ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3288/01

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Budget expenditure 1999

What was the total expenditure, and individual breakdown (including salaries, expenses, pensions, insurance, loss of office), in 1999 of:

1. The 20 Commissioners?

2. The administrative staff?

3. Advertising and publicity?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

The expenditure of the 20 Members of the Commission and all Commission officials is covered by the appropriations entered in Title A-1 (Expenditure relating to persons working with the institution) of the general budget of the European Union.

The information for 1999 is as follows:

1. In the case of the Members of the Commission, for all the budget items in Chapter A-10 (Members of the Institution) total spending was 12 487 000, or 99,18 % of appropriations entered.

2. In the case of the staff employed at headquarters in 1999, for all the budget items in Chapter A-11 (Staff in active employment) total spending was 1 203 313 300, or 99,21 % of appropriations entered.

The other headquarters administrative expenditure is covered by Title A-2 (Buildings, equipment and miscellaneous operating expenditure), Title A-5 (Data processing) and Title A-7 (Decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration), and divides up in proportion to the staff in service in 1999.

The outturn figures for these Titles are as follows:

- Title A-2: 309 550 442, or 99,54 % of appropriations entered;

- Title A-5: 94 033 766, or 99,97 % of appropriations entered;

- Title A-7: 193 055 479, or 92,07 % of appropriations entered.

Staff and administrative expenditure of European Community Delegations is covered by Title A-6. In 1999, the rate of utilisation was almost 100 % of the appropriations, or 221 923 000.

Expenditure on staff at the Offices within the Community is covered by Chapter A-11 mentioned above, while infrastructure and administrative expenditure is covered by Article A-420 (Offices in the Community: buildings, equipment, operating costs and information technology). In 1999, this spending totalled 13 375 408, or 95,37 % of appropriations.

3. The only expenditure on advertising and publicity incurred by the Commission is publication costs in connection with interinstitutional competitions, which are covered by part of the appropriations entered under item A-4020. In 1999 the rate of utilisation for this item was 3 079 953, or 86,53 % of appropriations entered.

All this information is available in the Commission's revenue and expenditure account(1) and in the Official Journal in which the 2001 budget(2) is published. These two documents give analytical details of administrative expenditure in 1999.

The Commission is also willing to reply to any specific questions concerning one of the budget lines mentioned in these documents.

(1) Revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet relating to operations under the 1999 budget: Volume 1: SEC(2000) 537; Volume 2: SEC(2000) 538; Volume 3: SEC(2000) 539; Volume 4: SEC(2000) 1624.

(2) OJ L 56, 26.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3339/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Dramatic consequences for a significant number of HGV drivers of the minimum visual acuity criteria laid down by Directive 91/439/EEC

The minimum visual acuity requirements laid down in Directive 91/439/EEC(1) have resulted in a significant number of professional drivers, hitherto regarded as being medically fit to drive, suddenly being prevented from exercising their profession any longer.

In its answer to my Written Question E-1272/00(2) of 19 April 2000, the Commission indicated that it was considering an amendment to the Directive whereby, within the limits of road safety requirements, provision might be made for the possibility of less stringent health criteria being applied at national level to professional drivers who had obtained their driving licences before the Directive entered into force.

I should be grateful if the Commission would indicate if it has already taken a decision on this matter and when we may expect it to submit a proposal for the amendment of the Directive. Does not the Commission feel that the visual acuity requirements set out in Directive 91/439/EEC are disproportionate for the attainment of the established objective? May I once again urge the Commission to do something to tackle the dramatic consequences arising from the application of that Directive in a majority of the Member States of the EU?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 118.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem of lack of acquired rights for professional drivers who obtained their licences before the entry into force of this Directive. However, the Commission has not yet adopted any draft directive to amend Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1).

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Gap in Sweden's checks for salmonella

Since 12 November 2001, meat preparations imported into Sweden have not been covered by checks for the presence of salmonella. This means, for instance, that no marinated meat and poultry products are subject to checks.

