ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1541/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Infringement of Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

I have submitted a number of questions to the Council on the subject of Austria:

- a priority question tabled on 21 February 2000 and registered on 25 February. Pursuant to Rule 44(5) of the Rules of Procedure, priority questions must be answered within three weeks of being registered. Accordingly, this question should have been answered by 17 March,

- two questions tabled on 21 February and registered on 13 March. Pursuant to Rule 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure they must be answered within six weeks of being registered by the Council: they should therefore have been answered by 25 April.

In view of this infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, is the Council aware of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure currently in force and does it intend to comply with them in future?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00

(10 July 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not bound by the deadlines mentioned, as these ensue from Rule 44(5), (6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

It would, however, stress that with a view to better collaboration with the European Parliament in this area the Council has acted swiftly to introduce a series of internal measures enabling it to reply to written questions within two months. In this context its preparatory bodies have defined a procedure for examining questions intended to strike the requisite balance between this objective and the essential need to provide replies of the highest quality possible after consultation with the competent departments and an exchange of views at Council level.

Over the years various factors have made it harder to keep this balance, with adverse consequences on the promptness of replies, examples being the significant increase in the number of written questions put to the Council, which should not be under-estimated, the emergence of questions in areas which call for in-depth study, or the topical nature of certain issues which on occasion require some time for Members to be given genuine updates.

The Council does, in any case, share the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and reaffirms its commitment to providing, in all circumstances, the most appropriate and fullest replies possible to written questions put to it. It will reflect on solutions to optimise the current procedures for studying questions, in compliance with the requirements listed above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1242/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Teachers and the working time directive

Would the Commission please specify that teachers are covered under the Working Time Directive? Could the Commission give details regarding the provisions of the Working Time Directive in the educational sector in the UK?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (working time directive)(1) states that This Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EC, without prejudice to Article 17 of this Directive, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training.

According to Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work(2), this Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private (industrial, agricultural, commercial, administrative, service, educational, cultural, leisure, etc.). This Directive shall not be applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it. In that event, the safety and health of workers must be ensured as far as possible in the light of the objectives of this Directive.

On the basis of these two provisions, it is clear that the working time Directive applies to the work of teachers.

According to information available to the Commission, the Working Time Regulations 1998 (Statutory Instruments 1998 No 1833), which implement the working time Directive in the United Kingdom, apply to the work of teachers.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Blood alcohol levels for drivers

Can the Commission state whether a new proposal for the reduction of blood alcohol levels permitted for drivers of motor vehicles throughout the European Union is being considered and, if so, when is the Commission likely to come forward with these proposals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

For many years the Commission has investigated the problem of drinking and driving and the road accidents which it generates. The conclusion, from a road safety as well as from a public health point of view, is that national and European actions to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving are a priority to make Community roads safer and to prevent much human suffering. Most experts will agree that what is required is a package of measures to tackle this problem embracing blood alcohol content (BAC) limits, appropriate health promotion programmes and campaigns, effective and targeted enforcement, penalties, and rehabilitation programmes for serious offenders.

The original proposal for a BAC limit of 0,5 milligramme per milliliter (mg/ml) brought forward in 1988, remained unadopted simply because too many Member States objected to such a measure on the grounds of subsidiarity, even though they themselves were prepared to accept 0,5 mg/ml. Indeed, since 1988 some Member States have accepted 0,5 mg/ml in their national legislation.

Against this background, the Commission has no intention to put forward a new directive but sees a Council recommendation has the best way to deal with this important road safety and public health problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: International trade victims of the banana war

Small firms in the Union engaged in producing bath produces and other toiletries remain under heavy burdens resulting from delay in concluding the banana war and getting US punitive rates of import duty abolished. Will the Council request the Commission to take urgent steps to bring this unsatisfactory situation to an end?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the difficulties resulting from the trade sanctions imposed by the US on the industry of the EU. Following the condemnation of certain aspects of the EU banana regime by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in April 1999, the USA was given authorisation to suspend concessions to the value of $191.4 million, concerning a wide range of EU products. Since then, the Commission has conducted intensive contacts with interested parties with a view to putting forward a proposal, which would be generally accepted as resolving the dispute.

