ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Reply to my written question on the transposition into Spanish law of legislation on health and safety in the workplace in relation to tunnel-building operations

On 22 May, I tabled a question to the Commission on the risks to the safety of workers as a result of applying Spanish rules on health and safety to public works tunnel-building operations (Written Question E-1865/00).

The answer has not yet been received. Nevertheless, I have received reports of a demonstration held on 23 June in Madrid on the occasion of the first Tunnelling Safety Day organised by the National Association of Special Blasting Companies. The Secretary-General of that organisation, Mr José María Catalán Alonso, referred to the reply given by Commissioner Diamantopoulou to my question, and outlined certain aspects of that reply.

How is it possible that the content of the answer to a parliamentary question not yet replied to by the Commission should be made public at an event of this kind in Spain?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

The Commission is not aware how it was possible for the content of a draft answer to be known in the Honourable Member's country before the answer had been sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament. Until the answer was formally adopted by the Commission as a college it had no official value.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1292/00

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities)

The market in various kinds of financial services has developed rapidly in recent years. It is therefore important for modernisation of the relevant legislation to keep pace with these changes. Much still remains to be done before there is a functioning internal market in this sector.

The European Parliament voted on the UCITS report, for which I was rapporteur, in February. What action has the Portuguese Presidency taken to ensure progress is made on this issue? How much debate has taken place on the subject, and what does the Council consider to be the biggest stumbling blocks? Can the Council give any indication as to when it envisages adopting a common position?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council is currently examining the two proposals, as amended by the Commission on 30 May 2000, for a Directive amending Directive 85/611/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in February 2000.

Several meetings have been organised within the Council to analyse the amendments proposed by the European Parliament and the Commission's amended proposals. On 17 July the Council held a policy debate on the proposals. Following that debate, the Council took the view that it was necessary to reach political agreement in the course of October on the first Directive and called for rapid progress on the second Directive with a view to reaching political agreement on the latter before 1 March 2001. At that date it would be necessary to take stock of adoption of the first Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/00

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Composition and duties of the European Scientific Diving Supervisory Committee

With reference to my Written Question E-1817/99 and the Commission's reply to it(1):

Who belongs to the ESDSC (European Scientific Diving Supervisory Committee) and when did it last meet?

Which of the duties mentioned in the previous reply has the committee performed?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 57.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2000)

The mandate of the European scientific diving supervisory committee is contained in the draft standard for a European scientific diver. It reads as follows: It is therefore proposed that a self-monitoring is done in some way, but decisions could be taken at a higher level by an already existing committee like the programme committees associated to the European research programmes like MAST-III or a committee linked to some Europe wide scientific organisation. It was therefore proposed to establish a European Scientific Diving Supervisory Committee (ESDSC).

The ESDSC has been attached to the European marine and polar sciences board of the European science foundation, 1 quai Lezay Marnésia, F-67080 Strasbourg Cedex which could provide the Honourable Member with more information such as current membership. According to information available to the Commission, the SDSC has not yet met.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Investigating human rights violations in East Timor

Paragraph 9 of the European Parliament's resolution on East Timor of 18 November 1999 (B5-0271/1999) called on Council to examine the granting of technical aid to the UN authorities in East Timor with a view to preserving and investigating evidence of atrocities perpetrated during the occupation of the country.

Recent official reports, and various reports published in the media in the intervening months talk of innumerable difficulties and shortcomings in this area. Statements by President Abdurrahman Wahid and Dr Sidney Jones, Human Rights Director, in the report recently submitted to the European Parliament on a parliamentary delegation visit to Indonesian East Timor on 16-21 April, refer to difficulties in proving and assessing the facts. In the equally recent report by the Portuguese Parliament's Committee Delegation to East Timor, on the visit it made between 9 and 17 April, there is a reference to the fact that inter alia, the recent discovery of new mass graves indicatijng that we are still far from knowing the full extent of the tragedy suffered by East Timor.

Furthermore, over and above the terrible events which occurred immediately after the holding of the 30 August 1999 referendum, there is no news about any proper investigation of the atrocities and human rights violations perpetrated by the Indonesian authorities during the years of the occupation of East Timor, as demanded by the spirit and the letter of the EP resolution, a situation which could give the impression that there may be a desire to sweep the whole matter under the carpet.

Six months from the European Parliament resolution, what can the Council tell me about how it has followed up Parliament's request?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's wish to see a proper investigation into the violation of fundamental human rights and international human law perpetrated in East Timor. It has welcomed the report of the International Commission of Enquiry as well as that by the Indonesian Human Rights Commission. It has also welcomed the strengthening of the capacity within the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) to conduct forensic investigations. The EU, both through Community and through assistance provided by Member States, remains one of the largest, if not the largest, contributor to UNTAET and to East Timorese reconstruction and reconciliation more generally.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1580/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Ritual slaughter of live animals

For many years now, the celebration of the Eid-el-Kabir festival in France has resulted in live animals being slaughtered without stunning and outside slaughter houses. While the inability of French slaughter houses in urban areas to deal adequately with the demand from local Muslim communities is a factor in this situation, it cannot be a justification for allowing the inhumane slaughter of animals to continue. Due regard must be given to cultural and religious practices, but this must not occur at the expense of animal welfare and hygiene considerations.

