ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3672/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Introduction of blind-spot mirrors

In the Belgian Federation, fifteen people have already been killed on the roads this year because truck-drivers failed to see them in the blind spot left by their wing-mirrors. According to the Belgian Road Safety Institute, a truck-driver on average fails to see a road-user to the right of his vehicle in his wing-mirror five times every day.

Yet there is a simple solution to the problem, the special blind-spot mirror. This is a small convex mirror which is also used when taking dangerous hairpin bends. However, in order to make it compulsory to instal these mirrors on vehicles notably trucks Directive 71/127/EEC(1) (last amended by Directive 88/321/EEC(2) of 16 May 1988) would have to be amended.

Will the Commission amend Directive 71/127/EEC (last amended by Directive 88/321/EEC of 16 May 1988) so as to make it compulsory for vehicles notably trucks to be fitted with blind-spot wing mirrors? If not, why does the Commission not consider it necessary to introduce such mirrors in order to reduce the number of deaths on the roads caused by this problem? In its opinion, what more effective ways might there be of solving the problem of the blind spot in the field of vision of drivers?

(1) OJ L 68, 22.3.1971, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 147, 14.6.1988, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2001)

The Commission is also concerned about the number of accidents caused by vehicle drivers who are not aware that other road users are very close or already beside their own vehicle. These accidents are often related to changes of direction at crossings or junctions when drivers fail to detect the other road users in the blind spot of their rear-view mirror on the right side of the vehicle. When larger vehicles like trucks or buses are involved, these accidents frequently lead to serious injuries or even fatalities to vulnerable road users like cyclists.

The Commission will carefully examine the situation and discuss with Member States, industry and other interested parties during the coming months the possibilities of reducing the risk by modifying Council Directive 71/127/EEC of 1 March 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the rear-view mirrors of motor vehicles, as last amended by Commission Directive 88/321/EEC of 16 May 1988 to include specific requirements for blind-spot mirrors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: European report on the quality of school education

In its answer to questions E-2357/00 and E-2358/00(1) the Commission explains the methodology (no distinction between the data for the Flemish and French communities) it uses in its European Report on Quality of School Education for the Belgian Federation. However, it fails to say anything about the central issue (the distorted and unfair picture of education in the Belgian Federation).

1. Does the Commission acknowledge that its methodology gives a distorted and unfair picture of education in the Belgian Federation? If not, how does the Commission defend its choice of methodology, given that education in the Belgian Federation is unequivocally the responsibility of the communities?

2. In the light of the division of powers in the Belgian Federation, will the Commission in future distinguish between the Flemish and the French communities? If not, why does the Commission refuse to take account of the division of powers in the Belgian Federation and why does it not make a distinction in its data on education?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2000)

The Commission has outlined the methodology used for the preparation of the European report on quality of school education in its previous answers to the Honourable Member's Written questions E-2357/00 and E-2358/00(1).

The Commission obviously respects the constitutional situation of the countries involved in its studies and reports. The Commission is fully aware of the fact that in certain countries the responsabilities for education lie at regional level.

The general aim of the Commission when presenting statistical data on education is to illustrate the national situation and comparisons between countries. In the report, all tables clearly indicate whether data refers to the overall situation in Belgium or to the communities separately. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the data in the report does not present a distorted or unfair picture of the situation in Belgium.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/00

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

(31 July 2000)

Subject: Compulsory curfew imposed by Russia in Chechnya

The compulsory curfew which has once again been imposed by the Russian authorities in Chechnya is proof of the fact that the terrible war in that country is not yet over. In response to this state of affairs, what action is the European Union intending to take with a view to re-establishing the Chechen people's national democratic rights which have been withdrawn by Russia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2557/00 and E-2634/00

(16 November 2000)

Following the Feira European Council meeting in June 2000, the European Union undertook a review of the overall situation in Russia. Subsequently, decisions were taken in order for the Union to assist in the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and a market-oriented economy. Such is the basis on which a strong and fruitful long-term relationship with Russia must stand. The Union reiterated that the development of such a relationship with all of Russia, including Chechnya, presupposes the sharing of common values, in particular respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

From the outset of the crisis in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, the Council has been quite clear that only a political solution can bring about a lasting settlement there. To this end, the Union has been a steadfast advocate of respect for the human rights of all people in Chechnya. At the same time, the Council attaches great importance to the principle of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. In pursuit of its long-term policy of constructive engagement, the Union has consistently pressed Russia to meet its commitments.

The Union calls on Russia to comply with the demands of the international community concerning Chechnya. These include avoiding excessive use of force and any spillover of the conflict, pursuit of a political process including elected Chechen representatives, effective independent investigation into human rights abuses, cooperation with the Council of Europe, support for the OSCE Assistance Group in implementing its full mandate and assuring the safe delivery by NGOs of humanitarian aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Liability in the case of fraud

Users of credit and debit cards within the European Union are generally protected against fraudulent use of their cards with some limit on their liability.

