ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/99

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

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Providing a scaled-down military structure for the EU

During the recent third round of Franco-Spanish strategic talks, both countries stated their wish to see the EU equipped with a scaled-down military structure which would enable it to react quickly to crises such as that in Kosovo.

This structure could take the shape of an ambassadorial-level Policy and Security Committee, a high command and a headquarters whose remit would be to plan and carry out military operations.

How does the Commission, given its powers of initiative, regard the Franco-Spanish view of the basic nucleus on which Europe's 'security and defence identity' might be built up? Will it support the position of Spain and France?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2000)

The Franco-Spanish talks focussed on issues concerning military and non-military aspects of crisis management, i.e. for Petersberg tasks. As the Honourable Member will know these issues discussed extensively in the Council in the period leading up to the Helsinki European Council.

The objective agreed at Helsinki is for the Union to have an autonomous capacity to take decisions, to launch and then to conduct Union-led military operations where the Atlantic Alliance as a whole is not engaged. The headline goal adopted at Helsinki is for the Union to be able to deploy up to 50 000-60 000 troops capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks within 60 days.

Interim institutions for decision-making on crisis management, and for operational control of both military and non-military actions which may be launched in crisis situations are to be introduced.

A report identifying non-military (civilian) aspects of crisis management and crisis response tools both at Union and national level was also noted at Helsinki. The intention is to bring together capabilities at national and European level (for instance police, monitors, human rights experts), and to establish a mechanism for rapid co-ordination and deployment.

As a first step new decision-making and advisory bodies will be set up in Brussels on an interim basis. The structures to be set up are a political and security committee staffed by representatives at senior level. There will also be a military committee, staffed, in the interim phase, by military representatives of Member States. It will give military advice to the Council as needed. A civilian crisis management coordinating mechanism is also to be established within the Council.

All decisions in the area of European security and defence policy will be taken within the single institutional framework, thus ensuring inter-pillar coherence. The Commission looks forward to these new forms of cooperation and will contribute actively where it has responsibility and experience, namely in the area of non-military crisis management and conflict prevention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Gaps in research into climate change

What gaps in research into climate change have been identified by either the European Commission, or specialist advisers, or by the Advisory Committee set up to monitor the work of the Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development research programme?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2832/99 and E-2842/99 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The work programme of the first two calls has been meticulously designed and formulated in consultation with the expert advisory group and the programme management committee. Further discussions will be undertaken with these bodies in the light of the calls.

Mainly due to budgetary reasons, but also following the advice of the above mentioned bodies, the sub-theme 2.1.3 Climate change prediction and scenarios was opened in the first call and is not included in the second call, but will be opened in the 2001 call.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2714/99

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Human rights violations in Iran

On 27-28 November 1999 leading reformist and former Minister of the Interior Abdollah Nuri was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and the Chordad newspaper of which he was the publisher was banned. During that same weekend the publisher of the Asr-e-Asadegan newspaper, Mashallah Shamsolwaesin, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, a fine and a five-year ban on pursuing his occupation following detention.

How does the Commission view these arrests? Is it prepared to take up these cases and make representations to the Iranian Government, drawing attention to the plight of these detainees?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2713/99, E-2714/99 and E-2715/99 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission follows with concern the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights are always raised by the Union. This was most recently the case of the meeting of the Troika with the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister in Helsinki on 1 December 1999.

The Commission is also involved in the demarches made by the Union to Iran in this respect. A number of demarches were made concerning the 13 Iranian Jews by the Union Troika as well as by individual Member States in the autumn of 1999. A Union Troika demarche regarding the reported death sentences on four students took place on 3 October 1999.

The possibilities for the Union to influence the situation in Iran are relatively limited due to the absence of any contractual relationship and the modest level of bilateral exchange. Nevertheless, the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, as it seeks to improve its ties with the Union and other partners. To be effective, however, such pressure which should be measured, in order not to create an impression of foreign interference.

In the case of the 13 Iranian Jews, Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a fair and just trial. It has even been suggested that they may be released in the national interest . Iranian authorities are undoubtedly also aware of the strong negative international reaction that would follow any executions of student leaders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/99

by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Habit-forming substances added to cigarettes by the tobacco industry

A report published by three scientific organisations (ASH: Action on Smoking and Health, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program) shows that the tobacco industry adds chemical substances to cigarettes to make them more addictive. The report is available on the Internet: http://www.ash.org.uk/papers/additives.html.

Is the Commission aware of these findings?

What is the Commission's attitude to this practice on the part of the tobacco industry?

In the light of the Commission's initiatives in respect of public health and consumer protection, is it time for a Commission inquiry into these practices in the European tobacco industry?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The Commission is indeed aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission also commented on this issue in its recent report on progress achieved in relation to public health protection from the harmful effects of tobacco consumption(1).

