ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1382/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Consolidation procedure in Tröpolach

A land consolidation procedure has been initiated in Tröpolach (Corinthia). Two-thirds of the landowners were in agreement with this procedure. Mr Wastl, who owns one of the properties affected by the consolidation, has not agreed to it. However, on the basis of the two-thirds majority, the holdings are now being amalgamated.

Is this procedure compatible with EU law?

If so, on the basis of which provisions?

If not, what legal action can be taken to oppose it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission is of the view that the manner in which a unification of parcels is to be carried out is a matter governed by national law provisions and it is incumbent to the appropriate domestic courts or administrative bodies to handle any disputes related thereto.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0966/01

by Ian Paisley (NI) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Secondment from the European Commission

Could the Commission indicate the terms and dates of employment and the amount of European monies paid to Mr Logue and Mr Larkin who have been seconded from the European Commission to the office of the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

As part of the evidence of its practical commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process and the administration of the newly created Northern Ireland Assembly, the Commission has approved the secondments of Mr Larkin, an official of grade A3, and Mr Logue, an official of grade A4, as special advisers to the Deputy First Minister in the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive. These secondments are due to terminate in the third quarter of 2002. The salaries and allowances paid by the Commission to Mr Larkin and Mr Logue are commensurate with their respective grade and domestic arrangements (family allowance, education allowance, etc.).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1818/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Commission Ispra Joint Research Centre (Italy)

For some time the Commission has been pursuing a rather ambiguous policy towards the Ispra research centre and quietly shifting some of its activities and hence personnel to other Union research sites not due to be expanded in the near future (for example the Petten centre).

According to an unofficial report, the Director-General of the Ispra centre announced to the research staff last week that one of the four institutes operating at Ispra was to be closed.

1. Can the Commission confirm the report?

2. If so, is the closure to be interpreted as a move towards possible future conversion, reorganisation, or the breakup of the Ispra centre?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The Joint Research Centre's (JRC) Ispra site currently comprises four Institutes: Environment (EI), Space Applications (SAI), Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP) and Systems, Informatics and Safety (ISIS).

An independent assessment panel concluded that there was a substantial overlap between the activities of SAI, and those of EI and ISIS. These findings are confirmed by an internal audit carried out within the JRC.

Moreover, the objectives of SAI are technology focussed, whereas the other Institutes have clear links to Community policies.

The Commission will therefore re-organise these three Institutes into two new ones that will be identified with policy objectives rather than a particular technology.

One institute will be a focus for activities whose main objective is to maintain Europe's increasingly vulnerable environment - both by supporting Community environmental policies and by supporting the integration of an environmental component into other policies. Emphasis will be given to supporting the strategy for sustainable development.

The other institute will aim to provide better protection of the security of the individual, the taxpayer and, increasingly, the consumer.

The principle of these changes has been explained to the staff that will be involved in the re-organisation.

These changes are part of a wider initiative to focus and concentrate more the JRC's activities on the key priorities linked to its mission in support of Community policies. They are designed to ensure that the JRC has a sustainable future, integrated into the European Research Area. There are therefore no plans for the breakup of the Ispra centre.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0858/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Commission right to withdraw proposals

1. Does the Commission take the view that it is entitled effectively to veto legislation by withdrawing from the Council and the European Parliament any proposal that it has submitted?

2. Has its view been challenged by the legal services of any other institution?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

1. Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 189a(2)) states that As long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of a Community act. The Commission's power to alter proposals, combined with its right of initiative, has as its corollary the power to withdraw proposals, although the Commission cannot exercise this power unless certain conditions are met.

The Commission's current stance is that it may withdraw proposals in two cases, namely:

- where there is a risk that the Council may alter the nature of the proposal or where the decision taken on the proposal may result in an infringement of the EC Treaty (first indent of Article 211 (formerly Article 155) of the EC Treaty). The Commission does not exercise this power, however, if the Council is thereby placed in the position of failing to meet a Treaty obligation, i.e. it does not exercise any right of veto;

- where a proposal has become outdated or has been replaced by another proposal. In such cases, it is withdrawn for purely administrative reasons. Parliament is duly informed one month before the decision to withdraw the proposal is published in the Official Journal.

2. It is not for the Commission to express an opinion on the position taken by the legal services of the other institutions. It notes, however, that no decision to withdraw a proposal has yet been the subject of proceedings before the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/01

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Scientific studies into the unintentional catching of marine mammals

Every year, the general public becomes incensed when it sees dolphins stranded on European beaches. Most times, if not every time, their demise is caused by the use of pelagic trawls.

Figures abound: some people speak of thousands of dolphins stranded every year, 80 % of which present injuries caused by pelagic trawls.

