ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1194/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Illegal slaughter of sheep in France

Following the submission of video evidence to the Commission by the RSPCA which proves that the slaughter of sheep during the Eid el Kebir festival in France (16-19 March) was not carried out according to the provisions of Directive 93/119/EC(1) on the protection of animals for slaughter, how does the Commission intend to ensure full enforcement of this Directive by the French Government in future years?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2000)

The Commission is currently analysing the information just received from animal protection organisations on the recent Eid-el-Kabir.

The information available will be evaluated in the light of the reassurances that the Commission received prior to the festival from the French authorities that they were taking a wide range of measures to improve the situation, including close contact with the Muslim community.

The Commission fully understands that the issues involved are sensitive and that they currently, in certain localities in France, involve serious problems for the French authorities. It must, on the other hand, be observed that failure to respect the fundamental provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing and relevant Community sanitary rules involves serious breaches of Community law and risk to public health.

The Commission is currently awaiting a formal report from the French authorities on the recent Eid-el-Kabir. In the light of this report the Commission will consider if further initiatives are necessary including the possible opening of the Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty infringement proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0215/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Waste incineration plant at Battipaglia

With reference to the previous question on this subject (P-2423/99)(1) and the answer given by Mrs Wallstrom on behalf of the Commission, and bearing in mind that it would be desirable for the Commission to be able to carry out preventive checks on possible breaches of the rules governing existing waste incineration plants which might occur once a planned project is completed,

Will the Commission say:

- whether it considers that the waste incineration plant in question, once it has been built in accordance with the plans, is likely to infringe Community rules on the prevention of air pollution from waste incineration plants?

- what measures it intends to take to ensure compliance with existing Community rules on waste disposal, in particular Council Directive 97/11/EC(2) of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/37/EEC(3) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 158.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The prevention of air pollution from a plant which is still at the project stage is to be considered in the framework of the Community environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation: Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC. In particular, Article 1 of Directive 97/11/EC provides: Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Air pollution is among the impacts assessed.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers appears to be one of the classes listed under Annex II of Directive. Article 4, paragraph 2, of Directive 97/11/EC states: Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. The Commission has requested detailed information on this specific case. It will ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

As for the possible action of the Commission in order to ensure the correct application of Community law, the Commission would stress that its powers are limited to those conferred by the EC Treaty. The Commission, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, will not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law relevant to the specific case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1248/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Turkish green passports

In spite of representations from various European governments to date, Turkey is continuing to issue green passports to Turkish nationals who are travelling abroad, especially to Europe. These passports enable Turkish citizens to avoid obtaining a visa for countries which they are about to visit and are usually issued to high-ranking Turkish state officials and members of their families.

Estimates put the total number of these passports at the excessively high figure of 1,5 million (see the Turkish newspaper Milliyet, 14 March 2000). The most worrying aspect of the Turkish green passport industry is the fact that many of these passports are held by individuals with direct links to the Turkish mafia, organised crime, drug trafficking, espionage and the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. Contrary to the assurances it has given on various occasions, Turkey has not stopped issuing green passports or set about recalling them to the Turkish issuing authority.

What action does the Council intend to take to control and restrict the entry into the EU of individuals from Turkey with green passports in order to prevent the backdoor entry of individuals who have links with international smuggling and organised crime?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, except in the cases covered by Article 17(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, the movement of bearers of diplomatic, official and service passports is, in the current state of development of Community law, within the competence of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0692/00

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Fixed-term contracts for the Fifth Framework programme

Following the Commission's decision of 19 January 1996 concerning the new staff policy (NPPR), notices of vacancy with internal selection procedure were published. The contracts, which were concluded for two years from 15 February 1997 and extended for a further two years, expired on 15 February 2000. The extension occurred during the Fifth Framework programme which ends in 2002. As a result, some researchers whose contracts were renewed were assigned to projects longer than the duration of their contracts (for example, the four-year COCO project due to end in 2002).

Does the Commission not consider that this forced interruption of research projects caused by the expiry of researchers' contracts is economically damaging and puts a brake on research work, highlighting the fact that the flexibility demanded of fixed-term contract workers is being applied in an inappropriate manner and with the wrong timescale, without taking into account the need for successful completion of the Fifth Framework programme?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The contracts referred to by the Honourable Member are contracts for fixed-term staff for a maximum duration of three years, as provided for by the new staff policy under the research budget adopted by the Commission in 1996. Their aim is to enable a certain flexibility to be achieved in appointing specialist staff, more particularly in the areas for which the Commission does not have any recruitment reserves. Their numbers may exceed the research payroll by 25 %.

These fixed-term staff members are selected from a database set up after a call for applications that has been widely disseminated outside the Commission (more particularly on the Cordis website). It must also be stressed, in this connection, that those fixed-term staff members are informed of the maximum three-year duration of their contracts at the point when they make their application, and also when the contract is signed.

