ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/01

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Subject: Activities impairing lorry traffic in the border region between Finland and Russia

Finland has some 1 300 km of border with the Russian Federation. There are many crossing places, and international trade across this border which is at present the only border between the EU and Russia is gratifyingly brisk.

Unfortunately, Finnish lorry drivers are increasingly becoming the victims of excessive charging, blackmail and robbery in Russia. In addition, this year has seen a more refined form of charging: Russian customs have founded their own companies which offer escort services to drivers. In all cases the use of these services has been compulsory if the drivers wanted to continue their journey, in other words to do their own job.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to curb this illegal activity at the EU's external border and to enable Finnish haulage firms to do their work in peace and unhindered by criminal activities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of many customs related problems occurring on the Finish-Russian border including the problem the Honourable Member has raised concerning the escorting of lorries. It is worrying to note the problems relating to the extortion of money from drivers of lorries. As to the alleged involvement of the customs services of the Russian Federation, it should be noted that it is not per se problematic for the Customs services to offer escort services when this is appropriate. However, charges should not be excessive and the use of such services should be limited as much as possible, which according to your information may not be the case here.

The problems at the Finnish-Russian border will be discussed with the Russian authorities under the regular meetings in the framework of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Union and the Russian Federation. The Customs and Cross-border cooperation (CBC) Sub-Committee took place in Moscow on 28/2/2002, and the issue you have raised was discussed. The Commission is currently considering whether any further action is necessary, but the Commission will continue to rely on the Member States and the Honourable Member to keep it informed of any developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/01

by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Animal by-products not intended for human consumption alternative ways of using bonemeal

In its proposal for a regulation(1) concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption the Commission proposes a legal framework intended to remove BSE-infected animals and animal material from the food chain. The proposal lays down methods for disposing of animal by-products.

Products in Category 1, with the highest risk factor, may be disposed of only by incineration, waste incineration or landfilling. The Commission may, after hearing the relevant Scientific Committee, authorise alternative disposal methods. This is apparently being delayed by administrative and scientific procedures in commitology.

1. The disposal of bonemeal is very costly. Does the Commission see no advantages in introducing reliable alternative methods for using Category 1 bonemeal more rationally and cheaply?

2. Is the Commission aware of scientific developments in this field, especially as regards the processing of residues?

3. If so, how does the Commission intend to promote alternative processing methods, such as further processing in a biogas or composting plant or fermentation for the generation of energy?

(1) COM(2000) 574, OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001, p. 40.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

In line with the most updated scientific advice, Article 4 of the proposed Regulation of the Parliament and the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, establishes that Category 1 material, the highest risk category, shall be disposed by incineration, co-incineration or landfill following sterilisation. However, the same Article allows for this material to be disposed of by other means that are approved by the Commission, after consultation of the appropriate scientific committee.

In the light of the above, the Commission is ready to evaluate any request aiming to allow other means of disposal of category 1 material, like the ones indicated by the Honourable Member. The evaluation will be carried out on the basis of the Framework for the assessment of the risk from different options for the safe disposal or use of meat and bone meal and other products which might be contaminated with transmissible spongiform encephalopathy's (TSE) and other materials, which was adopted by the Scientific Steering Committee on 28-29 June 2001 and is available on Internet.

At present, the Commission has not yet received such a request.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/343

(2004/C 78 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: New trade agreement with the USA

In spring 1998, plans for a new trade agreement between the European Union and the USA were put on ice, partly owing to protests by France.

Is the Commission currently taking soundings with a view to drawing up a new trade agreement, or have the negotiations on a new trade agreement stopped completely?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

It is assumed that the Honourable Member's written question refers to a possible Free Trade Agreement between the Community and the United States. In such a case, it should be noted that while this is an idea that periodically comes up, no mandate for such negotiations with the United States has ever been sought, nor (of course) have any such negotiations taken place. The Commission, moreover, has no plans to seek any mandate. However, it should be noted that in 1998, the Community and the United States launched the Transatlantic Economic Partnership to give a further impetus to the Community-United States trade and investment relationship. Since then bilateral co-operation has increased to currently cover virtually all trade and investment areas and thereby reinforce the largest bilateral trading relationship world-wide.

