ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Threats to official vets and animal welfare organisations

In the light of the current case in which the head of the animal welfare organisation GAIA received threats for publishing a video about the situation at Belgian slaughterhouses, and bearing in mind cases which have come to my attention in which official vets and animal transport inspectors have been threatened in the EU, having repeatedly been subjected to massive threats by the transport companies' lobby on account of their commitment to compliance with Directive 91/628/EC(1):

1. What information does the Commission have concerning the practice of intimidating and/or blackmailing official vets or other authorities and organisations with the aim of wholly or partially evading animal welfare provisions, which often entail considerable expense, in order to obtain export refunds?

2. Are there grounds for suspecting that criminal organisations are committing offences, either in individual cases or even systematically, with the result that payments are being wrongly made from EU funds?

3. If the answer to any of these questions is even partially affirmative, what measures will the Commission take at Community level in order to remedy such an unacceptable situation?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

The Commission has, on several occasions, been informed by animal welfare societies carrying out studies into the welfare of transported animals that they have received threats from transporters or their employees.

The Commission is not, however, in possession of any conclusive evidence that Member States' officials have been obstructed or prevented from performing their duties in relation to the requirements of Community legislation on the transport of animals or the payment of export refunds on live bovines in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 615/98(1).

The Commission is currently carrying out enquiries in several Member States concerning the implementation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(2).

The responsibility for ensuring that no breaches of criminal law occur in relation to the matters raised by the Honourable Member rests with the Member States. The Commission does, however, have a responsibility to ensure that Member States implement and adequately enforce the relevant Community legislation. The Commission would certainly need to consider taking appropriate action if it appeared that the authorities in any Member State were unable to ensure compliance with their Community law obligations in this domain because of conduct of the type mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In this context the Commission is, of course, prepared to examine carefully any evidence that the Honourable Member can supply to back up her submissions.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(2) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3809/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Export of live horses

European Union legislation on the transportation of horses states that, after every 8 hours of travel, the horses must be unloaded, given food and water and rested for at least 24 hours. The animals must be facing the same direction, be tethered, and mares and stallions should be separated.

Will the Commission state what steps it is taking to ensure compliance?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Chapter VII of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1) as amended by Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(2) provides watering and feeding intervals as well as journey times and resting periods for livestock including horses.

As a general rule journey times for livestock shall not exceed eight hours. However paragraph 4(c) of Chapter VII allows domestic solipeds to be transported for a maximum period of twenty-four hours provided that additional requirements are met.

Day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation is the responsibility of Member States. The Commission undertakes on-the-spot checks in Member States to ensure that competent authorities apply Community legislation in an effective and uniform manner.

It should be mentioned that the Commission has opened infringement proceedings against some Member States in relation to their failure to implement Community legislation in this field.

In addition the Commission has recently adopted a report(3) on the experience acquired by Member States on the application of the Directive. The document is submitted to the Council and to the Parliament.

The Commission's report finds major shortcomings in enforcement of the legislation by national authorities. Member States should allocate in the near future adequate resources in order to apply the current legislation more efficiently.

Following the outcome of the report the Commission will start to review the current legislation. In preparing its prooposals the Commission is likely to consider different aspects and in particular the rapid adoption of additional measures for the protection of horses.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3) Report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of Council Directive 95/29/EC amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport COM(2000) 809 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4099/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Linguistic discrimination in the European Union

As we move into the European Year of Languages, European organisations are increasingly uninhibited in demanding that their candidates must be English mother-tongue. In this way they are openly discriminating against jobseekers with other languages. English is wrongfully acquiring the status of a dominant language (and culture).

A flagrant example of discrimination against non-English speakers is the vacancy at the Council of European Municipalities and Regions. This umbrella organisation is advertising for a native English-speaker to head its information office in Brussels. As other job advertisements unfortunately make clear, this is not an isolated case. The news weeklies European Voice and The Bulletin regularly feature vacancies for non-governmental organisations and companies requiring English mother tongue as a qualification.

The mother tongue criterion infringes the principle of non-discrimination in the recruitment of staff in European Union countries. Non-English speakers are tending to be excluded from selection procedures, even if they have a more than adequate command of the English language. Speakers of other languages are clearly no longer being considered for certain jobs, and this is happening on the eve of the European Year of Languages.

Does the Council agree that requiring native English-speakers when recruiting staff in European Union countries is a violation of the principle of non-discrimination? If it does, what steps will it be taking to put a stop to linguistic discrimination of this kind? If it doesn't, what arguments can it put forward to reconcile this requirement with the non-discrimination principle?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The Council remains attached to the fundamental principle of equality of the official languages of the EU, as enshrined in Council Regulation No 1(1) (last modified by the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden) and applies this principle, as do the other institutions of the Union, in its own recruitment policy. It has no competence to pronounce on the recruitment policies of organisations and bodies.

