ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1757/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Support for olive-growers affected by inclement weather in Portugal

The inclement weather which has affected Portugal has had serious consequences for certain forms of agricultural production, especially in the olive sector. In that sector production for the last marketing year fell by 60-70 %, above all in the Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro region, which was declared a disaster zone by the Portuguese government.

In the meantime, the farmers, the majority of whom are small producers, have received no support in the form of subsidies. The government has merely opened a special credit facility, despite the enormous damage caused by the fall in production in an area highly dependent on olive-growing.

This means that the farmers have received neither the income from their lost production nor the production subsidies which had been promised in the budget. Their plight is such that some may be obliged to abandon cultivation in order to survive.

It is therefore essential that compensation be paid to olive growers in this region, on the basis of at least 50 % of average annual production over the last three years as declared to the INGA (the National Institute for Agricultural Intervention and Guarantees).

Can the Commission provide information on its position concerning compensation for the Portuguese olive-growers affected by the inclement weather, given the prior existence of budget lines for the payment of production subsidies which were not actually granted and the fact that Portugal is a net contributor to the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has no financial instrument that allows it to grant compensatory aid to farmers suffering production losses as a result of bad weather.

The Commission is, however, willing to consider national aid, provided it complies with the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector(1).

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Tax discrimination against leasing of staff from elsewhere in the Community

Liability for municipal tax payable to local authorities in Austria, including that payable by staff leasing agencies, has hitherto always been calculated on the total wage bill. As of 1 January 2001, in accordance with Article 20 of the law applicable to implementation of the 2001 budget (BGBl I, 142/2000), the undertaking for which staff have been recruited by a staff leasing agency

is liable for local authority tax at the rate of 70 % of the recruitment fee. Since this means in particular that ancillary wage costs and a profits component are now included in the basis of assessment, the end result is to at least double the local authority tax burden.

An employee leased by a staff leasing agency established elsewhere on Community territory to an Austrian firm for work in Austria will be significantly less well-off in terms of liability for local authority tax than an employee recruited directly by the same firm in Austria.

Even if the abovementioned Austrian-based firm were, for example, to commission an Austrian-based electronics undertaking to carry out a repair, a much lower amount would be payable in local authority tax than if the repair were carried out by an electrician who had been recruited through a staff leasing agency established elsewhere in the Community.

Is the discrimination operating here to obstruct competition from staff leasing agencies established elsewhere in the Community permissible under European law?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Municipal tax is provided for by Austrian federal law. As there are no specific Community provisions, the tax is within Austria's political discretion. The Member States must nevertheless observe the general principles of Community legislation, including the prohibition of discrimination. However, in the situation referred to by the Honourable Member, foreign staff leasing agencies are not discriminated against compared with employees in Austria, as the situations are not comparable: only the situations of staff leasing firms are comparable. Austrian law does not provide for different treatment of such firms according to whether they are based abroad or in Austria. The Commission therefore assumes that it is not mainly foreign firms that might incur a higher tax burden.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Drugs cooperation with Latin America

Six years after it was set up the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), which has been thoroughly overhauled as regards both its objectives and its working methods, provides a proper integrated system for information on drugs and the drug policies conducted in the various EU Member States.

The Monitoring Centre is needed not only by the countries applying for EU membership but also by other third countries as a reliable source of knowledge and experience relating to such matters. Although it has been able to meet this need in the case of the applicant countries ever since its statute was suitably amended and the necessary human resources were made available to it under the PHARE programme, the same cannot be said in the case of other third countries and, in particular, those of Latin America, a part of the world for which drugs-related information is one of the priority areas of cooperation with the EU. The EMCDDA has neither the legal means nor the resources it requires in order to be able to meet this need and cooperate directly with Latin America.

Would the Commission therefore provide the following items:

1. A list of the Latin American, African and Asian countries which have requested cooperation with the EU as regards drugs-related information, with a view to setting up national and/or regional drug-monitoring centres.

2. A list and a description of the projects which the Commission is planning to implement in this field and of the resources allocated to the implementation of those projects.

3. A list of the EU entities selected by the Commission for the purpose of implementing the projects and information regarding the way in which they have been selected, the criteria used, etc.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's question on cooperation with Latin America in the field of drugs, in particular with regard to the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (P-1768/01)(1).

To date, only Venezuela has asked to benefit from European cooperation on information on drugs.

Only one monitoring project is being developed in a non-candidate third country. This is the monitoring centre in Venezuela for which the Commission will provide a grant of1 950 000.

The list of European bodies selected by the Commission for carrying out this project has not yet been drawn up and the implementing arrangements have still to finalised between the Venezuelan government and the Commission.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 223.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1444/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Management of the European Social Fund in the Canary Islands

The answer of 13 October 2000(1) to Written Question E-2331/00 on the same subject sparked off a lively political debate widely reported across the regional press in the Canary Islands.

