ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3112/00

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Disbursement of grants authorised under the Socrates Comenius programme

Schools in Baden-Württemberg taking part in the Socrates Comenius programme have been waiting in vain for disbursement of authorised grants by the Commission.

How does the Commission account for the delay in payment of grants under the Socrates Comenius programme?

Are these isolated cases, or is there a general problem with implementation of the Socrates Comenius programme?

When does the Commission intend to pay the outstanding sums?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The delays in the payment of advances for decentralised actions under the Socrates programme are exceptional and are due essentially to the fact that 2000 is the first year in the implementation of the new programme (the decision establishing the second phase of Socrates has only been adopted during the first semester of 2000).

As a result, several measures had to be taken by the Commission and the Member States. There were delays in the setting up of the national agencies by some Member States, as well as in the completion of the national work programmes and their operational budgets.

With the new programme, the Commission wanted to reinforce the management of decentralised funds, with a view to improving their management. In this context, a new standardised form of operating agreement with the national agencies had to be devised. All measures are being taken in order to ensure the payments for decentralised actions are made as soon as possible.

As for the situation of schools in Germany, the work programme put forward by the Pädagogischer Austauschdienst (PAD) (the national agency nominated in Germany to handle Comenius grants to schools under the Socrates programme) has been agreed by the Commission. A contract to enable payments for the decentralised actions has been sent for signature to the PAD.

However, the Commission has now been informed by the German authorities that the distribution of work as between the PAD and the other agency involved in grants to schools (the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft) cannot go ahead as was originally foreseen. This implies that the contract with the PAD as originally drawn up is no longer appropriate, and it will have to be returned to the Commission for the cancellation and re-commitment to the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft of some of the credits involved.

This process will add a few weeks to the date before the contract can be signed with the PAD and the first payment reaches them. Even so, credits should be available to them before mid-November 2000. It will then be up to the PAD to process the funds as quickly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3051/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Subject: Funding for education about wildlife

The Commission has acknowledged on several occasions the need to improve young people's prospects by means of educational reforms and programmes. Do existing programmes provide for initiatives particularly aimed at improving their knowledge of fauna and the natural sciences?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the organisation of education systems, including the types of establishment and the curricula provided, comes under the competence of the Member States. As stated in Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States (mldr) while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems (mldr).

The Commission has no power to intervene in the area mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Special privileges for Lufthansa

Why has the European Commission dropped proceedings against Germany and against the German national airline Lufthansa which would have required the company to allow a majority of its stock to be owned by foreigners? In so doing, the Commission has accepted the company's rule forbidding foreign ownership a rule which contravenes the single market laws on the free movement of capital.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The Honourable Member is probably referring to infringement proceedings that the Commission has opened against Germany concerning certain provisions contained in §4 and §5 of the law Luftverkehrsnachweissicherungsgesetz (LuftNaSiG of 5 June 1997).

Those provisions prescribe measures that can be taken by German companies, operating as air transport carriers within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992, on licensing of air carriers(1). The measures aim at ensuring that such companies remain majority owned by German nationals, so as not to risk losing landing rights in countries with which Germany has negotiated bilateral air transport agreements.

After having requested and obtained information from the German government about the scope and content of its bilateral air transport agreements, as well as about the experience of implementation of the provisions of the law, the Commission is in the process of analysing and assessing whether those provisions discriminate against citizens of the Union who are not German nationals.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2246/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Revision of Article 296 in the Treaty of Nice

In the Presidency report on strengthening CESDP to the European Council which met in Santa Maria da Feira, the Council Legal Service is quoted as concluding that Treaty amendments would be necessary to amend the Treaty's provisions regarding the WEU and where Member States determine it would be politically desirable or operationally appropriate. Is it the Council's view that this requirement for the amendment of the Treaty would extend to the creation of a European Armaments Agency by merging OCCAR and WEAO, to the creation of the conditions for a single market in defence equipment by making Article 296 more flexible and to ensuring that the Code of Conduct on arms exports is fully respected by all Member States as called for in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the European Parliament's resolution of 15 June 2000 (Lalumière report)? If the Council does not consider that Treaty amendments are necessary, how does it intend to proceed to ensure that these three objectives are actually attained?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

As indicated in the Presidency's report to the Feira European Council, the question of revising the Treaty in the sphere of the CESDP is still under consideration. It is not certain that the Treaty would need to be revised to enable the Union to adopt an arms policy.

The Member States of the Union fully respect the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. If the Council were to decide that the Code should become a binding legal act, this would not require any revision of the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3373/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact and Community funding of projects

Authorisation has been granted for the construction of a sewage treatment plant in the community of Corias, situated in the municipality of Cangas de Narcea (Asturias). The project in question is to be part-financed with European Union funds.

