ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0457/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Assessment of Directive 96/71/EC

The Commission is currently carrying out a assessment of Directive 96/71/EC(1).

1. What problems are included in the assessment?

2. Is it also looking into the question of whether the provisions in the present text are practicable? If not, why not?

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Under Article 8 of Directive 96/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, the Commission shall review the operation of the Directive with a view to proposing the necessary amendments to the Council where appropriate.

In preparation for this review, the Commission launched a study concerning the implementation of the Directive in the Member States. The Commission's report on the implementation of the Directive, issued in January 2003, is based on the synthesis report covering all the country studies and will soon be available to the public in English, French and German.

The report summarises the main content of the legislation implementing the Directive in the Member States. Its objective is to provide an overview of the legal situation in the Member States without assessing the compatibility of the national transposing measures with the Directive and the EC Treaty. The review of the operation of the Directive will be finalised by a Commission Communication on the implementation of the Directive to be launched in 2003.

The Commission would like to point out that a group of experts from the Member States convenes on a regular basis to discuss issues and possible or practical problems related to the Directive concerning posting of workers. Furthermore, a questionnaire was prepared by the Commission concerning problems related to the implementation of the Directive. The discussions within the group of experts and the replies by the Member States to the questionnaire confirm to a great extent the results of the study.

In conclusion, it seems that Member States have not faced any specific legal problems in the transposition of the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Pensions payable to Members of the Commission

In reply to my earlier questions about the emoluments and pensions of its Members the Commission has given the appropriate answers. There is in fact a translation error in Article 9 of the Finnish version of Regulation No 422/67/EEC(1), since 4,5 % of the last basic salary for each full year in office plainly denotes the amount of pension and not the size of a pension increase

(the correct word in Finnish being maksetaan (paid) as opposed to korotetaan (raised)). To clarify one specific point of interpretation, can the Commission say whether the period in which a person receives the transitional allowance, as provided for in Article 7, is credited to his accrued entitlement based on years of pensionable service?

(1) OJ L 187, 8.8.1967, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The Commission agrees that the translation into Finnish of the terms in Article 9 of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice, contains an error.

The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for drawing attention to the point and will consequently undertake a revision procedure in order to correct the error. The text should in future read:

Eläkkeen määrä jokaiselta täydeltä vuodelta, jona kyseinen henkilö on hoitanut tehtäviään, on 4,50 prosenttia viimeisestä saadusta peruspalkasta.

As to the second part of the question, Article 7 of the above Regulation lays down that, during the period that a former Member is in receipt of the allowance provided for in that Article, his/her pension rights do not vary or increase. They therefore continue to be calculated on the basis of his/her period of service as a Member of the institution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0058/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: The Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Franz Fischler, and the principle of relative stability in the CFP

During the European Parliament's debates on the CFP reports the Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr Franz Fischler, said that the principle of relative stability could not be modified as part of the common fisheries policy reform, since it constituted part of that policy. Where in the Treaties is it stated that the principle cannot be modified if the CFP is reformed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The principle of relative stability applied under the common fisheries policy is not provided for in the Treaties and so is not part of the Community's primary legislation.

The Council can amend the principle by qualified majority. When considering the reform of the common fisheries policy the Commission felt it was appropriate to propose maintaining the principle. Relative stability is part of the basic policy balance on which the common fisheries policy rests, and a large majority of the Member States favoured keeping it. The Commission does not believe that a valid, acceptable alternative system exists to replace it.

The Commission has also acknowledged that the principle might be reviewed in the medium or long term. Furthermore, as part of the reform, the Commission proposed organising in 2003 debates on better economic management of Community fishing and it will present a report on this topic.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0390/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Job experience schemes and labour rights

Greek workers involved in job experience schemes co-funded by the European Union are being deprived of basic labour rights and social security rights, such as annual and parental leave, both during the training period and more particularly when they are actually working. As a result, there has been a case of a school caretaker in Greece going to work with her baby and working normally a mere three days after giving birth.

Given that Article 3 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC(1) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work defines worker as any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants and that the provisions of Directive 93/104/EC(2) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time are currently in force, will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to ensure that all workers involved in job experience schemes enjoy all the labour and social rights to which they are entitled?

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

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Directives mentioned by the Honourable Member have been transposed into Greek law. Consequently, in the situations referred to in the written question, it is the responsibility of the national authorities to ensure that national and/or Community provisions for protecting the health and safety of workers are upheld and to take action against any infringements.

It is only in cases where a consistent administrative practice can be established that the Commission could, if necessary, act against a Member State on the basis of incorrect application of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Anabolic drugs and children's health

In certain Italian cities (Milan and Turin in particular) there has been an abnormal increase in the number of cases of early puberty, a condition which mainly affects children aged between four and six and (in certain cases reported in the press) even babies just a few months old. It is possible that the increase is linked to the consumption of baby foods or meat derived from animals which have been treated with anabolic drugs (even though such a link is not scientifically proven), since the problem has arisen only in the last few years.

