ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/00

by Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Mediterranean Basic

Does the Commission not consider that, as a matter of particular importance and urgency, the current department within the Directorate-General for Research which is responsible for developing programmes relating to the Mediterranean Basic should be upgraded?

The purpose of such an upgrading should not only be to increase the effectiveness of Community action throughout the Mediterranean (pursuant to the process launched at the Barcelona Conference); it would also reflect the political determination to increase and stimulate Mediterranean cooperation.

It should be emphasised that, in the field of scientific and technological cooperation, the European Community is in a position to cooperate with the countries of the Mediterranean in a way which is of particular importance to the entire economic development of the region.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

The Commission is in complete agreement with the Honourable Members' opinion regarding the importance of scientific and technical cooperation with the Mediterranean Basin States, and supports the development of such activities without reservation. It was in this spirit that, in 1999, the Commission launched an entirely new from of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in the fields of science and technology, INCO-MED, as part of the specific programme on confirming the international role of European research, itself part of the fifth framework programme for research and technological development (RTD). In addition, as part of the MEDA programme, the Commission has launched the Eumedis project to strengthen Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in promoting the adoption of new information and communication technologies across the region.

The Commission continues to reflect on how it can strengthen Euro-Mediterranean S&T activities, in the light of their importance for sustainable development in the Mediterranean partner countries. It was precisely as part of this process of reflection that the Commissioner for Research took part in the informal meeting held at Capri on 29 and 30 September 2000, where he was able to discuss with the Research Ministers of Spain, France, Greece, Italy and Portugal, as well as with their opposite numbers from a number of Southern Mediterranean countries, how such cooperation might be pro-actively developed. The Italian Research Minister informed his colleagues of the conclusions and recommendations that emerged in Capri during the Research Council meeting held on 16 November 2000.

The Commission will ensure that the Honourable Members are fully informed of its proposals for Euro-Mediterranean S&T projects for the years 2001 and 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3747/00

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against foreign coach drivers in France

French law allows huge fines to be levied on coach drivers for the slightest infringements, such as not completely accurate tachograph discs. The fines are completely disproportionate to the offences.

The French police make especially frequent checks on foreign coach companies.

These constitute an indirect obstacle to the freedom to provide services.

1. Is the Commission aware of this pattern?

2. Does the Commission consider these measures in France to be compatible with Community law?

3. If not, does the Commission intend to initiate infringement proceedings?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of a change in French law, which authorises higher penalties, where serious offences are detected and a document de suivi is absent.

As regards general discrimination against foreign bus drivers by the French authorities, statistics provided by the French authorities for offences detected within their territory over the past decade (see Commission reports for 1991-1992(1), 1993-1994(2); 1995-1996(3)) and the French data sent for the forthcoming report for years 1997-1998 do not indicate an abnormally high number of non-residents checked or offences detected on the part of non-resident drivers. On the contrary, the number of non-resident drivers checked and found to be offending has consistently been a much lower figure than that for resident drivers.

2. and 3. The Commission is still examining whether the French law mentioned above is in conformity with Community law. However normally the issue of penalties for road transport offences is a matter for Member States to decide under the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission can only advocate that sanctions for infringements of Community law are sufficiently dissuasive, proportionate and effective.

(1) COM(95) 713 final.

(2) COM(97) 698 final.

(3) COM(2000) 84 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3984/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Freedom of expression for the media

In paragraph 1.2.6 (Mass Media and Xenophobia) of the summary of the 1999 annual report published by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia it is stated that (and I quote verbatim): In 1999 the reporting by media in Greece and in Italy may have contributed to the criminalising discourse on immigration related to a recent wave of migration from Albania.

- This is a somewhat harsh statement which does not reflect the true state of affairs. The Commission should bear in mind that, when a document to be issued by such a body is being drawn up, an objective approach should be adopted.

