ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Vital institutional importance of the year 1999 in the history of the European Community

From the institutional point of view, last year was the most breathtaking and decisive year in the history of the European Community since it was established in 1957.

Both as regards the serious institutional crisis it underwent, which forced the Commission to resign, and its new role as a leading player in international politics, the European Union experienced a major upheaval which should be studied by thinkers and researchers in the field of political science to draw conclusions and anticipate future developments that will need to be taken into account, especially in the institutional sphere.

In the light of the above, will the Commission encourage studies and debates between experts and academics in the field of Community institutional studies, so that conclusions can be drawn from an interpretation of the institutional crisis which the Community underwent last year?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The European Commission promotes studies and encourages discussions between experts and researchers interested in the Union's political and institutional development. For example, in the context of the Jean Monnet project it supports teaching and research into Union affairs, including questions concerning its political-institutional system.

In the run-up to the 2000 Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reform, the Commission has asked the European University Institute in Florence to look into the possibilities and procedures for reorganising the Treaties. The findings of this study will be presented to the Heads of State and Government at the European Council in June.

In the context of the European Community Studies Association network the Commission supports and organises exchanges of and discussions by research specialists on Union matters and European policies.

The Commission is also engaged in a major project on governance in the Union for which it plans to co-opt the assistance of outside partners. It also encourages discussion and studies in research institutes and public and private think-tanks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0097/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Involvement of the Spanish Autonomous Communities in Union institutions

In answer to my general question on the above subject tabled on 12 October 1999 (E-1823/99)(1), the Commission indicated on 25 November 1999 that, under Article 203 (former Article 146) of the EC Treaty, Member States were permitted to choose their representatives in the Council according to their specific circumstances.

The Spanish Government has recently refused to allow the Autonomous Communities to play a direct role in the EU institutions by representing their people in matters falling under their responsibility, although the Congress of Deputies gave its endorsement for them to do so as long as two years ago.

In view of the plain fact that the Autonomous Communities are thus being prevented from exercising their constitutional powers even when, like Galicia, they are recognised to constitute nations in their own right will the Commission undertake to secure and guarantee their involvement in the reform of the Treaties to be tackled by the Intergovernmental Conference in the year 2000, bearing in mind, moreover, that a privilege along these lines has already been granted to countries such as Austria, Belgium, and Germany?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 58.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

The Commission would point out that Article 203 (formerly Article 146) of the EC Treaty states that the Council must consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. The Community institutions have no role to play in the choice of this representative, who is selected by the individual Member States in accordance with their constitutional law. The Commission sees no reason to propose an amendment to this provision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0535/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Europa 2000 programme

What are the 55 projects selected by the Commission for the Europa 2000 programme?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage

More than 50 % of the field margins in my constituency (the South West of England) are over two metres. The Commission and the Court of Auditors have recently instructed MAFF to reduce the amount of subsidies given to farmers whose field margins are over two metres. If farmers in the south-west do not wish to lose an average of £969 per year, they will have to plough

right up to, and possibly cut back, their hedges. This will damage wildlife and remove land vital for preventing soil erosion on steep fields. It will run counter to the environmental goals adopted by the EU.

The UK has asked the Commission to increase the set-aside margin to three metres for the UK. In the interests of promoting environmental conservation, will the Commission agree to rethink its approach, at least in the case of farmers who have traditionally maintained wide field margins?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0404/00

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Equal treatment for men and women

According to the Eurostat report for 1999, it will be a long time before women at the European workplace obtain the same remuneration as men, conditions for Greek women being the least favourable among those of women in Europe.

What measures will the Commission take to secure compliance with, and implementation of, the principle of equality and equal remuneration for men and women doing the same or equivalent jobs in all Member States, particularly in Greece?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The principle of equal pay for male and female workers for the same work or work of equal value has been laid down in Community law since the Treaty of Rome (Article 141 (ex-Article 119) of the EC Treaty). It was also the subject of a specific directive, Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women(1), which was transposed in all the Member States, including Greece.

These various provisions resulted in an extensive case law of the Court of Justice, which gave a very wide interpretation of the concept of pay. Despite these provisions and case law it is well known, as the Honourable Member emphasised, that pay inequalities between men and women are still considerable. That is why the Commission adopted a Code of Conduct in 1996 with the aim of improving conditions in order to ensure equal pay. This Code is meant to be instrumental in promoting the principle of equal pay in practice.