1. Has research been carried out in other EU countries as well in order to ascertain the extent and the significance of this disturbing phenomenon?

2. Have appropriate studies been launched with a view to establishing that such cases cannot be attributed to the consumption of baby foods or meat derived from animals which have been treated with anabolic drugs?

3. If they have, could the results of those studies be made known?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of cases of premature development of sexual organs in infants observed in the Italian Piedmont region. The Italian authorities have confirmed that the judicial authorities are carrying out thorough investigations, but so far no concrete conclusion on the source of the problem can be drawn.

In 1998, the Commission initiated 17 specific studies to address certain gaps in research on the potential risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products. One of these was a retrospective study on long term effects on children of exposure to estrogen-contaminated meat. It was published under the title Accidental gynecomastia in children in the Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica(1).

The Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) has recently reviewed all 17 studies. A list of the studies and the latest opinion of the SCVPH are available on the Internet(2). Unfortunately, the above-mentioned study does not provide conclusive results.

For this reason, topic No 45 entitled Environmental factors influencing puberty onset has been included in the Commission's research Work programme (Priority 5: Food Quality and Safety) for 2004 as an indicative topic(3).

(1) APMIS 109- Suppl 103: S203-9 2001.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/him/him_index_en.html.

(3) http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/call_details.cfm?CALL_ID=16.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0712/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Implementation of anti-discrimination legislation

What information is the European Commission gathering on the transposition of Council Directive 2000/43/EC(1) implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin in each of the EU Member States?

What information is the European Commission gathering on the transposition of Council Directive 2000/78/EC(2) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation in each of the EU Member States?

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0625/03 and P-0712/03given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Member States have to transpose Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 establishing the principle of equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin into national law by 19 July 2003. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation has to be transposed by 2 December 2003 (with the possibility of an additional three years to transpose the provisions on age and disability discrimination).

Thus far, France has notified to the Commission its transposition of parts of the two Directives. The French legislation is currently being examined for conformity with the Directives. The Commission is also aware that legislation has been adopted, or is about to be adopted in some other Member States, though has not as yet received formal notification of such legislation.

The Commission is in regular contact with the authorities of the Member States to support the process of transposition. This approach has allowed questions about the interpretation of the Directives to be discussed in advance of transposition. The Commission hopes that the majority of the difficulties encountered will have been solved in this way.

The Commission has expressed its concern that the deadlines for transposition must be respected and that a failure to do so will constitute an infringement of Community law. All Member States have indicated their intention to transpose the Directives within the time allowed. In the event of a failure to transpose by the deadline, or of incorrect transposition by a Member State, the Commission will make appropriate use of the powers available to it under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Carriage of oil in the Baltic under icy conditions

There are no common regulations in the EU on sea transport under icy conditions. The requirement to have a double-bottomed structure, for example, is insufficient if a vessel has not been ice strengthened. In practice, only Finland and Sweden are now affected in normal winters, but when the three Baltic States join the EU, as they are shortly due to do, the matter will be of interest to more Member States. A further factor to take into account is the relationship linking the countries directly concerned and the EU to a non-member country, Russia. It goes without saying that oil damage could also spread as far as Germany, Denmark, and Poland. For these reasons there is probably no obstacle arising from the subsidiarity principle to prevent common regulations being laid down to govern sea transport intended for icy conditions.

Is the Commission willing to consider proposing common regulations on classifications and other provisions for shipping so as to cover icy conditions?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission would stress that the Honourable Member's question should be placed in the context of the extreme weather conditions in the Baltic Sea last winter and problems connected with the passage, in those conditions, of oil tankers bound for the Russian port of Primorsk.

The Commission shares Finland's concern, and that of all the countries bordering the Baltic Sea.

The International Maritime Organisation and the Baltic Maríne Environment Protection Commission (Helcom) are now considering the harmonisation of existing standards to establish common norms for sailing in icy waters. The Commission believes that the EU must encourage and support this work as a matter of urgency.

The Commission could, if need be, consider the possibility of proposing a Directive harmonising the rules on sailing in icy waters applying to ships bound for or departing from ports in the Member States.

However, approved international standards are the only way of tackling the problem of vessels at risk transiting through international waters close to our shores.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0595/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Conditions of government aid to Swedish State Railways (SJ)

In Sweden, the crisis-hit railways need almost SEK 1 billion in government aid to put their finances in order, otherwise they may be threatened with closure.

However, a Swedish government rescue operation may be stopped by the Commission, depending on what form the aid takes. According to newspaper reports, the Commission can envisage a Swedish government loan to SJ but on market terms and for a limited period.