Can the Commission confirm that France is in breach of its legal obligations under Council Directive 93/119/EC(1) concerning the slaughter of live animals? What steps is the Commission taking to see that the Directive is correctly implemented? When will the Commission commence legal proceedings under Article 226, if France is indeed in breach of Directive 93/119/EC?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Commission is informed about the treatment of the animals during this event. The inadequate slaughterhouse capacity in certain urban areas of France appears to be one of the reasons for the observations made by animal protection organisations with regard to treatment of animals during the festival.

Treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable. The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity.

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The Commission has been in contact with the French authorities concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On that occasion reassurances had been received prior to the festival that the French authorities were taking a wide range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic cultural groups to involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation and achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions.

Now that the festivity has passed a formal report, which has already been requested, is awaited from the French authorities before taking further initiatives, including if necessary opening proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1559/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Approval of payment of third instalment of Olympic Airways' share capital increase

In his initial statements, referring to Olympic Airways (OA), the new Greek Transport minister noted that the company was facing acute financial problems, that the scheduled transfer of some facilities to Spata was at risk and that the deficit for 1999 would exceed the estimates. In accordance with the Commission Decision on aid granted by Greece to OA (1999/332/EC(1)), the new management of OA submitted a report on the company's progress in the context of the impending approval of the third instalment of its share capital increase.

Since the Commission's decision on the progress of the company's restructuring programme is not known and bearing in mind that the company is transferring its services to the new airport at Spata, will the Commission say:

1. what its assessment of the company's operational plan is and whether the plan guarantees the company's progressive development,

2. whether feasibility studies have been carried out into the sale or leasing of aircraft by 31 December 2000 and whether the company can make use of government guarantees, and

3. what its assessment of the company's financial situation is?

(1) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission is calling on the help of independent consultants in order to gain a true picture of Olympic Airways' circumstances. It is maintaining contact with the Greek authorities so as to ensure that the new operational plan, which is geared to privatisation of the company in the near future, will be sufficient to guarantee its recovery.

Under Article 1(1)(ii) of Commission Decision 1999/332/EC of 14 August 1998, Olympic Airways may receive new loan guarantees totalling USD 378 million for loans to be contracted before 31 December 2000 for the purchase of new aircraft.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1892/00

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Council

(19 June 2000)

Subject: Accidents at work

Despite the development of legislation in the European Union with a view to increasing levels of safety for workers, particularly in the building and processing industries, the fact is that the numbers of serious accidents and fatalities have risen.

It is therefore clearly not enough to legislate, and we need to verify whether the measures put forward are adequate and are being applied. What indicators does the Council have at its disposal with regard to accidents at work and work-related illness, and how has it assessed the work done by national inspection and administration bodies?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

1. In accordance with the Treaty the Council acts, in the field of workers' health and safety at work as in other fields, solely as co-legislator with the European Parliament.

2. It is for the Commission, in the first instance, to ensure that the measures that it proposes in that area are adequate with respect to the objective to be achieved by consulting, in particular, the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work and representatives of workers' and employers' organisations.

3. Subsequently, it is also the Commission's function to check that the various Directives adopted by the European Parliament and the Council have been implemented satisfactorily by the Member States.

4. To that end, the Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions that they adopt in order to comply with the Directives in the field of workers' safety.

5. Finally, should it be necessary, in order to ensure the proper implementation of a Community Directive, to assess the work of a national inspection and management body, that task would also be a matter for the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Fisheries

The Commission has adopted a technical procedure for the purpose of setting a final figure for anchovy catches in the Bay of Biscay.

Although the figure set for the 1999 season was 33 000 tonnes, the Commission proposed reducing it to 5 000 tonnes for the year 2000 in order to allow anchovy stocks in the area to recover.

Finally, the Commission increased the quantity of anchovy which could be caught during the current season to 16 000 tonnes, with the possibility of a further increase (to 33 000 tonnes) to be decided upon at the forthcoming Fisheries Council meeting on 16 June if the quantity of anchovies of breeding age exceeds 36 000 tonnes.

What scientific data have been obtained as regards the population of adult anchovies in the Bay of Biscay? Will the increase go ahead in the light of those data?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

A subgroup of the Commission's scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries has completed an analysis including new information from two research vessel surveys in the Bay of Biscay during spring of this year. The analysis revealed that the abundance of spawning anchovy is higher than had previously been expected and is close to 50 000 tons. For this reason, the Fisheries Council of 16 June 2000 agreed to increase the total allowable catch (TAC) for anchovy to 33000 tons which is the same as the TACs of recent years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2720/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: State aid in extraction industries

What is the Commission's estimate of the amount of state aid per employee in the extraction industries (mining, etc.) in each of the Member States each year for the last five years for which figures are available?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

Whilst data are not available for all extraction industries, according to the eighth survey on state aid in the Community(1) published in April 2000 and reporting on the period from 1994 to 1998, the amounts of state aid destined to current production per employee in the following coal producing Member States are given below. It should be noted that 1997 and 1998 aid has been notified by the French Government but is still being examined by the Commission.