- In July of this year I tabled a question on illegal immigration from Albania (P-2787/00) which highlighted the major problem of trafficking in human beings along the coasts of Italy and the activities of unscrupulous traffickers which lead to the deaths either of the immigrants themselves or of police officers and customs officials. As on other occasions the media merely reported the facts of the incident in question.

In view of the above considerations, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is it possible for an annual report issued by an EU monitoring centre to include such statements?

2. What is the Commission's general view of the matter?

Reply given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is an independent body set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia(1), which enjoys maximum autonomy in carrying out its tasks. Its Management Board is made up of independent individuals appointed by each Member State, Parliament and the Council of Europe, and of a representative of the Commission, making up a total of 18 members. The tasks of the Monitoring Centre include publishing an annual report on the situation regarding racism and xenophobia in the Community and on its own activities.

According to the information available to the Commission, the sources for the statement concerning the media to which the Honourable Member refers are reports and studies mentioned in the text of the report itself (section 1.1 Racial violence and threats, victims and perpetrators), such as the second report on Greece (December 1999) of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe (ECRI) and the Ethnobarometer report (May 1999) for Italy.

As it stated in its Communication on a Community immigration policy(2), the Commission realises the responsibility of the media for educating the general public.

(1) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

(2) COM(2000) 757 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Opportunities for internet companies in the People's Republic of China

According to press reports the Chinese government has issued, within the space of a week, forty new regulations concerning Internet companies operating in China. The new regulations limit foreign investments and also require the detailed filtering of subversive material. The regulations threaten to close down any firm which does not possess the licence required in the country.

According to the Chinese official news agency Xinhuan, Internet service providers are required to retain information about the material they provide, and about all their customers, for 60 days. If necessary this information must be sent to the Chinese authorities.

Business operators have 60 days to send private data about their activities to the Chinese ministry of information in order to obtain an operating licence. Firms without such a licence will be fined or closed down altogether.

1. How does the Council of the European Communities propose to act to protect the human rights of Chinese citizens, and in particular the freedom to transmit information?

2. The Chinese government is threatening to close down all Internet service providers which do not have the above-mentioned licence. Does the Council consider that this provision jeopardises the business activities in China of operators from EU Member States?

3. How does the Council propose to take account of these new Chinese regulations in its WTO negotiations with China?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council, like the Commission, will be keeping watch on implementation of the new Chinese regulations applying to Internet companies operating in China to ensure that there is no discrimination against European undertakings. Human rights violations, including unjustifiable restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information, could be raised in the course of the EU-China dialogue on human rights.

China has undertaken, in the context of the negotiations for its accession to the WTO, to consider the gradual opening-up of its market to all telecommunications services, including the Internet. Like the Commission, the Council is endeavouring to ensure that China will abide by the commitments entered into in the WTO context in all areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Language discrimination in the European Union

In its reply to Written Question E-4100/00(1), the Commission says that Community rules on the freedom of movement of workers prohibit not only discrimination on grounds of nationality but also covert discrimination which in effect produces the same result if apparently neutral criteria are applied.

However, the Commission believes that there is no discrimination if requirements concerning knowledge of languages are based on the nature of the vacancy to be filled. Accordingly, in some situations it may be legitimate to require candidates to have a very high standard of knowledge of languages.

Referring to case C-281/98 ( the fact that it is impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means must be considered disproportionate in relation to the aim in view) fails to address the fundamental question raised in E-4100/00.

It is not clear from the Commission's reply whether the native speaker criterion is an infringement of the non-discrimination clause. Furthermore, case C-281/98 was not concerned with this criterion but with the requirements for possession of a language certificate.

In the Commission's view:

1. Is the native speaker criterion for staff recruitment in the Member States of the European Union a violation of the principle of non-discrimination? If not, how does the Commission reconcile this condition with the principle of non-discrimination?