Owing to an oversight during the membership negotiations, meat preparations have never been covered by the guarantees concerning the checks carried out by Sweden. It was, however, universally assumed that such preparations were covered and, in 1998, the Swedish National Food Administration issued a regulation which included them. But the Food Administration did a U-turn when a Danish import firm pointed out that its regulation had no legal basis.

Can Sweden extend the guarantee concerning salmonella at the earliest opportunity so as to close the gap in the checks for salmonella that came about simply because of an oversight during the membership negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Finland and Sweden were granted additional guarantees for salmonella in the context of their Act of Accession to the European Union. In Annex I to this Act, these additional guarantees cover trade of live poultry, eggs, fresh meat and fresh poultry meat to Finland and Sweden. The necessary amendments were introduced by the Act into the relevant Council Directives.

A corresponding provision was included in Article 3 of Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat preparations(1), when Community legislation in this field was revised. This provision applies only to trade of minced meat intended for Finland and Sweden. Thus, the rules on additional guarantees for salmonella are applicable to minced meat, but not to meat preparations.

In order to extend the additional guarantees of salmonella to meat preparations Council Directive 94/65/EC should be amended accordingly. However, it is noteworthy that Directive 94/65/EC already lays down salmonella criteria both for minced meat and meat preparations. These criteria apply to all Member States.

The Commission is of the opinion that when Community legislation already lays down a criterion for salmonella in meat preparations, there is no need to extend the additional salmonella guarantees to these products. Community legislation on food hygiene is currently under review and in that framework the Commission is in the process of revising microbiological criteria. In this context improved sampling rules and limits may be considered for meat preparations in order to tighten up the controls.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2995/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Possibility of European regulations on night flights at regional airports

The following issues arise from the draft treaty that is to regulate the civil use of the former military airport at Laarbruch. Does the Commission share the view that the agreement on night flight schedules at Zurich-Kloten airport that German Transport Minister, Klaus Bodewig, regards as reasonable, should be taken as a benchmark for night flight schedules at all German regional airports? If not, does the Commission not consider that this issue needs to be examined at European level?

Are there European regulations concerning areas for holding patterns above the territory of a country with which no agreement has been concluded? If so, what are these rules? If not, does the Commission not share our view that the draft treaty must exclude flight paths and noise nuisance that have a major impact on the Netherlands?

Can the Commission say whether the public inquiry required for the purposes of the environmental impact analysis in the neighbouring Netherlands was properly conducted, particularly with regard to the data made available and opportunities to comment?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission has been informed of the agreement between Germany and the Swiss Confederation concerning the conditions for approaching Zurich airport. The detailed flight path into the airport is a matter of local relevance and the Commission's interest is to ensure that the agreed rules for the airport are fully compatible with Community law, and in particular respect the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. In addition, the Commission has adopted on the 28 November 2001 a proposal for a directive relating to the introduction of operating restrictions. There is at present no Community legislation on holding patterns, although rules on airspace utilisation might in the future be developed as part of the Commission's Single Sky initiative.

The Commission has so far not taken a view under Community law about the agreement relating to the airport of Zurich. Therefore the Commission is not in a position to confirm that this agreement could be regarded as a benchmark to be followed in other contexts.

In respect to the environmental impact assessment, the Commission is aware of concerns that impacts on the neighbouring inhabitants in the Netherlands possibly have not been sufficiently taken into consideration in the planning process related to the conversion of the military airport in Laarbruch. Therefore, it is undertaking queries to assess whether the applicable environmental provisions have been respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3383/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Work in the Marathon-Schinias area in connection with the Olympic Games

On 22 June 2001, in reply to my previous question on this point (E-1073/01(1)), Commissioner Wallström said that the Commission had carried out an on-the-spot investigation in the Marathon-Schinias area, in Greece, from which it had garnered information. She also said, in her reply, that information gathered is currently under evaluation in order for the Commission to decide on the follow-up to be given to this matter.

