ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/99

by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Recognition of the seniority of civil servants from EEA countries

The recognition within the Community of the diplomas and professional experience of non-Community nationals is an extremely complex matter.

For example, the seniority of a Norwegian national working as a teacher in France cannot be recognised for regrading purposes because Note No FP/3 No 3916 of 5 May 1995 issued by the Public Service Ministry stipulates that only seniority acquired in the French civil service may be taken into account for such purposes. However, seniority acquired in the country of origin is taken into account for the purpose of admission to competitions organised within the French civil service.

1. What exactly is EU's legal position on the recognition of the professional experience gained by a national of an EEA country employed in an EU Member State?

2. In particular, does a legal instrument providing that only the time spent in the service of the State in question may be taken into account when determining a civil servant's seniority comply with the spirit of Community law or, indeed, the case law on public service-related matters established by the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

This problem can exist for workers of Member States and also workers of European economic area (EEA) Member States.

The Commission is aware of the difficulties these workers, who have worked for a number of years in the public sector of a Member State, are encountering when recruited into the public service of another Member State, in that their previous experience is not taken into account for the purposes of determining their grade and seniority. Consequently such workers lose their years of previous experience and must restart their career from the beginning when they are recruited.

The Court of justice has ruled that comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State must be taken into account for determining seniority(1).

The Commission has started infringement proceedings against several Member States, including France, on the basis of Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The right of free movement for workers established within the Community under Article 39 (ex-Article 48) of the EC Treaty is extended to nationals of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through Article 28 of the EEA agreement. Sub-paragraph 2 makes it clear that such freedom of movement entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality as regards conditions of work and employment.

(1) Judgement of 15.1.1998 in Case C-15/96 (Kalliope Schöning-Kougebetopoulou v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg) [ECR 1998 I-0047]; and judgement of 12.3.1998 in Case C-187/96 (Commission v Greece) [ECR 1998 I-1095].
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1787/99

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: EU regulation on the harmonisation of technical requirements in aviation

In the light of the failure of some Member States to implement the Joint Aviation Authority's common standard, which allows holders of Airline Transport Pilot Licences to continue to fly up to the age of 65, does not the Commission consider that, in the spirit of the principle of the free movement of persons, this standard should be adopted as part of EC Regulation 3922/91(1) which seeks to harmonise standards in aviation?

Could the Commission also outline how talks on the proposed creation of a European Air Safety Authority to replace the Joint Aviation Authority, are progressing and when such a body is likely to be inaugurated?

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

As regards the implementation of the Joint aviation authorities suggestions on age limits for pilots as common standard, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it is currently working on a proposal to harmonise standards and requirements for flight crew licensing throughout the Community.

However, it cannot specify for the time being whether this proposal will be adopted and if so, whether as part of Council Regulation (EEC) 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation(1) or as an independent proposal.

Regarding the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Authority, the Council has mandated the Commission on 16 July 1998 to start negotiations for the creation of this authority. While the Commission has achieved a draft Convention that meets with all the elements of the mandate, it appears that the creation of such an organisation with supra-national powers is difficult to accommodate, especially as regards constitutional constraints.

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding

Knorr Bremse has announced several hundred redundancies in Kingswood, Bristol (UK), in order to transfer work to its factories in France, Italy or Germany and Hungary.

Can the Commission say whether any financial assistance of any kind has been asked for by this company or given to this company for job creation in France, Italy or Germany or through TACIS and PHARE programmes in Hungary?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

According to information from the European Social Fund Mission in France, in 1997 and 1998 the Knorr Dahl Freinage branch in Lisieux (Lower Normandy) received financial assistance under Objective 4 for training (improving skills in various fields) amounting to FRF 909 000. This assistance was not aimed at job creation, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question.

In Berlin, Germany, Hasse & Wrede GmbH, a subsidiary company of Knorr Bremse AG, received DEM 533 000 for investments in machinery and equipment, mainly in order to retain existing jobs.

In Italy this company received no Community part-financing.

As far as the Commission is aware, Knorr Bremse has never asked for or benefited from Community assistance through the P programme in Hungary, and this country is not eligible for the T programme.

Finally, Knorr Bremse received no funding under the Community initiatives A or E.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/99

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Allocation of rural development funds to Member States

What criteria were used in determining the recent allocation of rural development funds to Member States, and what weighting was given to each of these?

Why were these criteria chosen? In particular, did the previous allocation of funds under Regulations now superseded constitute one factor used in the determination and, if so, why?

How was the rural population in each Member State defined?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2000)

In accordance with Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1), the Commission fixed the initial appropriations allocated to Member States for rural development measures part-financed by the EAGGF (Guarantee Section) using objective criteria which take into account particular situations and needs, and efforts to be undertaken especially for the environment, job creation and maintenance of the landscape.

