ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/01

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Mutual recognition of educational qualifications within the European Union

Further to an enquiry from my constituent, John Spencer, who lives at 68 Plains Field, Beckers Green, Braintree, Essex, CM7 3PD, is the Commission aware that this person was not given equal treatment as a teacher in Austria, despite his attainment of a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education from the University of Cambridge, in contravention of Council Directive 89/48/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (incorporated in 294A0103(38)(2) and 294A0103(57)(3))?

Will the Commission investigate this case and determine whether John Spencer's rights under Directive 89/48/EEC have been breached?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 206.

(3) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 371.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the case of Mr John Spencer. If the Commission is to take up the matter with the Austrian authorities and to investigate this case it needs more information. The Commission therefore plans to write to Mr Spencer directly to ask him for the relevant documents and information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: FIFG and reduction of the EU's fishing effort

Parliament has asked the Commission and the European Council, in its resolution on the common fisheries policy in the face of the challenge of economic globalisation, to continue with the provision of structural aid to the sector, maintaining existing aids which do not entail an increase in the overall fishing effort, notably those which imply environmental improvements or greater protection of the marine environment and those granted to the fleets of Member States which have complied with their undertakings under the successive Multiannual Guidance Programmes (MGPs). Parliament therefore calls on the Commission to continue with its efforts to adapt the Community fleet

to existing European and world resource levels, by preparing a credible new fleet guidance programme which is in line with realities in the industry and can be applied on an effective and equitable basis to all fleets and workers in the sector, irrespective of nationality.

Can the Commission state what amount within the total sum granted to the EU's fisheries sector in structural aid was dedicated to reducing the fishing effort in each Member State over the period 1994-1999?

Can the Commission provide information on the level of execution of that amount in each Member State over the programming period 1994-1999?

Can the Commission state what happened to the non-executed proportion of the amount allocated to reduction of the fisheries effort in each Member State over the programming period 1994-1999?

Can the Commission state what happened to the sums not executed in each Member State which were returned to the Commission over the period 1994-1999?

Can the Commission state what amount within the total sum granted in structural aid to the EU's fisheries sector has been allocated to the reduction of the fishing effort in each Member State over the period 2000-2006?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

1. Programming of adjustment of fishing effort 1994-99

>TABLE>

2. Disbursement of funds on adjustment of fishing effort 1994-99

>TABLE>

The amounts shown in the table above do not represent total disbursement as payments will continue up to the end of 2001. Total disbursement will only be known in 2002.

3. As indicated beneath the table in point 2 above, disbursement has not ended. It is not possible therefore to determine at present whether part of the appropriations shown in the table in point 1 above (and which amounts) are likely to remain unused. If that should be the case, the unused appropriations will be cancelled since reprogramming has not been possible since 31 December 1999.

4. The Honourable Member is kindly referred to the Commission's answer to his Written Question E-59/01(1).

5. Programming of adjustment of fishing effort 2000-2006

>TABLE>

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 106.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Commission participation in plenary debates

The Framework Agreement calls on Commissioners to attend debates in plenary on their own business. As I understand, it only provides for limited exceptions to this general rule.

Can the Commission say how many plenary debates came within the responsibility of each Commissioner in 2000?

How many debates on their own respective portfolio did each Commissioner attend?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

As requested by the Honourable Member the annexed table provides an overview on how many plenary debates came within the responsibility of each Commissioner in 2000 and how many debates on their own respective portfolio each Commissioner attended. It should be noted that joint debates on different subjects or on a number of different reports are counted as one debate. Attendance of Commissioners in urgency debates, in question time or when replacing another Commissioner have not been counted.

