ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3408/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Retirement provisions for pilots and flight attendants

The Italian government has recently raised the minimum retirement age for flight attendants and pilots. This decision does not seem to have taken due account of the particularly damaging side-effects of flying, including disruption of sleeping patterns, exposure to dry and ozone-rich air, and exposure to levels of cosmic radiation three times higher than those to which radiographers are exposed. The combination of these factors over a period of many years has the effect of reducing the average life expectancy of air crew on retirement to considerably less than the general average. Yet at present no adequate scientific data is available on the subject, partly because the results of the research that has been carried out by the airlines have not been divulged to staff and unions.

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state:

1. whether any Commission data or studies exist on the subject?

2. whether there are any directives or other documents relating to retirement provisions for employees in this sector?

3. what are the other Member States' provisions in this area?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

1. The Commission does not have any data or scientific studies on the life expectancy of this category of workers, and there is no specific directive relating to their retirement provisions.

2. In the area of social protection, Member States are free to establish their own policies on the organisation and operation of social security schemes, provided they comply with Community law on equal treatment for men and women (Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security(1), and Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes(2) as amended by Directive 96/97/EC(3)) and on social security for migrant workers(4). This means that Member States are free to set the retirement age for pilots and cabin crew, provided the above-mentioned Community provisions are complied with.

3. As far as trends and policies in the other Member States are concerned, the Commission publishes comparative tables of social security schemes in a general context (MISSOC), but these do not refer specifically to pilots or cabin crew.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979.

(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.

(3) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.

(4) Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and 574/72 (as updated by Regulation (EC) 118/97 - OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2825/98

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 1998)

Subject: The orangutan crisis in Indonesia

Is the Commission aware of the Call for Action for Conservation of Orangutans, issued by the Environmental Investigation Agency Limited?

Does the Commission agree with the necessity for the elements outlined within the document, and is the Commission prepared to help enforce these conditions through conditionality of aid?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The Commission is not aware of the call for action for conservation of orangutans. It would, however like to thank the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the report and remains ready to answer questions on the issues raised in the report at a later stage.

In the meantime, and as regards the funding of orangutan conservation projects, the Commission would like to refer to its answer to written question E-1852/98 by Mrs Muscardini(1).

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Flight safety

Community legislation on flight safety points to the establishment of an independent national agency for the prevention and investigation of aviation accidents as one of the most effective means of achieving the goal of flight safety.

The setting up of such a body, made obligatory by an EEC directive which has yet to be implemented by Italy, has become more urgent and necessary as a result of the introduction of free competition between carriers. Its establishment should be justified on grounds that attract broad political consensus, precisely because everyone has a right to safety.

Can the European Commission say which Member States have yet to implement the directive and does it not consider that it should prevail upon these Member States to do so?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Five Member States (Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal) have still not fully completed the transposition process of Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents(1).

The Commission has already sent reasoned opinions to these Member States and will decide before the end of the year whether Court referrals are necessary.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2064/98

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods)

The ECVAM Director's term of office, which is normally five years, has been renewed only for a period of two years.

Is such a decision on the part of certain authorities not likely to pose a threat to the future of this institution?

Moreover, a two-year term of office is apparently inadequate for completing long-term validation studies. As a result the Centre will have limited credibility in scientific circles.

At present the ECVAM comprises prominent experts in the field of validation of alternative methods. It would be regrettable to deprive the Centre of their experience and thus to jeopardize its very existence.

Will the Commission inform us of the latest developments in this respect?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Political oppression in Burma

As the military dictatorship of Burma has carried out countless atrocities against the Burmese people and the population of the country lives in extreme poverty despite an abundance of natural resources, what action does the Council intend to take?

Would the Council advocate the imposition of economic and financial sanctions against the Burmese government?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

The Council remains deeply concerned at the continuing violations of human rights and the lack of democratic progress in Burma/Myanmar. The regime's recent tightening of restrictions and increase of pressure on the democratic opposition is particularly worrying and has been condemned by the Union.

The Union has on many occasions issued strong public statements deploring the human rights situation and the lack of democracy in Burma/Myanmar, most recently on 26 October 1998. At the 54th meeting of United Nations Commission on Human Rights the European Union presented a Resolution criticising the human rights situation in Burma, which was adopted on 20 April 1998. The Union has also repeatedly urged the Burmese rulers to enter into meaningful dialogue with all democratic opposition parties.

The EU furthermore maintains regular contacts with the ASEAN States regarding Burma/Myanmar, and is urging them to put increased pressure on the Burmese regime.

