ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2763/99

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: EU lump-sum contribution to the UNDCP

The UNDCP (United Nations Drug Control Programme) is involved in carrying out projects to eradicate and replace opium cultivation in Afghanistan and in other South-East Asian States. In its reply to Question 68 (H-0558/99) the Commission states, The Community is aware that alternatives to opium production are normally not competitive economically mldr The Taliban have a direct interest in the opium and heroin trade and have tried to link it with international recognition.

The Commission has therefore not financed any UNDCP alternative crop development programmes in Afghanistan either prior to, or since, the emergence of the Taliban movement. The European Union supports the UNDCP, however, through an annual lump-sum contribution entered against the budget line North-south cooperation schemes in the context of the campaign against drug abuse. While the Union does not fund the UNDCP programmes in Afghanistan directly, it supports their implementation indirectly, through its lump-sum contribution.

Does the Commission know how the UNDCP uses that Community lump-sum funding? Since it deems direct funding of opium eradication and substitution programmes in Afghanistan inappropriate and ineffective, has the Commission asked the UNDCP not to use the Community funding that it receives annually for such programmes? Has the Commission asked the UNDCP to suspend the programmes in question? If so, when and how? If not, does it intend to do so in future?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

Although the Commission was the third largest donor to the United Nations drug control programme (UNDCP) in 1999, the Commission does not provide it with general purpose funding as suggested by the Honourable Member. The financial regulations of the Community prohibit the provision of general purpose funding and restrict the funding of activities of United Nations organisations, funds and programmes to activities related to concrete projects. As stated in the Commission's response to the Honourable Member's Oral Question on this subject H-558/99n during question time at Parliament's November 1999 part-session(1) during the period in question the Commission did not fund any UNDCP projects for eradication of illicit cultures or alternative development in Afghanistan.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Law on supplementary honorary judges 276/97

It is well known that a chronic shortage of staff and structural inefficiencies within the Italian judicial system have resulted in major delays in the processing of civil cases. To remedy this state of affairs, Law 276/97 has been used for the purpose of appointing 1 000 GOAs [temporary honorary judges] in order to enable the civil cases which were still outstanding on 30 April 1995 to be settled within five years.

Those recruited as GOAs are mainly lawyers with approximately 35 years of professional experience. Even today, however, there are fewer than half as many of them as was envisaged under the law by means of which they were appointed. Judges attend approximately 35 hearings each day in rooms about 20m2 in size and in the presence of 60 or 70 people. Honorary judges do the same job with the same degree of commitment and responsibility as permanent judges for an annual salary of 20 million lire plus 200 000 lire net for every judgement and settlement, although they do no receive the non-pensionable judge's allowance which is paid under Law 27/81 to all magistrates to compensate them for the risks involved in the performance of their duties.

In the light of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

1. Does such a difference in remuneration for what are identical duties and services not contravene the principle of justice and equal treatment for all people which has already been recognised through the application of Law 303/98 in respect of the appointment and remuneration of honorary appeal judges?

2. Does the application of Law 276/97 in the absence of appropriate structures not infringe the laws on safety in the workplace?

3. Would the Commission give its opinion on the need for a possible revision of the law appointing GOAs with retroactive effect from 2 November 1998, so as to ensure that the total remuneration and the judge's allowance paid to GOAs are equivalent to the total remuneration paid to permanent judges of equal grade and with the same responsibilities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The internal organisation of the administration of justice in a Member State, including the remuneration of staff, does not fall within the scope of Community law.

Italy has transposed Community health and safety law into national law. It is for the national authorities to assess whether health and safety measures are sufficient in the circumstances described.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/99

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo

Press reports claim that instances of the looting of monuments in Kosovo and trafficking in valuable objects stolen from them are constantly increasing in number, while no effort at all is being made to protect and save them. Archaeological monuments dating from Hellenic and Roman times, monasteries and churches containing priceless relics handed down through the centuries are now defenceless against marauding looters. No effort has yet been made to track down the perpetrators or to protect monuments from looting and there is, therefore, an immediate risk that priceless cultural objects will be destroyed or disappear.

Has the Commission taken any action to protect the monuments of Kosovo, which form part of the European cultural heritage, and what steps does it intend to take in the future to stamp out the trafficking in such objects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission recognises the importance of the cultural heritage in Kosovo. In the context of its reconstruction programme in Kosovo (under the Obnova

programme), activities in the cultural sector are supported. Indeed, cultural activities are likely to be reinforced with the creation of the new Agency for reconstruction of which the mandate also covers the reinforcement of cultural institutions.

In July 1999, the Commission launched a damage assessment mission in Kosovo (carried out by the International management group), the terms of reference of which include the assessment of damage done to cultural sites. The final report which has not yet been issued, will provide valuable input for the future work of the Agency for reconstruction.