In absence of a solution acceptable to all parties, the Commission has submitted to the Council in November 1999 a proposal amending the EC banana regime. The proposal, on which the European Parliament has been invited to give its opinion, is currently under examination within the Council. This document states that the discussions of the Commission with interested parties would continue during the period in which the Council and the Parliament are examining the proposal. By the time the Council is ready to take a decision, that is to say by the time Parliament expresses its opinion, the Commission will make a report on the outcome of the discussions with the interested parties. Since November 1999, the Commission reported to the Council at various occasions on the state of play concerning these discussions. At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the Council (Agriculture) agreed to resume its examination of the dossier when the Commission submits its report on the results of the negotiations with the third countries concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Transportation of live animals

I understand that Commission reports reveal that France, Italy, Greece, Belgium and Ireland have breached the provisions of Council Directive 91/628(1) on the protection of animals during transport.

What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify these breaches?

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

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0340/00, E-0341/00 and E-0425/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is aware, following the reports of its food and veterinary office and from the complaints of various organisations, that enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC concerning the protection of animals during transport is inadequate in many Member States. These problems are being kept under close review by the Commission and are drawn to the attention of the Member States' authorities as and when they occur. In particular, infringement proceedings in this field have been opened against one Member State and others are under preparation.

In addition, Article 13 of the Directive provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council shortly taking into account all available information.

Meanwhile, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has been established to consider problems in the implementation of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport. The Commission may consider amending Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of the working group on transport and in the light of the experience acquired by Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/00

by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Trans-European networks

The European Council meeting in Essen in 1994 adopted a number of priority TEN projects. One of those fourteen projects was the development of the Nordic triangle, an important project for infrastructure in the Nordic region. In its progress report on these TEN projects, the Commission notes that Sweden is not fulfilling its commitments, which is affecting the necessary expansion of capacity on the E6 and E4, not to mention the Malmö-Trelleborg stretch of the E6, which is so important for the country's imports and exports. What does the Commission intend to do in response to Sweden's failure to act and the delay in complying with these commitments which are such important infrastructure projects for Sweden and for Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

In 1998 and 1999 the Commission published two follow-up reports(1) concerning the progress and status of the 14 specific projects identified at the Essen European Council in December 1994. In both reports it is stated that three projects are near completion, six others will be finalised around 2005 and five will be finalised significantly beyond 2005.

The project called the Nordic Triangle, which contains the sections of the E4 and E6 mentioned by the Honourable Member, is among the five projects in the last group. The special nature of the Nordic Triangle, which is a multi-modal corridor with a large number of sub-projects, makes it very difficult to establish a firm overall timetable and financing plan. Negotiations on this issue are taking place between the Commission and the Finnish and Swedish authorities.

The implementation of transport infrastructure projects falls primarily under the responsibility of the Member States and the regional and local bodies following the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission cannot therefore require the Member States to implement any particular infrastructure project. However, the Commission can encourage the Member States to implement a project by offering financial support or

by helping to establish alternative financial solutions like public-private partnerships. The Commission has previously supported upgrading and construction on several sections of the E6 and E18 within the Nordic Triangle.

(1) Report on progress and implementation of the 14 Essen projects (COM(98) 356 final) and 1998 Annual report on the Trans-European Networks (COM(99) 410 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: The Id al-Kabir festival violation of EU directives and French legislation

The Commission is doubtless aware of the fact that the religious slaughter of sheep at the annual Id al-Kabir festival near Paris is brutal and illegal.

It is a blatant violation of French law and also of Council Directive 93/119 EC(1) which specifically forbids the religious slaughter of animals in the open air. To make matters worse, the animals are often appallingly treated before being slaughtered, which is a violation of Article 3 of Directive 93/119 EC.

1. Why has the Commission as the guardian of the European Treaties and legislation so far failed to act in this matter?

2. When does it intend to initiate proceedings against France for violating the Treaties (under Article 226) owing to its failure to implement Directive 93/119 EC?

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The Commission is informed about the treatment of animals during this event. The inadequate slaughterhouse capacity in certain urban areas of France appears to be one of the reasons for the observations made with regard to the treatment of animals during the festival.

The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity. On the other hand, treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable.

The French authorities have been contacted concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On this occasion, reassurances were received prior to the festival that the French authorities were taking a wide range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic religious and cultural groups to involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation with the view to achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions.

Now that the festival has passed a formal report is awaited from the French authorities, before the Commission takes, if necessary, further initiatives including the opening of proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1062/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Tax on the entry of yachts and powerboats into Greek waters

Is the Commission aware that since 14 January 2000 yachts and powerboats which are not permanently based in Greek harbours are subject to a tax on entry, in addition to the normal harbour duty?

