ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Refurbishment of President Prodi's office

1. Following the recent refurbishment of President Prodi's office in Rue Breydel, could the Commission please state if this was paid for by the Commission or some other source?

2. If the Commission paid for this refurbishment, could the Commission please indicate (a) the total cost of the refurbishment, and (b) the budget item to which the expenditure was charged?

3. If the Italiatn Government has loaned items for the refurbishment, could the Commission please indicate (a) the rules governing loans from governments to the Commission, given that Commissioners are no longer servants of their country, and (b) whether these items have been declared by President Prodi.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

1. The Commission at the arrival of the new College of Commissioners established a budget of 25 000 for the refurbishing of each Commissioner's office with new furniture. Nevertheless instead of using the 25 000 for the acquisition of new furniture, President Prodi's office has recently been refurbished with antique furniture, on a free of charge loan from the Galleria Nazionale di Arte Antica in Rome.

2. The Commission only paid the transportation and insurance for the loaned furniture, using budget line A02353 for the transport and budget line A02350 for the insurance. In consequence, President Prodi did not use the 25 000 budget earmarked for the refurbishing of his office.

3. There are no specific rules governing loans from governments to the Commission. The loan from the Galleria Nazionale di Arte Antica was accorded to Mr Prodi as President of the European Commission for the duration of his mandate for the refurbishment of his official office at the Commission and Mr Prodi has declared these items in the appropriate way.

4. The internal regulations concerning the refurbishing of the offices of members of the Commission considered in the past only the acquisition of new furniture. For this reason they are at present being reviewed with the objective of providing the possibility to cover other less onerous ways for refurbishing the offices of the Members of the Commission in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4072/00

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Deficiencies at the Joint Research Centre in respect of the handling of nuclear materials

Paragraph 1(j) of the European Parliament resolution of 13 April 2000 on the discharge for 1998 called on the Commission to launch a formal administrative investigation to ascertain responsibilities in connection with the withheld warning of serious deficiencies at the Joint Research Centre (particularly with the handling of nuclear materials).

Can the Commission provide me with a copy of the report of the investigation?

Can the Commission state what steps it has taken on the basis of that report?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

In the wake of Parliament's resolution of 13 April 2000 deferring the discharge, the Commission launched an administrative investigation into the matter. It emerged from that investigation that no irregularity had been committed and thus no administrative or disciplinary proceedings were instituted. More specifically it emerged from that investigation that there had been no deliberate withholding of information when the performance audit carried out by the financial control DG on the activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) was processed.

It goes without saying that, as regards the basic matter of safety when handling nuclear materials at the JRC, the necessary operational action was taken in order to tighten up compliance with the rules in this area and improve the monitoring of their implementation by, for example:

Recruiting a second expert qualified in radiation protection (selection procedure concluded in late 2000) and creating a position of a port for an official in charge of transporting fissile and radioactive materials (April 2000).

Redefining specific supervised areas for the storage of fissile and radioactive materials (completed in late 1999).

Closing down nuclear laboratories in order to reduce the number of operating licences and the accompanying potential risks (completed in 2000).

Extending the staff training programme (begun in April 2000).

Moreover, the JRC has set up a standing committee on these matters, whose task is to monitor any changes made to European and Member-State regulations on this matter and to ensure that the safety rules applying at the JRC's various sites comply.

Since the administrative investigation was expedited under the 1998 discharge the investigation report and the information on the conclusions drawn can be passed on under the provisions of Article 276 (formerly Article 206) of the EC Treaty, while maintaining confidentiality. Indeed, that report contains aspects that are likely to affect individual rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3616/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Fine imposed on Greece

Further to the Commission's response on 16 October to my Question (P-2843/00)(1) regarding the fine imposed on Greece:

1. Is the daily penalty payment due with effect from the judgment of 7 April 1992 or the judgment of 4 July 2000?

2. Has the Commission now sent a letter to the Greek authorities setting out the conditions? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 107.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

In its judgment dated 4 July 2000(1) the Court of Justice ordered Greece to pay into the Commission's EC own resources account a fine of 20 000 for each day's delay in taking the action needed in order to comply with the Commission/Greece judgment of 7 April 1992 dating from the handing down of that judgment, and up to compliance therewith. Therefore Greece must pay the daily fine of 20 000 as of 4 July 2000.