(1) OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 401.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/00

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Secret protocol to the St Malo Declaration

At the St Malo Summit of 3 and 4 December 1998, the French and British Governments issued a joint Declaration on European defence. According to the Declaration, the EU must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to military crises. At the same time, the Declaration said that collective security was a matter for NATO and that NATO had a predominant role in the territorial defence of Europe.

According to a newspaper article which appeared in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad on 8 March 2000, there was allegedly a secret protocol attached to the Declaration, which laid down that the European Parliament should never be involved in the shaping of the future European Security and Defence Policy.

1. Are the Council and its Secretary-General aware of the existence of any such protocol to the St Malo Declaration?

2. Will the Member States, the European Commission and the European Parliament be informed about the contents of the protocol?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

1. The Franco-British Declaration on European defence to which the Honourable Member refers was adopted by the Heads of State or Government of France and the United Kingdom at the bilateral Summit held in St Malo on 3 and 4 December 1998.

2. The European Council met on 11 and 12 December 1998 in Vienna. On that occasion it welcomed the Franco-British Declaration made at St Malo.

3. The Council does not know of any secret protocol attached to the Franco-British Declaration on European defence and stating that the European Parliament should never be involved in the establishment of the future European Security and Defence Policy.

4. The European Council has on several occasions recalled that the development of the Common European Security and Defence Policy is an integral part of the strengthening of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, on which the Parliament is kept regularly informed under Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3942/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Application of the common fisheries policy

Will the Commission state whether the common fisheries policy applies to the coastal waters of all the Member States and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The geographical scope of the Common Fisheries Policy is the same as that of the EC Treaty. Thus, it applies to the territories of all Member States (except in the cases of Greenland and the Faeroe Islands) as well as to certain overseas territories of the Member States, (see Article 299 (ex-Article 227) of the EC Treaty). These territories, of course, include the

territorial seas of the Member States which can be claimed up to a 12-mile limit from their baselines. It is clear, according to a consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, that the Common Fisheries Policy applies not only to the territorial seas but also to all areas where Member States are able to exercise fisheries jurisdiction under international law (i.e. also in their exclusive economic or exclusive fishery zones). The Common Fisheries Policy thus applies in all coastal State waters. This is confirmed by Article 1 of the basic fisheries Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture(1)) which provides: The common fisheries policy shall cover exploitation activities involving living aquatic resources, and aquaculture, as well as the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products where practised on the territory of Member States or in Community fishing waters or by Community fishing vessels. In the same Regulation Community fishing waters are defined as the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States (Article 3(a)).

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3735/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Millennium bug

Will the Commission please cite estimates made of the spending on preparations by Member State for the millennium bug, and also cite estimates of the actual disruption to economic activity caused by the millennium bug at the beginning of 2000?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

At the present time, the Commission does not have the resources to undertake the lengthy research that a detailed answer to the Honourable Member's question would require. However, in January 2000, Member States did provide very broad estimates of the level of spending on the millennium bug. In general,

public information campaigns undertaken by governments cost between 0,5-16 million, with the majority spending between 1-3 million. The cost of remediation work by the public sector was estimated at between 20 million and 1 billion. Spending by Member States as a whole, including the private sector, was estimated at between 1-20 billion.

It is impossible to make accurate assessments because it would be necessary to separate normal information technology (IT) budget expenditure, which would have been incurred in any case, from specific expenditure on the millennium bug. In some cases, the public sector managed to carry out all the Millenium bug remediation work within existing IT budgets, in others as much as half came from additional funding. In many cases, organisations simply brought forward already planned IT investments. The actual cost to the private sector is even more difficult to estimate, given that many companies did not choose to disclose this information publicly.

In terms of the cost of actual disruption to economic activity, this is also information which companies and administrations found very sensitive and thus were not inclined to disclose. As far as the Commission knows, no Member State has provided estimates of these costs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3829/00

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Linguistic minorities in the applicant countries

The studies produced by the EU on the applicant countries clearly show the need for greater and more precise knowledge of their linguistic minorities.

How does the Commission intend to tackle this aspect, in order to persuade the applicant countries to devote more specific attention to their linguistic as well as their ethnic minorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2001)

As of 1997, the Commission has regularly assessed progress made by the candidate countries in meeting the criteria for membership laid down at the Copenhagen European Council, including the political criterion of stability of institutions guaranteeing, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the respect for and protection of minorities. The Commission has first done so in its 1997 Opinions, and subsequently in the Regular Reports that the Commission has adopted in the autumn of respectively 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The political criterion laid down by the Copenhagen European Council makes no distinction between the various elements that may make up the identity of persons belonging to a minority, be it their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious heritage. In assessing progress made by the candidate countries in ensuring respect for and the protection of minorities, the Commission devotes particular attention to the respect for, and the implementation of, the various principles laid down in the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, including those related to the use of minority languages.

In order to help the candidate countries remedy the specific weaknesses and shortcomings identified in the Regular Reports, the Community establishes an Accession Partnership for each of the candidate countries(1). These Accession Partnerships put forward short and medium-term priorities for each country to fulfil the accession criteria. They also indicate the financial assistance available from the Community in support of these priorities and the conditions attached to that assistance.