In the course of the investiture debate on 15 September 1999, President Prodi gave firm commitment to Parliament to ensure the attendance of Commissioners at plenary debates falling under their competencies as a general rule. This political commitment was subsequently codified in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the Framework-Agreement adopted the 5 July 2000. It was here agreed The Commission shall ensure, as a general rule, that the Commissioner responsible is present whenever this is requested by the European Parliament at plenary sittings for agenda items falling under his or her responsibility (point 19). With a view to ensuring the presence of Commissioners, the European Parliament undertakes to do its best to maintain its final draft agendas (point 20). Where the European Parliament amends its draft agenda subsequently to the meeting of the Conference of Presidents that decides the final draft agenda of a part-session, or where it moves items within the agenda within a part-session, the Commission shall use its best endeavours to ensure the presence of the Commissioner responsible (point 21).

The overall headline figure of 86 % attendance shows the Commission's determination to comply with this commitment. However, as the Honourable Member himself notes, the Framework-Agreement does permit some flexibility to accommodate the conflicting pressures on Commissioners' schedules.

The Commission would also like to recall that the figure for attendance in plenary under point 19 of the Framework Agreement gives only an incomplete picture of both overall presence and relations between Commissioners and the European Parliament. To get a comprehensive view, attendance of Commissioners in Committee meetings, meetings with parliamentary delegations, political groups, inter-groups, etc. also needs to be taken into account.

>TABLE>

Based on Strasbourg sessions Monday to Thursday and Brussels sessions.

Excludes all debates attributed solely to President Prodi; Urgency debates; votes and Commission declarations on the decisions of the day.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0952/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Notification of fiscal policy changes

Does the Commission believe that the Finance Ministers of the Member States should notify any intended fiscal policy changes to the Commission before they are announced or implemented? If so, why?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0850/01(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See page 51.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1804/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(13 June 2001)

Subject: Support for euro conversion costs

Firms operating vending machines (e.g. peanut dispensers, games machines, etc) are particularly challenged by conversion to the euro. Costs that cannot as yet remotely be anticipated, e.g. for new banknote readers, programming units for coin checkers, licence fees, etc, will undoubtedly be incurred.

Since the very survival of these firms is at risk by reason of the enormous costs, it is vitally necessary for special assistance to be provided for them from the EU, and for the necessary funds to be made available to the operators concerned.

We therefore ask to be informed of the arrangements that will be made to channel funds to firms affected by this problem.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the claims of the vending industry for compensation of the costs they believe they will bear due to the changeover to the euro. The Commission holds regular meetings with European representatives of the coin operated industry to discuss issues and possible solutions.

The Ministers of the euro area have reached a common position concerning such claims for compensation. The Ministers felt that changeover costs are an investment and should be borne by the sectors where they arise. The public sector is assuming its own costs; concurrently, the other sectors should each assume their own financial effort of adaptation.

The benefits provided by the introduction of the euro will persist over time while costs borne for the changeover are once-off and relatively small compared to the future gains for all business sectors.

Finally the euro coins are of a higher safety standard compared to the national coins and this will indeed help the coin operated industry to increase the level of security in their transactions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: The Aachen hamster

Does the Commission have any information on the mysterious case of the disappearing Aachen hamster?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission has been dealing for five years with the question related to the conservation of the hamster (Cricetus cricetus) in the area of Aachen. The issues arise from concerns as to the impacts of development on the protection of this species which have been brought to the attention of the Commission by the Petition case 685/96 being considered by the Petition Committee of the Parliament and by several complaints relating to development proposals.

The Honourable Member is referred to the communications(1) which the Commission has made to the Parliamentary Committee under that Petition number which provides a full account of the issue and state of play.

(1) Last communication: PE 221.901/REV/III.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0899/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Long-line fishing

A recent report by BirdWatch Ireland stated that between 50 000 and 100 000 northern fulmars were killed in the North-east Atlantic every year as a result of long-line fishing. Can the Commission state whether it has statistical evidence which would substantiate this claim and whether it believes that there are any measures and technical solutions for vessels which would prevent these deaths? Does it envisage bringing forward any proposals in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

The Commission as such has no self-generated statistical evidence on this topic. The Commission is aware of reports by Birdlife International of surveys carried out on Norwegian longliners off north-west Norway and extrapolated to include probable effects of Faroese and Icelandic longliners giving rise to estimates of the order cited. These reports appear to have been reiterated by Bird Watch Ireland.