2. Is the native speaker criterion for staff recruitment in the Member States of the European Union a violation of the freedom of movement of workers in the Community? If not, how does the Commission reconcile this condition with the freedom of movement of workers in the Community?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

As was pointed out in the Commission's answer to Written Question E-4100/00 from the Honourable Member(1), in certain situations, depending on the nature of the post to be filled, it may be justified to require applicants for a job to have a very high standard of knowledge of languages.

However, the fact that it is impossible to submit proof of this knowledge of languages by any other means than that the applicant is a native speaker of the language concerned could be considered disproportionate in relation to the aim in view.

It follows that the native speaker criterion could be considered to be discriminatory and thus incompatible with the Community rules on the freedom of movement of workers in the Community.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0002/01

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Recycling of medical devices

1. Each year in the European Union, about 8 bn euro worth of medical devices, which do not need to be disposable, are thrown away after being used just once. Current knowledge indicates that, from the point of view of both sterilisation and technical reliability, such devices could be re-used.

Is the Commission aware that, in the European Union as a whole, re-using medical devices could save several billions of euro?

2. Does it intend to take action to promote the re-use of such devices? After all, this is a matter which concerns not only health policy but also the functioning of the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

Whether or not medical devices can be re-used depends on the intended purpose of a device as defined by the manufacturer on the basis of design and technical constraints. Where a manufacturer puts devices on the market for re-use, such devices are always accompanied with instructions on the appropriate processes to allow safe re-use, such as cleaning and re-sterilisation, and indications on the expected life of the device. As regards devices intended for single use, manufacturers have not carried out testing which would demonstrate the performance of the device in circumstances of re-use and therefore cannot take responsibility for re-use.

The Commission is aware of the re-use of devices intended for single use, but as re-sterilisation can change the structure of the device and impact on its performance (e.g. existence of sterilised dust), particular precautions must be taken by the hospitals to verify if safe re-use is feasible and determine the appropriate reprocessing of the devices. The costs of such testing and corresponding processes are considerable, and must be taken into account in the evaluation of possible savings. Furthermore, reprocessing of single-use medical devices falls outside the scope of the Directives on medical devices and on active implantable medical devices.

The Commission is aware of the implications to Member States' national budgets of the present situation. It has no specific data on the potential costs. In meetings organised by the Commission between Member State authorities' experts and industry, the question of whether the intended purpose of medical devices should be determined by technical safety-related reasons alone or also on economic considerations is being discussed. The appropriateness of redesigning single use devices into reusable devices with well established conditions for use, should be evaluated together with conditions of re-use of single use devices, aiming at reducing costs while maintaining quality and safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0729/01

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Euro real property value

The 1978 Fourth EEC Directive defined when, where and how long-term losses in fixed assets were to be entered in accounts. Transposition of the Directive by the Member States made it possible to compare the accounts of businesses in the different countries.

However, a thorough analysis of the situation in Italy would seem to indicate that the criterion relating to homogeneity in the determination of real property values entered in accounts is not respected.

Given that, inside an area using a single currency, the criterion and methodology for determining the value of marketable goods should be standardised, the merging of the various national currencies into a single currency should also have been preceded by a process of harmonisation of values.

With specific reference to land and building property, one of the major elements in balance sheets:

- What criterion and methodology have been adopted and are applied for the purpose of harmonised evaluation in countries belonging to the monetary union?

- When were these defined, adopted and implemented in the individual countries?

- When were corrections made to any budget values where this proved necessary following the recalculation of values?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

In accordance with the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of companies(1), land and buildings are recorded in the balance sheet at their historical cost. Member States may however allow a revaluation of these assets under certain conditions stated in the Directive.

Where land and buildings have been revalued, the historical cost amount must be shown in the notes on the accounts. This allows for a comparison between those companies which adhere to the historical cost accounting principle and those companies which have applied a revaluation.

The Fourth Directive states that value adjustments must be made in respect of land and buildings so that they are valued at the lower figure to be attributed to them at the balance sheet if it is expected that the reduction in their value is permanent. The Fourth Directive does however not impose a specific method on how to calculate these value adjustments.