>TABLE>

The annual data are provided below.

>TABLE>

(1) COM(2000) 205 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1595/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Pre-trial detention

On 6 July 1997 Jean-Jacques Pitalugue, Gilles Benhayoun, Jean-Luc Della Justina and Maxime Briat were arrested for having produced colour photocopies of banknotes to a value of FF 20 800, some of which were put into circulation (to a value of FF 3 500) despite their poor quality.

The men were arrested and charged and are currently being detained at Fresnes remand prison under a detention order of limited duration dated 6 July 1997 and an order of 30 June 1998 extending their pre-trial detention as from 6 July 1998, renewed again on 4 January 1999 as from 6 January 1999.

On 6 January 2000 all four accused were committed for trial at the Assize Court in the department of Loiret on charges of forgery or counterfeiting of banknotes that are legal tender in France, by order of the Orleans Indictments Division, although they were discharged on the count of conspiracy. The four accused are now in their thirty-fifth month of pre-trial detention.

Does the Council not consider that the criteria generally applied as regards the length of pre-trial detention have not in fact been complied with in this case? If this is so, does it not consider that it should intervene, within the framework of its new powers in the area of justice under the Amsterdam Treaty, to secure compliance with reasonable periods for pre-trial detention and judgments or, failing that, the release of defendants under Article 5(3) of the European Human Rights Convention?

Reply

(29 September 2000)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament are not within the Council's competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Breakdown of the Interreg III Community initiative by Member State and outermost region

Will the Commission say what amounts have been distributed to each Member State and outermost region from the funds provided for under sections B and C of the Interreg III Community initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

On 28 April 2000 the Commission adopted guidelines for the Community Interreg III initiative(1). The table below shows the indicative financial breakdown by Member State, calculated on the basis of objective criteria.

>TABLE>

The amounts allocated by Member State must be assigned in accordance with the following breakdown: 50 %-80 % of the total appropriation for strand A of Interreg III (cross-border cooperation), 14 %-44 % for strand B (transnational cooperation), and 6 % for strand C (interregional cooperation).

The most remote regions (the French overseas departments, the Canary Islands, the Azores and Madeira) are eligible for strands B and C of Interreg III.

The financial breakdown within Member States will depend on the national authorities' decisions, which have not yet been notified to the Commission.

(1) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1784/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Regulating sugar cane production in the European Union

The European Union's only sugar cane plantation, which is located in southern Spain, is going through a difficult period, as evidenced by the thorny negotiations currently being conducted between sugar cane growers and sugar cane processing companies in the Malaga region.

There is no secret about the fact that this crop, which is particularly rare in the Union as a whole, needs firm support from the CAP if it is to continue to be grown within the EU and to be profitable for the farmers who produce it.

Would the Commission say what its intentions are regarding sugar cane and to what extent it considers that the CAP should be used to ensure its survival within Community agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it is aware of the special circumstances facing the growers of sugar cane in the south of Spain, which is indeed the only remaining continental region of the Community where this agricultural product is cultivated.

Over the years since the accession of Spain in 1985, the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector has included measures aiming to facilitate the adjustment of this cultivation to the specific conditions in the Community where sugar beet is the predominant agricultural raw material for sugar manufacture. Currently these measures consist of the possibility for the Spanish authorities to grant national adjustment aid to the growers concerned, in accordance with Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999, on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector(1) during the six marketing years from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 2001.

In addition, the rules governing the Community's structural funds, currently laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 27 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds(2) allow grant-aids to be awarded by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund to alleviate the less-favourable situation in the cane growing area, within the framework of approved programmes prepared by the Spanish authorities.

After falling to an all-time low of 4 240 tonnes, white sugar equivalent, in the 1995/1996 marketing year, market statistics show that the cultivation of sugar cane is recovering and looks set to return to the historical level of 15 000 tonnes, white sugar equivalent, annually.

The sugar sector as a whole, like the other agricultural sectors in the Community, is having to adapt to changing world trade conditions in agricultural products and the future survival of marginal productions in sensitive rural areas may well depend upon non-production linked grant-aids of the kind provided by the structural funds.

(1) OJ L 252, 25.9.1999.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1671/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Payment of contractors and suppliers.



Official Journal 053 E , 20/02/2001 P. 0175 - 0175



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1671/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission (29 May 2000) Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers Further to Ms Schreyer's answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00(1), will the Commission indicate when the interdepartmental working party on underperformance in the area of late payment is due to report? (1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10. Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (19 July 2000) The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the memorandum on reducing payment times which it adopted on 5 July 2000.