Preliminary information received by the Commission from replies to a questionnaire issued last August 2000 indicate that catches of sea birds, although they occur, do not constitute a major threat in Community waters. The main problems seem to be caused by non-Community vessels fishing either in international waters or in their own waters. The Community has no direct legal power to control the activities of non-Community vessels in these areas.

The Commission has participated in meetings leading to the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in longline fisheries and has drafted a Community action plan on the basis of information supplied by Member States in response to the questionnaire previously mentioned. This draft was submitted to the appropriate body of FAO in February 2001.

In Antarctic waters, to protect albatrosses and other birds, the Community has already adopted a number of mitigation measures(1)(2), and some or all of these might be considered for other areas as required.

The measures are:

- Using bird-scaring lines with plastic streamers attached;

- Weighting lines so that they sink faster and hence cause less risk;

- Prohibiting discharge of offal at sea which attracts the birds;

- Setting lines at night when the birds are less likely to be foraging;

- Using only thawed bait which sinks faster.

Finally, it might be pointed out that, although catches of seabirds are regrettable and probably avoidable, the cited magnitude of catches of northern fulmars are not such that the sustainability of the fulmar populations, currently estimated at 10-12 million individuals, is threatened.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 66/1998 of 18 December 1998, OJ L 6, 10.1.1998.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2479/1998 of 12 November 1998, OJ L 309, 19.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Support for town twinning projects

In connection with the call for proposals DG EAC NO 00/75 Support for actions to promote town-twinning 2001(1) (2000/C/320/07) I have received a complaint on the treatment of project No 01/153, first tranche 2001.

This project was not eligible for support as it did not meet the registration conditions set out in the call for proposals. These registration conditions were changed on 1 January 2001. The applicants have assured both myself and the Commission that they were not informed of this change.

1. Does the Commission agree with me that, aside from the question of who was responsible for the failure to inform the applicants, it is a principle of proper administration that persons submitting projects should be given the opportunity of correcting errors before the final decision on the application is made? If so, why did that not happen in this case?

2. How many project applications in connection with the above-mentioned call for proposals did not meet the registration conditions?

(1) OJ C 320, 9.11.2000, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The new conditions governing the award procedure to support town-twinning measures were adopted in October 2000, following consultation of the national federations representing the twinning movement. These conditions, which were inspired by the principles governing the award of subsidies for other Community actions, were introduced to make the system more transparent and effective.

In order to ensure the information was disseminated as widely as possible, the Commission published the text of the call for proposals in the Official Journal(1) and on the Education and Culture DG's Internet page on the Europa server. The latter allows interested parties to directly download the electronic version of the forms to be completed. The text of the call for proposals is also attached to all grant application forms sent out to interested parties.

With regard to the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member:

1. In the Commission's view, good management practice requires that the rules contained in the call for proposals are applied uniformly and without exception to all applications submitted, particularly as this leads to better and speedier administration, which benefits the recipients themselves.

The call for proposals includes a closing date for the submission of completed grant applications; this date is the same for all interested parties. For reasons of equality, therefore, it is stated clearly in the last paragraph of the text of the call for proposals: After the deadline for submission of the application has elapsed the dossier may not be modified in any way.

2. 187 of the applications submitted in the first tranche of the call did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.11.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1352/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Tricycles for disabled people

Is the Commission aware that tricycles made for disabled people in one Member State cannot always be used by disabled people in other Member States because of different rules on whether special licences are needed and whether disabled people are allowed to drive such vehicles at all?

Does the Commission have any plans to address this issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

According to Community legislation, from a driving licence(1) and type-approval(2) perspective, there are two categories of tricycles: tricycles developping a maximum design speed above 45 kilometers per hour (km/h) and tricycles below such a speed.

