ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0782/99

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Aid for shipyards in the EU

On 26 January 1999 the Danish shipyard Aarhus Flydedok A/S went bankrupt with the loss of some 2000 jobs. The bankruptcy is bound up with the unfair conditions of competition in the shipbuilding industry. Shipyards in some Member States apparently still receive state aid whereas other have to manage on market terms, which does not seem to fit in with the objectives of EU policy. The most recent example of this is the German shipyard Meyer Werft, which has succeeded in concluding a agreement to build two ships for Indonesia on the basis of developing country resources.

1. What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to put an end to state aid in this sector in the EU?

2. How are OECD negotiations proceeding between the EU, the USA, Japan and Norway on abolishing state aid for shipbuilding?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

1. The possibilities to grant state aid to the shipbuilding industry within the Community have gradually been reduced in the past years. Furthermore, the Commission monitors closely the state aid granted to this sector. Unfortunately, the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) agreement has not entered into force as expected. Therefore, the Commission in 1998 proposed to the Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98 of 29 June 1998, establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding(1). According to this Regulation which entered into force on 1 January 1999, contract related aid for shipbuilding will come to an end on 31 December 2000. The Regulation continues to permit operating aid in the form of development assistance to developing countries. However, it imposes stricter conditions than those previously in force in the seventh shipbuilding Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 19990 on aid to shipbuilding(2). In fact, to avoid development aid being used as hidden operating aid to a yard, the Member State must now demonstrate to the Commission that the offer of development assistance is open to bids from different yards. Furthermore, it should be noted that all development aid must be notified individually and approved by the Commission. In all cases the Commission must verify the particular development content of the aid in order to ensure that the project contains genuine development aid.

2. The prospects of ratification of the OECD shipbuilding agreement by the American Congress are not very encouraging. The option of exploring the possibility to implement the OECD agreement among "the four" (without the United States) has been opposed by the Community industry and not supported by a majority of Member States. Alternative options will be discussed during the next meeting within the working party no6 of the OECD, on 31 May 1999.

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1586/99

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

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Increase in medical problems caused by stray pets and farm animals in Kosovo

Is the Commission aware of the article by Ray Gutman in the Washington Post referring to the increase in human medical problems caused by neglected stray pets and farm animals in Kosovo?

Is the Commission aware that under these conditions diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosis rapidly spread amongst humans?

Is it possible to round up stray pets and farm animals and to put them in quarantine so that their lawful owners can collect them?

Is the Commission prepared to give greater attention to this question in its aid programmes in the form of direct aid to veterinary surgeons and veterinary laboratories in Kosovo and presentive programmes in consultation with the relevant medical services, for example the WSPA which is already playing an active role in Kosovo?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1999)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the situation in Kosovo, and about the health risks inherent in the present conditions for both human beings and animals.

The Commission's aid programmes for Kosovo, at present and for the foreseeable future, concern firstly humanitarian assistance and emergency repairs of dwellings in order to enable the population to cope with the coming winter, and secondly physical reconstruction.

In addition, given the health risks to both humans and animals from neglected stray pets and farm animals in Kosovo, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that its humanitarian office (ECHO) is already in discussions with the UN Food and agricultural organisation (FAO) regarding a programme of vaccination of all live stock and stray pets in Kosovo. This programme will allow a census of the number of animals in the province and will help prevent spreading diseases to the population. The programme will complement the Task Force programme of re-opening or restructuring the veterinary stations in Kosovo.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1741/99

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

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Threats to European investments in Chile

Information from official sources appears to indicate that Spanish firms with investments in Chile have recently been subject to pressure from the Chilean authorities.

Does the Commission have any evidence of this? Does the Commission agree that any kind of pressure on firms from one Member State would amount to a clear gesture of hostility towards the European Union as a whole?

Has the Commission sought to obtain further details of these reports?

Should the reports be confirmed, does the Commission intend to take any measures in the context of the cooperation agreements between the Union and Chile?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The Commission is aware that the Chilean Foreign Minister, Juan Gabriel Valdés, held a private meeting with some Spanish company directors in Santiago de Chile.

The Commission and its delegation in Chile have never been informed that the Chilean authorities have ever taken a fixed discriminatory position against Spanish companies, nor do they have evidence at present that any pressure has ever been brought to bear on companies from any of the Member States.

Obviously any unwarranted action taken against companies from a Member State will be dealt with according to existing Community procedures.

Relations between the Community and its Member States and Chile are governed by the Framework Cooperation Agreement. Article 33(2) of the agreement says that the Joint Council, made up by members of the Council and the Commission, and representatives from Chile, should examine important problems and all other bilateral and international issues of common interest, with the aim of achieving the objectives of the agreement. The aim of the agreement is to strengthen existing relations between the Community and Chile, and the Commission will do everything within its power to preserve and improve the level and quality of the relations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1740/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Difficulties facing EU students in Yugoslavia as a result of the bombing

A significant number of students from the Member States, particularly Greece, had embarked on courses of study in Yugoslavia before war broke out. Those students and their families are now having to cope with very serious problems in the form of pollution, shortage of drinking water, the collapse of infrastructure, lack of medical care, the terrible difficulties of travelling, fuel shortages and rising crime owing to the breakdown of society following the war. Naturally, many students are reluctant to return and there is a risk that they will abandon their courses midway through.