In accordance with the Fourth Directive, the valuation rules applied in the annual accounts must be specified in the notes on the accounts. The same applies for the value adjustments if they have not been shown separately in the profit and loss account.

The introduction of the euro has no specific consequences for the valuation of land and buildings.

(1) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0115/01

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Restricted use of Linate airport, Milan

Would the Commission please confirm that its decision of 21 December 2000 with regard to the use of Linate airport in Milan by non-Italian air carriers is lawful in terms of ensuring proper competition between airlines?

Would it further agree that this causes inconveniences to passengers who will now have to use Malpensa airport?

Would it also agree that this threatens the future development of inter-regional air services, the operators of which will find it increasingly difficult to maintain such services given the limited number of flights they operate into Milan?

Will the Commission bring forward its review of its decision to not later than 30 June 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Loyola de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The principle of the freedom to provide air services in the Community, as provided for by Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1), generally gives Community air carriers the right to choose between different airports in one and the same airport system. That said, Member States may restrict this freedom of access in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Regulation, which states:

This Regulation shall not affect a Member State's right to regulate without discrimination on grounds of nationality or identity of the air carrier, the distribution of traffic between the airports within an airport system.

In its decision of 21 December 2000(2), the Commission considered that the traffic distribution rules between the airports of Linate and Malpensa, as set out in the Italian Decree of 3 March 2000, if amended as indicated in the Italian authorities' letter of 4 December 2000, are compatible with Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92. These amendments were put into effect on 5 January 2001 following the Commission decision.

As mentioned in the aforesaid decision, the independent expert appointed by the Commission stressed the fact that Linate airport is poorly served by the public transport networks and felt that Malpensa airport's location in relation to Milan city centre is no longer to be regarded as a reason for users to prefer Linate airport, especially in view of the major improvements made to the transport infrastructure for getting to and from Malpensa airport.

Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 does not provide for a procedure to review decisions taken on the basis of Article 8(3). However, in its decision of 21 December 2000, the Commission took note of Italy's undertaking to review the situation before the end of 2001.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2) TREN/AMA/12/00.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0175/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: New fisheries agreements

Has the Commission been mandated to negotiate new fisheries agreements with third countries? If so, with which countries is it negotiating?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0175/01 and E-0210/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, at this stage, the Commission has not been mandated to negotiate new fisheries agreements with third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/01

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

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Aid for development and national self-government in East Timor. Situation of the refugees in West Timor (Indonesia)

What concrete information is available on the aid granted by the EU for economic and social development and the setting-up of institutions of national self-government in East Timor, and what is the present situation concerning this aid? How has this aid contributed to meeting the basic social and economic needs of East Timor's society? What is the situation of the 1000 refugees in West Timor, who are still the target of persecution? What action is the EU taking to enable these refugees to return home?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The European Community as well as the Member States have provided extensive support to East Timor over the last two years. This support has been provided in a number of ways including through assessed and other contributions to UNTAET, voluntary contributions to the UNTAET and World Bank Trust Funds, humanitarian assistance disbursed through grants to international agencies, organisations and agencies, and bilateral aid programmes on the ground. In addition, a number of Member States have been involved in helping to establish East Timor's institutions, including through identifying its future defence needs and assistance to its judiciary, as well as through providing training and direct contributions in kind to its future Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Council, like the Honourable Member, is also concerned at the plight of the refugees from East Timor who remain in West Timor. It recognises the pressing need for the earliest possible registration, repatriation and resettlement of all the refugees, in conditions of safety and security. It has conveyed these concerns to the Indonesian authorities on a number of occasions, and including at the very highest level. It has reminded the Indonesian Government of its willingness to support, alongside the relevant international organisations, a comprehensive solution to the refugee problem, in conformity with UN Security Council Resolutions 1319 (2000) and 1338 (2001).