It should be noted that so-called light tri-and quadricycles which do not fall within the scope of directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, remain a matter of national competence. Thus each Member State may make its own rules regarding their use.

However, if a citizen holds a driving licence for a tricycle with a maximum design speed over 45 km/h and that tricycle has been adapted in accordance with the provisions of the above mentioned Directive on driving licences, then mutual recognition is assured between Member States.

Differences between Member States do occur because point 5 of Annex III of the above mentioned directive, permits that Member States may set standards higher than the minima set out in Annex III for the issue or any subsequent renewal of driving licences. Moreover, it is evident that the assessment as to whether a disabled person is allowed to drive and under what circumstances is a decision for the relevant national medical authorities responsible for the medical examination. This will inevitably lead to slight differences in the interpretation of the identical relevant legislation, not only between Member States, but also between competent medical authorities within one Member State, due to inevitable differences in opinion between doctors.

The Commission wishes to promote mobility and free movement for disabled persons. For this reason work is currently underway on examining the actions taken in the different Member States in order to come to a more harmonised approach across the Community.

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991).

(2) Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (OJ L 225, 10.8.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0356/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: BSE

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the triangular arrangement involving cattle which were allegedly transported from Turkey to Greece, were then sent to the Salento region and then, after being dealt with in two slaughterhouses, were taken to Belgium? It seems that some young adult bovine animals were then transported via two Belgian import-export companies to Italy. They were allegedly sold at a derisory price because they were considered to be high risk. The Belgian judiciary became involved, not least because the animals were allegedly suffering from BSE.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Commission has no knowledge of this case. For this reason it cannot comment on the specific allegations. It would be interested to receive any information tending to substantiate them

In general terms it should be noted that Turkey is not allowed to export live cattle to the Community as it does not fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 72/462/EC of 12 December 1972(1) on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries. Due to the epidemic of bluetongue in Greece, the movements of live cattle from Greek territory to other Member States or third countries has been forbidden since November 1999, in accordance with Greek national legislation and Commission Decision 2000/350/EC of 2 May 2000 on epidemiological surveillance of bluetongue in Greece and certain measures to prevent the spread of the disease(2).

(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972.

(2) OJ L 124, 25.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0068/01

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Refugees in Turkey

It is generally recognised that Turkey will have to make substantial improvements as regards human rights for Kurds and other national minorities. However, in Eastern Turkey there are many thousands of refugees from Kurdish regions of Iraq and Iran. Some of them are recognised by the UNHCR as refugees, others have no recognised status at all. These groups are not automatically included in the demands made for Kurds in Turkey since they are not Turkish citizens and are therefore more exposed to risks than other groups of Kurdish origin.

What will the Commission do to protect these refugee groups and include them in the minority and human rights programme designed to make Turkey qualified for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Improvements in the human rights situation in Turkey are indeed required in the framework of Turkey's preparation for accession to the Union. The Accession Partnership (AP) for Turkey adopted by the Commission on 8 November 2000(1) sets out priorities in this respect. The implementation of those priorities by Turkey would clearly improve the situation of all Turkish citizens irrespective of their origin.

As to the situation of refugees whether or not of Kurdish origin , the Justice and Home Affairs acquis clearly states the obligations for membership in this respect. In particular, this includes the lifting of the geographical reservation to the 1951 Geneva Convention, to create a legal obligation to exercise all asylum claims whatever the geographical origin of the asylum seeker. Asylum in general has been one of the subjects of a mission of Union experts that took place in September 2000 to Turkey in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. On this occasion, experts on asylum insisted on the importance of this dimension and identified a number of shortcomings and potential fields of financial co-operation that will soon be discussed with Turkey to support the practical consequences of the implementation of such a major change in asylum legislation in Turkey. The question of refugees is also addressed by the AP, which notably calls for the development of accommodation facilities and social support for refugees in Turkey.

(1) COM(2000) 714 final.