ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3138/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: European anthem

At a concert by the European Youth Orchestra on 20 September 2000, the European anthem, originally a composition by Ludwig van Beethoven, was played as the opening item. As the music started, the Commissioners, led by President Prodi, suddenly stood up as if for a national anthem. The EU is not a state nor a nation, so it cannot have a national anthem. What is the legal basis for the Commission's practice of standing when Beethoven's composition is played?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The choice of a European anthem was one of the items covered by the report which the ad hoc Committee for a People's Europe chaired by Mr Adonnino, presented to the European Council at the latter's request on 28/29 June 1985. The European Council formally approved the proposals contained in the report, including the proposal relating to the anthem. Parliament recorded its agreement on 13 November 1985 and the Commission did likewise on 10 December 1985.

During an informal meeting of the Presidents of Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 12 March 1986, instructions were given to the Secretaries-General of the three institutions to work out the technical details of all the European symbols adopted by the European Council. This was done and a decision was taken on 20 March 1985. Thus the European anthem came into being as one of the symbols of the Union. This does not mean that it should be treated as a national anthem nor does it give the Union the status of a state or nation.

Under these circumstances it is usual for the institutions, including Parliament to have the anthem played on specific occasions and for the Members of the Commission, like any other citizen who wishes to do so, to stand in order to show their attachment to the common undertaking.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3568/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2000)

Subject: When is crab paste not crab paste?

Can the Commission comment on the experience of my constituent, Mr D. Baker of Thorpe Bay, Essex, who was assured that a pot of crab paste fully met European labelling and consumer rights standards, when in fact the pot included only 10 % crab, 40 % mackerel, 24 % cod and 26 % other ingredients? What is the minimum crab content beneath which the designation crab paste is impermissible? Does the Commission intend to approach a review of its legislation in this respect sideways like a crab, or head-on?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

The main objective of Directive 2000/13/EC(1), which constitutes the general legislative act on food labelling, is to provide consumers with information on the products concerned.

Article 7(2)(a) of the Directive requires the quantity of an ingredient in a foodstuff to be stated where the ingredient concerned appears in the name under which the foodstuff is sold; this quantity must be expressed as a percentage of the total.

In the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member, labelling which clearly states that the product contains 10 % crab would be consistent with the rules. Labelling which failed to do so would constitute an infringement of the legislation.

The Commission understands the consumer's surprise that the ingredient appearing in the name of the product accounts for only 10 % of that product.

However, the composition and designation of foodstuffs are not, in principle, regulated at Community level, and therefore there are no harmonised specifications for crab paste.

Member States may adopt national legislation in this field, provided it does not impede the free movement of goods in the Single Market.

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ L 109, 6.5.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Animal meal

In the face of the growing risks of infection with BSE and the implications this may have for human health, does the Commission not consider it essential to prohibit the use of animal meal in feed?

Such a ban would ensure greater protection for consumers, and would be possible to implement as it would only be necessary to step up European production of oil protein crops, releasing certain land set aside?

Does the Commission intend to put forward proposals to that effect, and how does it intend to respond to concerns about food safety on the part of consumers, who are increasingly rejecting the use of such meal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members' concern in this area.

The Commission put forward a proposal prohibiting the feeding of all processed animal proteins, including animal meals, to all farmed animals, for a transitional period of 6 months.

This proposal was adopted by Council Decision 2000/766/EC(1).

This Decision may be adapted by the Commission before the 30 June 2001 to the situation of each Member States in the light of the results of Commission inspections and the incidence of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3924/00

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Transparency of meetings

Can the Commission confirm if there exists any Member State legislation or EU legislation requiring deliberations of governing/decision-making boards or commissions to be open to the public?

This subject is particularly pertinent considering the current reform process being undertaken within the European Union institutions.

The Commission should note that in the USA this requirement is embedded in Federal and State legislation (See Title 5, US Code, section 552b, 5 U.S.C, sec. 552b).

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission is not aware of legislation in any of the Member States requiring the deliberations of decision-making bodies to be open to the public. As a general rule, debates in elected assemblies are open to the public while the work of executive bodies is not. The rules of procedure of each of the Community institutions contains provisions governing publication of their deliberations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/00

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Birre to Areia extension to the Lisbon-Cascais motorway

It is reported in the local press that Cascais council is paying landowners PTE 10 000 per square metre to buy their land for the construction of this motorway, while normally land in the area would not fetch more than PTE 500 per square metre.

Can the Commission state whether this motorway extension is being built with the help of funding from the EU budget, and if so what steps it is taking to ensure that the money is not being used to pay inflated prices to landowners?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

According to information from the Portuguese authorities the Birre-Areia extension to the Lisbon-Cascais motorway has not received Community co-funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Council

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Creation of European Union embassies

I note that the European Commission is proposing that a College of European Diplomacy be set up provide full-blown diplomatic training for European Union officials involved in external activities in countries outside the European Union. I am informed that Member States with no diplomatic representations in third countries should use delegations from the European Commission, rather than have its own diplomats.

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I want us to be represented only by British diplomats, not those trained in a College of European Diplomacy. We want our own diplomats to defend our own country's interests, and not rely on European Union diplomats.