Would the Commission please state which Member States currently apply similar limits on the liability that users face should they suffer hacking or other fraudulent use of their on-line e-banking accounts?

Given the likely growth of cross-border deposit-taking as a result of both the euro and the Internet, does the Commission envisage proposals to protect consumers from effective unlimited exposure in the case of fraudulent access to their Internet accounts?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2000)

The protection to which the Honourable Member refers is provided for chiefly in Recommendation 97/489/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder(1). A study is now in progress to examine the implementation of and compliance with this Recommendation. The final results will not be available until spring 2001.

The Recommendation applies to all means of electronic payment and, consequently, also to on-line bank transactions. It follows that the limits referred to in Article 6 of the Recommendation also apply to Internet accounts. The study referred to above will no doubt provide the statistical data required for any decision to change these limits.

The Honourable Member is also invited to consult the answer given to Mrs van Velzen's Question E-2833/00(2).

(1) OJ L 208, 28.8.1997.

(2) See page 103.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2252/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Bathing water directive and natural open-air bathing establishments

1. When is the Commission planning to revise the bathing water directive?

2. Does the Commission agree that greater importance should be attached to natural open-air baths which not only comply with the values set in the directive but are also operated on a more environmental and less costly basis?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission has been working intensively on the revision of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1) since 1998. Trials on beach surveys are carried out in most Member States and an expert working group is working on all monitoring aspects, including parameters and methods of analysis. The Commission will ensure in this matter greatest possible alignment with the World Health Organization (WHO) (proposed) standards.

The Commission foresees to come out before the end of the year with a communication to the Parliament and the Council setting out the principles of the revision of the Directive. The communication is the starting point of a broad consultation process involving all interested parties. The Commission envisages putting forward a proposal for the revision in 2001.

The bathing water Directive combines public health and environment protection and there is a clear and well-defined link with the water Framework Directive. Whilst the water framework Directive aims for a good (environmental/ecological) status as a rule for all waters, some water might require complementary quality standards and where necessary measures. All bathing waters (freshwater and coastal) falling under the bathing water Directive and its revision are identified areas in a river basin district requiring special protection (Article 6 and annex IV of the water framework Directive). Good status under the water Framework Directive has physico-chemical and ecological elements, both of them supporting and further improving bathing water quality.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Free movement of labour

Can the Commission indicate whether the Union Treaties, with respect to free movement of labour, specify any minimum age for the provision to operate or does national legislation apply? If the latter is true, can the Commission indicate the applicable ages for each Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The EC Treaty does not specify any minimum age with respect to the free movement of labour within the Community.

It is important to note that Member States must observe the terms of Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work(1), which provides in particular that Member States must ensure that the minimum working or employment age is not lower than the minimum age at which compulsory full-time schooling ends or 15 years in any event. In Spain, France and Sweden, the minimum working age is set at 16 years. In the other Member States the minimum age is 15.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3414/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Size of Swedish fermented Baltic herring (surströmming) tins

According to Dagens Industri of 2 August 2000 the EU has targeting the Norrland surströmming. According to the report, the tins had to be made narrower and taller or production would be halted. To comply with the EU decree Wahlströms Fisk at Utvalnäs, near Gävle, had to alter its canning plant to rescue production for the start of the surströmming starting date of 17 August.

Earlier, in summer 1998, there was a debate in Sweden on whether or not surströmming could be prepared in wooden barrels. On that occasion it turned out that Swedish officials had interpreted the EU directives too zealously.

What was the position in August 2000? Was it the Commission directive which obliged surströmming producers to change the size of their tins, or was it the Swedish authorities once again over-zealously interpreting a directive?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Community has no power to set the size of fish tins nor is there any need to legislate on this. It is up to the industry, if it wishes, to propose the use of norms issued by the standardisation organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3178/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Independence of the Commission in the case involving the Kingdom of Spain concerning the costs of transition to competition for electricity companies

In the past the Commission has maintained that, in its view, it was not inappropriate for Commission Vice-President Mrs de Palacio to act in the case relating to the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for the electricity companies, despite having been a member of the government which adopted this measure.

New developments have now occurred which may alter that situation. On the one hand, it has been announced that the Commission is to open formal proceedings and, on the other, the Spanish Government (essentially the same as the one of which Mrs de Palacio was a member) has stepped up its pressure, while the statements made by the Vice-President show a great deal of understanding and sympathy for the government's position.

In the light of the above:

- Does the Commission still believe that it is in no way inappropriate for Mrs de Palacio to be involved in the CTCs case?

- Is it not significant that not only was Mrs de Palacio involved in taking the decision concerned, but also that the current government, which wants to achieve a particular result, is the same as the one to which she belonged?

- How can the Vice-President's independence be guaranteed under such circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

1. For the reasons outlined on behalf of the Commission by the Member with responsibility for competition (in his answer to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-1761/99 and P-1889/99(1)), the Commission's decision on this matter will be taken in line with the principle of collective responsibility.

