ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/01

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: The economic situation

On 18 January 2001, Commissioner Solbes stated that a two percentage point fall of GDP in the USA means a 0,15 % reduction in the Community's GDP.

What econometric model underpins this claim?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The figures mentioned in the question refer only to the direct trade impact on the Community economy of a slowing in the United States economy. The United States is the most important export market for the Community. On 1999 figures, exports to the United States represent some 24,1 % of extra-Community exports. However, as the Community is a relatively closed area, the same amount of exports is worth only 2,3 % of Community gross domestic product (GDP).

Assuming a standard GDP elasticity of United States imports from the Community, a 2 percentage point drop in United States growth, will reduce Community export growth to the United States by 6 to 8 percentage points, shaving about 0,15 percentage point of Community GDP growth. This is an estimate of the direct impact (second-round effects are not taken into account).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1148/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: State enterprises and competition

1. Will the Commission estimate what part of the remaining State-owned and State-controlled enterprises within each Member State are operating in contested or contestable markets?

2. Will it describe the principal obstacles to competition in the remaining part?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1. The Commission has no statistics about market shares of State-owned or State-controlled undertakings operating in contested or contestable markets in the Member States. Moreover, since the structure of these markets varies between Member States as well as sectors and is naturally also subject to constant change, the Commission is not in a position to provide a reliable estimate of such market shares.

2. The fact that an enterprise is State-owned or State-controlled does not in itself constitute an obstacle to competition. While Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty obliges the Commission to remain neutral as to the question whether public undertakings should be privatised, or private undertakings should be nationalised, the EC Treaty (notably Article 86 (ex Article 90)) makes it clear that public undertakings have to respect Community competition law like any other undertakings, and that Member States are not allowed to use their public undertakings in order to restrict competition or to infringe their duties under the internal market rules. The EC Treaty and secondary legislation prohibit undertakings, be they private or public, to enter into restrictive agreements or to abuse dominant positions, and they control that mergers do not lead to the creation or strengthening of dominant positions.

On this basis, it is not possible to distinguish in a general manner obstacles to competition which are specific for State-owned or State-controlled undertakings. The Commission remains nevertheless committed to use its various instruments to progressively dismantle obstacles to competition which remain in various sectors and markets, as well as to prevent the emergence of any new restrictions of competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: EU-US safe harbour agreement on data protection

In October 2000 the Commission predicted that 100 US companies would sign up for Safe Harbour during its first month, with up to 1 000 joining within a year.

How many companies have joined to date?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The Safe harbor arrangement entered into effect on 1 November 2000. Thirty American based companies have joined so far (30 March 2001). The list of companies is publicly available at http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/.

The estimates to which the Honorable Member refers in his question are those made by the American Department of Commerce in October 2000 and subsequently relayed to the Parliament by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1771/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: State aid to windmills

Will the Commission say to what extent there are aspects of Danish legislation on state aid to power stations which are contrary to EU competition rules, with particular reference to whether, under EU rules, aid to windmills can be passed on to electricity consumers?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Danish legislation under which State aid is granted to windpower plants and biomass plants established before 2000 was approved by the Commission last year(1). The legislation under which State aid is granted to windpower plants and biomass plants established later was approved on 20 June 2001.

(1) OJ C 354, 9.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1910/01

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Discrimination

Is the Commission willing to abolish all age limits on Union territory which constitute discrimination on the grounds of age and are contrary to Article 13 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission recalls that the Council adopted on 27 November 2000 Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1). This Directive prohibits discrimination on grounds of, inter alia, age, including the use of age limits which are not objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary.

The Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose the requirements of the Directive into national law. In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Any Member State which chooses to use this option shall inform the Commission forthwith and shall report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation.

As regards age limits for competitions for recruitment to the Commission, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1512/01 by Mrs Raschhofer(2).

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2) See p. 132.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0878/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Destruction of monuments in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan the Taliban in their religious extremism are committing a crime against the World's cultural heritage by destroying the country's pre-Islamic classical monuments, an act which has been condemned by many Islamic leaders, such as the Iranian President, Muhammad Hatami. Many of the monuments bear the stamp of European and specifically Hellenistic culture.

1. What immediate action does it intend to take to protect the monuments which have so far escaped the destructive fanaticism of the Taliban?

2. Does it intend to contribute to the immediate creation of a world fund for the purchase of Hellenistic and other pre-Islamic works of art to save them and hand them over to the Afghan people when the dark interlude of Taliban rule has ended?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

The Commission, along with the Member States, political and religious leaders and cultural organisations around the world has condemned the decision by the Taliban to destroy the statues of Buddha in Bamiyan. Efforts by the Union Troika to meet the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, in order to seek a reversal of this decision were unsuccessful.

The Union declaration concerning the edict to destroy the statues urged the Taliban leadership not to implement this deeply tragic decision, which would deprive the people of Afghanistan of its rich cultural heritage. Further destruction of early monuments would be equally tragic.

