ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/01

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

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Aid to help research scientists set up in business

There is a growing trend in America and Asia towards schemes whereby scientists and engineers working at official research establishments can opt to take either paid or unpaid leave in order to try to set up in business by themselves.

The aim of such schemes lies in creating an uninterrupted cycle in which applied research and support for innovation act as the stepping stones between basic research and the market.

Will the Commission say whether scientists and engineers working at the research establishments directly answerable to it can opt to take either paid or unpaid leave in order to try to set up small innovative undertakings? Do they stand to benefit from Community funding in embarking upon such a risky venture?

Answer givern by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

Commission decision of 7 January 1998 setting up a European technology transfer initiative (ETTI) at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) authorises the implementation

of a number of specific actions in order to promote technology transfer of the Communities' research results and access to its research facilities. These actions may be summarised in the following: a technology transfer capital fund, an extended incubator, access to large scale facilities and education and training initiatives.

Within this ETTI's last action, there is an indirect support that the JRC can provide to its researchers: an entrepreneurship training programme aimed mostly at young staff on short-term contracts. Pilot versions of this programme were run successfully in 1999 and 2000.

No specific direct Community funding is available for JRC researchers, either long term or short term contract holders, to start a company. As any other European researcher, they have access to the Community programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

As regards paid or unpaid leave in order to set up a company, only Commission officials according to the staff regulations can apply for unpaid leave for a period of one year, renewable twice for one year periods. In any case if officials wish to exercise a paid or unpaid external activity while they are employed by the Commission, they have to ask for authorisation of such activity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/01

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Car park of the Commission

Is the car with the registration number EUR 0364 in the service of the Commission?

Who usually has the use of the car?

Who had the use of the car at the end of January?

Why was it in the compound with the families and lawyers of the Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing at their trial in Holland?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

Until 21 February 2001 the registration number EUR 364 was attributed to the Transport service of the Commission.

At the end of January 2001 the car was in use as a service car to the Commission Representation Office in The Hague.

The Head of the Commission's Representation in The Hague was officially nominated as observer for the Commission at the so-called Lockerbie trial which took place in Zeist (Netherlands). The car was parked in the common parking places close to the entrance to the court building. That car park was used by all observers of the trial and also by the families and lawyers of the Libyans accused.

The registration number is at present not in use. Pictures of the car, clearly identifying its registration number, appeared in Dutch newspaper and TV media coverage. It is standard procedure that for security reasons the registration number is taken out of use in such cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0874/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Swarovski binoculars

Is it in keeping with the Treaty for a manufacturer (the firm of Swarovski in Tyrol, Austria) and/or Swarovski's wholesaler not to supply or to refuse to supply a retailer (the firm of Saalberger in Carinthia, Austria) with its products (binoculars)? The reason given so far by Swarovski and/or its wholesaler is Saalberger's excessively low retail price.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

It is not possible for the Commission to take a position on the question on the basis of the information it contains. A refusal to supply, even when the reason given is the retailer's excessively low retail price, does not in itself constitute an infringement of Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty, provided that there is no anti-competitive agreement or concerted behaviour between firms which appreciably restricts competition. It may be that a refusal to supply on the ground that the retail price is too low constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty. If this were the case, the manufacturer or supplier concerned would have to be in a dominant position on the relevant market. Furthermore, the provisions mentioned apply only if the measures are such as to affect trade between the Member States to an appreciable extent. If appropriate, the party concerned may apply to the Commission with more precise information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Acoustically reflective gillnets

In order to prevent cetacean bycatch, scientists in the USA have invented an acoustically reflective gillnet which reflects audio signals in the range that small cetaceans can hear. Is this Commission aware of this?

When these nets were tested in the USA and Canada, fishermen reported a significant reduction in levels of bycatch.

Given the large numbers of small marine animals that are caught in gillnets in European waters, does the Commission intend to support the testing of these types of gillnets within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of this kind of acoustically reflective gillnet and information on the results of preliminary tests has also been made available to the Directorate general Environment and Directorate general Fishery through the Bristol report of the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans).

The Commission is willing to support, as has been done up until now and provided that they pass the external peer review, all scientifically sound research proposals which aim to identify possible technical improvements to fisching gear to mitigate incidental catches of small cetaceans.

For the time being, the Commission has not received any formal proposal either within the so called Biological studies or within the 5th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme.

However, as regards the possibility of testing such fishing gear in Community waters, the Community established a Community framework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy(1). Article 9 of Council Decision 2000/439/EC of 29 June 2000 on a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred by Member States in collecting data, and for financing studies and pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy(2) foresees the spheres of activity which may be covered for studies and pilot projects.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 (OJ L 176, 15.7.2000).

(2) OJ L 176, 15.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/01

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Use of Article B5-810

Article B-5810 is aimed at supporting measures to benefit refugees who have found temporary asylum in the European Union.

How have the allocated financial resources been used, especially as far as expatriates from ACP States are concerned?