The Commission would also point out that the Court has recognised for quite some time that Article 141 of the EC Treaty has direct effect, enabling any female worker who considers herself to be a victim of discrimination to refer to this article before a national court.

Consequently, as a result of the current problems, and taking into consideration all the juridical guarantees already afforded by Community law, the Commission does not envisage at present any other legislative initiatives with regard to the principle of equal pay.

The Commission would, however, once again like to point out to the Honourable Member that since 1999 the objective to reduce pay inequalities between men and women has been an integral part of the guidelines for the Member States' employment policies. Within this context, the latter have undertaken to adopt measures aimed at promoting equal pay for men and women.

(1) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0104/00

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Allocation of Media II Programme appropriations to different Member States

The Media II Programme assists audiovisual projects. It covers three main areas of activity: training, project development, and the marketing and distribution of European film and television productions in other Member States.

What amounts have the different Member States received in assistance for the above three areas of activity since the programme's launch? Why?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission report on the results obtained under the MEDIA II programme (1996-2000) from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1998(1), forwarded to Parliament on 16 March 1999.

More specifically, beneficiaries are selected by the Commission in accordance with the arrangements laid down by Council Decisions 95/564/EC of 22 December 1995 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (Media II Training)(2) and 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (Media II Development and Distribution) (1996-2000)(3).

The projects co-financed by the Commission are not selected on the basis of nationality or Member State of origin but by virtue of their quality and European added value. Calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal. Guidelines are laid down, setting out the various eligibility and selection criteria.

A final report will be forwarded to Parliament when the MEDIA II programme has run its course, at the end of 2000.

(1) COM(99) 91 final.

(2) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(3) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0339/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Infringement of provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers

Article 4(2) of framework Directive 89/391/EEC(1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers states that Member States shall ensure adequate controls and supervision. In view of numerous allegations that Member States are failing to comply with the directive and ensure that it is properly implemented, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that Member States do in fact ensure adequate controls and supervision in accordance with the directive? What information does the Commission have concerning monitoring procedures and the penalties imposed by the national authorities on companies which fail to comply with the provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC?

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion in attaching particular importance to the effective application in all Member States of the national provisions implementing Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.

In this context and in accordance with Article 4(2) of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, any practical breach of the national provisions implementing this directive must be brought to the attention of the national authorities, who must organise and conduct the necessary inspections and controls to ensure correct application of the measures.

If specific data should reach the Commission, showing that national administrations have failed in their obligations in this respect, the Commission would take appropriate action, notably by opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, if required by the results of the investigation of the specific case.

With regard to figures relating to monitoring procedures and penalties imposed by the national authorities on companies which infringe the provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC, the Commission is currently collecting this information from the national labour inspectorates. As soon as it is available, the Commission will send it directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0773/00

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Importing reindeer meat from Russia to countries in the EU

According to information received by the Finnish Reindeer Herders' Association, the EU Standing Veterinary Committee made a decision of principle on 12 January 2000 (amending Decision 97/217/EC)(1) on the import of reindeer meat from the Kola Peninsula area of Russia. Until now, the import of meat from Russia has been prevented because the country is defined as a foot-and-mouth disease region and because of substandard abattoir and meat handling conditions. Representatives of the EU Standing Veterinary Committee made a tour of inspection to the Kola Peninsula concerning this matter.

Does the Commission know whether the tour of inspection, that affected the preparation of the issue and decision made by the Standing Veterinary Committee, was made in impartial conditions; did the Commission check the monitoring of disease, meat handling and quality testing, and did the Commission clarify the possibilities of creating an outside monitoring system by which the origin of reindeer meat can be reliably proven in all cases?

(1) OJ L 88, 3.4.1997, p. 20.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0179/00 by Mr Seppänen during question time at Parliament's March 2000 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0155/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Commission views on strictly limiting public access to policy documents

1. Does the Commission recall the efforts made during the Finnish Council Presidency to ensure that the best provisions on open government from individual Member States should also apply to European Union documents?

2. Has the Commission taken note of the article EU wants document secrecy which appeared in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on 4 January 2000?

3. Can the Commission explain how these views tally with Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam which deals with the right of access of citizens to Council, Commission and European Parliament documents? Specifically, documents which are:

(a) working documents and discussion papers, including those coming under the heading freedom of thought and

(b) other documents, including all documents/reports leading to political decisions?

4. Does the Commission consider that, in particular after the demise of the previous Commission, openness and transparency in dealings with citizens are of crucial importance? Does the Commission also consider that this is a condition which must be applied if the various European Union bodies wish to be taken seriously by the citizens of Europe?