The most recent Union Common Position on Afghanistan of 22 January 2001(1) states that the Union shall urge all factions (in Afghanistan) to protect the cultural heritage of Afghanistan and shall encourage activities in the field by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) and the Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage (SPACH). In this regard, the Commission has noted that the Director General of Unesco will shortly visit Pakistan to take up the issue of saving what remains of Afghanistan's Islamic and pre-Islamic heritage.

The budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the Afghan cultural heritage.

(1) OJ L 21, 23.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/01

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Work of the European Police Academy (EPA)

The European Police Academy (EPA) was launched on 1 January 2001 as a network.

I would therefore like to ask the Council the following questions:

1. Has the EPA, or at least its governing board, already begun work?

2. If so, which national training institutes for high-ranking police officers form the network?

3. Where has the permanent secretariat, which is to support the EPA in its administrative tasks, been set up, or where is it to be set up?

4. How will the language problem at seminars and other events be solved, or how has it been solved?

5. Are there syllabuses and, if so, what form do they take?

6. Where are the seminars and other events held?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council would invite the Honourable Member to put his questions directly to the governing board of the European Police Academy (EPA).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2161/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: European support for dried fruit producers

The dried fruit sector in the Spanish province of Malaga will lose more than ESP one billion per year if the European Union decides not to provide it with aid for improving infrastructures and modernisation.

In the province of Malaga, almond production is located in outlying, inaccessible areas, where other crops cannot be grown. Furthermore, the land is arid, with the result that per hectare production is barely one quarter of what a similar parcel of land would produce in California, making it clearly impossible to compete.

Does the Commission agree that it should continue its previous approach as regards aid to the dried fruit sector, to prevent a catastrophe befalling this single-crop economy, which represents the sole livelihood for so many families, such as those in the province of Malaga?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The following conclusions regarding the nuts sector are drawn from the Council meeting on agriculture of 23 July 2001:

The Council held a wide-ranging discussion on the situation in the nuts sector.

The Council noted that the Commission had begun an in-depth analysis of all aspects relating to the future of this sector. The analysis would focus in particular on the economic, social and environmental aspects of nut production.

The Council called on the Commission to submit the conclusions of that analysis and any appropriate proposals to it as soon as possible.

The analysis referred to in those conclusions will cover inter alia the difficulties affecting almond producers in outlying, inaccessible areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1474/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey

The answer to question E-0655/01(1) reveals that Commission Member Chris Patten does not consider:

(a) help from the German Defence Ministry with the construction of a military chemicals laboratory in Turkey; or

(b) the German provenance of the mortar heads used by the Turkish army in a chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999

as falling within the remit of common foreign and security policy.

He at all events refuses to submit a proposal to the Council, pursuant to Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in order to:

(a) secure information from the German Defence Ministry about that Ministry's help with the construction of a military chemicals laboratory in Turkey, or to

(b) secure information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depyfag) of the mortar heads used by the Turkish army in a chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May 1999.

What reasons does the Commission Member advance for refusing to submit proposals to the Council on the above questions, as expressly stipulated in Article 22 of the TEU ('Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council'), given that both questions are of exceptional importance to common foreign and security policy?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 231.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The Commissioner responsible for External Relations did not say, in his answer to written question E-0655/01, that he regarded the questions raised by the Honourable Member as lacking in importance.

However, the Commission does not believe that a request for information to the German Defence Ministry or a German university can properly be dealt with by means of a proposal under Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) envisaging the adoption by the Council, acting unanimously, of a common position, joint action or other act.

It would refer the Honourable Member once again, therefore, to its earlier reply and would point out that implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology does not come under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and hence cannot be the subject of a proposal to the Council under Article 22 of the TEU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2029/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Introduction of an ethical label

The introduction of an ethical label for companies would provide a way of attesting to the standards which they maintain in terms of both product quality and behaviour, and of encouraging them to pursue not just economic but also social goals.

It would help to put an end to practices such as the use of child or undeclared labour within companies, and to enable valuable forms of cooperation to be established with public bodies.

Has the Commission considered whether it would be appropriate to introduce such a system, together with ad hoc rules to ensure that the labels will be awarded and used in a proper fashion?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of a growing number of so-called ethical or social labels originating from individual manufacturers, industrial sectors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or governments.

Indeed these labels can help to deliver positive social change among enterprises, retailers and consumers, thereby contribute to promote observance of the core International labour organisation (ILO) labour standards (freedom of association, abolition of forced labour, non-discrimination and elimination of child labour).

These labelling initiatives are however limited in scope and potential impact, as they are generally restricted to particular niches within the retail market, usually limited to imported products and only accessible to affluent consumers.

Furthermore, because they imply a guarantee that the item was produced free of exploitation and abuse, which cannot be verified by testing the product itself, ethical or social labels would require permanent verification of the workplace which is complex and problematical to implement.

In its Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility(1), the Commission has raised these issues and opened a consultation on the best means to develop, evaluate and ensure the effectiveness and reliability of corporate social responsibility instruments such as ethical or social labels. A Communication(2) adopted the same day focuses on promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation.