Have any scientific studies been drawn up which would confirm those figures? If not, does the Commission intend to commission such studies and finance them?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the problem of incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries activities. Indeed, the Commission has financially supported several research projects and studies, tackling the issue of interaction among marine mammals (mainly cetaceans) and fishing activities, which led to illumination of the perceived problems.

Nonetheless, the Commission is unable to find any authoritative text which indicates that 80 % of stranded dolphins have been caused by pelagic trawl. If, however, such a reference exists the Commission would be grateful to be made aware of it.

The Commission is always open to support scientific investigation that could further enlighten the matter. In particular, research proposals on cetaceans, provided that the science is good, could be eligible within the Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Programme, key action 5 Sustainable Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Integrated Development of Rural Areas including Mountain Areas, of the Fifth framework programme for Research and Technological Development of the Community (http://www.cordis.lu/life/). The deadline for last call for proposals is 18 October 2001.

Research proposals in relation to marine biodiversity loss, including cetaceans, could also be considered within the Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Programme, key action 3 Sustainable Maríne Ecosystems as well as within the Infrastructure action line of the same Programme (Environment and Sustainable development)(http://www.cordis.lu/fp5/src/calls.htm).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1074/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Forced labour in Burma

Is the Council aware of the use of forced labour in Burma? If so, what steps does it intend to take to remedy this situation?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Council shares international abhorrence at the practice of forced labour in Burma, a practice which it fears has not yet ended. As the Honourable Member will recall, the European Community suspended GSP privileges in 1997 as a result of this practice. The Council has also of course taken a number of other measures over the last four years, set out in its Common Position, in response to the political situation in Burma/Myanmar.

The Council fully supported the resolution of the International Labour Conference adopted in June 2000, and welcomed the entry into force of the measures recommended by the resolution on 30 November 2000, following the meeting of the ILO Governing Body.

Governments of Member States have been discussing how best to give effect to the recommendations contained in the resolution with their social partners. They, as well as the Commission, have also reported on these efforts to the Director-General of the ILO.

The Council recognise that the Government of Burma/Myanmar has taken certain measures aimed at ending the practice of forced labour. Forced labour needs, however, to be outlawed legally, ended in practice, and any continuing practitioners punished. The Council is monitoring the situation closely and, should the authorities in Burma/Myanmar fail to take the necessary steps in this respect, the Council stands ready to take further measures.

The Council made clear its concerns regarding forced labour during the visit of the EU Troika mission to Burma/Myanmar in January 2001. It expects that the question will continue to be considered by the ILO/ILC and also by Ecosoc. It sincerely hopes that contacts will be renewed between the ILO and Burma/Myanmar and that an ILO presence may be established in the country in order to verify a definitive end to the practice of forced labour.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Right of Resale.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0015 - 0015



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0257/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2001) Subject: Right of Resale What measures does the Council intend to take to ensure a standard level of protection for the purposes of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale to ensure that they are in conformity with the provisions of Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in the implementation of the draft Directive by the Member States, with particular regard to tax treatment? Joint answer to Written Questions E-0257/01, E-0259/01, E-0261/01 and E-0263/01 (13 July 2001) The questions asked by the Honourable Member relate to matters which remain the responsibility of the Member States and answers will therefore depend on the measures adopted by Member States when implementing the Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, as well as on other relevant provisions of national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1174/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Statements by Commissioner Lamy

At his hearing before Parliament in the summer of 1999 Pascal Lamy said that as Head of Cabinet to Commission President Delors at the time he had not learnt of the Fléchard case until late 1993/early 1994. His cabinet had had to take a moderating role, he said, in order to reach agreement between directorates-general that were in dispute with one another.

Since then a memorandum has been discovered in a safe of the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture that shows up the role of the Delors cabinet in this fraud affair in a very different light. Accordingly to the note, the Delors cabinet intervened heavily, as long ago as March 1993 at the latest, on behalf of the Fléchard company in the Commission's decision-making procedures. This happened although the company had clearly submitted deliberately falsified documents, in order to conceal the fact that a heavily subsidised consignment of butter for the former Soviet Union had been fraudulently diverted to Poland. After a meeting of the Delors cabinet on 7 January 1994, whose minutes have allegedly disappeared, the prescribed fine to the company of 17,6 million was cut to 3 million. This ensured the survival of a company which, according to investigations by the Italian courts, is said to have gone on being involved in fraudulent transactions with adulterated butter on a grand scale until mid-2000.

And in another case, Mr Lamy's statements at this hearing before Parliament appear also not to have been complete and comprehensive. Mr Lamy was asked to list all the meetings at which he had met European Commission officials, of whatever rank, during his time as a member of the board of the Crédit Lyonnais, and to name the date, place and purpose of each meeting.

In his reply Mr Lamy gave the impression that his self-imposed distancing from the Commission had lasted until 1 May 1998, when he said there had been a meeting in Brussels.

