ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Transposition of Community legislation into the law of the Member States

According to the biannual scoreboard published by the Commission, there are significant delays in the transposition of Community legislation into the Member States. In particular, 11 % of Community legislation enacted is not transposed into the national law of the Member States within the specified deadlines, and only three Member States (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) seem to be honouring the commitment made at the Lisbon Summit to transpose 98,5 % of Community legislation into their national law by 2002. According to Commissioner Bolkestein, the following countries, in declining order, are in danger of not attaining the target of transposing Community legislation by March 2002: Greece, France, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Austria and Germany.

Given the above data, will the Commission say whether it considers that Portugal's decision to appoint a person with exclusive responsibility for transposing Community legislation into its national law is an effective measure and whether it intends to propose that other Member States adopt a similar approach to ensure that they attain the goal set at the Lisbon Summit?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

It is for Member States to decide how they wish to organise themselves with a view to transposing Community legislation into national law. Some Member States, such as Portugal, Sweden and Luxembourg, have appointed national transposition co-ordinators who are responsible for ensuring that steps are taken to transpose Community legislation on time. The results from the May 2001 Internal Market Scoreboard reveal that these Member States have reduced their transposition deficits successfully.

Sweden's deficit of 0,5 % is the lowest of all Member States. Luxembourg and Portugal, with deficits of 2 % and 2,7 % respectively, have each moved up four places in the overall ranking since they appointed a national transposition co-ordinator.

The Commission encourages the exchange of best practice on transposition, such as the appointment of transposition co-ordinators and/or regular reporting on progress to national parliaments, particularly through the Internal Market Advisory Committee. It expects Member States to consider these experiences as part of their efforts to attain the 1,5 % deficit target set by the European Council for Spring 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Future of the Common Fisheries Policy

Given the recent EU Green Paper on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which accepts the need for radical change of the Common Fisheries Policy, and the fact that the current 6 and 12 mile derogations do not adequately protect the sustainability of the shellfish resource, does the Commission plan to extend national jurisdiction over fish resources to the 12 mile limit in order to protect the inshore fishery?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

In the Green Paper the Commission suggested strengthening coastal States' competence for resource management and in particular local conservation measures within their territorial waters. The current arrangements for limiting access to the 12-mile zone also seem perfectly in line with the need to protect inshore fishing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Protecting stray dogs in Romania

According to television reports, moves are under way to get rid of the approximately 200 000 stray dogs roaming the streets of Bucharest; the reports included footage of the mass burial sites used to dispose of the animals once they have been killed. Since they are strays, the dogs have become wild and the authorities consider them to be a danger. Special teams of non-professional dog-catchers are being used to round up the dogs and take them to a camp, ostensibly for sterilisation, although in actual fact they are shot as soon as they are outside the city boundaries. Animal-lovers, journalists, veterinarians - and even Brigitte Bardot - have been making trips to Bucharest to save as many of these dogs as they can from a certain death. However, the problem is on such a large scale that the goodwill of just a few individuals is not enough.

1. Can the Commission state whether it is aware of this problem?

2. Whether it is willing to negotiate with the Romanian Government with a view to finding a way out of this terrible situation?

3. Whether it has raised the issue of animal welfare during the enlargement negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the policy on stray dogs which is practised by the Municipality of Bucharest. While recognising that stray dogs constitute a problem that needs to be addressed, the Commission finds that this policy may lead to a treatment of stray dogs which is unnecessarily cruel and disproportionate.

However, European legislation on protection of wild animals, protection of animals used for experimental or scientific purposes, animal welfare on the farm, during transport and at slaughter does not apply to stray dogs.

Therefore, the Commission has no legal basis to formally address this issue with the Romanian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1536/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 May 2001)

Subject: Independent TV broadcasters

Can the Commission state if it has received complaints, and how many, from independent TV broadcasters regarding abuse of monopoly positions by state subsidised broadcasting organisations and from which Member States it has received such complaints? Does the Commission regard the position of independent broadcasting Television stations throughout the Union as being satisfactory from the point of view of competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that it is currently dealing with a single case, involving Austria, pursuant to Council Regulation No 17(1) relating to the possible abuse of a dominant position in breach of Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty by a TV broadcaster financed by public funds. In the field of state aid the Commission has received complaints from Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom regarding state subsidised broadcasters.

The Commission notes that the situation for independent TV broadcasters varies considerably from Member State to Member State and it will examine any case of restriction of competition brought to its attention.

(1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Xerox restructuring - Commission meetings

Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.

