ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3763/00

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Outlook for the JRC

The JRC (Joint Research Centre) engages in extremely worthwhile activity as a scientific agency working for the Community, since it enables the different European schools of thought to be pitted against one another in the field of scientific experimentation and affords an opportunity for the individual Member States to compare and ascertain scientific developments in various areas of interest.

The role of the JRC has been scaled down once before, not least because its staff complement was reduced by 200.

There are rumours of another staff cut involving a further 200 posts, in spite of the 1998 agreement in which the Council expressed its determination to keep the staff complement at 2 080 in the light of the Fifth framwork programme.

Can the Commission, and specifically its President, Mr Romano Prodi, and the Member concerned, Mr Philippe Busquin, say:

- whether it is true, as has been reported, that the staff complement is to be reduced by 200;

- whether it is true that, if the staff cut is implemented, the Petten and Ispra centres will be transferred from the Community's responsibility to the responsibility of the Member States in which they are situated?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3763/00 and E-3778/00 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Commission would like it to be noted that the most recent revision of the JRC's (Joint Research Centre's) staff complement goes back to the 1999 budget. That complement was kept constant by increasing the number of A posts (+120) and reducing the number of B and C posts accordingly.

As part of the review of its priorities launched early this year, the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Peer Group in its meeting on 26 July 2000.

This being the case, the Commission has asked the Commission member responsible for research to make the JRC responsible for conducting a feasibility study on the closure of the Petten centre and, alternatively, to contemplate the cutting of 200 jobs by scaling down activities throughout the JRC's departments.

The feasibility study on the closure of the Petten centre has been completed. The JRC's other departments are also being subjected to an audit, the conclusions of which are planned for late March 2001. On the basis of the study and the audit the Commission will then subject any proposals concerning the research staff complements to a budgetary audit.

There is no wish to transfer Community responsibilities concerning the JRC to the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4144/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: The position of atheists, agnostics and humanists

The Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation outlaws discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation. This is in line with Article 13 of the EC Treaty. Is there a general definition of the term belief, or is this determined by each Member State? What is the position of atheists, agnostics and humanists with regard to the Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1) establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief.

There is no general definition of the term belief in the Directive. The substance of the protection against discrimination on the grounds of belief would have to be examined by the Court of Justice.

Without prejudice to Article 4(1) and (2) concerning occupational requirements, the general prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief applies also to atheists, agnostics and humanists.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4162/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: The Vic-Olot road axis

The Vic-Olot axis road project in the north-east of Spain is causing concern to large sections of the population and most of the political groups in the Autonomous Region of Catalonia.

The reasons for this concern are:

1. The environmental and socio-economic impact in the district of Garrotxa in the province of Gerona;

2. The legality of the process for dealing with the project, the fact that the initial project is split into three parts, the environmental impact study carried out and the project's compatibility with Council Directives 92/43/EEC(1) (habitats), 79/409/EEC(2) (wild birds) and 97/11/EC(3) (environmental impact);

3. The fact that the project is being sold as part of the Catalonia transverse axis (C-25), although this is a completely different project.

Does a road have to form part of the Trans-European Road Network in order to qualify for Cohesion funding? Is a general application sufficient to obtain Cohesion funding or is it necessary to specify what project the funding is for? Is the European administration aware of the fact that the Vic-Olot axis, whose code number is C-37, is different from the Catalonia transverse axis, whose code number is C-25? Does the Catalonia transverse axis (the Lérida-Vic-Girona road link) form part of the Trans-European Road Network? And does the Vic-Olot axis? Has Cohesion funding been requested for the Manlleu-Torelló section of the Vic-Olot axis? If so, is the European administration aware of the environmental impact study carried out on the project and whether it complies with Directive 85/337/EEC(4)?

Is there any new European legislation governing tunnels, in view of the accident which took place in the Mont Blanc tunnel in the Alps? Is so, is it possible to have access to it?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

In accordance with Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1), the road link between Lérida, Vic and Gerona forms part of this network.

An environmental impact statement was carried out for the section in question and did not identify any negative impact.

The Cohesion Fund part-finances projects belonging to the trans-European transport networks and, in certain cases and under certain conditions, to the regional connections to these networks. To benefit from aid under this Fund, the Member State has to submit a specific request including the precise location of the project and its main technical features. To date, the Commission has received no request for part-financing from the Cohesion Fund for the Vic-Olot section.

There is currently no European legislation on the safety of tunnels. During the coming months the Commission will look at the rules in force in the Member States and, if necessary, propose measures at Union level.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3319/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Arrests in Turkey

On 23 September this year 11 members of the pro-Kurdish Popular Democratic Party (HADEP), including the party chairman, were arrested in the Turkish city of Simak. They were charged by the police with possession of weapons and grenades. It should be borne in mind both that HADEP has always advocated peaceful solutions to the Kurdish conflict and that once again the Turkish security forces have acted in an underhand way.