Both administrations have made some important progress, such as on the guidelines for regulatory co-operation. The Community and the United States have virtually completed a Mutual Recognition Agreement on marine equipment. However, such progress has often lacked political visibility. Some thought should be given as to what more can be done: how the Union and the United States can constructively address their differences and develop their co-operation, as long as it is compatible with the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, and both side's other trade partnerships, notably with developing countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0360/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Supply teachers and Directive 1999/70/EC

Every year, in Greek primary and secondary schools, there are vacant posts for teachers. Every year, these perennially vacant posts are filled by supply teachers so that the shortage of teachers does not create problems in schools. The result of this situation is that the same teachers working very often at the same school on fixed-term contracts of one school year are released and then re-recruited.

After 10 July 2002, the date by which all the Member States must have brought into force the legal, regulatory and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 1999/70/EC(1) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work, can that Directive also be applied to supply teachers in order to convert their fixed-term contracts into indefinite contracts?

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

According to clause 2 of the framework agreement annexed to the Directive(1), the agreement applies to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State.

It is however up to the Member States, after consultation with the social partners, to determine under what conditions fixed-term employment contracts or relationships shall be regarded as successive as well as deemed to be contracts or relationships of indefinite duration.

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Community funds

The Sindicato Operário dos Corticeiros do Norte (Northern Cork Workers' Union) maintains that, although it has received substantial Community financial support, A Corticeira Amorim, SGPS, SA, Portugal's largest cork producer, based in Santa Maria da Feira, is pressing workers of all ages to agree to termination of their employment contracts.

Bearing in mind that the unemployment situation in Portugal is deteriorating alarmingly, can the Commission say:

1. what Community financial support has been granted to A Corticeira Amorim, SGPS, SA, and for what purposes;

2. what it will do to help preserve jobs in the companies belonging to the above-mentioned group?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

In accordance with Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) for the programming period 2000-2006, in application of the subsidiarity principle, the implementation of assistance shall be the responsibility of Member States.

Accordingly, the Commission is unable to provide the Honourable Member with information about the amounts and the terms of the Community funds granted to specific companies and suggests she contact the appropriate Portuguese authorities. I enclose their details: Instituto de Gestão do Fundo Social Europeu, Rua Castilho no 5, 7o/8o, 1250-066 Lisboa.

The Commission cannot directly support specific companies in order to preserve jobs. They must go through the selection procedures for projects cofinanced under the Structural Funds, as laid down by the national authorities.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0327/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Equal affair

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports in its issue of 24 January 2002 that documents relating to the affair concerning the awarding of the EU employment programme Equal have disappeared from the German Federal Ministry of Employment. For example, it appears that all the correspondence between the Commission and the Ministry is missing from the files.

Can the Commission provide me with copies of this correspondence?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The Honourable Member's question is a request for access to documents and will therefore be dealt with by the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1).

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/02

by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Problems encountered by citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany when passing through the Republic of Bulgaria specific information and witness statements

In connection with my question H-0793/01 and the Commission's reply of 13 November 2001, the Commission asked me to provide further information and details in order to assess the situation more accurately.

I am now sending the Commission detailed information and witness statements under separate cover. I would like to combine this with asking the Commission how, in the light of these new facts, it intends to proceed vis-à-vis the Republic of Bulgaria as regards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0339/02

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

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Working time directive

The current working time directive permits individuals to opt out of the 48-hour work week maximum. If this opt-out is removed, many businesses, especially seasonal businesses, will be forced to hire more staff and increase their overall costs.

Has the Commission done a full impact assessment study on the effects of removing this opt-out clause?

Has the Commission seriously considered the effects on seasonal workers, such as, but not excluded to, those working on formula one racing cars?

Would the Commission please provide details of the study and its findings?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Article 18(1)(b)(i) of the working time Directive(1) lays down that a Member State shall have the option not to apply Article 6 (maximum weekly working time of 48 hours) provided he has first obtained the worker's agreement to perform such work.

The United Kingdom is the only Member State having used this possibility not to apply Article 6.

Article 18(1)(b)(i) also provides for the re-examination of this clause in 2003. It states as follows:

Before the expiry of a period of seven years from the date referred to in (a) [23 November 1996], the Council shall, on the basis of a Commission proposal accompanied by an appraisal report, re-examine the provisions of this point (i) and decide on what action to take.

An invitation to tender for a study on the effects of this clause has recently been sent to independent national experts. The study should provide an overview of the application of Article 18(1) (b) (i) in the United Kingdom. It should notably take good account of the social partners' opinion and analyse the case law of the bodies responsible for the enforcement of national rules concerning working time.