Can the Commission state whether it has duly evaluated this information and what decision it has taken? Is it aware that work for the Olympic Games has already begun and that any damage caused to this historic site is irreversible?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 163.

Reply given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

In dealing with the case of the Olympic rowing and canoeing centre at Schinias/Marathon in Greece, the Commission's aim is a) to provide an adequate protection status for the site through its inclusion in the European ecological network Natura 2000 established under the Habitats directive 92/43/EEC(1), and b) to ensure that the implementation of this Olympic facility and the future management of the area will be done in a manner which will protect and restore the site's wildlife value.

Since the Commission's reply to the previous related written question E-1073/01 by the Honourable Member, the Greek authorities submitted additional relevant documentation and further contacts with them have been undertaken. This has resulted in an improvement to the design of the project so that habitat loss is minimised and the restoration potential of the area is increased. Furthermore, progress has been made towards the establishment of the national park.

However, certain elements regarding the implementation of the restoration programme for the wetland are insufficient while the designation of the area for the Natura 2000 network is still pending. The Commission is therefore still unable to draw a definitive conclusion as to the compatibility of the overall scheme with the nature conservation value of the site, and has now raised these issues with the Greek authorities so that a satisfactory solution can be reached soon.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3525/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2001)

Subject: Seignorage revenue

Will the Commission estimate for each Member State the likely financial gain from the introduction of the euro in seignorage revenue?

Will it further express this as a percentage of GDP in each case?

Has this revenue been taken into account in the Commission's existing projections for public finances?

How should it be treated in public finances?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission does not have any comparable estimates for Member States of the likely financial gain from the introduction of the euro on seignorage revenues. The introduction of the euro essentially involves the substitution of non-interest-bearing claims denominated in euro for the non-interest-bearing claims denominated in the original national currencies and as such has no direct effect on aggregate seignorage revenue in the euro area. The allocation of seignorage income among the euro area National Central Banks (NCBs) will be based on the European Central Bank's (ECB's) capital key (Article 32.5 of the European System Central Bank's Statute). On 6 December 2001, the ECB Governing Council agreed on a transitional regime of five years in order to mitigate the impact of the introduction of euro banknotes on the NCBs' current relative income positions. Future shifts in the patterns of cash holdings and possible non-surrender of notes and coins in the original national currencies will also have an impact on the balance sheets of central banks (notes) and governments (coins). At present the scale of such impacts and the timing of their recognition in balance sheets are not clear.

In the light of the above it is not possible to further express this as a percentage of gross national product in each case.

The Commission has not taken into account any gains of the kind referred to in its projections for the public finances.

Seignorage revenue is an analytical concept which is not identified in the European System of national accounting framework used for the public finances but it makes its presence felt through property income flows. Essentially, the transactions and balance sheet adjustments involved are below the line and should have no impact on the general government surplus/deficit. Any transfers to government from central banks of exceptional gains from the transition should be treated as financial transactions not affecting the government surplus/deficit but potentially affecting government debt.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3617/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Godless euro

Given that the roots of European culture are clearly Christian and that, as the Holy Father stated on the occasion of the 1200th anniversary of the crowning of Charlemagne, there is not the slightest mention of God, the supreme source of human dignity and fundamental rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, will the Commission explain why the designer of the euro banknotes has carefully avoided any graphic or other reference to Christianity or even God?

Would the Commission not agree that such a reference should have been seen as indispensable, given the current process of globalisation, which, regrettably, is gradually wiping out our traditions and our European historical, cultural and religious identity?

Would the Commission not agree that it should reconsider the banknotes' design?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2002)

According to the EC Treaty Article 106, the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes within the Community. The ECB and the national central banks may issue such notes, and are also responsible for the designs on the notes. The Commission is therefore not in a position to reply to this question, as the matter is out of its competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3414/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(13 December 2001)

Subject: Use of torture and inhumane treatment of terrorist suspects in the USA

The measures used to combat terrorism in the USA have already resulted in many cases in the violation of the fundamental rights of detainees. A number of reports by human rights organisations have noted that people arrested on suspicion of engaging in terrorist acts did not have access to a lawyer and were also deprived of the right to communicate with relatives. In some cases, moreover, according to the Secretary-General of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, suspects are being tortured on the pretext of non-cooperation with the investigative authorities.