On 26 October 1998 the Council decided to extend for a further six months the common position on Burma adopted on 28 October 1996(1), which provides for a number of restrictive measures vis-à-vis Burma and senior Burmese officials. The Council also decided to strengthen that common position by prohibiting the issue of transit visas and extending the visa ban to cover Burmese authorities in the tourism sector (while ensuring that the ban is applied rigorously to all individual members of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and the military, together with their families). It echoed the view expressed by Aung San Suu Kyi that, in the present situation, it is inappropriate for tourists to visit Burma. The Council also envisaged the possibility of economic and financial sanctions against Burma, but has taken no decision for the time being. It should however be mentioned in this regard that forced labour practices in the country led to the EC's decision to withdraw GSP benefits from Burma/Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2800/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Unsuitable methods used by the British Museum to conserve the Elgin Marbles

According to press reports, irreparable damage was caused in the past to the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum as a result of conservation methods which were known even at the time to be unsuitable.

Since the Acropolis and its marbles form part of the European cultural heritage referred to in the Treaty, what steps will the Commission take to persuade the British Government to allow international experts to examine the damage suffered by the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum as a result of unsuitable conservation methods?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that the Parthenon of the Acropolis and its sculptures form an integral and invaluable part of the European cultural and architectural heritage. It is certainly in this spirit and context that the Commission has, since 1983, supported financially, on an annual basis, the protection, conservation and restoration of the Acropolis monuments.

The Commission does not have in its possession any official information about the alleged damage caused to the Parthenon sculptures situated in the British Museum due to "unorthodox" preservation methods.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission acting on the principle of subsidiarity and in the context of Article 128 of the EC Treaty, which mandates the Community to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of cultural heritage conservation and enhancement, is prepared to support an initiative, such as suggested by the Honourable Member, provided that it is submitted jointly by the authorities concerned, i.e. the British Museum and the Hellenic Archaeological Service, within the framework of the Raphael programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2439/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Derogation in respect of Regulation 2408/92 concerning remote island regions of Greece

In a recent reply to my question on subsidies for unprofitable and loss-making air services to remote islands, the Commissioner responsible stated that Greece had not requested a derogation in respect of Article 92(2)(a) or Regulation EEC 2408/92(1). Given that the Greek Minister of Transport and the Administration of Olympic Airways held discussions with the Commission in Brussels last week centring mainly on state subsidies for Olympic Airways.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether one of the topics discussed was financial compensation for providing scheduled air services in respect of which a "public service obligation" has been imposed in Greece, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation EEC 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes?

2. whether it still considers that Olympic Airways is obliged by the Government to maintain small-scale and uneconomical connections between the mainland and the Greek islands?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

During the discussions held between the Commission and the Greek government before the decision of 29 July 1998 which re-authorised state aid to Olympic Airways, the issue of financial compensation for small scale and uneconomical connections between the mainland and the Greek islands was not raised. To date, the Commission has not been informed of any public service obligations in Greece under the provisions of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(2).

One of the conditions laid down by the Commission for the approval of the aid is there should be no governmental interference in the management of Olympic Airways, which means that, in the absence of public service obligations on these routes, the company may serve the Greek islands as it sees fit in the light of commercial considerations.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3387/98

by Diemut Theato (PPE) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Cancellation of the Open Competition of 14 September 1998

In connection with the cancellation of this competition, can the Commission draw up a detailed and itemised analysis of the costs of holding the competition? Can the Commission also break this analysis down according to the Member States and the individual cities in which the competition was held?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3014/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Echelon system

The interim report published by STOA in January 1998 confirms the existence of the Echelon system, whereby the United States, with the aid of a grid of telecommunications networks based on Vortex satellites, can intercept all messages sent within the European Union by telephone, fax or E-mail.

We are told by a well-informed source that the President of the Commission has circulated a document to the institution's chief section heads warning of the risks of the Commission's communications being intercepted.

Can the Commission confirm this information? What steps does it intend to take, within the framework of its powers, to protect institutions, businesses and individuals within the Union against all forms of political and economic espionage?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to Commission answers to Written Questions numbers E/1039/98 by Ms Van Dijk(1), E-1049/98 by Ms Van Dijk(2), E-130/6/98 by Ms Muscardini and others(3), E-1329/98 by Ms Raschhofer(4), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco(5) and E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis(6).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 55.

(2) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 54.

(3) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 109.

(4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 35.

(5) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 90.

(6) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 130.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Economic and taxation regime - the Canary Islands and tax havens

The "special taxation group" of the Commission, which is answerable to the Commissioner responsible for taxation matters, Mr Mario Monti, has drawn up a list of 75 "potentially harmful" situations in the EU, among which it has included the economic and taxation regime prevailing in the Canary Islands.

However, the taxation aspects of this regime received the Commission's approval in December 1997, with a number of modifications to the text proposed.

Article 299 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, currently in process of ratification, recognises the right of the outlying regions, including the Canary Islands, to establish specific measures in the area of taxation.

What aspects of the Canary Islands' regime did the group consider to constitute "potentially harmful" measures for competition in the EU?