(1) COM(2001) 366 final.

(2) COM(2001) 416 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1679/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Remarks concerning the Structural Funds and the Spanish regions

In the interests of the transparency which should characterise all actions of the Community institutions, and in particular the Council, can the Council provide a text of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council held at the beginning of May 2001 in Sweden, and, especially, the remarks made by the Spanish minister, Mr Piqué, concerning the Structural Funds and the Spanish regions?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

No Council meeting was held in Sweden at the beginning of May.

The Honourable Member is probably alluding to an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Union held in Nyköping on 5 and 6 May 2001. The Honourable Member is reminded that informal meetings of Ministers are designed to permit as free an exchange of views as possible on general questions. These meetings are not Council meetings and do not replace the Council's normal activities. As a result, they have no official agenda, no documents are produced either before or after the meeting by the Council, and such meetings cannot under any circumstances give rise to formal conclusions or decisions, and any press releases have to make this clear.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2250/01

by Richard Balfe (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: The return of the Aksum Obelisk to Ethiopia

As Article 37 of the Italian Peace Treaty, which became effective in September 1947, specified that Italy should return within 18 months all loot taken from Ethiopia; and as the Italo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1997 laid down that the Aksum obelisk, looted on Mussolini's personal orders in 1937 and erected in Rome to commemorate the March on Rome, would be returned within the year 1997, will the Commission raise with the Italian Foreign Ministry the matter of the return of the obelisk and ask them to announce when the promised return can in fact be expected?

Could the Commission also ask the Ministry to make a statement on the return of other articles looted from Ethiopia, and in particular when the Ethiopian pre-war national archives, currently incorporated in the Italian State archives, and the pre-war Ethiopian aeroplane Tsehai, currently held in the Italian Aviation Museum, will be returned?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The matter in question does not fall within the Commission's competences and the Commission is therefore unable to supply the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2194/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Damage to the meat sector caused by BSE

In response to the alarm aroused in Europe by the cases of mad cow disease and the damage caused, the European Commission granted a series of subsidies to producers of feed and farmers, in order to compensate them for the losses they were suffering.

However, according to available information, it would appear that no form of aid has been granted to those commercial sectors which depend almost exclusively on the sale of beef and sheepmeat, such as butchers and sellers of tripe and offal, who have suffered considerable damage, in that they are highly specialised, almost specialists in a craft industry, who have been unable to diversify their range of products, unlike what happened in various other cases.

At the worst points in the crisis the sector suffered falls in sales of 70-80 % for butchers, and almost 100 % for sellers of tripe and offal. In view of Directives 85/374/EEC(1) and 1999/34/EC(2), the European Parliament's report A4-0020/97 and Decision 283/1999/EC(3) of 25 January 1999, does the Commission not consider that measures should be taken to compensate for these losses and alleviate the damage caused to the sector by the BSE crisis?

(1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 141, 4.6.1999, p. 20.

(3) OJ L 34, 9.2.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2013/01 by Mr Colom I Naval(1).

(1) See p. 162.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Arbitrary decisions by the Greek administration

On 6 July 2001 the Greek press published the news that one million Greek identity cards will have to be destroyed following the ruling by the Council of State that the Personal Data Protection Authority had been wrong to order the deletion of the reference to nationality from the new identity cards. It should be pointed out that 300 000 new identity cards containing no reference to nationality have already been issued to Greek citizens, despite the EU's position that this decision by the Greek authorities was illegal. According to Greek police officers, the new identity cards (which do not mention religion either) will be withdrawn and the 700 000 identity cards already printed will have to be destroyed.

How does the Commission view the decision by the Greek authorities - an illegal decision, as it turns out - to omit any reference to nationality in the new identity cards? Is any provision made for sanctions against countries violating Community legislation in defiance of warnings by the EU which pointed out in good time that the deletion of the reference to nationality was illegal? If so, what sanctions? What would be the consequences of a hypothetical future ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities that the compulsory deletion of the reference to religion was also contrary to Community legislation? Would the optional entry of religion be in breach of this legislation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

By letter dated 4 December 2000, the Commission drew the attention of the Greek authorities to the fact that the omission of nationality on the new Greek identity cards was contrary to Community law. Its position was confirmed by the Greek Council of State and accepted by the Greek authorities.

Community law does not make provision for penalties to be imposed on Member States which fail to fulfil their obligations arising from it other than those laid down in Article 228 (former Article 171) of the EC Treaty, under which the Court of Justice, if it finds that a Member State does not comply with its judgment, may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Article, impose a lump sum or penalty payment.

With regard to the optional reference to religion on Greek identity cards, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question H-0456/00 by Mr Alvanos(1). Moreover, it should be recalled that, on this point, the Greek Council of State has ruled that the optional reference to religion on identity cards is contrary to the Greek Constitution.

(1) Written answer of 13.6.2000.