In the light of Xerox's wish to soften up Commission officials so that they are prepared for bad news in this area, can the Commission detail what meetings it has had with representatives of Xerox or companies representing Xerox over the last three months and what meetings are planned for the future?

Would the Commission agree that, for each meeting held by Xerox, a parallel meeting should be offered to the representatives of the employees whose jobs are under threat?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

With regard to employees' rights, decisions on corporate restructuring need to be taken in compliance with the national legislation implementing a number of directives in the field of labour law and industrial relations, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(2) and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(3).

All these Directives provide for adequate and effective information and consultation of workers' representatives before decisions are taken and implemented which can affect them. Xerox is of course bound by these obligations with regard to any decision falling within the scope of the above mentioned Directives in relation to its European operations.

However, given that all Member States involved in the envisaged restructuring operation have properly incorporated into their national law the provisions of the Directives mentioned above, the Commission wants to underline that any issues arising in this area are a matter for the national industrial relations' procedures and/or the national courts in the first instance.

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that concerning employment aspects no meetings or contacts with representatives of Xerox or companies representing Xerox or workers' representatives took place with Commission officials and that no such meetings or contacts are planned for the future.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1155/01

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

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Tuna steaks

On the basis of a study of the demand for tuna steak supplies which assessed the supply of tuna steaks to the Community market in the short and medium term, the Commission decided to open an annual quota of 4000 tonnes at a 6 % preferential rate of duty for the period 2001 to 2003, within the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products.

How has this quota been used by the various Member States, both in 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission considers that the information requested by the Honourable Member is covered by the confidentiality provision in Article 308a(12) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1427/97 of 23 July 1997(2). Consequently that information cannot be provided.

(1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2) OJ L 196, 24.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Working Party on Education and the Euro.



Official Journal 261 E , 18/09/2001 P. 0086 - 0087



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council (14 February 2001) Subject: Working Party on Education and the Euro When did the Working Party on Education and the Euro last meet? When will it next meet? What has been (a) its purpose, (b) on its agenda since it first met? Reply (31 May 2001) Since the Working Party in question was set up in 1998 on the initiative of the then Directorate General XXII of the European Commission (now DG Education and Culture) the Honourable Member is advised to address his question to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0936/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Timetable for refurbishing the Berlaymont

According to Swedish media reports there have been considerable delays in the reconstruction of the Commission's former headquarters the Berlaymont building and the estimated cost has risen sharply.

Who will be liable for the costs of these delays? Does the Commission have it in writing that the suppliers will bear the costs of the delays? Who is responsible for the delays? When does the Commission expect to move back into the Berlaymont?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

As Vice-President Kinnock made clear in a press release on 5 December 2000 and in his statement to the Commission on budgetary control (Cocobu) on 26 February 2001, the Commission received detailed information in November 2000

showing that renovation work on the Berlaymont building will continue to be delayed, that renovation is not likely to be completed before the end of 2003, and that the delays are likely to give rise to cost increases.

The Commission has consequently undertaken, and continues to undertake, specific auditing activities. It has also referred a particular concern to the European Anti-fraud office (OLAF) and has intensified contacts with the Belgian Government which, as a result, is also taking an active role in securing more satisfactory progress with the project.

The Commission has not signed any contract relating to the building. In July 1997 the Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A. Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice.

The Commission has made no conclusive undertaking to the other parties on costs, and it has made clear that it will not bear any direct or indirect costs which may arise as a result of mismanagement by S.A. Berlaymont 2000, including extra costs due to delays.

Legal proceedings between S.A. Berlaymont 2000 and some of its contractors are currently taking place. Among the issues which have given rise to those proceedings are disputes between those parties about responsibility for delays and for related extra costs.

Preliminary negotiations relating to the possibility of agreeing a satisfactory and secure contract on the Berlaymont renovation with the Belgian State are underway. As the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Kinnock, has reported, Parliament will be informed about progress of these negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Transfer of footballers - Merchandising

Can the Commission confirm that the loss of merchandising income will not be a factor in determining the level of compensation paid in transfer fees?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1052/01, E-1053/01 and E-1054/01 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2001)

On 5 March 2001, International Federation for Football Associations (FIFA) submitted an undertaking to change its rules as regards international transfers of football players. According to the general principles

of the undertaking, it is FIFA's responsibility to implement inter alia a system of training compensation in case of players aged under 23 that encourages and rewards the training efforts of clubs, in particular, small and amateur clubs without limiting freedom of movement of players in a disproportionate way. FIFA will also implement solidarity mechanisms that would redistribute a significant proportion of income to clubs involved in the training and education of a player, including amateur clubs.

