ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1576/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: EU-Turkey relations, child labour in Turkey

Is the Commission aware that child labour exists in Turkey and that 80 per cent of under-age workers receive no pay in any form? How is this situation taken into account in the EU's dealings with Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the issue of child labour in Turkey and has frequently reported on this matter in the regular reports on Turkey.

The matter was recently discussed during one of the sub-committees held under the Association Committee Community/Turkey in Ankara. The Turkish side showed understanding of the problem and indicated a set of measures in order to improve the situation. The measures envisaged are: ratification of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No 182, the development of further projects of awareness raising as well as the development of an Action Plan to be prepared by a special committee. Moreover, a draft law on defining light work for children and young people is under preparation. The Commission has offered assistance to Turkey in the preparation of the law.

Furthermore, the Turkish side mentioned that positive effects are to be expected from the increase in the length of compulsory education in Turkey.

On the basis of this information, the Commission has encouraged the Turkish side to make all possible efforts in the implementation of the different initiatives.

The Commission will give a further assessment of the situation in the 2001 Regular Report to be issued in November 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1217/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Age-based discrimination in access to employment

According to information provided by freelance interpreters who have worked for many years for the European Parliament, the latter has started to use age as a criterion for employing such workers.

Whether or not freelance interpreters are objectively able to continue working, the European Parliament has ceased offering contracts to such individuals who are 65 years of age or older.

In the light of Article 13 of the Treaty, what does the Commission think of this development, and does it consider it acceptable that one of the EU institutions should infringe principles and Community legislation which it itself approved?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

Since the Honourable Member refers to contracts of freelance interpreters engaged by the Parliament, the precise question raised by the Honourable Member is best addressed to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

However, on the general legal situation, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that:

- Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam upholds the principle of non-discrimination, inter alia on grounds of age. Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of 20 March 2000, amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities(1) (CEOS), has established that the same conditions of recruitment and remuneration shall apply to auxiliary conference interpreters whether engaged by the Commission or by the Parliament thereby ensuring equality of treatment.

- As a consequence of the adoption of Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000, title III of the CEOS applies to all auxiliary interpreters working for the Communities. Article 74 of that same title states that the legal retirement age for auxiliary agents is 65 years. There are equivalent provisions in the Member States' public services. Moreover, relevant Community texts

establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation expressly state that they shall be applied without prejudice to national provisions laying down retirement ages. Applying article 74 to all auxiliary agents, including auxiliary conference interpreters, avoids discrimination amongst those agents.

- Officials of the European Communities working in all EU Institutions are covered by the recruitment, employment, and retirement provisions of the Staff Regulations referred to above.

(1) OJ L 76, 25.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1916/01

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

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Proceedings against dumping-ground in Torreblanca (Fuengirola, Spain)

The Spanish environment ministry has said that it is not aware of the proceedings taken out by the Commission against the dumping-ground in Torreblanca (Fuengirola, Spain).

The uncertainty surrounding the matter has been heightened by recent reports in the local press stating that the Commission had brought the dossier opened in 1997 against the Torreblanca dumping-ground before the European Court of Justice, on the grounds of non-compliance with the EU directive on waste.

Can the Commission provide information on the present state of affairs, with a view to clarifying whether the proceedings initiated by it are still under way or whether the case is now considered closed following the sealing of the dumping-ground?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has instituted infringement proceedings against several illegal Spanish landfill sites, including that at Torreblanca (Malaga). Having verified that these dumps were failing to comply with the Directive on waste, the Commission decided to bring the case before the Court of Justice.

The latest information sent by the Spanish authorities on the Torreblanca landfill site indicates that the site has been sealed, but that part of the sealed area is still being used cyclically for the transfer of solid waste to the Casares processing plant.

The Commission has not been informed that the cyclic situation described has come to an end in the meantime. Accordingly, and not having received any new information from the Spanish authorities, the Commission regards that part of the sealed landfill site as still containing waste even if its final destination is the Casares processing centre.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/01

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Intra-communal strife in the Moluccas province, Indonesia

Could the Commission provide an assessment of the extent of deaths, injuries and displacements suffered by the Christian and Muslim people of the Moluccas in the current civil strife? Is it satisfied that the Indonesian government is doing everything possible to return the province to normalcy so that the people can return to their homes without fear of attack? Would the Commission be prepared to provide an investigative team to report on the causes of the strife, if invited to do so by the Indonesian government? What provision is being or can be made by the European Union to assist with an effective recovery programme in the Moluccas?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission closely follows events in the archipelago and shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

It is virtually impossible to assess the extent of violence in the Moluccas, as any verification of sources, however credible, is difficult. It would, however, be safe to assume that the loss of life, injuries and displacements are in excess of the level seen in East Timor. The population of the Moluccas is suffering very heavily from the present situation.

Like the majority of the international community, the Commission considers that the conflict in the Moluccas is primarily an internal matter of Indonesia, and that it should be addressed first and foremost by the Indonesian government as well as by civil society organisations, the religious communities and other institutions. A number of religious leaders have begun a process of social reconciliation.