Under the provisions of Article 11 of Greek law 2743/1999 the port authority of Chios, for example, imposes a tax of Drs 2 000 per metre on yachts and powerboats of over seven metres in length when the vessel enters a Greek port for the first time. This tax is valid for 30 days. If the vessel leaves Greek waters before the expiry of the 30 day period and then re-enters a Greek port, a tax of Drs 15 000 (!) per metre is due. Violations of this law are punishable by fines of between Drs 200 000 and Drs 5 million.

Does the Commission agree that these charges are incompatible with freedom of movement in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission has not yet been fully informed on this matter or been able to check its information thoroughly, since Greece has not yet been invited to submit its comments.

With these reservations, the tax certainly seems to be one with an effect equivalent to that of an import duty, contrary to Articles 23 and 25 (ex-Articles 9 and 12) of the EC Treaty.

The chargeable event does seem to be the entry into Greek waters of a recreational craft longer than 7 metres and not permanently resident in Greece, and so the charge would appear to be a pecuniary levy unilaterally imposed on Community goods (in this instance pleasure boats) because they cross the border. If this is the case it corresponds to the definition of a charge equivalent in effect to an import duty.

Nor does it seem to fall within any of the three categories of exceptions whereby such charges may be treated as not having equivalent effect to import duties (part of a general system of internal charges; payment for a specific service in fact provided individually to the person liable for the charge of an amount proportionate to that service; charge levied because of inspections carried out to fulfil obligations imposed by Community law).

Since it is doubtful that these entry charges are compatible with Community law, the Commission will be contacting Greece to clarify the situation and obtain information on all the points raised by the Honourable Member. Should it prove necessary, it will certainly institute proceedings under the procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/00

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Age discrimination in health care

A prohibition on discrimination based on age was, for the first time, incorporated into the Amsterdam Treaty (EC Treaty, Article 13). Yet there are some Member States in which certain, usually costly, treatments or operations are no longer covered for patients above a certain age.

Has the Commission accurate data on practical arrangements applied in the different Member States as regards age discrimination in health care?

Is the Commission prepared to forward such data to the European Parliament?

Does the Commission consider that guarantees must be given in every Member State that everyone, independently of age, must be entitled to all medical treatments, and that the costs must be covered by the social insurance schemes concerned?

If so, what action will the Commission take to prevent age discrimination from being applied to health care, and how will this be implemented in practical ways in Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

It is for each Member State to organise its own social security system, including health systems, and to determine the conditions for entitlement to benefits under those systems. The Commission has proposed a concerted strategy for modernising social protection(1) based around four key objectives, one of which is to ensure high quality and sustainable health care, and this has been endorsed by the Council(2).

Regarding data, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its report on social protection in Europe 1999, which provides an update on recent developments in Member States' health care systems(3), and to the mutual information system on social protection in the Member States (MISSOC)(4). However, the Commission has no more precise data on the benefits or treatments provided to elderly people or other specific groups within Member States' health care systems.

Nevertheless, in its communication Towards a Europe for all ages promoting prosperity and intergenerational Solidarity(5), the Commission underlines the need for improving access to health treatment for all ages and for older persons, as well as the need for providing an adequate supply of quality care for the very old and frail.

In addition, the Commission has highlighted the question of discrimination in access to public services, including health care, in its proposal for an action programme to combat discrimination on grounds of racial or eithnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age of sexual orientation(6).

(1) COM(1999) 347 final.

(2) OJ C 8, 12.1.2000.

(3) COM(2000) 163 final.

(4) Website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/missoc98/english/f_main.htm.

(5) COM(1999) 221 final.

(6) COM(1999) 567 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Support for Member State company interests overseas

Does the Commission consider that companies with overseas interests supported by certain Member States have an unfair advantage over companies in those countries that do not offer such support? Is the Commission able to give detailed information on each Member States' contribution to supporting the overseas interests of companies from their own country?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to possible support from certain Member States for the interests of their companies overseas. If these measures appear to provide the beneficiaries with an economic advantage and moreover if they are only available to certain enterprises or certain activities and if they potentially distort intra-Community trade, they may well fall under the discipline of the Treaty state aid rules.

The Commission, in a recent decision, has adopted a strict approach as far as aid to outward foreign direct investment of large enterprises is concerned (see Commission Decision of 14 October 1998 on a proposal by Austria to grant aid to Lift GmbH(1)).

The Commission is regrettably not able to provide the Honourable Member with detailed information on the amount of each Member State contribution to support overseas interests of companies.

(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999.