Member States' particular situations and needs were examined on the basis of the 1994-1999 financial allocations, taking as a reference point the average allocation by Member State during that period. Total funding for the new period was increased by nearly 20 %, whereby the appropriations over and above the previous total amount were divided among Member States according to their specific needs.

This was done inter alia using statistical criteria relating to the importance of rural areas (total size of the Member State, size of rural areas, rural population) and to agricultural activity (usable agricultural area, number of holdings, agricultural employment). The rural character criterion (size of rural areas and rural population) was set taking into account a population density threshold of 100 inhabitants/km2 at NUTS 5 level.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2657/99

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Common agricultural policy

Cereals account for 12 % of the Union's total agricultural production, and absorb 48 % of EAGGF Guarantee Section Spending.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What does each kg. of grain produced cost the Union in subsidies, including the export subsidies, set-aside aids, etc., required by Union policy on cereal production?

2. What was the average world market price for one kg. of grain in 1999?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Based on the figures used to estimate appropriations for the EAGGF Guarantee Section in the 2000 budget, wheat (common wheat and durum wheat) accounts for EUR 6 595 million of spending against production of 95,5 million tonnes, i.e. a cost of EUR 69 per tonne.

This cost includes direct aid per hectare, export refunds and refunds for the production of wheat starch, as well as degressive special aid for Portuguese production.

This represents approximately 40 % of farmers' gross income (based on the intervention price (EUR 119,19 per tonne) plus direct aid (EUR 54,34 per tonne)), which corresponds to the average for arable crops as a whole.

The world market price of wheat in 1999 was between USD 105 and USD 90 per tonne for common wheat of a quality comparable with Community quality, and between USD 160 and USD 185 for durum wheat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Subject: Milk quota exceeded in the Azores Autonomous region of Portugal

The dairy sector is of strategic importance to the Azores since it accounts for nearly 80 % of the islands' gross agricultural product, 25 % of milk delivered and over 13 % (equivalent to over 5 000 producers) of Portugal's dairy farmers. The sector also acts as a stimulus to economic activities which provide jobs in a region which has to bear the costs of being island-based and which qualifies as an outlying region, even though it accounts for only 0,03 % of European production.

The sector has received a certain amount of investment and has been increasing its annual production, which is the only way for farmers to ensure that they earn at least the minimum income, in view of the fact that production prices have fallen in relative terms over the last ten years. For the current marketing year, all the indications are that the Azores has already exceeded its own internal quota, which means that Portugal's quota as a whole will also be exceeded. Producers should not, however, be penalised as a result since most of them operate small, family-run farms.

On the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty and taking into account the Azores' status as an outlying region, what action could be taken at Community level in order to ensure that the above producers are not penalised?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2000)

The Commission knows how important milk production is in the Azores. Because the national quota set for Portugal in 1991 also reflected that importance, milk production in the Azores has been able to increase each year since then (as the Honourable Member acknowledges). The Commission therefore considers that the Council has already taken into account the dairy sector's strategic importance for the Azores region and that a new proposal in favour of the Azores would not be appropriate, particularly given the Council's recent decision by Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of 17 May 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector(1) to continue the milk quota system and to set Member States' quotas until 2008. It should be borne in mind that this Agenda 2000 decision was reached after lengthy discussion in which a delicate balance was struck within the Council between the legitimate demands of all the Member States, the fall in official prices and their entry into force in 2005. If the national quota is in fact exceeded as forecast, it will be up to Portugal to implement the adjustment measures available under Community legislation in order to ensure fair treatment for the producers affected.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/99

by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Murcia region and the ERDF

By Decision C(94) 2586/3 the Commission approved the operational programme for tackling the specific problems of the Murcia region, with the intention of making its economy more competitive by setting up development areas which would allow the economic fabric to be modernised and diversified and attract investment, while guaranteeing the protection of the environment.

Will the Commission supply full details of

1. all the subsidies and funding made available pursuant to this Decision in the field of education and training, and

2. all the recipients of these monies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

The global grant from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the operational programme (OP) for the Murcia region for the programming period 1994-1999(1) is 542,74 million

Subprogramme 7 of this OP, Development of human resources, provides for investment of 32,31 million in the construction and improvement of education and training centres.

The breakdown of aid by measure is as follows:

>TABLE>

A detailed list of the recipients of the aid is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) Decision C(94) 2586/3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2768/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Upkeep of European waterways

If fully used by inland navigation, Europe's network of waterways could make a major, environmentally compatible contribution towards solving the problem of mobility. Inland navigation has the potential to divert some goods transport from roads to waterways.

However, transport by water has the disadvantage that a substantial proportion of the European network of waterways, and in particular the minor waterways, are not properly maintained and dredged and they are gradually silting up.