What is the position of the European Union on the violation of the principles of international law on human rights, and the International Convention against Torture, which the USA has ratified and which prohibits the use of torture or inhumane treatment to extract confessions from detainees, and how will the Council respond to the risk of a similar state of affairs arising in the Member States of the EU?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

As the Honourable Member is aware, all EU Member States firmly support the action to prevent and eradicate all forms of torture and other

inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment within the EU and worldwide. Torture is one of the most abhorrent violations of human rights and human dignity. In its work towards the prevention and eradication of torture and ill-treatment, the EU is guided by the relevant international and regional norms and standards on human rights, the administration of justice and the conduct of armed conflict. The prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is also reiterated in Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Council wishes to emphasise that the fight against terrorism could not under any circumstances justify the use of torture.

On 9 April 2001, the Council adopted Guidelines for an EU policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, with a view to strengthening the Union's actions towards the global eradication of torture. The Guidelines aim at providing the EU with an operational tool to be used in contacts with third countries at all levels as well as in multilateral human rights fora. The EU's objective is to influence third countries to take effective measures against torture and to ensure that the prohibition against torture is enforced. Every prisoner, regardless of his legal status, must benefit from all the guarantees recognised under international law and must be treated in accordance with the relevant international standards.

Finally, where preventive measures in the European Union are concerned, that is a domestic matter for the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2583/01

by Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 September 2001)

Subject: Police brutality in Turkey on World Peace Day

On 1 September 2001, designated as World Peace Day, the Turkish authorities banned peace rallies organised by the pro-Kurdish HADEP Party. None the less, thousands of people took to the streets in order to express their desire for peace. The Turkish police reacted thereto with a massive show of force, attacking the peaceful demonstrators with wooden batons and tear gas. More than 3000 HADEP members were arrested in nine cities. Hundreds of people were injured and several thousand arrested. A 19-year-old man fell to his death while fleeing from the police.

Is the Commission aware of these outrages in Turkey?

What is the Commission's view of the repressive action taken by the Turkish authorities against the pro-Kurdish HADEP Party and its members?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

Freedom of expression, freedom of association as well as the principle of protection of minorities are part of the Copenhagen political criteria to be fulfilled by candidate countries. The strengthening of legal and constitutional guarantees of the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is a short-term priority in the Accession Partnership with Turkey. The Commission has been monitoring closely the situation in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Turkey. A detailed assessment will be given in its upcoming Regular Report due on 13 November 2001.

With respect to the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission can confirm that it has received information about mistreatments and brutalities by the Turkish police and security forces against demonstrators. It deplores such behaviour.

Moreover, the Commission considers that the actions to be in sharp contrast with the circular of the Minister of Interior of 24 July 2001, which explicitly prohibits excessive use of force by the security forces and the police.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3135/01

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

(7 November 2001)

Subject: List of ESF and ERDF frauds and irregularities which occurred in Spain during the 1994-1999 period

Pursuant to the 29 June 2000 framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, would the Commission, in coordination with OLAF, provide a list of the frauds and irregularities which occurred in Spain during the 1994-1999 programming period in respect of aid granted under the Structural Funds, specifically the ESF and the ERDF?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would emphasise that the Member States are required by Articles 3 and 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(1) to report to it on the irregularity cases which have been the subject of initial administrative or judicial investigations and the procedures initiated following irregularities previously notified, and the important changes resulting therefrom.

Out of a total of 606 cases notified by Spain in connection with all the Structural Funds since this Regulation was implemented (3rd quarter 1994) to the end of 2000, only 357 related to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) during the period 1994-1999.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat, a table giving a breakdown by type of irregularity committed in the relevant Member State during the period in question.

(1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.