5. Can the Commission indicate how, with the views as expressed in the article in De Volkskrant, it thinks it will be possible in future for organisations and individuals in society to participate fully in the democratic decision-making process and to influence the process of European decision-making?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

The Commission has not forgotten that during the Finnish Presidency of the Council the Member States were keen to extend to EU documents the best national provisions on open government.

It was for this reason that the Commission conducted a comparative analysis of Member States' current legislation on access to documents and based itself on the best practices followed in the Member States most advanced in terms of transparency when it drew up its proposal for a Regulation implementing Article 225 (formerly Article 191a) of the EC Treaty. This proposal was adopted by the Commission on 26 January 2000(1).

The Commission is aware of the newspaper article to which the Honourable Member refers but would point out that the criticism voiced in it related to a preliminary draft which had not been approved by the Commission.

The Honourable Member will find that his concerns are fully met by the text of the proposal for a Regulation on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The proposal improves and amplifies the scope of the rules currently in force in the institutions, extending them to cover incoming documents in their possession.

The redefinition of the proposal's scope in no way prevents individuals or bodies from participating in the decision-making process or deliberations of the institutions. Such participation is indispensable to decision-making in a democratic system.

(1) COM(00) 30 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Eliminating the dangers of using depleted uranium in (civil) aviation

1. Is the Commission aware of the report in the New Scientist (UK) for 15 January 2000 investigating the crash of the Korean-Air Boeing 747 in Essex, UK, in December 1999, which reveals in particular that the (civilian) airliner was carrying 300 kg of depleted uranium in the tail, not as cargo but as a counterweight?

2. Is the Commission aware that such quantities of depleted uranium are built into older aircraft in particular on a large scale?

3. Is the Commission also aware of the serious dangers to public health that can be caused by depleted uranium, the best known examples being the Bijlmermeer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) air crash and, on a vastly greater scale, the Gulf War in Iraq?

4. Can the Commission state to what rules, European or worldwide, the use of depleted uranium in aircraft construction is subject?

5. Can the Commission state what rules exist concerning the processing of depleted uranium during the dismantling of aircraft and the processing of depleted uranium in the event of disasters?

6. What action will the Commission take to eliminate completely the dangers posed by the use of depleted uranium in aircraft?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

Not being in possession of all the details of the Korean Air Boeing 747 accident in Essex, United Kingdom, in December 1999, the Commission recently enquired into this matter at the request of Parliament's Committee on Petitions.

The enquiry confirmed that depleted uranium was indeed used, in the past, in the construction of aircraft, including the Boeing 747, on account of its high density. This practice was abandoned in 1981, and uranium has gradually been replaced by other metals.

It is true that aircraft containing depleted uranium remain in service, but the enquiry carried out by the Dutch authorities following the El Al Boeing accident on 4 October 1992 near Amsterdam showed that the likelihood of an accident involving one of these aircraft having a harmful effect on public health was negligible.

Community law contains no provisions excluding the use of depleted uranium in aircraft construction. The findings of the abovementioned enquiry confirmed that there is no need, given our current level of knowledge, for the few aircraft still containing depleted uranium to be banned from use.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0223/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Road widening works at Glen of the Downs, Co. Wicklow, Ireland

Has the Commission ascertained the significance of the new evidence that has come to light in relation to the Glen of the Downs, County Wicklow, Ireland, designated a proposed SAC on 12 August 1999? Is the Commission of the opinion that the information provided so far by the Irish authorities enable it to assess with precision the level of damage to be incurred by the proposed SAC?

Is the Commission likely to put a stay on proposed road works pending replies to its queries by the Irish Government? Is the Commission going to issue legal proceedings against Ireland on this matter? What further steps if any is the Commission going to take to fully assess the impact of the road works at the Glen of the Downs? Is the Commission likely to withdraw part or all of its funding should the results of enquiries prove unsatisfactory?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission assumes that the new evidence cited by the Honourable Member consists of a hydro-geological report which she submitted to the Commission on 21 January 2000. This concerns the possible effects on groundwater and ash-hazel woodland of the design of the road drainage system. The Commission has forwarded this to the Irish authorities for comments, and proposes to defer comment until the Irish authorities have responded.

The Commission does not have the power to put a stay on road works. It has no current plans to start legal proceedings in relation to the project or to withdraw funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1536/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999(1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children, the European Parliament called for all proposals for Community acts to be accompanied by a family impact statement geared to the welfare of children.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.