The combating of looting and trafficking of Kosovo's treasures does not fall within the Commission's mandate in Kosovo. Matters of security are rather the responsibility of KFOR (the Kosovo Force) and, to a certain extent of the United Nations interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). The extent to which the trafficking is due to looting which was carried out prior to the end of the conflict in June 1999, or whether this is a phenomenon since June 1999, is being examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/99

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Targeting of development cooperation projects for implementation in Nicaragua

Some evaluations of development cooperation projects in Nicaragua funded by EU Member States have drawn attention to the fact that, in addition to the poorest sections of the population, projects also benefited individuals close to the government and businesses owned by such people. Moreover, projects have been concentrated in areas where support for the current government was strongest, irrespective of whether there was a greater need for them elsewhere.

Have similar problems occurred with projects funded by the EU in Nicaragua and if so, what has the Commission done to overcome them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Commission-run cooperation projects in Nicaragua are subject to rigorous identification procedures to determine priority areas for intervention consistent with the needs identified and the objectives set. Hence Community aid benefits the local population of intervention areas that meet the criteria and objectives of the projects. To ensure that these principles are properly applied and that the projects are run as proposed and agreed, the Commission's system for major projects includes European experts as part of a management unit whose mission is to ensure that Community aid is implemented correctly. Moreover, the existence of the delegation in Managua makes it easier to monitor activities and ensure increased control on the spot. This system has enabled the Commission to approach the Government of Nicaragua on a number of occasions to ensure full compliance with the terms of the financing conventions signed with the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/99

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Restructuring of ABB Alstom Power

The management of the ABB Alstom Power group, which was formed in a merger on 30 June 1999, has announced a restructuring programme. In some countries where the undertaking operates job cuts have already been announced.

Have this group and/or its pre-merger constituent groups received any EU aid?

If so, could the Commission give details of the amount and the conditions under which it was granted? Was such aid conditional on job creation? Is the Commission prepared to ask for it to be repaid?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The Commission is making the necessary inquiries in the various Member States. It will make the results of its investigation known as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2591/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Withholding of the Schengen acquis

There has been a degree of concern in certain quarters at Westminster that the United Kingdom has opted into elements of the Schengen Accord without full knowledge of the whole of the acquis and certainly before being able to deposit that acquis coherently in the House of Commons Library.

Can the Commission identify those elements of the acquis which have not been released to date, as they retain their security grading status and remain restricted documents?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

As far as the Commission knows, the United Kingdom has received the full texts of all the elements of the Schengen acquis which have been incorporated into the Union framework.

Article 1§ 2 of Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999 concerning the definition of the Schengen acquis for the purpose of determining, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the EC and EU Treaties, the legal basis for each of the provisions or decisions which constitute the acquis(1) stipulates that the Schengen acquis is to be published in the Official Journal with the exception of those provisions which at the time of the adoption of this Decision are classified as confidential by the Schengen Executive Committee. The various elements of the Schengen acquis were thus incorporated into the Union framework with the security grading assigned to them by the Executive Committee. This grading is binding on all Member States.

(1) OJ L 176, 10.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Support for IGC report

What was the nature, financial and material, of the support provided by (a) the British Government and (b) the Commission to the Von Weizsäcker-Dehaene-Simon Group while they were drafting their report on the IGC?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The Commission has no information regarding any possible financial or material support provided by the British government to the group Von-Weizsäcker Dehaene Simon.

In order to prepare its report, the group held four meetings in Brussels. For these four meetings, the Commission financed the travel expenses to Brussels, the hotel expenses in Brussels when required, and the luncheons. The Commission also financed the fees of the group's rapporteur and provided secretariat support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Proposed EUR 2 million cutback of the Poseima programme

On 9 November the Commission submitted its fourth Letter of Amendment to the 2000 Budget to Parliament, proposing to cut EUR 2 million from the Poseima programme, while proposing increases for the Poseidom and Poseican programmes.

Given the specific difficulties noted in the Treaty which ultraperipheral regions face, and the cost of insular status, above all as regards agricultural and fishery products:

- what are the Commission's reasons for proposing this fresh cutback in the Poseima programme, and

- what are the mechanisms it is using to ensure that the programme's appropriations are being fully taken up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the amounts given under budget heading B1-321 (Poseima) are forecasts of the expenditure necessary for carrying out the measures required under that item the reduction in appropriations cannot, therefore, be construed as a cutback in the programme.

As regards the specific issues raised, the Commission would point out that the proposed reduction is due entirely to the fact that the forecasts are based on the actual extent (in percentage terms) to which the supply balances have been implemented in the last few years. The rate of take-up of the appropriations is dependant on how effectively and correctly the beneficiary areas themselves have implemented the supply balances, or any other of the measures provided for in the legislation.