From the outset of the conflict, only humanitarian assistance has been permitted from outside Indonesia. Since 1999, the European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has intervened in the Moluccas, insofar as the precarious security situation has permitted, to ease the humanitarian tragedy, by providing assistance through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to the victims of the conflict, including internally displaced persons. A new operation is currently being planned.

The Commission has not been asked by the Indonesian Government to provide an investigative team to report on the causes of the conflict. However, the Commission has participated in two fact-finding missions (in late 2000 and early 2001) to the area.

The possibility of support for the longer term social development of the Moluccas and other targeted areas, with the aim of contributing to an improvement in this difficult situation, will be examined in the context of the Commission's preparation of a country assistance strategy for Indonesia.

The Union has taken the opportunity in its political dialogue with Indonesia to voice its concerns, and has encouraged the Indonesian authorities to continue their efforts to restore security, prevent further violence and find solutions to regional disputes through dialogue rather than by force (cf. Union Presidency statements of 28 November 2000 and 8 March 2001).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Fervasa solid urban waste treatment plant in Quart de Poblet and Aldaia (Valencia region, Spain)

The Fervasa solid urban waste treatment plant, which is located in the municipalities of Quart de Poblet and Aldaia, has been the subject of complaints to the relevant Spanish authorities on account of the serious environmental problems which it is creating.

The plant, which treats 70 % of all the waste generated in Valencia Province, is failing to comply with current regulations since:

- it gives off unpleasant odours which can be smelt up to 5 miles away from the plant;

- it produces excessive leaching on account of the fact that the compost fermentation area is not properly covered and sealed, organic matter becomes mixed with slurry and waste is dumped on the surface rather than underground, with the added problem that the leaching may be contaminating the underground water;

- it generates excessive airborne waste on account of the fact that the plant is inadequately sealed and there is no processing pit;

- it attracts many rats on account of the nature of the plant and the way in which the waste is treated;

- it causes high levels of air pollution on account of the constant stream of lorries (240 per day) bringing waste to the plant.

In these circumstances, it is particularly worrying that the Fervasa plant is located on the terraces of the Poyo ravine and is directly linked to the protected areas of the Valencia water plain (in particular the Albufera wetlands).

In view of relevant Community legislation relating in particular to pollution control, air pollution, industrial risks and waste management, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to force the Spanish authorities to comply with environmental regulations in the case of the Fervasa plant?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

The Commission has no knowledge of the problem mentioned by the Honourable Member.

For this reason it has just sent a request to the Spanish authorities for information on the facts as stated, so as to determine the most appropriate way to implement the Community legislation applicable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1621/01

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

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Lottery for the preservation of the European artistic heritage

The recent suggestion by the director of the Louvre on taking his retirement that a lottery should be created for the preservation of France's national artistic heritage is in line with a long-standing European view that the artistic heritage can be preserved by this means.

The British model of a lottery tax for culture underlies such a proposal. It would contribute to the protection of our European artistic heritage via the payments of those playing the lottery, who could consider it an ethical justification for their gaming habit.

Does the Commission consider that it could submit, for the consideration of experts in the field, a suggestion that a Europe-wide lottery could be created with a view to its profits being used to protect the European artistic heritage from the depredations of richer nations, from neglect, or from any other circumstance that could damage an inheritance which is the pride of large numbers of Europeans whose identity is bound up with the accumulated culture of Europe's long history?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

The Community's activities in the cultural sector have their legal basis in Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty.

Under this Article, the Community is competent for:

- encouraging cultural cooperation between Member States and

- if necessary, supporting and supplementing (through financial support) action by Member States in the following areas:

- improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

- non-commercial cultural exchanges;

- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

The single Community instrument in the cultural sector is the Culture 2000 programme, which is financed from the Community budget, and the Community is not competent to intervene to safeguard the artistic heritage of Member States outside the framework of the existing programmes and initiatives.

Moreover, as regards the possibility of creating new forms of financing for programmes or initiatives, it should be noted that the financing of the Community budget is based on a system of own resources (Article 269 (ex Article 201) of the EC Treaty), the provisions of which are laid down by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament. These provisions must be adopted by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. Pursuant to the principle of budgetary universality, these resources may not be earmarked for specific expenditure but must be used towards the overall financing of the Community's total budget costs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2135/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Commission travel arrangements

How much of the Commission's budget each year is spent on transport for Commissioners, and how much of this is spent on the chartering of planes?

What tender procedure is used and what eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by potential bidders for the contract?

Which firms applied in 2001, which one was successful and why?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

In 2000 the total expenditure on missions of all Commission officials and Commissioners was 40 158 475, half of which ( 20 119 217) was accounted for by transport costs.

Of this total, 1 125 546 was spent on transport costs relating exclusively to the missions of Commissioners. 411 599 of that related to the chartering of planes by Commissioners who had particular mission travel needs and those needs fulfilled the condition of strict necessity set down in the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by Commissioners in September 1999.