The Commission has always been supportive of the principle of a solidarity fund to be used to promote training of young players and to reduce the gap between big and small clubs or between amateur and professional football.

At this stage, no detailed figures or estimates have been provided to the Commission.

As regards merchandising, according to the general principles of FIFA's undertaking to change its rules, the loss of merchandising income is not a criterion that can be considered in calculating a training fee. As far as compensation for unilateral breach of a contract is concerned the question is primarily to be answered on the basis of the national law applicable.

FIFA has undertaken that after two seasons experience there will be a general review of the new arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1782/01

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Report on island regions

In January 2001 it was announced that a wide-ranging study of all the European Union's island regions was being drawn up for the purpose of establishing an objective diagnosis of the situation in those regions, including a classification and an assessment of the problems stemming from the regions' island nature and their specific needs. It was hoped that the study would be completed during the course of the current year.

1. What stage has the report reached?

2. When is the report due to be completed and submitted to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Following publication of a notice of invitation to tender for a study entitled Analysis of the island regions of the European Union,(1) after an internal selection procedure and with the approval of the Advisory Committee on Procurements and Contracts, the Commission has selected a tenderer. The budgetary commitment procedure has just been completed and the contract will be signed in the coming weeks.

The study period has been prolonged from six months to twelve months from the date of signing of the contract. The report will be submitted within six months, i.e. in early 2002, and will then be presented to the Commission for approval. It is intended in the remaining six months to improve and add to the database that has been compiled. The Commission will take steps to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of the outcome of the study.

(1) OJ S 248, 28.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Nuclear safety

Does the European Commission have any plans to cut back the number of nuclear inspectors at the Euratom office?

If so, does not the Commission agree that such a cutback might compromise safety and lower standards at a time when the public and politicians are becoming increasingly aware of the danger of uranium and plutonium being diverted into military rather than civil use?

Does not the Commission also agree that any reduction in standards might put the EU at risk of violating international agreements and European law?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

In the framework of the reform process the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive review of all activities of its Services including the Euratom Safeguards Office. It is intended that a high level expert group will be established to analyse the activities of the Office in line with its obligations under the Euratom Treaty and to make recommendations regarding goals and objectives to be achieved.

The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify that the activities of the Euratom Safeguards Office devolve from the rights and obligations of the Commission in relation to nuclear safeguards, as provided for under Chapter 7 of the Euratom Treaty, rather than nuclear safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1627/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Programme of aid for the conversion of tobacco production

Tobacco producers in several Greek regions are facing serious problems arising from EU policy on aid for tobacco production, in particular for varieties which are considered to be of low quality and low market value. A typical example is provided by regions in southern Etoloacarnania, where the Mavra and Tsembelia varieties are grown, production of which is to cease in the coming years in accordance with European Union plans.

Faced with constant falls in their incomes, tobacco producers in these regions are unable to convert to other crops without appropriate aid. As a result, these areas are gradually becoming depopulated as young people in particular are leaving, whilst workers in the tobacco processing sector are also being affected and their jobs are under threat.

Aid should cover projects designed to tackle the insufficient availability or lack of water for irrigation, measures to cut the costs of irrigation, the provision of technology and the development of research into new substitute crops, the creation of commercial structures for new products to replace tobacco, a minimum but adequate level of funding, etc. Such aid cannot be effective if it is restricted to measures under the third CSF or agricultural development programmes (young farmers, compensatory payments, etc.) and the common organisation of the market for tobacco (buying back of quotas).

Given that the Commission has adopted and financed specific programmes for sectors in crisis and requiring restructuring in the past (Retex and Rechar), can it say whether it will look into the possibility of adopting and financing a specific programme (perhaps to be named Retob) which would make it possible, through infrastructure projects and training measures, to restructure production in tobacco-growing regions which are facing problems and to provide aid for tobacco producers and for workers in the tobacco industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission does not intend proposing or implementing any specific programme of the sort alluded to by the Honourable Member.

It regards the instruments available for rural development as adequate for responding to the tobacco sector's problems in Greece. It is for the national and regional authorities to utilise the resources allocated under the 2000-2006 programming for encouraging production diversification and integrated rural development by fostering multiple-jobholding in country areas and to concentrate them on the sector's weak points in rural areas most dependent on tobacco-growing.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1531/01

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Subject: Sixth Framework Directive

Can the Commission confirm what provisions will be made for research into mathematics under the Sixth Framework Directive?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the important role of mathematics in scientific research and of its impact on innovation. Research into mathematics will have a place in the new framework programme via its contribution to the various thematic priorities, and in the planned action to meet emerging scientific and technological requirements.