains no provisions covering the possible repayment of reserves to the national Central Bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Initiatives aimed at promoting multiculturalism embracing the protection of regional identities as well as the protection of the identities of citizens who are immigrants resident in the Member States of the Union

In several Member States, including the Netherlands, the universities and the private and state schools are experimenting with educational methods for immigrants, from both outside and within the Community, which involve the teaching of the languages of the country of residence using their own native languages and cultures.

These methods are proving to be very effective and have been successfully applied in a regional context, for example in the Frisian region, where the so-called regional or minority language is also taught to immigrants, which represents a further step towards their full integration. Ensuring that all identities at all levels are valued is, moreover, an effective means of combating phenomena such as xenophobia, racism and the emergence of political and cultural extremism.

Can the Commission say what it thinks of the idea of evaluating initiatives and providing funding at European level in order to promote multicultural teaching methods which reflect all levels of identity for all citizens, from local and regional identities to those of immigrants legally resident in the Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The Commission has a long tradition of supporting initiatives aimed at promoting multiculturalism and the integration of immigrants resident in the Member States. This tradition dates back to the adoption of Council Directive 77/486/EEC of 25 July 1977 on the education of the children of migrant workers(1).

Since 1977, the Commission has always included in its working programmes intercultural education as a means to learn to cope in a positive and active way with social and cultural diversity. This spirit inspired the whole Socrates programme, n which there has been a specific action within Comenius dealing with intercultural education and migrant children. The initiatives covered by this action are and will be encouraged and funded in the second phase of the Socrates programme since intercultural education prepares future generations for living together in a democratic, plural society and contributes to the provision of equal opportunities for all citizens.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, in addition to the activities of the Socrates programme, the Commission provides some financial support for measures to promote and safeguard regional or minority languages and cultures. Priority areas include educational projects and teaching materials.

The languages intended to benefit from this action are the autochtonous languages traditionally spoken by a part of the population of Member States, or of European economic area (EEA) countries. The Commission is currently examining the feasibility of proposing a multiannual action programme in this area.

(1) OJ L 199, 6.8.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2468/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 91/174/EEC

In 1997, the Austrian commercial beekeepers' association lodged a complaint with the Commission regarding failure to transpose Directive 91/174/EEC(1).

- Has the Commission instituted inquiries in this connection?

- Has Austria given an opinion on the matter?

- Has the Commission completed its inquiries?

- What is the outcome of the inquiries?

(1) OJ L 85, 5.4.1991, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

The Commission has in fact received a complaint from the Österreichischer Imkerbund denouncing the fact that the regional authorities of Lower Austria, Carinthia and Styria have banned the keeping of Buckfast bees and challenging the compatibility of these measures with Council Directive 91/174/EEC of 25 March 1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending Directive 77/504/EEC and 90/245/EEC.

As regards this Directive, the Commission can confirm that an infringement procedure pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty was mounted against Austria for failure to communicate transposition measures. This procedure has since been closed, after notification of the measures in question.

However, it should be noted that the Court of Justice, in Case C-67/97 on the keeping of a non-indigenous species of bee on the island of Læsø (DK), found that since no implementing measure had been adopted in the bee sector Directive 91/174/EC was not applicable and so the existing national law remained applicable, with due regard to Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the EC Treaty. In this judgment the Court ruled that a legislative measure prohibiting the keeping on an island such as Læsø of any species of bee other than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera must be regarded as justified, under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 36), with a view to protecting the health and life of animals. The Commission considers that this case law might, under certain conditions, also apply to other territories larger than the island of Læsø.

An examination is now under way to determine whether the requirements for restricting the keeping of certain species of bees in the Austrian regions concerned have been met.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Extermination of the hawksbill sea turtle?

The critically endangered hawksbill sea turtle has been listed in Appendix I to CITES since 1975. Cuban and Japanese reservations allowed Cuba to export thousands of hawksbill shells to Japan between 1975 and 1992, when Japan withdrew its reservation. Since 1992, the international trade in hawksbill shells has been banned. In 1997, Cuba proposed to transfer the Cuban population of hawksbills to CITES Appendix II, to export up to 500 shells to Japan each year and to export over 5 000 kg of government-held shell stocks to Japan; this proposal failed by a narrow margin. In preparation for the next CITES meeting (April 2000), Cuba invited scientific authorities from the European Parties to assess their hawksbill management programme. The UK, the Netherlands and Spain visited Cuba and may recommend that European Parties support Cuba's proposal.

1. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that the Cuban proposal does not meet the criteria established at the ninth Conference of the Parties for down-listing to Appendix II?

2. Given concerns that any reopening of the legal trade in sea turtle products would probably fuel demand for shell around the world and cause increased poaching and illegal trade, should the Commission encourage trade in such a critically endangered species?

3. Given that experts have determined that there are no more than 5 000 nesting female hawksbill annually in the wider Caribbean, how does the Commission plan to address the fact that the annual removal of 10 % of the population will have a detrimental impact on this critically endangered species?

4. How does the Commission plan to address concerns that sea turtles caught in Cuban waters are shared by other countries in the Caribbean, in other words, the killing and export of shells will affect the populations of other countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission is aware that the government of Cuba has submitted two proposals for the limited resumption of international trade in hawksbill sea turtles for the 11th conference of the CITES parties.

Although the Community is not a party to CITES, the Commission nonetheless will make a proposal to the Council for a common position to be taken by the Member States at the conference of the parties as the regulation of trade in wildlife is subject to Community competence under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1).

The Commission's proposal will be made in relation to the CITES down-listing criteria mentioned by the Honourable Member, which include the impact of the proposal on the conservation of the species in Cuban waters and elsewhere.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/99

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Interception of telecommunications by British Intelligence Services

In the light of reports that the British Intelligence Services are intercepting all telecommunications to and from Ireland, will the Commission seek to establish what the implications of this action are for the political cohesion of the Union?

Further, what are the implications for the right of commercial undertakings to engage freely in communicating internationally and within the EU, and what are the implications for individual citizens engaged in personal or commercially sensitive communications?

Can the Commission ask the British authorities if the reports are actually true and, if so, if the British are spying on all other Member States of the EU in a similar way?

Could the Commission also state whether such activities are in violation of any EU law?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the matters to which the Honourable Member refers.

In any event, the Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.

The Commission nonetheless remains vigilant in defence of Community interests, and condemns any and all threats to the integrity of communications within or exchanged between institutions, commercial enterprises or by individual citizens engaged in communicating internationally and within the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Twenty years of protection of birds in the European Union

The EU's directive on the protection of birds and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals are milestones in nature protection legislation. Twenty years on, it is time to draw a balance.

1. Can the Commission say whether these legal instruments have achieved their purpose?

2. Are there any shortcomings in transposition of the directive and the Convention? If so, in what respect?

3. How well have the Member States and the signatories to the Bonn Convention satisfied the requirements, in particular the requirements under the EU directive concerning designating special protection areas, transposing the provisions on the protection of species and the obligation to report to the Commission?

4. What has been, and is, the role of non-governmental organisations and associations in transposing the directive and the Convention? In what way could they increase their influence?

5. How can transposition of the directive and the Convention be made more effective? What role could the non-governmental organisations and associations play with their expertise?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

1. The objectives of the Bonn Convention, to which the Community is a party, as regards the conservation of migratory bird species are achieved at Community level by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1). Despite significant achievements over the past 20 years, the objectives of the Birds Directive are still not fully realised.

2. Whereas there are still some problems with national legislation fixing hunting seasons in a few Member States, the main problems relate to implementation regarding site protection.

3. According to scientific references, only Denmark and Belgium are considered to have largely completed the key objective of classifying their most suitable territories as special protection areas (SPAs). Other Member States have still to complete this process. Some Member States, including Germany, have failed to provide the necessary information on their classified SPAs, thus preventing the Commission from carrying out its co-ordinating role as regards the network of SPAs. There are currently 47 infringements cases being pursued for non-implementation of the Directive.

4. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a key role in assisting the implementation of the Directive. This includes the scientific work on bird species, their habitats and sites, as well as ongoing monitoring and management of important areas.

5. The main challenge is to ensure complete implementation and enforcement by the Member States. The Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty will play its full role in partnership with the Member States and the NGOs. The LIFE-Nature fund should also continue to play an important role in supporting key conservation projects for endangered and migratory bird species.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.