Have the ACP authorities or civil society organisations been involved in the actual allocation of these funds?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

In accordance with Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund(1), all persons defined in Article 3 of the Decision, including

citizens of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, may benefit from Member States' action relating to reception conditions, integration and voluntary repatriation and resettlement in the country of origin.

For the budget years 2000 and 2001 available credits for the Fund of 56 million under budget line B5-810 were allocated to Member States on the basis of the method foreseen in Article 10 of the Decision. This method takes into account the specific number of persons, targeted by European Refugee Fund action, who must have entered the Member States in the course of 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Member States are responsible for the implementation of action supported by the Fund including the selection of actions and their financial management and administration except for 5 % of the funds used for financing project of Community interest. The Commission is not in a position yet to give any indication regarding the nationality of the Fund's beneficiaries. It has to be noted anyway that no discrimination is made on the grounds of citizenship of any particular third country.

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

In its answer to my Written Question E-0025/01(1) the Commission admits that it does not have the human resources required to meet its external fisheries policy obligations, especially when it is called upon to represent the EU's interests and defend them as and where necessary at meetings of regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) such as ICCAT.

That being the case, and given that RFOs are vitally important for the future of the common fisheries policy, does the Commission not believe that it should increase the technical and human resources employed to defend the EU's fisheries interests within the RFOs?

Bearing in mind the importance and great economic value of highly migratory species, especially tunas and related species, and hence of the RFOs that manage them, does the Commission not consider that it should set up a specialised unit within its Fisheries DG? Does it not take the view that, if such unit were to be set up, the EU's interests could be defended far more effectively in the RFOs concerned and that, as regards negotiation of bilateral tuna fishing agreements governed by RFO rules, a permanent team of officials with the proper expertise would provide consistency and continuity in the Commission's action?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 93.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission has already stated many times that multilateral management of deep-sea fishing is a key issue for the future of the common fisheries policy.

Because the Community has exclusive jurisdiction on this matter, the growing and complex involvement of the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs) presupposes equal commitment by the Commission.

The recommendations adopted by the RFOs have been incorporated in order of priority, the greatest importance being attributed to technical and inspection measures concerning stocks of highly migratory fish.

As regards human resource allocation to the RFOs, the human resources available meant that the Commission was represented at the latest meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) by a team of six officials who, in often difficult circumstances and by dint of great personal effort, succeeded in bringing the various negotiations to a successful conclusion. The Commission is also represented at the other RFO meetings and, subject to the number of officials available, plays a full part in the work of the standing committees, working parties and plenary meetings.

From now on a single unit will monitor all the RFOs, with the exception of a few North-East Atlantic organisations, thereby ensuring that the Commission acts with the requisite consistency and continuity within these international bodies. In addition, the new structure of the Directorate-General for Fisheries should make it possible to respond more effectively to new demands and to deal more effectively and consistently with issues such as those which the Honourable Member mentions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Repression of peaceful activists in Indonesia.



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



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (5 April 2001) Subject: Repression of peaceful activists in Indonesia The Indonesian security forces are currently intensifying their repressive approach towards peaceful political activists, particularly in outlying regions such as Aceh and Papua. many of these activists are being silenced by being kept behind prison bars. What does the Council intend to do to ensure that these people benefit from a fair trial which respects international standards? Reply (20 July 2001) As the Honourable Member may know, the Union recently raised similar concerns to his own at the UN Commission of Human Rights in Geneva. The EU noted continued disappearances, arbitrary detentions, extra-judicial executions and torture, particularly in Aceh and Irian Jaya. It expressed particular concern about the imprisonment of individuals who strive for autonomy in a peaceful manner, and called for their immediate release.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/01

by Massimo Carraro (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Transfer of Nuclear Safety personnel from the JRC in Ispra to Petten

On 7 December 2000, in response to a Written Question submitted by the European Parliament (P-3619/00(1)) the Commission declared its intention not to undermine the operation and role of the JRC in Ispra and undertook to avoid any reduction in staffing levels.

Is Commissioner Busquin aware that in January 2001 a decision was suddenly taken to transfer Nuclear Safety activities and staff working in this area from Ispra to Petten?

Can the Commission say why this decision was taken?

Why did the Commission not consider it necessary to consult Parliament prior to the decision being taken?

What will the effects of this decision be in terms of the availability of the staff in Ispra?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 196.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

In its answer to Question P-3619/00 of 7 December 2000, the Commission did not declare any intention to avoid transferring staff.

Instead, in the process of reviewing its priorities, a project launched at the start of 2000, at its meeting of 26 July 2000 the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Steering Group set up to examine the matter.

In this context, the Commission has requested that Commissioner Busquin should instruct the Joint Research Centre (JRC) to carry out a feasibility study into closing the Petten site or eliminating 200 jobs by scaling down JRC activities across the board.

The feasibility study into the closure of the Petten site has been completed and its conclusions have been submitted to the Commission in the form of a communication which was adopted on 22 January 2001(1).

The conclusions of the feasibility study include recommendations to transfer the activities relating to research into reducing vehicle emissions from Petten to Ispra, and to transfer the Nuclear Safety unit from Ispra to Petten. This arises from a commitment to achieve consistency between the portfolios of activities of the various JRC sites.