The Commission will in due course prepare the appraisal report on this issue, based on the conclusions of the study and on its own findings.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/02

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2002)

Subject: Transport of corpses within the EU

The transport of those who have died in a country other than their country of origin is regulated by the Berlin Agreements (1937) and the Strasbourg Convention, drawn up in 1973 by the Council of Europe. However these regulations are still based on the presumption that border controls are carried out, and do not take into account the setting-up of the European Economic Area.

A lack of standard formalities and the obligatory use of certain products (inner coffin of zinc) continue to cause high costs when transporting corpses.

What measures can be taken to ensure that the cross-border transport of corpses is not more difficult than transport within a Member State?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0073/02, E-0087/02,E-0210/02, E-0344/02, E-0346/02, P-0407/02 and E-0679/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, No 4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event it should be recalled that Member States which regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice, apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not envisage any specific initiative for the moment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0041/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Funds for retired people engaged in educational, social, cultural and sport activities

Are there any European funds for retired people actively engaged in educational, social, cultural and sporting activities?

These people are taking computer courses which they are paying for themselves and they also have to pay for transport. Their only means of financial support is very often the pension, which is limited. Does Europe have any funding which meets their needs?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

The European Social Fund (ESF) cannot finance the type of activities referred to in the question by the Honourable Member. According to article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999(1) the fund shall support and complement the activities of Member States directed towards developing the labour market and human resources in particular in the context of their multiannual national action plans for employment. Consequently funding from the ESF shall aim to improve employment opportunities for workers in the internal market, i.e. the ESF is basically a labour market tool, and can therefore not be used in support of retired people.

(1) Regulation (EC) no 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund, OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Therapeutic use of cannabis

Given the disparities in national laws regarding the permitted uses of cannabis for therapeutic purposes particularly for the alleviation of pain what information can the Commission provide on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

So far no medicinal products authorised by the Commission pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products(1) do contain cannabis or other derived substances.

The Commission does not possess comprehensive information on all medicinal products authorised by the Member States or for which clinical trials are conducted. For this reason, it cannot be said whether cannabis is contained in any of the nationally authorised medicinal products. In any case, such an authorisation would have to comply with the requirements of quality, safety and efficacy as laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use(2) and in Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products(3).

No Community provisions prohibit per se the use of cannabis as active substance for a medicinal product.

(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(2) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(3) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0321/02

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Member States and, where appropriate, the Community to ensure that the frequency requirements for future mobile communications systems are met in a timely and efficient manner. Fully integrated and liberalised telecommunications markets should be completed by the end of 2001. Does the Commission believe that this target was met?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Lisbon European Council (23 and 24 March 2000) called on: the Council and the European Parliament to conclude as early as possible in 2001 work on the legislative proposals announced by the Commission following its 1999 review of the telecoms regulatory framework. It also called on: the Member States and, where appropriate, the Community to ensure that the frequency requirements for future mobile communications systems are met in a timely and efficient manner. Fully integrated and liberalised telecommunications markets should be completed by the end of 2001.

The new regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 14 February 2002(1). The new legislative package aims at completing the internal market for the information society by establishing a more harmonised framework for the regulation of electronic communications networks and services. As part of this package, a Decision on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the Community was adopted(2). Under the terms of this Decision, the Commission will be able to regularly discuss radio spectrum policy issues with the Member States and in co-operation with relevant international organisations while, where necessary, appropriate technical implementing measures and legislation can be adopted with the aim to ensure harmonised conditions with regard to the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum.

As far as liberalisation of the telecoms sector is concerned, the Commission has stated that: telecommunications markets in the majority of Member States were opened to competition from 1 January 1998 with the last market open from 1 January 2001. Today the whole population in twelve Member States is able to choose between more than five operators for long-distance and international calls and in six Member States for local calls. This competition will be reinforced and strengthened once the new legislation recently agreed comes into force in Spring 2003(3).

Finally, with regard to frequency requirements for future mobile communications systems, it should be noted that all Member States have reserved frequencies for the provision of third generation mobile communications (including the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) which are expected to play an important role in making European citizens part of a true information society.

(1) 6111/02 (Press 29-G).

(2) No yet published.

(3) SEC(2002) 29/2.