In 1997, the Commission in fact asked all Member States for information concerning their policy in relation to additives contained in cigarettes. Analysis of the responses reveals significant disparities between the rules in force and shows the current legal situation in the Member States as regards additives in tobacco. It has also served as a basis for drawing up an appropriate Community response to eliminate obstacles to free trade within the single market, while at the same time ensuring a high level of public health protection. The resulting proposal was adopted by the Commission on 16 November 1999(2) and forwarded to Parliament and the Council.

Article 7 of the proposal stipulates that Member States shall require all manufacturers and importers of tobacco products to submit to them a list of all non-tobacco ingredients and constituents, including additives and quantities thereof, used in the manufacture of their tobacco products by brand. This list shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasons for the inclusion of such ingredients and constituents in their tobacco products. Member States shall also require manufacturers and importers to provide toxicological data on these non-tobacco ingredients and constituents in burnt and unburned form, and to demonstrate that the said ingredients are safe for the health of the consumer when used as intended in their tobacco products.

(1) COM(99) 407 final.

(2) COM(99) 594 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/99

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Measures to prevent the smuggling of illegal immigrants

The smuggling of illegal immigrants into the EU Member States has become a major criminal activity. According to the statistics of the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) in Vienna, last year alone over 400 000 people arrived illegally in the EU, 60 % of whom came by transport organised by criminal networks. The head of the ICMPD, Jonas Widgren, considers that the trade in

smuggled human beings makes criminal organisations a profit of over FIM 50 million per year, so this is not a small matter.

1. What measures does the European Union propose to take to prevent the illegal and totally inhuman smuggling of illegal immigrants and the resultant flow of money to criminal organisations?

2. How will the European Union ensure that the traffic in immigration into Member States remains in the hands of the Member States, in view of the long waiting times for legal immigration and the economic gulf between Eastern Europe and the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the scale of illegal immigration.

Article 63 (former Article 73k) of the EC Treaty provides that the Council will, within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopt measures on immigration policy, particularly in terms of combating illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of illegal residents.

The various measures envisaged were detailed in the action plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice(1). The political guidelines intended to steer implementation of this action plan were set out in the Tampere European Council conclusions.

The European Council also stressed the importance of more effective management of migration flows and called, among other things, for an active common policy on visas and false documents and for closer cooperation and mutual technical assistance between Member States' border control services. However, it also underscored the importance of tackling illegal immigration at its source, attacking the criminal networks which are ever more frequently behind the trafficking in and economic exploitation of migrants, while preserving the rights of victims, particularly women and children. Lastly, it highlighted the importance of cooperation with the countries of origin and transit.

These various measures to which the Commission intends to make its contribution must be interpreted within the overall framework of the common European asylum and immigration policy defined by the Heads of State and Government. The policy also presupposes the gradual introduction of development cooperation with migrants' countries and regions of origin and the assurance of fair treatment for nationals of third countries who are lawfully resident in the territory of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 19, 23.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/99

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

(18 January 2000)

Subject: EQUAL Community initiative

Over the period 2000-2006 measures on new technologies and employment are to be covered by a single Community initiative, EQUAL, thus reducing the number of Community initiatives from 13 in the 1994-1999 budgetary period to 4 in the period 2000-2006.

EQUAL, a Community initiative which seeks to achieve transnational cooperation in the promotion of new ways of combating instances of discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market, has emerged as a result of past experience.

Can the Commission say how this initiative will be coordinated so as to cover all factors influencing the labour market, what its eligibility criteria will be, and how Member States should go about submitting proposals for a Community initiative programme?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

The proposal for a Communication on the Community initiative EQUAL(1) is currently being examined by the Parliament.

By creating development partnerships, EQUAL aims to involve public- and private-sector organisations, mainly at territorial level, which can provide innovative solutions to the problems which exist in the labour market.

The eligibility criteria will be laid down in the respective national operational programmes. However, the Commission intends to ensure the participation of small-scale promoters in the development partnerships which will be set up.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(2), the Member States should present their proposals which should be developed in line with the guidelines adopted by the Commission. Each Member State will ensure, by means of concrete proposals in its operational programme, that these guidelines are applied to the reality of the national labour market and, in particular, that key employment issues are selected as priorities in the context of the initiative.

(1) COM(99) 476 final.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: New Finnish application concerning egg production aid

In reply to my question No E-1710/99(1), the Commission explained that Finnish aid for egg production under Article 138 must cease from the new year. It has since come to my notice that the Finnish Government has submitted a new application to allow production aid based on a different article. Can the Commission guarantee that the aid which ceases at the end of the year will not be allowed to be replaced by any other form of government aid?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

At its meeting of 22 December 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Article 141 of the Act of Accession, the Commission approved a programme of state aids for Finnish farmers covering the period 2000-2003. This programme includes an aid to be granted in respect of laying hens, which is recalculated from the aid allowed by Article 138 of the Act of Accession for eggs up to the end of 1999. The new aid is degressive, with an average annual decrease of 4,5 % from the amount allowed for 1999.