Can the Commission propose ways in which the Swedish government could somehow offer SJ a chance to survive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

At the outset it should be recalled that it is the competence of the Member State to inform the Commission of any plans to grant State aid before it is put into effect (notification). Indeed, if a Member State puts into effect a State aid measure prior to an authorisation by the Commission, such aid is deemed unlawful and the Member State may be asked to recover the aid from the beneficiary. In this respect it must, however, be kept in mind that only State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC-Treaty is subject to the notification procedure. Having said this, it should be noted that Sweden has so far not notified the Commission of any plans to make any financial intervention in favour of the Swedish Railways.

Furthermore, it is up to the Member State to decide the means and/or form of any possible public intervention, whereas the role of the Commission is to examine and assess this intervention's compatibility with the common market in light of the applicable legal framework. It follows, therefore, that although the Commission is ready to discuss different possible measures with a Member State and to give guidance, its role is not to suggest such measures, which remains the competence of the Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0007/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Council

(16 January 2003)

Subject: Assistance for the victims of the Prestige oil tanker disaster

The sinking of the Prestige oil tanker last November, and the resultant oil spill, has been, without a doubt, the greatest ecological disaster in modern Spanish history and has claimed thousands of victims. Indeed the Copenhagen European Council expressed its regret and grave concern regarding the serious accident of the

Prestige oil tanker off the north-west coast of Spain (see paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the Conclusions). The Council described the damage caused to the marine and socioeconomic environment, and the threat to the livelihood of thousands of people, as intolerable.

What concrete steps did the Council take to help the victims by 31 December 2002? In addition to its commitment to take precautionary measures to avoid any similar future disasters, are any measures being taken to provide Spain with additional financial assistance?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Questions E-3563/02 put by Brice Hortefeux, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02, E-3584/02, E-3587/02 and E-3589/02 put by Camilo Nogueira Román, E-3625/02 put by Paolo Costa and others and E-3761/02 put by Emmanouil Bakopoulos on the same subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Macerata

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that EU subsidies include a support programme to foster the twinning of European cities and that many Italian cities, including the municipality of Macerata, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects to benefit from funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0864/03, E-0886/03, E-1017/03, E-1018/03,E-1019/03, E-1020/03, E-1021/03, E-1022/03, E-1023/03, E-1024/03,E-1025/03, E-1026/03, E-1027/03, E-1028/03 and E-1029/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Twinning is funded centrally.

The grants are awarded by the Commission on the basis of projects presented by local authorities or twinning committees.

The grants are not paid until after the event, following submission of supporting documents.

The participation of local authorities in town-twinning activities is arranged via the publication of an annual call for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.

With regard to the Honourable Member's questions the municipalities of: Fiumicino (E-0886), Frosinone (E-0864), Ancona (E-1017), Florence (E-1019), Livorno (E-1020), Macerata (E-1021), Perugia (E-1023), Pesaro (E-1024), Pisa (E-1025) Pistoia (E-1026) Siena (E-1028) and Terni (E-1029) did not obtain funding for the organisation of twinning events in 2000.

The municipalities of Carrara (E-1018) Massa (E-1022) Prato (E-1027) received funding for twinning in 2000. These funds were used.

The Honourable Member might wish to contact the local authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0713/03

by Miguel Martínez Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Funding allocated to the programme El Sentido de los pueblos: La mujer rural protagonista

In around December 1999 the Commission approved a programme co-financed with EAGGF funds entitled El Sentido de los pueblos: La mujer rural protagonista (Village feeling: rural women as protagonists), which was promoted and implemented by the Spanish Federation of Rural Women (FEMUR).

Can the Commission say what amount of funding has been allocated to this programme and what stage has been reached in its implementation?

Does the Commission know whether the organisation FEMUR has received Community funding for any other of its programmes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

As the Honourable Member states, on 7 December 1999 the Commission approved the pilot project El Sentido de los pueblos: La mujer rural protagonista under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4256/88(1) laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88(2), as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section, which includes pilot projects for promoting rural development.

The planned Community financial contribution was EUR 740 745 from the EAGGF Guidance Section, and the project was to last from 1 December 1999 to 30 November 2001. The beneficiary was the federation of rural women in Spain (FEMUR). On 2 October 2001, the Commission approved an extension of the deadline for the project until 30 September 2002.

Two initial payments totalling EUR 518 521 were made for this project.

The Commission has recently received documents on the closure of the project, which it is considering.

When considering the pilot project prior to approval, the Commission asked FEMUR whether it was receiving other Community finance. FEMUR was receiving Community part-financing of ESP 35 782 425 (EUR 215 000) from the European Social Fund under the NOW programme for a project entitled GEA Employment initiatives for women in rural areas, which was to run from 12 January 1998 to 31 December 1999. The beneficiary gave details of the projects and undertakings that overlap would be avoided. When it considers the dossier for closure, the Commission will check that all the conditions for the eligibility of the pilot project have been complied with.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

(2) OJ L 185, 15.7.1988.