1. Can the Commission confirm that Mr Lamy in fact met Commission officials considerably earlier?

2. Can the Commission provide a full list of all meetings at which Mr Lamy met European Commission officials, of whatever rank, during his time as a member of the board of the Crédit Lyonnais, and name the date, place and purpose of each meeting?

3. Can the Commission provide copies of the minutes of these minutes, if necessary on a confidential basis?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

No.

The records of the Commission confirm the statement made by Mr Lamy at his hearing before Parliament, i.e. that during his time as a member of the executive board of Crédit Lyonnais, Mr Lamy met with Commission officials formally only once, on 1-3 May 1998 in Brussels. Purpose was to discuss a state aid case concerning Crédit Lyonnais.

As with internal documents relating to state aid cases in general, the minutes of this meeting are confidential.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Unacceptable attitude of US senators

On Thursday, 8 March 2001 EU representatives, including Mr Rodotà, the Chairman of the Article 29 Working Group, visited the US Congress. According to European press reports, they were violently criticised by senators who see the Directive on the protection of personal data on the Internet as excessively tough. In particular, Senator Buyer praised his forefathers for taking the right decision and leaving Europe.

Will the Commission say whether it will yield to American pressure or continue the work it has begun to ensure that users' rights are more effectively protected on the Internet?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2001)

The Commission proposal for a Directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector of 12 July 2000(1), to which the Honourable Member refers, is currently being discussed in co-decision procedure. It is the Commission's view that the proposal contains the most appropriate approach for the protection of personal data in the electronic communications sector including the Internet and hopes that it will be adopted by the Parliament and the Council before the end of this year.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Health and Consumer Protection

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Health and Consumer Protection provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0695/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Textiles industry in Bangladesh

Does the Commission intend to respond to calls from the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, for the US to extend duty, and quota, free access, which is already offered to 33 least developed countries, to Bangladeshi textiles and garments? Will direct contact be made with the EU's trade counterparts in the United States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0695/01and P-1068/01 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

The Commission understands the concern of Bangladesh about its market position and market share following the adoption of the American Trade and Development Act (USTDA 2000) from which, together with the other Asian least developed countries (LDCs), it is excluded.

As far as the Community is concerned, Bangladesh's status as least developed country implies duty- and quota free access for its textile and clothing exports to the Community and this has enabled the country to significantly increase its exports of these products to the European market, becoming the Community's 10th largest supplier.

The Commission would encourage other developed countries to grant similar treatment to LDCs, and is in this respect encouraged by the reaction of countries such as Chile and New Zealand to the Community's Everything but Arms initiative (EBA initiative) which extends duty and quota-free access to the Community market for all products from the 49 least developed countries.

The EBA initiative reflects the importance the Community attaches to a full integration of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries, into the multilateral trading system. This is of course a subject of discussion with other developed country trading partners, including the United States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0666/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and agreed indicators

The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited the Council and the Commission to promote a better understanding of social exclusion through continued dialogue and exchanges of information and best practice, on the basis of commonly agreed indicators. Have these indicators been established, and if so what are they?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

In response to the mandate given by the Lisbon European Council, the Council has invited the Social Protection Committee to select and develop indicators in support of the goal of combating social exclusion. Given the essentially technical nature of this task, the Social Protection Committee has itself established a subgroup with the specific aim of addressing this question.

It is envisaged that the subgroup will report to the Social Protection Committee in June and November of this year, with a view to incorporating proposals into the Committee's reports to be submitted to the Council in advance of the Laeken European Council in December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1503/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: White paper on chemicals policy

What analysis has the Commission made of the resources available within the European Union to carry out the testing of 30 000 chemicals in the space of ten years, in terms of the availability of the necessary scientific expertise, number of toxicologists and animal testing resources?

What additional provision will have to be made if the target is to be achieved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

The overall extent of the testing cannot be predicted at present and will only become apparent in the course of the evaluation process.

In order to keep testing to the indispensable minimum, the Commission has proposed substance-tailored testing of substances depending on:

- the information already available; for existing substances such information is only available to the authorities for substances exceeding a production volume of 1 000 tonnes(1);

- the use of the substances and the exposure scenarios;

- the properties of the substances discovered through testing;

- the chemical structure of the substance.

Out of the 30 000 substances, the Commission proposes animal testing for around 10 000 substances exceeding a production volume of 10 tonnes. Testing of substances produced in volumes between 10-100 tonnes will generally focus on immediate or slightly delayed effects. Such testing only requires limited resources (around 85 000 per substance). Approximately 4 300 substances above 100 tonnes will have to undergo in-depth testing for long term effects.

Testing obligations will not only affect the Community chemicals industry. Since importers will also be obliged to carry out testing and evaluate the results, resources available world-wide will in fact be utilised to generate the necessary information.

(1) Tonnage thresholds refer to volumes produced per manufacturer (or imported per importer) per annum.