2. The fact that a Member of the Commission has belonged to a particular government should not prevent that Member from taking part in the Commission's decision-making process. In this context the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the provisions of Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 157).

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3311/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Alitalia air fares

Regulation EEC 2409/92(1) on air fares provides for the gradual liberalisation of tariffs complemented with adequate safeguards for the interests of consumers and industry.

On its Brindisi-Milan service, Alitalia applies an exorbitant fare of ITL 800 000 which does not help people living in Objective 1 areas such as Apulia.

Although Article 6(1)(a) of the Regulation allows a Member State to withdraw a basic fare which mldr is excessively high to the disadvantage of users, the Italian Government has not yet proposed to intervene despite user protests calling on it to do so. Article 8 of the regulation stipulates that at least once a year the Commission shall consult on air fares and related matters with representatives of air transport user organisations in the Community.

Has the Commission already compiled the information required under Article 8 or does it intend to examine the exorbitant fares applied by Alitalia with a view to taking the matter up with the Italian Government so that it may at last contribute to achieving an internal market by fixing equitable air fares within the spirit of the Directive and the Community regulation?

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

A Commission review of the routes mentioned shows no evidence that these fares are excessive when taken in relation to their corresponding costs. There does not therefore appear to be in this instance any infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) no 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services.

The Commission monitors the development of air fares regularly and the general trend shows signs of decrease in the Community area as stated in the communication The European airline industry from single market to world-wide challenges(1).

(1) COM(1999) 182 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/00

by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: LPG vehicles

Given that differences in national regulations governing motor vehicles fitted with LPG systems and the lack of mutual recognition arrangements continue to hamper freedom of movement within the Union, does the Commission intend to submit a proposal for a directive seeking to facilitate the free movement of such vehicles and their type-approval by each Member State, while ensuring that high safety standards are maintained?

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

On 28 January 1999 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Decision on the accession by the European Community to United Nations Economic Commmission for Europe Regulation No 67 on the approval of special equipment for motor vehicles fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)(1).

The Council's adoption of this decision, following Parliament's opinion, will make it possible to incorporate Regulation No 67 in the vehicle type-approval system and thus to supplement applicable legislation in the Community. The Regulation will be published in the Official Journal before its entry into force.

Regulation No 67, as amended, aims in particular to eliminate technical barriers to trade in motor vehicles while ensuring high standards of safety and environmental protection.

(1) COM(1999) 14 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Language use in the provision of information to consumers

It appears from the answer to question E-0614/00(1) that the Member States can adopt measures laying down that the labels of imported items be in the language of the region where the goods are to be sold or in any other language easily understandable by consumers of the area concerned.

Which Member States have statutory measures regulating language use in the provision of information to consumers? Which languages are compulsory in those Member States for the provision of information to consumers?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

In the answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-614/00(1), the Commission explained the principles ruling the use of languages for information to consumers.

The Commission is aware that measures regulating language use are in force in several Member States. However, according to information available, such provisions are usually included in a great number of texts, each one related to a specific product, category of products or consumer issue.

The Commission receives information about the scope of these regulations only when a citizen or an economic operator complains about the functioning of the national law or the behaviour of the national administration. Therefore, Member States are better placed to provide an exhaustive list of their laws concerning labelling and language use and, if necessary or requested, a justification for their rules.

In any event, citizens and economic operators can always apply to the Commission for a clarification or complain about a specific problem concerning language provisions in a Member State.

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 19.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3510/00

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Receiving unemployment benefit in a Member State other than one's home country

The free movement of persons within the European Union must be promoted and apply to all sections of the population. EU rules exist which allow people looking for work to receive unemployment benefit in a Member State other than their home country. The costs continue to be borne by the home country, but the scheme has to be administered by the authorities of the country in which the person concerned is looking for work. Every year in Sweden alone, some 1 600 people apply for permission to receive unemployment benefit in another EU Member State.

A survey carried out in Sweden last year showed that about one in two people looking for work and entitled to unemployment benefit in another Member State under EU rules had problems obtaining their money in the country where they were seeking employment.

Is the Commission aware of this problem, and does it intend to take steps to ensure that people looking for work can in future draw unemployment benefit in a Member State other than their home country without problems?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) provides detailed rules for the co-ordination of social security schemes of the Member States when Community workers and members of their families move within the Community. In Article 69 of the Regulation there are provisions which enable an unemployed person, under certain conditions, to seek work in another Member State and, during that period, to retain the right to unemployment benefit from the first Member State. During this search for work the benefits are provided by the institution in the Member State to which the unemployed person has gone to seek work. The institution in the first Member State is obliged to reimburse the amount of the benefits to the institution which provided the benefits.

The Honourable Member implies that Member States are not implementing this provision properly. However, more information is needed in order for the Commission to determine whether Community law has not been respected properly in any particular case.

(1) Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).