In addition, such contracts may be entered into at any time of the year. Thus they do not all expire on 15 February 2000.

It should also be stressed that these contracts are not intended to span the duration of a framework contract, nor even that of a specific project. They correspond to a form of recruitment that supplements that for fixed-term staff appointed via selection procedures that can be treated on the same basis as open competitions, who are covered by renewable five-year contracts or contracts of unspecified length, depending upon whether they are employed as research-staff members for scientific or technical purposes or for administrative purposes.

In any case the Commission may point out to the Honourable Member that no research contract has been interrupted by the expiry of fixed-term staff contracts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Measures to promote paternity leave

In Sweden and now also in Italy, for instance a special bonus is provided to give fathers a greater incentive to take paternity leave: if the father takes three months childcare leave, the family is entitled to a further month of such leave. Statistics show that as a result of this measure 80 % of Swedish fathers now take paternity leave.

Will the Commission consider pushing through such examples of good practice in the other Member States so as to ensure that the contribution of fathers and mothers in bringing up children is more evenly balanced?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission takes the view that, while the examples mentioned by the Honourable Member encourage fathers to opt for parental leave and are part of a move towards balancing the involvement of both parents in bringing up their children, it is the responsibility of the Member States to introduce good practices of this kind.

At Community level, the legislation on parental leave is the subject of a framework agreement concluded by the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and implemented by Council Directive 96/34/EC of 2 June 1996(1). Clause 2.2 of this framework agreement provides that the right to parental leave should, in principle, be granted as a non-transferable right, in order to promote equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women. Given that this framework agreement is designed to introduce minimum requirements, the Member States enjoy complete freedom to adopt more favourable measures in this area.

(1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Financial aid to the British oil industry

In her answer to Question E-0218/00(1), Mrs de Palacio states that, since 1975, the Commission has provided aid to the United Kingdom totalling 189,05 million.

Can the Commission give a breakdown of this figure by year and by undertaking subsidised in the UK?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/00, E-1041/00 and E-1042/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Since 1975, the Community has run programmes to give financial support to innovative technology for exploration, production and transport of hydrocarbons. In reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0218/00(1), the Commission provided a breakdown of this support by year and by Member State. As regards the request for a detailed breakdown by company, the Commission can provide data for the period 1990-1998. This information is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be noted, however, that the attribution of the support to certain Member States could be somewhat misleading, as contracts in addition to the main contractor often involve several participants from different Member States.

With regard to the data requested for the period 1975-1990, it should be noted that a reply to the Honourable Member's questions would, due to lack of electronic support for data at that time, require a lengthy and difficult research which the Commission is not in a position to undertake.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0951/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: The Objective 2 region of Hainaut

The awarding of Objective 2 aid to the Walloon province of Hainaut is leading to the relocation of firms which have been established for many years in the neighbouring province of Western Flanders. The businesses operators in question acknowledge that the removal of their activities to Hainaut is entirely dependent on their obtaining Objective 2 subsidies. If these business operators do not obtain any European aid, they will keep their operations in Western Flanders. In order to be considered for such aid they have to have their company headquarters in Hainaut.

1. How many applications have been made since 1 January 2000 for Objective 2 aid for new economic operations in Hainaut, and to what do they relate?

2. When and where were the company headquarters of these firms registered?

3. (a) How many of these firms were formerly operating in the province of Western Flanders?

(b) How many of these firms are currently operating in Western Flanders?

4. Have the firms in question expressly been asked whether their relocation from Western Flanders to Hainaut is dependent on the award of Objective 2 aid?

(a) If so, how many West Flanders operators would choose to move their operations to Hainaut without Objective 2 aid?

(b) If not, will the Commission ask these business operators to what extent their relocation is dependent upon Objective 2 aid?

5. Is the Commission prepared to take measures to prevent the relocation of West Flanders firms to Hainaut?

(a) If so, what measures?

(b) If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 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-2319/00

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Civil protection and combatting fires caused by storms

The storms which occurred in December 1999 are continuing to have an impact, as European forests affected by the storms are threatened with the risk of fire. Outbreaks of fires have already been recorded in some forests.

Preventing disasters means improving fire safety.

1. Does the Commission not consider that the prevention of fires resulting from the effects of the storms comes within the scope of the Community programme in the field of civil protection established by the Council decision of 9 December 1999?

2. How does the Commission apply the precautionary principle which is the subject of its communication of 2 February 2000 to the prevention of fires resulting from the storms?

3. Could the Commission say whether an assessment of the risk of fires resulting from the storms has been carried out at Community level?