The following questions are put to the Commission:

1. In the light of the information available, does the Commission consider that current conditions are sufficiently safe to enable EU students to continue their courses in Yugoslavia?

2. Does the Commission not agree that the best solution would be to transfer students to universities in their countries of origin so that they avoid the mounting dangers and continue their courses undistracted?

3. What initiatives could the Commission take to deal effectively with the problems of these students?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 1999)

As regards the general issues raised concerning the environmental consequences for Serbia of the Kosovo conflict, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-498/99 by Mr Watts(1) and the answer given to the Honourable Member's written question E-1512/99(2).

The Commission cannot comment on whether the conditions within a third country are sufficiently safe to enable students from Member States to pursue their chosen studies. The question of transfer of students from universities in third countries to those in Member States is a matter for the students themselves and for the universities concerned. The Commission does not intend to take any initiative in this regard.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 85.

(2) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000, p. 103.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2088/99

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council

(8 November 1999)

Subject: Right of asylum for EU nationals in other Member States or in third countries

Following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, asylum policy was incorporated into the EC Treaty under Title IV (Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons).

The Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union which has been attached to the EC Treaty states that the Council shall be immediately informed if a Member State should decide to grant asylum to a citizen of another EU Member State, thus confirming the central role played by the Council in the exchange of information on asylum and immigration matters between the Member States.

As a result of the above developments, EU citizens may, as a general rule, be granted asylum by third countries, but not by EU Member States, which means that the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees no longer fully apply.

Have there been cases in which citizens from one EU Member State have been granted asylum by another Member State or a non-Community country, either before or after the entry into force of the EU Treaty and the Protocol on asylum? If so, on what grounds?

Would the Council not agree that a study should be conducted as a matter of urgency to identify and remove the causes behind applications for asylum being made to third countries, with a view to offsetting the restrictions placed on the right of European citizens to seek asylum in another Member State?

Reply

(17 December 1999)

Over the six months since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam the Council has received no notification under the Protocol on asylum of any application for asylum having been made by a national of a Member State in another Member State.

The Council does not dispose of information relating to applications for asylum made by nationals of the Member States in third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2442/99

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

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Beijing + 5 UN conference

Will the Commission financially support NGOs which will want to attend Beijing + 5 meetings next year in New York?

What criteria will these NGOs have to fulfil to receive such support?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

The special United Nations (UN) session Women 2000, Gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century Beijing 2000 will serve as a forum to reaffirm the commitment and assess the progress achieved by governments in the implementation of the forward-looking strategies from 1985 and the Beijing declaration and platform for action from 1995.

The Member States of the UN appoint their delegations for participation at UN world conferences and meetings. Governments are not requested formally to include non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in their national delegations but, in view of the unanimous recognition of the important role played by women's NGOs in the Beijing follow-up process, NGO representatives are increasingly included in national delegations.

The responsibility for funding NGOs' participation lies first of all with the voluntary sector itself and then with government at national level. The Commission does not have at its disposal resources for funding NGOs wanting to attend the Beijing + 5 meeting.

The Community, represented by the Commission, in spite of being a signatory of the Beijing declaration and platform for action, has the status of observer before the UN.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2440/99

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Closure of Barsebäck nuclear power plant by Swedish Government

The Swedish Government has decided to close down by the end of November 1999 one of the country's twelve nuclear reactors at the Barsebäck nuclear power station close to Copenhagen. The reactor is one of the two privately owned power plants, the other ten are owned by the Swedish Government, through the State Power Board. The Government has not undertaken an environmental impact assessment as to the consequences of the closure of the reactor nor has it made any commitment for compensation to the owners and employees.

The situation gives rise to important questions, which the European Commission should address as a matter of urgency in view of the planned closure date:

1. From a competition aspect, can the Commission state whether the Swedish Government's decision to close one of the two privately owned rectors and not one of the ten state-owned plants, is a distortion of EU legislation?

2. Is the Commission satisfied that a full Environmental Impact Assessment has been correctly applied in this case and, if not, should not the closure date be cancelled immediately.

3. Why has the European Commission not already taken measures in this case when the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, the final court of appeal, upheld the Government's decision but failed to request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The definitive closure of one of Sydkraft's nuclear reactors at Barsebäck on 30 November 1999 could have led to distortion of competition on the market concerned. However, following an agreement between the owner and the Swedish Government on compensation, the Commission understands that the owner of the plant will no longer pursue any legal challenges to the Swedish Government's decision from the moment the agreement enters into force when approved by Parliament in the spring of 2000.