Since this departmental redeployment measure was an internal matter, the Commission did not consult the other institutions on transferring personnel.

On the basis of the conclusions of the Steering Group the Commission will propose amending research staff tables as of 2002 to the budgetary authority.

A detailed audit of the other JRC activities has been carried out. The proposed concentration of activities is intended to ensure the long-term future of the JRC, within the scope of its mission to provide scientific and technical support for EU policies.

(1) C(2001) 125, 22.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/01

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Ratification of ILO Convention 182

ILO Convention 182 of 17 June 1999 concerns the worst forms of child labour and action to eliminate them. Can the Commission state which are the EU Member States that have signed and ratified that Convention?

What action will the Commission take to ensure that ILO Convention 182 is ratified and implemented by all the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-0299/01 by Mrs Maij-Weggen(1). According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom have now ratified ILO Convention 182.

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 213.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council. United States foreign policy.



Official Journal 261 E , 18/09/2001 P. 0113 - 0114



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council (20 February 2001) Subject: United States foreign policy What are the Council's views on the official statements of the new Vice-President of the United States, Dick Cheney, on America's new foreign policy in relation to Cuba and Iraq, and its attempts to convince the rest of the world to accept the construction of the NMD anti-missile defence shield? Reply (30 May 2001) Regarding the question on the NMD anti-missile defence shield, the Honourable Member is kindly invited to refer to the reply to written question No E-0552/01 on United States missile defence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0488/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Lancashire Carrefour

As part of the Action aimed at young people programme run by DG X, the Lancashire Rural Information and Promotion Carrefour was one of five targeted to assess the provision of information on Europe to rural schools.

1. How many Lancashire schools were approached and which age groups were covered?

2. How many replied?

3. What were the questions?

4. What report has the Commission compiled as an analysis of the responses from the UK?

5. Will the Commission provide me with a copy of the correspondence sent by DGX and a copy of its conclusions

What is the budget and purpose of the Carrefour? What does the Commission intend to do to remedy the failings identified by this questionnaire?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

1. Fifty-three schools in Lancashire and Cumbria received a postal questionnaire. The age range was from 11 to 18.

2. The reply rate for the postal questionnaire was 30 %.

3. The main areas covered in the questionnaire were:

- What were the schools' main sources of Union information?

- How often were the sources used?

- Were the schools charged?

Schools were asked to:

- evaluate the sources in terms of media, access, cost, quality, relevance.

- supply information on how they used and disseminated the information.

- supply information on what Union information they required and in what formats/media.

4. At the end of the project a Project Report was produced. A summary of its conclusions was published on page 29 of a booklet entitled Rural information and promotion carrefours: At the very heart of Europe.

5. The contents of the questionnaire are as described in point 3. Individual responses have not been kept.

The budgets of the carrefours all differ. The subsidy from the Commission to the Lancashire Carrefour was ECU 10 000 in 1997 when the project was completed; now it is 15 000.

The purpose of the carrefour is to provide information on the Community and its policies and programmes to the public in rural areas; to encourage dialogue and cooperation between the various parties active at regional level, and between the different regions of Europe; to participate in the debate on the Union, and to provide feedback to the Commission on the impact of its activities.

One of the major points raised by schools concerned inserting Union awareness into the national curriculum. However, the national curriculum is a matter for the British government.

The Central Bureau for International Education and Training (part of the British Council) coordinates the provision of information on the Union to the education sector in the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1745/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: The Ralleios School in Piraeus

Archaeological finds of unique historical and scientific value, showing the layout of the ancient Hippodrome, in the centre of Piraeus, are under threat of destruction, according to the Athens University Department of Archaeology and the Association of Greek Archaeologists, following a decision by the Ministry of Culture rejecting a proposal from the Piraeus Archaeological Service to build the Ralleios School on the same site with EU funding under the second CSF. The inhabitants of the town have reacted to the project by appealing to the State Council and by petitioning the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions.

1. In view of the fact that the EU is funding the project, has it considered the impact which construction of the school will have on an important part of the European cultural heritage?

2. Given that the proposed project does not meet the required specifications for a school (lack of a school yard), has consideration been given to the alternative sites for the Ralleios School proposed by local organisations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answer by the Commission to Oral Question H-0395/01 by Mr Alyssandrakis at Question Time during Parliament's May II 2001 part-session(1).

(1) Written answer, 15.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Authorisation of vaccination against foot and mouth disease

When did the UK Government first formally approach the EU Standing Veterinary Committee about the possible use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The United Kingdom raised the issue of the possible use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease in the meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee on 27 March 2001.

On the same day, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sent a fax to the Commission, requesting the examination of the circumstances under which vaccination of cattle to control foot and mouth disease might take place in the United Kingdom and the conditions that would be applied, were such vaccination to proceed.

On 28 March 2001 the Standing Veterinary Committee gave its favourable opinion to a draft Decision on this issue, which was then adopted by the Commission as Decision 2001/257/EC of 30 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC(1).

(1) OJ L 91, 31.3.2001.