The choice of site for the plant, which the EU is helping to fund, may have an irreversible effect on the historical and artistic heritage of the area, namely the Monastery of St John the Baptist in Corias, which has stood for a thousand years and was designated a national historic monument in 1982.

Furthermore, the authorisation breached the rules in force during the processing thereof, in that it has not been accompanied by an environmental impact assessment or a report by the municipal architect.

In these circumstances, will the Commission give its views on the fact that Community funding intended for environmental purposes will in fact serve to damage historical and artistic heritage, when another site could be found which would prevent such damage and thus comply with the Treaty on European Union, in which culture now features permanently in the Union's sphere of activity?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

According to the information available to the Commission, the project in question is not going ahead at the present time and no structural funds are allocated to it. Should the Honourable Member have information to the contrary, the Commission would be pleased to pursue the matter further with the Spanish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3334/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Supplementary social security and health insurance schemes

It is becoming increasingly common for national social security schemes and health services to be in the red, adding to State budget deficits and the national debt. One means of remedying the difficulties might be supplementary schemes, which could benefit citizens as well as State social security and health institutions. Supplementary pension schemes or health insurance would afford additional protection to workers, enabling them to secure a high standard of health care reasonably quickly.

1. What are the Commission's views on this subject?

2. In which Member States is a supplementary pension and health scheme already in operation?

3. Will the Commission submit proposals calling for the introduction of supplementary schemes, especially where health insurance is concerned, so as to guarantee free access to essential health services without discrimination of any kind?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The organisation of social security schemes and the relative roles of basic and supplementary schemes are the responsibility of the Member States. However, the Commission would like to point out that supplementary pension schemes exist in all Member States, although their scope varies considerably, especially in terms of whether or not they are compulsory and whether or not they are linked to collective agreements.

In the field of health insurance, the existence of supplementary schemes depends primarily on the quality of basis cover.

Supplementary pension and health insurance schemes may fill certain gaps left by basic schemes, especially where these provide only limited benefits, possibly as a result of budget-balancing measures targeting health systems. However, it is difficult to organise supplementary schemes so as to provide optimum cover for everyone. In the case of pensions, high administrative costs can exclude people on low incomes, and inadequate provision for the transferability of rights can penalise the more mobile workers.

The characteristic features of supplementary health insurance schemes, especially the problems of risk selection and exclusion of the most vulnerable individuals, should be examined in detail before a decision is taken on the need for a legal framework at European level. This examination could take place as part of the follow-up to the report on supplementary health insurance recently adopted by the European Parliament.

In any event, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it is essentially the task of the Member States to ensure a high level of social protection, either through basic or supplementary schemes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3390/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: State aids in the manufacturing industry

Will the Commission enumerate how many investigations into the provision of State aid to French manufacturing companies have taken place in the years 1995-2000? Could the Commission also set out the names of the companies or holding companies concerned and the extent to which they are connected to the water industries and manufacturing linked to them?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2000)

Between 1 January 1995 and 25 October 2000 the Commission closed 272 investigations into the provision of state aid to French companies in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries,

transport and the coal industry. The great majority of these investigations concern aid schemes for which the names of the benefiting companies are not known to the Commission. As for direct investigations into companies, reference is made to the Commission's annual reports on competition policy. It is not possible for the Commission to indicate the extent to which the undertakings concerned are connected to the water industries and manufacturing linked to them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: The outermost regions

With reference to the answer to Written Question E-0605/00(1), in which the Commission explains its intention to take into greater consideration the outermost regions for the period from 2007, the undersigned would like to express his approval of such an initiative. However, does the Commission share the opinion of the member that the term outermost regions covers not only horizontally, but also vertically remote regions, so that inevitably mountain regions may also in future be regarded by definition as Objective 1 regions?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The concept of remote regions does not appear in the EC Treaty and is consequently not taken up in any act of secondary legislation.

Article 299 (formerly 227) of the Treaty recognises as the outermost regions only the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

A number of remote regions including archipelagos and mountain areas are eligible for support from the Union's Structural Funds under Objectives 1 (regions lagging behind in development) and 2 (regions undergoing conversion).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2310/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Community aid for hazelnuts and chestnuts

In the last three years the European Union has granted compensatory aid to nut producers in order to mitigate the effects of competition from producers outside the Community.

Many producers in Piedmont were able to benefit from the aid in respect of hazelnuts and chestnuts, which are among those covered.

The legislation has now expired.

In view of this, can the Council say whether it intends to renew the provisions in question and what prospects there are of implementing Community plans for the structural improvement of the above-mentioned products?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

Although the Council currently has no proposals before it on the production of hazelnuts and chestnuts, it is aware of the problems affecting this sector. Consequently, at its meeting on 17 July 2000, it invited the Commission to propose that the payments to nut growers be continued within the budget for 2001 for those programmes which would otherwise expire in 2000.