To create a fine network of waterways serving as large an area as possible, governments would have to ensure that all these waterways can permit vessels with a draught of at least 2,5 metres.

Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to take an initiative to support keeping open a large proportion of the (minor) European canals with a minimum navigable depth of 2,5 metres?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission is convinced that inland navigation can make an important contribution to solve mobility problems by, where appropriate, relieving freight transport from congested road and railway lines. It considers inland navigation to be a cost-effective, safe and environmentally sound mode of transport, which has spare infrastructure and vessel capacity.

At Community level, inland waterways are dealt with in the framework of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). In this context, the Parliament and the Council adopted in 1996 Community guidelines for the development of the TEN-T(1). These guidelines identify the trans-European inland waterway network, as well as the main bottlenecks and missing links within the network. In order to ensure the interconnection and completion of this network, a considerable number of projects of common interest have been financially supported in recent years through the TEN-T budget.

However, Community support is available only for projects within the trans-European inland waterway network, and this network consists only of the main routes within the European transport system. It is not a fine network of waterways and does not include the minor waterways. Similarly, the Community will only support the development of new or upgraded infrastructure, and not the maintenance of existing infrastructure. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States concerned are responsible for the development of their overall waterway network and for the improvement and maintenance of their inland waterways.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0070/00

by Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: EU relations with Libya

Is there any truth in the European media reports to the effect that the President of the Commission has invited Mr Muammar Gadhafi to make an official visit to the Commission?

If those reports are accurate, what strategy is being pursued by means of such a step?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

President Prodi held telephone conversations with Colonel Gaddafi over Christmas (when the possibility of a visit was first mooted) and on 21 January 2000. He was seeking to ascertain whether the political conditions could be met for a visit by Colonel Gaddafi to the Commission.

President Prodi reaffirmed the established policy of the Union to seek to integrate Libya into the Euro-Med process, provided that Libya fully accepts the principles laid down in the Declaration of Barcelona. President Prodi reiterated that unless written unconditional acceptance of such principles was given, a visit could not take place.

The Libyan authorities replied on 22 January 2000 confirming Libya's deep interest in participating in the Euro-med process while stating at the same time that Libya is at present unable to give any formal commitment to the full acceptance of the Barcelona acquis. It was concluded that in these circumstances a visit at this stage would be inapppropriate. Discussions will continue in order to ascertain whether the conditions for a visit could be met.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0279/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: Closure of the Goodyear plant at Cisterna di Latina (Italy)

It was recently announced that the Goodyear plant at Cisterna di Latina is to be closed, with the loss of 560 direct jobs and a similar number of indirect jobs. The closure, which is likely to cause a serious crisis in an area which is already experiencing difficulties, is claimed to come as a result of excess production capacity and competition in the European tyre industry as a whole. Since 1965, Goodyear has benefited from a large number of incentives provided by the Community and the national authorities, in the form of tax relief and subsidies.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. the decision to close the plant is not in breach of Council Directive 98/59/EC(1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies;

2. the failure to involve workers in joint discussions and consultations with the company's management is not in breach of Council Directive 94/45/EC(2) of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council and the consultation of workers in Community-scale undertakings;

3. it has drawn up an evaluation of the application of the directive on collective redundancies and company closures and made proposals for effective sanctions in the event of non-observance, as called for in Parliament's resolution on the restructuring of firms in the face of globalisation (B5-0185/1999), and whether such action is called for in connection with the Goodyear affair in Cisterna di Latina;

4. it would not agree that, as provided for in the above resolution, social clauses should be agreed with Goodyear with a view to protecting workers, given in particular that the company has other production plants in Europe;

5. it would not agree that account should be taken of the events at Cisterna di Latina with a view to the granting of any structural funds to Goodyear plants in Member States for the period 2000-2006, and that disbursement of such aid should be made dependent on medium-to-long-term commitments on jobs and local development on the part of that multinational's management;

6. it would not agree that the economic justification for Goodyear's decision should be properly assessed, given that the plan for 2000 which the multinational presented in Las Vegas on 20 January 2000 pointed to extremely good economic prospects and made provision for productivity increases and the consolidation of Goodyear's market position, not least in Europe, and even for new acquisitions in the 21st century;

7. it would not agree that crises of this kind could be averted by means of arrangements under which workers hold shares in companies?

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2739/99 and P-0279/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 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 P-0281/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: National data protection laws

Is the Commission aware that, owing to disparities in national implementation of the 1995 Data Protection Directive, national data protection laws are prejudicing cross-border trade, and that this will have considerable impact on the development of e-commerce within the EU?

What is the Commission's view of the extension of data protection laws to cover not only personal data, as envisaged by the Directive, but also the processing of corporate data?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2436/99 by Mrs Wallis(1).

(1) See page 161.