The debate prompted Mr José Carlos Mauricio, spokesman for the CC (Canary Islands Coalition) grouping in the Spanish parliament, to reveal that last week (sic) he had had a discussion with Commissioner Diamantopoulou, in the course of which she had informed him, unofficially, of the existence of a Commission report on the management of Community employment funds (as they are referred to in the text), clearing the Canary Islands government of any wrongdoing and revealing that the only irregularities discovered by Brussels were administrative errors, which were very common in those Member States with high levels of unemployment (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece). According to Mr Mauricio, Commissioner Diamantopoulou told him that the irregularities concerned were administrative errors resulting from precipitate use of the funds.

Will Commissioner Diamantopoulou, on the Commission's behalf, give details of or confirm the existence of any recent report, study or document drawn up by the Commission in connection with the management of programmes and/or projects financed by the European Social Fund in the Canary Islands?

Is it the case, as reported in the press, that Commissioner Diamantopoulou expressed the view that in countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece errors of an administrative or other nature are commonplace in the management of resources from the European Social Fund?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 120.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that no report or study has recently been carried out on the management of programmes and/or projects funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) in the Canary Islands.

In addition, the Commission can confirm that the Member of the Commission responsible for Employment and Social Affairs has made no statements concerning the Canary Islands. She has, however, on several occasions referred to the existence of irregularities or presumed irregularities in the various Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1208/01

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Closure of healthy undertakings

The brutal and cynical announcements of closures at Danone and Marks and Spencer demonstrate to those who might still have had any doubts that the era of the mixed economy and the European social model is dead.

Restructuring in undertakings as a result of genuine economic problems would be understandable, but it is not possible to accept restructuring in healthy and prosperous undertakings which have only one single objective: increasing the profits of those who own capital.

If agricultural crises can prompt our officials to take action, voluntary acts of vandalism which, in the name of money, destroy entire families should cause our European leaders to act at least as decisively, particularly given that the absence of any reaction will cause this trend to accelerate in the future.

For this reason, I ask you most earnestly what you intend to do.

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is aware that restructurings of undertakings such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question may have serious economic and social consequences for employees and their families.

However, the legislative nature of the Council's role - which is similar to the European Parliament's - does not allow it to intervene in the implementation of European legislation, which is the responsibility of the Member States under the supervision of the Commission and, where necessary, the Court of Justice; nor does it allow the Council to comment on cases involving particular undertakings.

In the first instance, it is for the judicial and social structures of the Member States concerned to resolve any disputes between employees and employers in cases of restructuring and to establish whether the undertakings have acted in accordance with national legislation and practices, including those based on Community law (for example, the Directive on collective dismissals (98/59/EC) and the Directive concerning a European Works Council or a procedure for informing and consulting employees in Community-scale undertakings (94/45/EC)).

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Council is continuing to adapt and supplement the existing legislation. The proposal for a Directive on a European Company - which regulates the involvement of employees - will be adopted in the near future. Furthermore, on ll June 2001 the Council reached political agreement on the Directive on the informing and consulting of employees at national level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1356/01

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Discrimination against Italian citizens on the basis of linguistic ability

With reference to a letter sent to me by Mr Marco Meneghini on 18 March 2001, I should like to know whether or not the contents of that letter correspond to reality.

Job advertisements have appeared in certain European newspapers to fill posts in the Socrates and Leonardo offices and the Youth Office in Brussels, all of which are financed by the Commission. However, those job offers seem to be aimed principally at people with a perfect command of French or English.

Would the Commission say once spot checks have been carried out whether or not the state of affairs described above is an accurate reflection of reality and whether or not it constitutes discrimination based on language or nationality, which is specifically banned under Belgian legislation designed to combat racism and under Article 211 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Community law on the free movement of workers prohibits not only open discrimination on the basis of nationality, but also the use of recruitment criteria that in practice constitute a form of covert discrimination. Conditions relating to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled do not in principle constitute discrimination on the grounds of nationality (Article 3, Paragraph 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(1)), but in practice the use of a specific criterion such as a candidate's mother tongue or native language for assessing the required level of knowledge may be considered disproportionate in relation to the aim in view (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June 2000 in Case C-281/98).

Organisations performing services under contract for the Commission, such as the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth Technical Assistance Office, are required to operate in a wide range of languages and the staff recruited by such organisations is composed of a wide range of nationalities and mother tongues. They may from time to time require to recruit staff with a very high level of knowledge of a specific language or languages. In so doing, they are bound to comply with all legal and administrative provisions applicable in Belgium, including Community regulations on the free movement of workers, and are answerable to the Belgian authorities for their compliance with such provisions.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Human rights in Iran.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0165 - 0166



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (5 April 2001) Subject: Human rights in Iran The recent arrests in Iran of non-violent opposition groups who collaborate in an informal religious-nationalist alliance calls into question whether or not Iranians are able to exercise their basic rights. What steps does the Council intend to take to make its views known on this issue? Reply (16 July 2001) The EU has most recently made clear its concerns about the human rights situation in Iran by tabling a draft resolution on Iran also at this year's session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (adopted on 20 April 2001). Human rights feature prominently in the political dialogue meetings between the EU and Iran which are held twice a year. The EU will continue to raise these issues in its direct contacts with Iranian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Request for further information concerning the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain)

In its reply of 8 May 2001 to my Written Question E-0882/01(1) concerning the construction of an industrial estate on a site set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142 in San Fernando de Henares (Spain), the Commission said that, on the basis of the complaint submitted, it had asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the matter and had requested from them a copy of the impact assessment carried out in respect of the project and a detailed description of the types of habitat to be found in the area. The Commission also stated that it would make sure that the relevant Community legislation was complied with.