Moreover, in the context of the report which it will submit on the fruit and vegetables regime before the end of 2000, the Commission will study the situation of the nut sector.

The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to Mr Fischler's reply, on behalf of the Commission, to Written Question E-0524/00(1), in which the Commission mentions the possibility of social and environmental support measures for this sector i.e. within the framework of the regulations on rural development.

(1) Reply not yet published in the OJ.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3070/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: The Working Time Directive

What plans does the Commission have to include all or part of the transport industry in the Working Time Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

In accordance with Article 1(3) of Council Directive 1993/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,(1) air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport were originally excluded from the scope of that Directive.

On 22 June 2000, the Council and the Parliament adopted Directive 2000/34/EC(2) amending Council Directive 1993/104/EC to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive. This Directive extends the scope of the Working Time Directive to cover workers in all the above sectors (except sea transport, see below) although only certain provisions apply to mobile workers in these sectors. The implementation deadline for this Directive is 1 August 2003 (except for doctors in training).

Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the European Union (FST)(3) governs working time for seafarers. Directive 1999/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 concerning the enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers' hours of work on board ships calling at Community ports(4) provides a mechanism for the verification and enforcement of compliance by ships calling at ports of Member States with Directive 1999/63/EC. The implementation deadline for both Directives is 30 June 2002.

With respect to the civil aviation sector, the social partners reached an Agreement on working time for mobile staff on 22 March 2000. The Commission adopted a proposal for a directive implementing this Agreement on 23 June 2000(5) and this is due to be adopted by the Council shortly. Once this is adopted and implemented by Member States, working time for mobile staff in the civil aviation sector will be governed by this Directive.

Finally, the Commission's proposed directive on the organisation of working time for mobile workers performing road transport activities and for self-employed drivers is still on the table of the Council(6).

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(3) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999.

(4) OJ L 14, 20.1.2000.

(5) COM(2000) 382 final.

(6) OJ C 43, 17.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Uptake of Cohesion Fund project commitment appropriations

With regard to projects covered by the Cohesion Fund, what has been the uptake of the commitment appropriations for each and every one of them to 31 August 2000, by each of the recipient countries, namely Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2202/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Proposed intercontinental airport in Sicily

The local authorities in Sicily have included in their plans for the development of the regional air transport system the construction of an intercontinental airport to enable Sicily, one of the larger islands in the Mediterranean, to play a pivotal role in the provision of air links between Europe, Africa, Asia and the other main overseas destinations.

1. What position does the Commission intend to adopt in relation to the proposal for an intercontinental airport on the outermost edge of Europe?

2. What criteria have been laid down for the creation of new transport hubs in the Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The decision to develop a new airport falls under the responsibility of local and national authorities. The Commission and the Community have no role to play at this level of the decision process.

Should the Italian authorities request support for an airport project, the Commission will have to assess this application on the basis of the relevant requirements and procedures for the use of Community funds. In relation to the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) these rules are laid down in Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European network(1) and in Council Regulation No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks(2).

As regards the possibility of support to be drawn from the Community Structural Funds, the operational programme for the Sicilia region for 2000-2006 offers scope for supporting activities aimed at defining and providing airport structures. Financing feasibility studies for such action may be contemplated against this backdrop.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/00

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Communication on the Community strategy for equality between men and women (2001-2005) and the proposal for a directive on sexual harassment in the workplace

On 7 June 2000 the Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, Anna Diamantopoulou, announced to the general public and to the media that the Commission had adopted a communication on a Community strategy for equality between men and women (2000-2005) and a proposal for a directive on sexual harassment in the workplace.

In accordance with the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, the Commission must keep Parliament fully informed of legislative or budgetary proposals and initiatives, and may not make public any legislative initiative or any other significant initiative or decision without having first informed Parliament.

How, then, does the Commission explain the fact that, at the time of writing, twenty days after it announced the adoption of these proposals in a blaze of publicity, it systematically refuses Members of this Parliament access to their content, and that none of the official documents is yet available?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

On 7 June 2000 the Commission adopted the communication Towards a Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)(1), the proposal for a Council Decision on a supporting programme, and the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions(2). These texts had to be thoroughly checked by the Commission's lawyer-linguists in order to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the different language versions. This entailed comparing the terms used in each translation with the original language of the documents, and ensuring that the 11 language versions were consistent with each other. As stated by the Honourable Member, this meant there was a delay in making available the final versions of the documents in the 11 languages.

Whilst regretting this delay, the Commission would like to emphasise the fact that it kept Parliament properly informed throughout the process of preparing the Communication and the proposal for a Directive.

(1) COM(2000) 335 final.

(2) COM(2000) 334 final.