The Commission is currently examining the consequences which the closure of the nuclear reactor may have under Community environmental legislation.

As regards the procedural aspects related to the request for a preliminary ruling of the Court of justice, contacts have already been made by the Commission with the Swedish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1846/99

by Jacques Poos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Transfer of officials from Luxembourg to Brussels

The trade unions representing Commission staff in Luxembourg have informed me of their deep concern regarding the Commission's reorganisation plans.

According to the trade unions, some 100 to 140 officials and their families are threatened with forced transfer to Brussels and some 50 agency staff and service providers face losing their jobs.

The trade unions (FFPE, SE and US) stress that the Commission seems unaware that Luxembourg is one of the seats of the European Union and that it is issuing instructions and taking decisions on over hasty transfers to Brussels without having informed and consulted the staff representatives in Luxembourg.

Can the Commission state whether:

- the claims made by the trade union representatives are correct?

- if so, it has duly informed and consulted the staff representatives?

- it has launched the consultation procedure with the Luxembourg authorities in accordance with the framework agreement?

Only a clear and unequivocal answer and strict compliance with the relevant procedures would serve to clear the new Commission of the accusation of carrying out a reorganisation without prior consultation and in complete disregard of the transparency rules which it has formally laid down.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1999)

The Commission notes the concern expressed by the Honourable Member on the basis of reports made to him by trade unions representing Commission staff working in Luxembourg.

The Commission confirms the statement made by Vice-President Kinnock directly to large meetings of members of Commission staff, including trade union representatives, in Luxembourg on 6th October, and subsequently given to newspapers for publication, that:

The Staff regulations require the Commission to inform the Central Staff Committee on major administrative changes. This was observed by the Commission services before the adoption of the restructuring package. The package of proposals was sent to the Central Staff Committee on 24 September 1999; the Commission adopted the package on 29 September 1999.

The restructuring (of the Commission) does not require any movements of staff from Luxembourg to Brussels and vice versa. Whilst, as in any Administration, some very limited movements between the different places of work might occur over time, no decisions to this effect have been taken by the College. In any event, the net effect of any such movements would be very small and any transfers would take place through the advertisement of vacancies. There will be no forced transfers of staff.

In addition, the Commission emphasises that all requirements for consultation with Luxembourg authorities will continue to be fulfilled.

These activities demonstrate that the Commission is clearly and actively aware of the significance of Luxembourg as one of the seats of the institutions, and does not take decisions on transfers without staff consultation following proper procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2282/99

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Commitology

Will the Commission provide a complete list of all the committees, groups of experts, etc. whose travel expenses are reimbursed by the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The Commission reimburses the travel expenses for all meetings of committees and groups of experts which it convenes. It is transmitting the list of committees and groups of experts who attend such meetings and are thus reimbursed to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat for the current year.

In June 1999 the Commission transmitted to the Honourable Member a computer print-out of all committee meetings in 1997. It will send him the equivalent figures for groups of experts for the same year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2583/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Travel insurance bundling

Is the Commission aware of the practice widespread in the United Kingdom, of travel agents bundling insurance with travel packages? Practices which require consumers to purchase the

travel agent's in-house insurance with package holidays include travel agents offering so-called free insurance as part of the travel package and tour operators refusing to confirm a holiday booking until the customer provides evidence of an equivalent alternative policy. Is the Commission aware of such practices in other Member States, and does it consider that such practices are compatible with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission has no specific information nor has it received complaints relating to the practices mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The matter is, in Community law, regulated by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours(1). Article 4(1)(b) requires the organiser or retailer to provide the consumer, in writing or any other appropriate form, with information on the optional conclusion of an insurance policy to cover the cost of cancellation by the consumer or the cost of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of accident or illness..

In case the practices referred to by the Honourable Member appeared prima facie to infringe upon the Directive's provisions as complemented by the national implementing measures for example by imposing compulsory instead of optional insurance it would appear appropriate that the issue be taken up with the national authorities.

In addition, it would seem advisable for consumers confronted with dubious contractual arrangements to contact a consumer organisation, with a view to assessing the legitimacy of the practices in question and considering the most effective course of action.

With regard to competition law, the practice of making the sale of one product conditional upon the purchase of another unrelated product, or tying as this is also known, can constitute an infringement of the Community competition rules if the undertaking carrying out this practice enjoys a dominant position on the market, or if the practice arises as a result of an agreement between undertakings. The Honourable Member does not allege that travel agents in the United Kingdom have agreed among themselves to oblige consumers to combine the purchase of insurance with a travel package, while the Commission has no reason to believe that any travel agent or tour operator enjoys a dominant position in the United Kingdom. Under these circumstances, there would appear to be no reason for the Commission to open an investigation under the competition rules.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.