The regular assessment of progress made by the candidate countries in meeting the requirements set by the Copenhagen political criteria, supported by the Accession Partnerships, has led to positive developments in all candidate countries, also as regards respect for minority rights and the protection of minorities, including the use of minority languages. The Commission continues its work in this direction.

(1) COM(1999) 521 final to 532 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3403/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Seconded national experts system: operation and current state of affairs

The Commission set up the seconded national experts system by its decision of 7 January 1998, amended by its decision of 3 February 1999, in order to supply the Commission with staff with more specialised experience, especially in technical sectors, for a fixed period of time, and to allow officials from the Member States' administrations to gain work experience within Commission departments.

Is the Commission aware of how many national experts are currently working at the Commission?

Which technical sectors are they working in?

Is the Commission aware of the grades at which the various experts are classified?

How many of the national experts come from national administrations, and how many from private enterprises?

What is the breakdown, with regard to nationality, of the duties of national experts?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

687 national experts are currently working at the Commission and financed through the operational and research provisions of the Commission budget. Their engagement relates to the various needs, and they are working in all Commission services, except the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service and the Translation Service.

There are no grades of classification. National experts are considered, in a general way, as equivalent to the A officials category, without any difference of grades.

655 national experts originate from the public sector and 32 are from the private sector. Tasks given to national experts are not attributed on the basis of nationality.

On 13 November 2000 the nationality of seconded national experts was as follows:

>TABLE>

A table giving an overview of the distribution of these experts by Directorate general is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3880/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 December 2000)

Subject: CO2

What are the relative contributions of CO2 emissions from air travel and from car travel to global warming? Does the Council believe that a higher elasticity of demand for the price of air fuel vis-à-vis petrol means that an amendment to the 1944 Chicago Convention provisions covering air fuel taxation would permit a more coherent as well as a more equitable environmental policy than the current policy of simply increasing taxes on petrol?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

Regarding the issue of the contributions to global warming from, respectively, air traffic and road traffic, the Council would draw the Honourable Members' attention to the work undertaken by the Commission within the framework of the European Climate Change Programme. According to this research, transport-related CO2-emissions in 1990 were measured at 739 Mt, representing 24 % of energy-related CO2-emissions. With unchanged trends, transport-related CO2-emissions are projected to reach 1000 Mt by 2010 (by then representing 30 % of the total expected energy-related CO2-emissions).

The respective shares of air traffic and road traffic in terms of CO2-emissions in 1995 were, according to the Commission, approximately the following:

>TABLE>

A forecast for 2010 indicates the following figures:

>TABLE>

At its meeting on 29 June 2000 the Council, generally speaking, endorsed the Commission's conclusions and indicated that:

- the great majority of delegations thought that, in principle and in terms of the consistency of the taxation scheme, fuel for commercial aviation should be taxed in the same way as any other fuel;

- consideration should be given to the question of competition with third countries and any distortion of competition with socio-economic consequences should be avoided; a unilateral measure by the European Community introducing taxation would not be desirable;

- in the circumstances the strategy to be followed should be to transfer this matter to the ICAO. The Council also considered that other fiscal measures or other technological solutions could be envisaged to reduce CO2 emissions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3936/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Market surveillance and the EC trade mark

With regard to market surveillance and the EC trademark, would the Commission kindly answer the following questions:

1. Does it merely send written questions to the individual Member States concerning market surveillance, or does it carry out its own spot checks on the premises of individual companies? How often does it do so?

2. In the first instance, are the Member States required to produce accurate documentation to prove that shortcomings have been remedied, and do they do so?

3. Since no comprehensive market surveillance can currently be guaranteed at European level, what is the timescale within which that should be achieved, or will it prove impossible to implement in the near future because of the current streamlining of the administration?

4. Might it be possible to use certification by private-sector third parties to close any loophole in market surveillance?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

Market surveillance falls under Member States' competence. Member States must nominate their competent authorities and the Commission's role consists in verifying that Member States fulfil their obligations. The Commission is not entitled to undertake its own spot checks on the premises of individual companies.

Defects must be notified to the Commission through the safeguard clause procedure. Member-States must keep the Commission informed of measures introduced in accordance with the safeguard clause, including the necessary technical justifications.

Each Member State decides its own market surveillance structure. Legal and administrative structures can thus vary between Member-States. However, in order to achieve a coherent and high safety level throughout the Community co-operation between national authorities is highly desirable and the Commission supports these co-operative activities in various ways (administrative co-operation, mutual joint visit programmes, cross-border projects, mldr).

Moreover, the Commission is currently undertaking an analysis of the implementation of certain elements of the New Approach Directives, with the intention to publish a Commission Communication in 2001. Market surveillance will constitute an important part of the related reflections.

Whereas third-party certification is often useful before goods are placed on the market, it is essential that market surveillance be conducted in an independent manner and thus remains the responsibility of national authorities.