Can the Council of Ministers give me a categoric assurance that under no circumstances will British interests be represented by a diplomat from the European Union?

Would you please also tell me whether the European Union delegations intend to describe themselves as European Union embassies?

Will you please also clarify for me whether the European Union intends to claim legal personality as a nation in its own right?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Council has received no formal proposal from the Commission on the establishment of a College of European Diplomacy. However, a new European Diplomatic Programme for the training of diplomats at European level was launched in Strasbourg on 9 September 2000.

The Council also took note, at its meeting on 9 and 10 October 2000, of the European Parliament Resolution of 5 September 2000 on a common Community diplomacy.

As for Commission delegations in third countries, they represent the Commission and not the European Union, and their powers are limited to the Community sphere. The Union is represented on CFSP matters in third countries by the Presidency. In third countries where the Presidency has no diplomatic representation, the Union has been represented since 11 October 1997 by other Member States according to very precise rules established by the Council.

The Union recognises the overall benefit for its external activities of possibly merging diplomatic missions from the Member States and Commission delegations, but any decision to merge in such a way would concern only those Member States who so wished and, where appropriate, the Commission. In this context, a change in the name of national representations and embassies to European Union embassies is not on the agenda.

In any case, every citizen of the Union in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented is entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3948/00

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: The Catalan language in the European Union

The lobby group Joves de Mallorca per la Llengua, an organisation working for the linguistic standardisation of Catalan in Majorca, with more than 40 branches and totalling more than 18 000 members, asked the MEP Pere Esteve to table a question to the Council.

2001 will be European Year of Languages, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has just been approved which guarantees that shall be no discrimination on the basis of language and there is talk of the European heritage, which includes linguistic diversity in Europe.

The Catalan language, spoken by more than 8 million people, is the most widely spoken non-official language in the European Union. In the near future with the prospect of enlargement Catalan will continue to be by far the most widely spoken non-official language. From all points of view Catalan does not deserve to be treated as a minority language.

Does the Council intend to take any measure to ensure that Catalan receives more recognition than it does at present in the European institutions?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The measures undertaken in the context of the European year of languages 2001, to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers, according to article 1 of the decision(1) establishing it, will cover the official languages of the Community, together with Irish, Letzerburgesch, and other languages in line with those identified by the Member States for the purposes of implementing this Decision. While fully acknowledging the richness of the linguistic diversity of the Community (including the Catalan language), the Council considers, as is clear from the above as well as in the formulation of Article 149 of the EC Treaty and indeed in the principle of subsidiarity in general, that the responsibility for that cultural and linguistic diversity lies with the Member States.

(1) Decision No 1934/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on the European Year of Languages 2001 (OJ L 232, 14.2.2000, p. 1).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4107/00

by Luigi Cesaro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Petty crime in the north of Naples

In view of the recent rise in petty urban crime in the north of Naples, which has seen an alarming increase in the need for D-I-Y justice (three robbers beaten to death in self-defence within the space of a few days in Villaricca, Grumo Nevano and Villa Literno),

can the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of this escalation in violence and killings in the area mentioned?

2. whether it is aware of the fact that most of the local communities in the Neapolitan hinterland communities each with over 30 000 residents, in a highly built-up area still have neither a carabinieri (military police) barracks or a police station, whereas in fact technologically advanced special security measures should be adopted in order to ensure a greater level of control over the area?

3. whether, at this stage, it still considers that the strategies to combat petty urban crime adopted to date at both Community and national levels are working?

4. whether it therefore considers it useful to support and propose a system for exchanging experience and good practice in the field of prevention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The events referred to in the Honourable Member's question have not been brought to the Commission's attention, although it is aware that the situation in some parts of the Naples conurbation continues to give cause for concern in spite of the efforts of the local and national authorities. At the recent Forum for Security and Democracy, held in Naples on 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, the Italian State Secretary for Security, the President of the Campania region and the Mayor of Naples referred to the difficulties encountered in combating crime in all its forms in that part of Italy.

Nor is the Commission familiar with the detailed organisational arrangements for policing the areas referred to by the Honourable Member. These arrangements do not fall within the Commission's remit but are a matter for the Italian authorities.

But strategies to combat urban petty crime now form a major part of the Union's justice and home affairs policy. As the Honourable Member is aware, the prevention priorities laid down by the 1999 Tampere European Council included urban, juvenile and drug-related crime. It was also decided at Tampere to encourage networking and exchanges of good practice between crime prevention bodies. Several initiatives have been launched since then with a view to putting this into practice. In December 2000 the Commission presented a communication on crime prevention(1) and a proposal for a decision establishing a programme of incentives and exchanges known as Hippocrates(2). At the same time, France and Sweden presented a proposal for a decision establishing a European crime prevention network, which is currently being examined by the Council. Parliament will be consulted on these texts pursuant to Article 39 TEU.

(1) COM(2000) 786 final.