The Council, jointly with the Commission, initiated a public tendering procedure for such chartering. The eligibility criteria to be fulfilled by potential bidders has been principally the lowest price, technical and financial capabilities, availability, reliability and quality of service offered.

Fifteen independent companies entered the bidding process and, since the process is not yet completed, the Commission is not in a position to disclose the identity of the bidders at this juncture.

Because the tendering procedure is not finalised, an ad hoc procedure for booking charter flights is being followed for the time being. The Commission is seeking to ensure that the adoption of completed arrangements is not unduly delayed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1783/01

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Vocational training courses

The Balearic Islands Regional Government has announced training courses for the period running from October 2001 to October 2002. The courses will be financed by means of EU Objective 3 funds.

The regional minister responsible has indicated that the courses may be attended by immigrants who lack work and residence permits, although they will have had to submit an application with a view to regularising their situation.

1. Is it possible for vocational training courses subsidised by the EU to be open to immigrants who have no work and residence permit, even if they have submitted an application for regularisation which has not yet been approved?

2. Is there any heading under which funds can be made available to immigrants who have not legally regularised as to their situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

In the context of promoting equal opportunities for all as regards access to the labour market, the Operational Programme for the Balearic Islands No 2000.ES.05.3.PO.302, as well as its Programme Complement, which was approved on 25 January 2001 at the first meeting of the Monitoring Committee for the current planning period (2000-2006), provides for measures and actions targeted, inter alios, at immigrants.

During the Monitoring Committee meeting, the Balearic Islands' social affairs representative asked whether immigrants without regularisation could participate in actions subsidised by the Union.

The Chair of the Monitoring Committee, a member of the programme management authority Unidad Administradora del Fondo Social Europeo (UAFSE), confirmed that actions targeted at immigrants, and notably actions in the field of social integration and integration in the labour market included in the Programme Complement, could be implemented while the immigrants were undergoing regularisation.

As to the current period, the Commission's role is defined by Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), whose Article 8 is devoted to applying the principle of subsidiarity pursuant to which implementation of the measures is a matter for the Member States at the appropriate territorial level.

In the light of the above, and notably bearing in mind the points raised by the Monitoring Committee, in whose work the Commission participates in an advisory capacity (Article 35 of said Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999), the Regional Government of the Balearic Islands may implement actions to promote social integration and integration in the labour market, including the training of immigrants undergoing regularisation, provided this is compatible with Spanish legislation governing the status of aliens and the regional regulations implementing these actions.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: EU candidacy of Turkey

Has the Commission made clear to the Government of Turkey that accession negotiations with that country cannot begin until the problem of the division of Cyprus, and the occupation of part of the island by the Turkish army, has been resolved?

What is the Commission's understanding of the attitude of Turkey regarding the need to resolve the Cyprus problem and establish a state on the island with a single international status?

When does the Commission intend to raise these issues with the Turkish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

As with all other candidate countries, accession negotiations cannot begin before the political criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 have been satisfied.

Turkey has confirmed, in the framework of the enhanced political dialogue, pursuant to the Helsinki European Council Conclusions of the 10/11 December 1999, that it supports the efforts by the United Nations Secretary General to promote a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. The Commission regrets however that until now this commitment has not produced concrete results.

The Commission will continue to raise this issue with Turkey on all appropriate occasions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1948/01

by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Council statement on Sudan made on 12 June 2001

In the Council statement made on 12 June 2001, why did the European Union refer to renewed SPLA military activity but not to the massive offensives carried out by Sudanese Government forces in May and June 2001 in the Nuba Mountains and the southern Blue Nile region? Why does the European Union speak of a resumption of aerial bombardments when reports from NGOs and from people on the ground emphasise that the aerial bombardments have never actually stopped? Should not the European Union consider the appointment of a special envoy for Sudan, based in Nairobi, with a mandate to carry out regular visits to the area concerned and to compile objective and accurate information from both the government and the insurgents?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

In the Declaration by the Presidency on 12 June 2001 on the Sudanese peace process, the European Union expressed its concern at the renewed military activity by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), particularly in Bahr al-Ghazal in Southern Sudan, and by the Government of Sudan's resumption of aerial bombings in response to this offensive. The language used in this declaration should be viewed in the context of the outcome of the Summit of the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) Committee on the Sudan, held in Nairobi on 2 June 2001. The outcome of this Summit had led the European Union to expect the peace process to be reinvigorated. Indeed, the Government of Sudan had given a commitment at the Summit to halt aerial bombings and the two parties had agreed to make the negotiating teams permanent, developments which were welcomed by the EU in the declaration by the Presidency on 8 June 2001. On observing that the commitments given had been breached only a few days after the Summit, the EU again called on both parties to halt their military activity and urged the Government of Sudan to fully honour its commitment to cease aerial bombings.

With regard to the idea of appointing a special envoy for Sudan, the Council can assure the Honourable Member that the European Union is monitoring the situation in the country very closely, particularly through the EU's Heads of Mission in Khartoum and in other countries concerned in the region.