Does the Commission know about this incident? What view does it take of it? What measures does it propose to settle the Kurdish conflict?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2000)

The Commission has been informed about the case mentioned by the Honourable Member and is following its development.

Concerning the question of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, the two regular reports in 1998 and 1999 underlined that a civil solution could include recognition of certain forms of Kurdish cultural identity and greater tolerance of the ways of expressing that identity, provided it does not advocate separatism or terrorism.

The last regular report, adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2000(1), makes the following assessment: Regardless of whether or not Turkey is willing to consider any ethnical groups with a cultural identity and common traditions as national minorities, members of such groups are clearly still largely denied certain basic rights. Cultural rights for all Turks, irrespective of their ethnic origin, such as the right to broadcast in their mother tongue, to learn their mother tongue or to receive instruction in their mother tongue, are not guaranteed (see the above section on economic, social and cultural rights). In addition, these citizens are not given opportunities to express their views on such issues.

Guaranteeing cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin is also a medium-term priority contained in the Commission's proposal of 8 November for a Council decision on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey.

(1) COM(2000) 714 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3585/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision

Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(1) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which entered into force on 25 October 1998, reads as follows: The Commission shall report to the Council and the European Parliament at regular intervals, starting not later than three years after the date referred to in Article 32(1), on the implementation of this Directive, attaching to its report, if necessary, suitable proposals for amendments. The report shall be made public. The Commission shall examine, in particular, the application of this Directive to the data processing of sound and image data relating to natural persons and shall submit any appropriate proposals which prove to be necessary, taking account of developments in information technology and in the light of the state of progress in the information society.

What stage has the Commission reached in the process of drawing up such a report? Does the Commission consider that amendments are necessary? If so, what amendments, and within what timescale?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

As the Honourable Member points out, the Commission is due to report to the Council and the Parliament within the meaning and the deadline provided for in Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

The Commission is closely following the implementation of the Directive in Member States. It has decided to refer to the Court of Justice the cases of five Member States which have not yet notified national implementing legislation. In view of this situation, it seems premature to take position on whether to suggest amendments to the Directive.

If amendments were required because the report on the application revealed that, even after harmonisation, obstacles to the internal market would continue or in view of developments in information technology and the state of progress of information society, these would be announced in the context of the report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3364/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Latest annual report on drug use in the European Union

At midday on 11 October 2000, the annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Abuse on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union was publicly launched.

Chapter 3, concerning official responses to drugs use, contains a paragraph confirming the existence of a research project funded by the Commission to ascertain whether it is appropriate to encourage the setting up of special premises (users' rooms) where addicts can inject themselves with narcotics (p. 27 of the English version).

As drug addiction is a serious social problem requiring preventive action, would the Commission state:

1. Under which programme was this type of research funded?

2. On what grounds was this type of research, based on maintaining a drugs habit rather than research into substitution treatment or preventive strategies, considered important and granted funding?

3. Were other research projects funded by the Commission involving other methods aimed at reducing the use of, and demand for, drugs?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The study in question was funded in 1999 in the framework of the Programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence (1996-2000). The name of the project is: Evaluation des Gesundheitsraumangebots für Drogenkonsumenten in drei Europäischen Städten. The responsible organisation is Institut für Interdisziplinäre Sucht- und Drogenforschung, Klinik für Psychiatrie, University of Hamburg.

The evaluation study to be implemented in Hamburg, Rotterdam and Innsbruck is ongoing. The final report will be submitted to the Commission by 1 April 2001. The Commission expects a scientifically valid evaluation from the independent official body responsible. The questions of high interest are if and eventually how, such a preventive care offer will reduce the risk behaviour of addicts and secondly, if and eventually how, it will improve and maintain their health. The Commission is fully aware of the controversy caused by trials with so called users rooms. On the other hand, cities in several Members States, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands have opened such users rooms where drugs can be consumed under hygienic and supervised conditions. This is designed to achieve a reduction of the transmission of infectious diseases and the risk of fatal overdoses. The result of the study should be of value for these Member States as well as for others, not yet having decided whether to allow such experiments to be undertaken or not.

The overall objective of the drug prevention programme is nevertheless to contribute to reducing the demand for illegal drugs in Europe. This focus remains clear in the implementation of the programme. The Commission has over several years funded a variety of research projects and studies implemented with this common aim.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3991/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Swedish ban on alcohol advertising

The Court of Justice is soon to hear a case concerning the Swedish ban on alcohol advertising. According to Swedish press reports, the Commission considers that the ban should be lifted.