(2) COM(2000) 786 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4089/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Information campaign on the euro in Spain

Spain's Ministry of Economic Affairs has promoted an information campaign on the euro which comprises a number of placards illustrating the most significant achievements of Spain's membership of the European Union and of economic and monetary union. The fact that the contents of the exhibition, which has been designed as a contribution to the greater glory of Mr Aznar (the current leader of the Spanish Government), are so propagandist in nature is scandalous. To quote a single example: Spain's joining the European Union is illustrated solely by a distant photo of the 1985 government in which only the figures of the Spanish King and the then premier, Felipe González, can be made out. On the other hand, Mr Aznar's picture appears on a number of occasions, including in photos exceeding 1m2 in size.

Has this type of exhibition been financed out of Community funds? Does the Commission consider that an information campaign concerning the euro should contain propaganda relating to Mr Aznar?

Should an information campaign on the euro focus on the practical aspects of the single currency, or should it become a means of glorifying Mr Aznar?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Two themes running through the information campaigns carried out under the Prince priority programme generated exhibitions:

- Building Europe together,

- The euro, a currency for Europe.

The first exhibition on European integration and the history of money up to the euro was organised in 1997. The second, in Valladolid, was designed generally to provide information on the institutions.

Six sections presented the following themes:

- practical aspects of the euro,

- presentation of the new currency and its political and economic advantages in the European integration process,

- history of European integration, the Treaty of Rome up to economic and monetary union (EMU),

- information on the Member States of the European Union,

- integration of Spain into the Union and EMU,

- euro coins and notes.

By way of illustration (historical background, developments in the Member States, Treaties, etc.), the Prime Ministers of democratic Spain who played a part in European integration (Adolfo Suarez, Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo, Felipe Gonzalez and José Maria Aznar) were presented.

Some features of the exhibitions were valid for all the Member States, but it was for the Member State presenting the exhibition to ensure that they were adapted to the special nature of the host Member State in the interests of subsidiarity and decentralisation.

The amount which was invested in these exhibitions totalled 1 011 595, of which 4 %, i.e. 40 500, constituted aid from the Community budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3970/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Asbestos

Asbestos will kill more than 250 000 EU citizens in the next few decades. The death toll will be greatly increased by the incorporation of asbestos mortality

figures from countries in Eastern Europe which are soon to become EU members. Problems relating to asbestos cross national boundaries and subject disciplines. They include: research into the early diagnosis and treatment of asbestos-related diseases, terminal care for patients, support for the families of asbestos victims, compensation from former employers and/or government institutions for occupational or environmental asbestos exposure, problems arising from the continued use of products containing asbestos in our buildings, ships, railways and infrastructure, the disposal of asbestos waste, raising of worker and public awareness of the risks, supervision of EU companies which attempt to export discredited asbestos technology to developing countries and, crucially, enforcement of EU asbestos legislation. Does the Commission think that it would be beneficial to create a secretariat which would coordinate initiatives on all asbestos issues?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

The Commission does not consider it justified to create a secretariat that would co-ordinate initiatives on asbestos-related issues.

Liaison between different Commission services responsible for market restrictions, waste, health diagnosis and treatment, workplace protection, trade and public health has worked sufficiently well to establish a network of preventive measures enshrined in Community legislation. These measures reduce the threat to health posed by asbestos. In parallel, the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment will continue to monitor the development of the scientific knowledge on public health aspects of asbestos.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3883/00

by Claude Desama (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Management of WEU staff

Staff at the WEU are facing an uncertain future. New bodies have been set up under the second pillar, without taking into account the skills available in the WEU. As a result of these decisions, a large number of staff have been made redundant and new staff recruited, many people have been moved and EU and WEU buildings have been restructured: all this has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money.

In a climate in which Europe is increasingly mindful of its social dimension, I am concerned about the wisdom of these dismissals and wonder whether resources have been soundly managed.

Does the Commission agree that, before recruiting new staff, it would be wiser to make optimum use of the human resources available in the WEU? If so, what prospects does it intend to offer the officials concerned?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The recruitment of staff for the institutions of the Community is regulated clearly by the Statute. In accordance with Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, other than in a limited number of cases (A1 and A2 officials and, in exceptional cases, for recruitment to posts which require special qualifications), recruitment of permanent officials can only take place following the successful participation in a competition, which is open to all nationals of Member States.

The Commission shares the Hon Member's view that the skills and the experience of staff of the Western European Union (WEU) who are affected by the organizational changes within the WEU can be of value to the Institutions of the Community. Therefore, the Commission has already entered into a dialogue with the WEU General Secretariat and with WEU staff representatives in order to explore the possibilities for recruitment of WEU staff in conformity with the Staff regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4027/00

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Lorry drivers

Increasing numbers of Danish lorry drivers are being robbed of their money when they pull up in parking areas. How can the Commission ensure that European workers, in this case Danish drivers, are not robbed in car parks? The problem is increasing all the time, so how is the Commission going to tackle it? Are any proposals in preparation and if so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2001)

The described risk that Danish professional drivers run when they stop their vehicles, must be considered as a question regarding the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security of the Member States. The Commission can not intervene in this specific matter, as it is the Member States, which, pursuant to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, are responsible for what action should be taken to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security. The specific question regarding the Danish professional drivers is therefore not a question of police or judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the framework of the EU Treaty.