4. What measures have been co-financed under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92(1) which provides for a Community scheme for the protection of forests against fire aimed at:

- identifying the causes of forest fires;

- identifying the means of combatting them?

5. What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to improve the system for monitoring forests following natural or technological disasters?

(1) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 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-2237/00

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Banana import fraud

Forged import licences for bananas have been in circulation in the European Union for almost a year. 164 000 tonnes of bananas produced in third countries have entered European territory illegally in this way. The operators involved pay a duty of 75 instead of the 750 per tonne that they would have had to pay as importers of non-quota bananas.

The fall in prices registered in recent months, which is extremely damaging to many producers in extremely remote areas, may therefore be due to the unscrupulous attitude of some operators.

What measures does the Commission intend to take, and how soon, to repair the damage suffered by these producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 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-0406/00

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Council

(16 February 2000)

Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firms operating on the Danube following the closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube

A number of firms in Regensburg (Germany) are specialised in transport operations from Germany to destinations below Yugoslavia on the Danube. As a result of the war in Kosovo,the destruction of bridges over the Danube, and the subsequent closure of the Yugoslav section of the Danube the business operations of these firms have come to a halt. Since these firms specialise in vey specific transport operations on the Danube, they have practically no possibility of branching out into other areas of activity.

Can the Council therefore provide the following information:

1. Should these firms be regarded as victims of the Kosovo war in the same way as firms situated in Kosovo itself?

2. Are these firms eligible for financial restructuring aid to offset their losses?

3. Are these companies entitled to non-reimbursable aid for restructuring or consolidation to offset their ongoing losses and to publicly guaranteed investment aid?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

The Council informs the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to decide on aid granted by Member States under the provisions of Articles 87 et seq of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 86/653/EEC in Italy

A company has awarded a severance payment to an employee (sales representative) pursuant to an economic agreement of 25 July 1989 rather than Legislative Decree No 303 of 10 September 1991, based on Directive 86/653/EEC(1) on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, in accordance with Article 15 of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990.

The company's decision considerably reduces the amount of the severance payment. The application of LD No 303, on the other hand, which is based on the European directive, would work to the advantage of the worker who, quite rightly, is invoking it, so far without success.

Can the Commission therefore state:

- whether the European directive should take priority over the 1989 economic agreement?

- whether European legislation takes precedence over national legislation?

- if so, what action can the worker take to exercise his rights as recognised by the directive?

(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The meaning of commercial agent, for the purposes of Council Directive 86/653/EE on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, is defined in Article 1 (2) of the directive as a self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, hereinafter called the principal, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that principal.

The definition of commercial agent as given in the directive excludes certain types of commercial intermediary, especially sales representatives, who do not work as self-employed intermediaries but as paid employees of an enterprise.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/00

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

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Environment tax

A forum was held in Palma de Mallorca in February attended by Mr Eusebio Murillo of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, at which a proposal for an environment tax on tourists visiting the Balearic Islands, levied by the Regional Government of the Balearic Islands, was discussed.

Has any proposal for an environment tax in the Balearic Islands been submitted to the Commission or has it been consulted on the matter?

If so, what recommendations did the Regional Government of the Balearic Islands put forward concerning this tax?

Under what conditions does the Commission believe such a tax could be introduced?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has not been notified of a proposed environment tax in the Balearic Islands.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/00

by Jan-Kees Wiebenga (ELDR) to the Council

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Schengen-area border checks at Schiphol airport

A case has been reported of a Netherlands national who was required by the Netherlands airline KLM to show a valid passport as proof of identity on an intra-Schengen flight from Amsterdam to Rome.

1. On what provisions of the Schengen Treaty is the requirement to show a valid passport based?

2. Are there not other travel documents or proofs of identity that are recognised by European Union Member States as sufficient for travel between Schengen countries? If so, what are they?

3. Do other national Schengen-country airlines, such as Sabena, Air France or Lufthansa, also ask for a valid passport, or do they also accept other proof of identity?

4. If the arrangements applied were in accordance with the rules in force, is the Council prepared to change those rules so that other proofs of identity can be accepted?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, as far as nationals of the Member States are concerned, the Schengen provisions do not regulate the right of airlines to verify prior to check-in that the holder of a travel document which is normally personal and non-transferable is indeed the person named in that document.

In addition, the Council informs the Honourable Member that, pursuant to Directives 68/360/EEC and 73/148/EEC, and on the basis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, all nationals of the Member States must, when travelling within the EU, be in possession of either a valid identity card, or a valid passport. Since an identity card is not compulsory in the Netherlands, any national of that country travelling to the territory of another Member State must at least hold a valid passport.

In any case, the Council would emphasise that it is to the Commission and to the Court of Justice and that the Treaty entrusts the task of ensuring that Community law is applied correctly in the Member States.