The Commission took this decision after careful examination of a report presented by the Finnish authorities which showed that there were serious difficulties remaining for Finnish agriculture resulting from Accession. However, the overall amount of aid approved by the Commission is below that originally requested by Finland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Responsibility for freedom of movement and public safety

The pressing problem of security, with reference to illegal immigration, was discussed at the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999. It has now finally been acknowledged that immigration is an issue to be dealt with at European level, rather than by each Member State working on its own. There has nonetheless been a failure to understand the difference between the freedom of movement established following the abolition of internal borders, which comes within the Union's sphere of responsibility, and the management of public safety issues, which is the responsibility of the Member States, whose laws have not been harmonised and are in some cases totally dissimilar. For example, the sale and use of self-defence devices, such as sprays used to ward off attacks by bag-snatchers or rapists, is permitted in some Member States, while in others even their very use is prohibited.

Without going into the merits of an internal market within which some products are legal in certain Members States and illegal in others, does the Commission not consider that it would be useful and appropriate, pending the implementation of the third pillar, to call on the Member States, as part of action to combat crime and protect the public, to ensure that basic self-defence devices such as sprays and low-voltage electrical fences are legalised in all Member States, with, if necessary, each being free to lay down its own rules governing the sale and installation or use of such devices?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

According to the Treaty on European Union, and as confirmed by the special meeting of the European Council held on 15 and 16 October 1999 in Tampere, one of the objectives of the Union shall be to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice.

This shall be done by, inter alia, developing common action among Member States in the fields of police cooperation.

Common action in the field of police cooperation shall include cooperation and joint initiatives in, among others, the use of equipment.

Any action developed in this context shall not, nevertheless, affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

The measures suggested by the Honourable Member seem to fall under the said responsibilities of Member States.

Moreover, the Commission reaffirms its willingness to promote the full and immediate implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the basis of the Vienna action plan and of the political guidelines and concrete objectives agreed by the European Council in Tampere.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/99

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Updating of driving licences

As it is no longer necessary to exchange driving licences when moving to a new Member State, which national authorities are now responsible for any necessary updating (e.g. change of address on the licence)?

Is the Commission aware that problems have arisen because of the country of residence's claiming that this is a question for the Member State of origin, whereas the Member State of origin says that this is a matter for the new country of residence? If so, what does the Commission advise?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1) establishes exclusive legal competence of the Member State of normal residence in case of replacement and renewal of licences, in case of application of national provisions of criminal and police laws and in case of voluntary exchange of the licence. Furthermore Directive 91/439/EEC foresees that a Member State of normal residence may apply its national rules on the period of validity of licences on all licence holders on its territory.

Only the Member State of normal residence may conduct all administrative proceedings concerning the competence mentioned above, thus including updating the licence on possible changes of address. The issuing Member State loses its competence on driving licence issues, by the time the driver establishes normal residence in another Member State and the host Member State is responsible for any national administrative provisions it applies to the driver taking up normal residence in its territory.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2712/99

by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Working time directive

1. How can the Commission, after confirming in a letter of 10 May 1993 from Commissioner Padraig Flynn to the principal organisations in Denmark, that EU directives could be implemented via the Danish collective bargaining system (the content of this letter forming part of the basis for the decision to adopt the motion for adjournment on 30 November 1993 retaining the Danish collective bargaining model as the basis for implementing EU directives etc.), now send a letter of formal notice to the Danish Government claiming that Denmark's implementation of the EU Working Time Directive is not, in the Commission's view, in compliance with the Union Treaty?

2. Has the Commission altered its view between the time Mr Flynn's letter was sent and the time the Commission sent its letter of formal notice to Denmark on the implementation of the Working Time Directive? If so, what caused the Commission to change its view? Was the Commission's endorsement of the political validity of Denmark's implementation of directives via the Danish collective bargaining system of 10 May 1993 influenced by the fact that one week later the Danes were to vote in their second referendum on the Treaty on European Union?

3. Can the Commission confirm that, when it sent its letter of formal notice to Denmark regarding the implementation of the Working Time Directive, there had not been a single case of the parties involved in the implementation of the Working Time Directive in Denmark via collective bargaining ever having been unable to achieve the results prescribed in that Directive (see the Agreement by 11 Member States in the Union Treaty)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The letter of the Commissioner who was in charge of Employment and Social Affaires to which the Honourable Member refers to states that one way of implementing directives could be by duly notified collective agreements at national level and that legislation will be taken into consideration as a last resort and as a safety valve. This is in line with Article 137(4) (ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty, which clearly states that collective agreements can be used as a means of implementing directives. Furthermore, the Court of justice has laid down certain conditions should collective agreements be used as the only means to implement a directive or certain provisions of a directive(1). In this context, the essential condition is that all workers within the scope of the directive are covered by its provisions.

1. The position of the Commission and the relevant Community law, as interpreted by the Court of justice, have not changed since the time the letter was sent in 1993.

2. The Commission has received two complaints from Danish trade unions on the matter.

(1) Case 143/83 Commission v. Denmark [1985] ECR 427. See also e.g. Commission v. Italy [1986] ECR 2291.