Can the Commission set out the reasons why it wishes to see the Swedish ban on alcohol advertising lifted?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

Stockholms tingsrätt (Stockholm District Court) has asked the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on whether Community law on free movement of goods and freedom to provide services allows a national legislation entailing a ban on advertising alcoholic beverages like the Swedish one. The Commission has been invited to submit observations and has given its views on the legal implications on the application of the national legislation. It has not questioned that a ban on advertising alcoholic beverages may be justified to protect the health of the general public. Concerns have been raised as regards the proportionality of the application of the legislation, depending on the circumstances in the case. The Commission's observations are summarised by the Advocate General Mr Jacobs in his Opinion given on 14 December 2000 (case C-405/98). The Commission has not taken any formal position regarding whether or not the ban should be lifted. The Court of Justice will finally give a judgement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3474/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Publication of proposals for directives by the Commission

The Commission recently adopted the proposal for a directive on occupational pension institutions (COM(2000) 507). Can the Commission explain how it was possible for this proposal, which was adopted on the morning of 11 October 2000, to be commented on in all its details in a speech written in advance by the chairman of the EFRP (European Federation for Retirement Provision), Mr Kees van Rees, at a meeting of the Financial Services Forum held at 1 p.m. that same day in a hotel in Brussels?

Is it normal practice for interested parties to have access to proposals for directives before they have been formally adopted by the Commission?

At any rate the MEPs present at that meeting were less well briefed than the lobbyists.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

At an informal meeting with members of the economic and monetary affairs committee (EMAC) that took place on 5 October 2000, the Member responsible for the internal market gave a presentation of the draft proposal for a directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision that was due to be adopted by the Commission. As the Honourable Member says, the Commission adopted the proposal for a directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision in the morning of 11 October 2000(1). This followed a long and intensive consultation process with all interested parties. Bilateral contacts between the Commission and experts from Member States, the Parliament and other interested parties were held in the period up to the adoption of the draft directive.

The Commission representative at the Financial services forum circulated the text adopted by the Commission in the morning. In his intervention at the meeting of the Financial services forum early in the afternoon of 11 October 2000, the chairman of the European federation for retirement provision based his remarks on earlier drafts of Commission working documents, which were however very similar to the final text.

(1) COM(2000) 507 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Trade in cigarettes

The Commission's legal dispute with two American tobacco manufacturers has focused interest once more on the import and export of cigarettes. There is a degree of uncertainty about the extent of the cigarette trade (including smuggling).

I should therefore be glad if the Commission could answer these questions:

1. How many cigarettes were confiscated in the various EU Member States in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

2. Which were the five most confiscated makes of cigarettes in the EU, in order of importance, in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

3. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Cyprus in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

4. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Yugoslavia in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

5. From which countries were cigarettes imported into the EU in 1997-1999 through the port of Antwerp? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

6. To which countries outside the EU were cigarettes exported from the Belgian Federation in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3720/00 and E-1344/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission would first point out, on the basis of the available statistics which are not binding on it that:

- several billion cigarettes are seized each year;

- from 1997 to 1999, Italy appears in each of these years to be the Member State with the highest number of cigarettes seized (in 1999, almost 35 % of the total of cigarettes seized within the Community);

- between 1997 and 1999, the increase in the number of cigarettes seized within the Community is 215 %. However, the importance of this global increase varies in the different Member States. During this short period, Belgium had a rate of increase of 2 701 %, followed by the Netherlands (1 899 %) and Finland (1 570 %).

Amongst the brands of cigarettes produced in the Member States, the highest number of cigarettes seized in 1999 was, by order of importance, Regal, Superkings, West and Benson & Hedges. Amongst the brands of cigarettes produced outside the European Community, the highest number of cigarettes seized, also in 1999, was Marlboro.

Finally, the Commission would underline the fact that Antwerp is one of the biggest ports handling consignments of cigarettes in the world.

In view of the size of the figures produced to answer more specific questions linked to cigarettes exports, the Commission is sending them direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. These figures obtained through databases may not be exhaustive and should not be interpreted as binding on the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4135/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Laying Hens Directive (1999/74/EC)

Is the Commission aware that some animal welfare organisations are concerned that so-called enriched cages are not included in the cage ban under the Laying Hens Directive (1999/74/EC)(1)?

Is the Commission concerned that the exclusion of enriched cages from the Directive could represent a loophole as farmers might adapt existing battery cages to render them legal after the ban on battery cages enters into force in 2012?

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Commission is aware that some animal welfare organisations in the Community are concerned that the ban on cages under the Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999, laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, is limited to unenriched cage systems.

The Directive reflects the conclusions of a specific opinion of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. This opinion, adopted in 1996, highlights that the welfare conditions of hens kept in battery cages without any enrichment are inadequate. The enrichment of the cages provided in 1999 is supposed to compensate for certain disadvantages for the welfare of the hens.

According to Article 10 of the Directive the Commission shall submit a report to the Council not later than 1 January 2005, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, on the various systems of rearing laying hens. One of the objectives of this report will be to evaluate enriched cages, which are still under development and which are not yet widely used in commercial farms.

The Directive does not exclude the transformation of existing battery cages into enriched cages. As long as the minimum standards for the enriched cages laid down in the Directive are fulfilled this could not be regarded as a circumvention of the ban.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Allocation of EU funds to London

What is the total of European Union funds spent in or allocated to London for each of the last five years, for which figures are available?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Further to its answer of 3 November 2000(1), the Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 243.