It should also be noted that this item is exclusively concerned with agricultural products. Fishery products do benefit from the measures in the Poseima programme they are covered by other budget headings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Greek slaughter houses

Earlier this year Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) filmed inside four Greek slaughterhouses. In two sheep abbatoirs, no attempt at all was made to stun the animals before throat-cutting; this is in clear breach of Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. At a third Greek sheep abattoir, the animals were stunned, but so ineptly that a proportion of the animals were regaining consciousness either before or after throat-cutting. At this abattoir, a number of breaches of Council Directive 93/119/EC(1) were observed. Breaches of the Directive were also observed at a Greek pig abattoir. These breaches have all been reported by CIWF to the Commission.

What action does the Commission propose to take in respect of these breaches to ensure future compliance with Council Directive 93/119/EC in Greek slaughterhouses?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

Veterinary experts from the Commissions food and veterinary office (FVO) have observed shortcomings in the stunning and killing of animals in slaughterhouses in Greece during missions carried out in November and December 1998. These reports are published on the web site of the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports/index).

The Greek authorities have been asked by the Commission to take action to ensure that the requirements of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing(1) are respected. In answer, the Greek Ministry of Agriculture informed the Commission that the Central veterinary service has taken all the necessary administrative measures and made the greatest efforts in enforcing legislation (Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(2)).

The Greek Ministry of Agriculture has also scheduled a workshop for the Greek state veterinarians for February 2000 concerning animal welfare during transport and slaughter.

Another mission to Greece has been planned for the beginning of 2000 to verify the current situation concerning animal welfare.

The Commission has furthermore recently received a number of complaints from animal welfare organisations alleging that the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC are still being breached at a number of Greek slaughterhouses. The Commission takes the view that the complaints that it has received are, at least partially, corroborated by the missions mentioned above.

The Commission recently opened infringement proceedings against Greece in respect of breaches of the above-mentioned Directive.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Assistance for MISKO company workers forced to relocate

MISKO, the pasta-producing subsidiary of the Italian company Barilla, has received funding under Greek development law 1892/90 to set up a new production plant at Thiva on condition that it maintains the present number of 275 permanent jobs. Before completing construction of the new plant, the company closed down its pasta factory in Patras, compelling the current workforce either to resign or agree to being transferred to other company plants. The workers who agree to be transferred, however, are faced with an expensive relocation bill and they are therefore forced to leave their jobs and run the risk of remaining unemployed.

Is it possible to assist these workers to cover the expense of their enforced relocation? Which programmes and procedures may be used to provide such assistance?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2778/99 and E-2779/99 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/99

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Problems of Air Traffic Control

Would the Commission agree that any increase in the average time of flight delays being experienced by airlines and passengers because of ATC restrictions is totally unacceptable?

Furthermore, would it agree that this is principally the fault of the Member States who have failed to invest adequately in a modern ATC system, failed to produce a single ATC area covering the EU, failed to agree a common EU capacity plan and, as a result, are failing the travelling public?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

On 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted a communication on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market(1).

The Commission has made a broad analysis of the causes of air traffic delays and their trend during last years. Several factors contribute to the situation of chronic congestion. The main factor is air traffic control restrictions as cited by the Honourable Member. It is also widely recognised that the present level of delays is not sustainable for passengers and airlines and it also may endanger the achievement of Community objectives, in particular in the field of air transport policy.

The question raised by the Honourable Member, regarding the failure of Member States to provide the Community sky with a single air traffic control system and the urgent need for remedial actions, is answered in this document which has been communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

(1) COM(1999) 614 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/99

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Policy competences under the Treaty of Amsterdam

As guardian of the Treaties, and in view of the need to illustrate the principle of subsidiarity in practical terms, has the Commission at its disposal a detailed and comprehensible list of the various policy competences as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, categorised according to the different powers enjoyed by the EU and Member States in each policy area? If not, why not? If such a policy exists, could the Commission make it available to the public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Community institutions can exercise the powers conferred on them by the Treaty. Powers are conferred on the Community depending on the objectives to be attained, not according areas of activity. More specifically, according to Article 5 (former Article 3b) of the EC Treaty, the subsidiarity principle applies only in areas which do not fall within the exclusive powers of the Community. The Treaty neither defines the concept of exclusive powers, nor enumerates the areas it covers.

In its 1992 communication on the subsidiarity principle(1), the Commission sought to outline the areas of exclusive powers, while stressing that they evolve depending on progress in European integration.

In the Commission view this approach is still valid, even following adoption of the protocol on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty.

The protocol sets out a dynamic view of subsidiarity. It means that Community action can be extended where circumstances require, within the limits, of course, of the objectives laid down in the Treaty. Conversely, it can be terminated when action is no longer justified.

Consequently, the Union's powers are not set in stone. On the contrary, they are to be activated when required and no action should be taken when there is no justification for it.

(1) SEC(92) 1990 final.