Has the Commission received the information it requested?

If so, what view does it take of the matter in the light of that information? What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) as a consequence?

If not, will it urge the Spanish authorities to make the documents requested available as quickly as possible?

(1) JO C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 115.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

As it indicated in its answer to Written Question E-0882/01(1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the application of the Community environmental legislation which may apply in this instance.

The Spanish authorities' reply has just been received and is now being examined. It would therefore be premature to make a judgment regarding any improper application of Community law in this particular case.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 115.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0723/01

by Patrick Cox (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Regulation No 2978/94 relating to segregated ballast tanks (SBT) for tankers

The effect of Regulation No 2978/94(1), has been to adversely affect pilots' remuneration and their pension which is based on their last year's earnings. In particular I refer to pilots on the river Shannon in Ireland who are licensed by Shannon Estuary Ports and are self-employed. To the best of my knowledge these are the only pilots in Ireland affected adversely by the regulation. Their remuneration is achieved on a share basis and their income fluctuates depending on the amount of traffic entering the Shannon estuary. Pilotage rates are levied on ships based on the vessel's gross tonnage. The regulation states that tankers with SBT should have their gross tonnage reduced by a minimum of 17 %.

Was the intention of the regulation to adversely affect pilots' remuneration? Has this affected pilots in other Member States in a similar manner?

What steps, if any, does the Commission intend to take in order to rectify this situation?

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 of 21 November 1994 of 21 November 1994 on the implementation of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Resolution A.747(18) on the application of tonnage measurement of ballast spaces in segregated ballast oil tankers, aims at implementing the Resolution A.747(18) adopted on 4 November 1993 by the IMO, the objective of which is to encourage the use of environmentally friendly tankers and the use of segregated ballast tanks in oil tankers. This Regulation introduces a differential calculation system for fees for oil tankers to be followed by port, harbour and pilotage authorities in order to reach the objective of the IMO Resolution.

The Regulation does not affect the level of the fees nor the differentiation of the pilotage dues based upon the ship's type. This is a matter which, in line with the principal of subsidiarity, has intentionally been left to the sole responsibility of the Member States.

The Commission has no information on an adverse effect of this Regulation on pilots' remuneration in other Member States.

The Commission draws the Honorouble Member's attention to the Commission's Communication on the safety of the seaborne oil trade(1) and in particular to the proposed legislative measure regarding the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull oil tankers. This proposal foresees the repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94.

(1) COM(2000) 142 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1956/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Nationalisation of the property of Community nationals in Ethiopia

In his answer to my Written Question No E-0879/01(1), Commissioner Nielsen stated that in discussions with the Ethiopian Government, the Commission has, on various occasions, expressed the need to create an environment that is conducive to private sector development and domestic as well as foreign direct investment. With regard to Ethiopia's confiscation of the property of Community nationals, he adds that the Commission cannot but advise affected citizens to contact their relevant national diplomatic representation in Ethiopia which will follow up on these claims.

The EU, therefore, confines itself to addressing fine words and recommendations to countries such as Ethiopia which confiscated the property of Greek, Dutch, French, Italian and other nationals overnight, while simultaneously increasing the Community resources provided from the 9th European Development Fund (EDF). As Commissioner Nielsen noted, these sums amount to 384 million for envelope A and 154 million for envelope B.

What is the Commission's position on the possibility of directly linking the provision of Community aid to countries such as Ethiopia - which refuses to revoke the damaging reforms imposed by the communist Mengistu regime - with a requirement that the government of that country immediately respect the fundamental human right to own property, abandoning the ineffective and dead-end tactic of making recommendations? How can the EU not be thought of by its citizens as an accessory to robbery, since it is funding the receivers of stolen property, who are auctioning it off in the presence of their victims? Does it not demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the EU when, instead of helping its citizens who have been robbed of their property, it rewards and gives financial support to the robbers? (The terms robbers and receivers of stolen property are used in their strict legal sense).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 141.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, development co-operation of the Commission with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries is based on the rules and conditionalities defined in the Lomé Convention and ratified by all the Member States. This Convention does not contain any legal link to property rights of European citizens, nor does the Cotonou Agreement that was signed a year ago and is presently in the process of ratification.

Although the Commission wholeheartedly subscribes to the principle of private property and fully supports the application of this principle for European citizens all over the world, it cannot legitimately use the instrument of development aid to pressurise a partner government into a certain behaviour in this context. As already explained in the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0879/01(1) by the Honourable Member, the Commission will have to limit itself to making its point of view known with all the necessary insistence.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 141.