What justification is there for including the Canary Islands' regime on this "grey list", given the special circumstances of the Union's outlying regions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

The code of conduct group (business taxation) was established by the Council in March 1998, pursuant to the resolution on a code of conduct for business taxation adopted by the Council and the Member States meeting within the Council on 1 December 1997. The Council group is chaired by the British Financial Secretary to the Treasury and all Member States are represented at a high level. The Commission, together with the Council, provides the secretariat.

The code which was agreed by the Council and the Member States last December laid down certain criteria for identifying tax measures which could be regarded as potentially harmful, namely those measures, whether laws, regulations or administrative practices, which provide for a significantly lower effective level of taxation than those which generally apply in the Member State in question.

The Commission was asked to prepare, on the basis of information publicly available or provided by Member States, a document for discussion by the Council group consisting of an initial indicative list of business tax measures which might fall within the scope of the code and which would therefore merit further consideration.

One of the categories of tax measures at which the code is aimed concerns measures favouring the development of certain regions. The Honourable Member mentions in this context the Canaries' economic and tax regime. Though it is not possible to predetermine the nature of the Council group's discussions concerning this kind of regime, the Commission would recall that the Member States and the Council, in the resolution on the code which they adopted in December 1997, made it clear that they wished to see this kind of regime being examined, taking into account however the "special features and constraints in the case of the outermost regions and small islands".
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/98

by Arie Oostlander (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under the EU school milk scheme

To what extent do milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry, such as chocolate milk, buttermilk and yoghurt drinks, satisfy the quality standards defined by the Commission for dairy products that qualify for subsidies under the EU school milk scheme?

Which products, if any, do not satisfy the Commission's quality standards and to what extent?

If the products concerned do satisfy the quality standards, will the Commission publicise the fact so that schools may take advantage of a minimum choice of dairy products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1998)

The Community legislation on aid for milk and milk products distributed in schools merely lists the categories of products which are eligible for aid, and does not actually specify what quality standards such products must satisfy. As a result, the horizontal rules on the quality of dairy products placed on the market also apply to the school milk scheme. It must therefore be assumed that no dairy product manufactured by the Netherlands dairy industry should be excluded from the scheme for reasons of quality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3201/98

by Astrid Lulling (PPE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Transportation by Germany of the directive on the posting of workers

As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy I refer to transposition of this directive in the Federal Republic of Germany. It has finally been possible to ensure, after a number of years, that Luxembourgish firms which have carried out orders in Belgium with their workers who are resident in Luxembourg do not have to pay bad-weather compensation or a loyalty payment.

Employers and workers in the construction industry in Germany have now agreed on arrangements for a holiday and pay compensation fund. Luxembourgish firms performing work in the frontier region will have to pay into this fund, for the duration of the period of posting, 14.25 % of gross wages paid, even though the workers in question have a guaranteed right to holiday and holiday pay in Luxembourg.

Does the Commission agree that such schemes, which have already been agreed for similar situations in Belgium, are incompatible with the directive on the posting of workers and that they distort competition?

Is the Commission prepared to take action against these and other annoying practices which impede access to the market?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-3110/98 by Mrs Reding(1).

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3078/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Fines for road traffic offences

According to the press, work is in progress on a draft "Convention on cooperation in the matter of criminal proceedings for offences against road traffic regulations and the enforcement of fines imposed for such offences".

- Does the Commission know of any plans of this nature?

- Has the Commission come across any plans in this regard in connection with the review of the Schengen acquis, and at what stage are they?

- What is the specific content of these plans?

- How is the problem of the differences between the substance and procedure of the regulations in force in the various Member States to be solved?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

1. to 3. Until the Amsterdam Treaty incorporating the Schengen acquis into the Union framework comes into effect, Schengen work falls within the intergovernmental framework, and the Commission is unable to give any details regarding it.

4. Within the field of Justice and Home Affairs, work was concluded in June 1998 in the Council, with the Commission's participation, establishing a convention between all Member States ensuring that traffic offences leading to disqualification from driving committed in another Member State than where the offender is residing, will be given effect by the Member State of residence, when the offender returns there. This convention was adopted by the Council on 17 June 1998, and has to be ratified by the Member States before it enters into force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3246/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: 1998 Urban Renewal Act, Ireland

Can the Commission indicate which cities and towns are included in the 1998 Urban Renewal Act submitted to the Commission in late September by the Irish Government and indicate whether any regional airport zones (and, if so, which ones) have also been included? When does it expect a decision to be taken on the scheme so that it can come into effect in Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1998)

A preliminary study of the notified file indicates that the Irish government has not yet finalised the selection process of the areas concerned by the scheme. These areas, to which one or more of the incentives provided in the scheme may apply, will be small zones located in various cities and towns. The final list will be sent to the Commission when the selection process is completed. It is also deduced from the study of the file that no regional airport zones are covered by the scheme.

The Commission considers that the notification of the file was not complete and is currently working on a request for additional information. A decision must be taken within two months from the date the Commission receives complete information on the notified scheme.