As required by the existing rules(2) the Commission sent a letter to the Greek authorities on 20 October 2000, asking them to pay, by the latest, at the end of the second month following receipt of the letter, 1 760 000, an amount representing the daily fine of 20 000 due for July-September 2000. Moreover the Commission announced in its letter to the Greek authorities that it would send a letter each month requesting payment of the amount of the fine for the current month. A new letter was sent to the Greek authorities on 9 November 2000 requesting that 620 000 be paid, this representing the amount due for October 2000.

(1) Case C-387/97.

(2) Decision of 14 December 1994 on the provisions of the internal procedure for recovering lump sums or fines imposed by the Court of Justice in pursuance of Article 171 of EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3778/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Ispra Joint Research Centre

The Ispra Joint Research Centre has been operating for decades and has proved very useful in that it has made it possible to compare the scientific experiments carried out by the various European schools of thought and ascertain the scientific progress of the different Member States and the economic, social, environmental, and other spin-offs.

There have been calls in the past to scale down the role of the JRC (resulting in a cut of 200 jobs from the staff complement), and it has recently emerged that a further 200 jobs are to be shed, even though the Council agreed in 1998 to keep the staff complement at 2 080 in the light of the Fifth framwork programme.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it is true, as has been reported, that the staff complement is to be reduced again, bringing the total job losses to 400;

2. whether there is an intention to rationalise scientific research, and what the guiding criteria would be;

3. whether it is true that, if the cut were to be made, the Ispra centre would be transferred from the Community's responsibility to Italian national responsibility?

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-3246/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Quarry aggregates levy

Quarry operators in my constituency (Scotland) have complained to me that the recently introduced levy on quarry aggregates will impact unfairly on operations in Scotland and other relatively remote parts of the UK, while relatively favouring operations in the south-east of England. That being so, the question arises whether a levy on quarry products is in effect a tax rather than a charge. Will the Commission confirm that any tax of this kind would have the character of a value added tax? If so, will this tax then be illegal under Article 33 of the sixth EC Directive on Value Added Tax?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Court of Justice has on several occasions been required to rule on the compatibility of certain levies applied by Member States with Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1). Case law has been established on the matter, and from this it is possible to distinguish the criteria recognised by the Court for determining whether a tax or levy constitutes a turnover tax and is as such incompatible with the above-mentioned Article of the Directive. In a recent judgment, the Court described the following as characterising a turnover tax such as VAT: the general application of the levy to transactions; the setting of its amount in proportion to the transaction price; collection at each stage of the production/distribution process; and the deduction of the taxes paid at earlier stages of the process.

In so far as the levy to which the Honourable Member is referring does not meet the above criteria, it cannot be considered as incompatible with Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Council

(22 November 2000)

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

Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data reads: 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.

Does the Council believe it is necessary to amend the directive? If so, in what respects and when? What is the timescale envisaged by the Council for examining, and stating a position on, proposal for a directive COM(2000) 385?

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

Reply

(24 April 2001)

The Council has not yet discussed whether it is necessary to amend general Directive 95/46/EC and if so, in what respects. It will do so when it receives the first report from the Commission on the implementation of the Directive, together with any proposals the Commission may make. Under Articles 32 and 33 of the Directive, the report is due to be presented by the end of October 2001.

Moreover, on 28 August 2000 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (COM 2000 (385)). The aim of the proposal is not to make major changes to Directive 97/66/EC, but merely to adjust and update its content to take account of technical developments and ensure that the rules are technology-neutral and afford a high level of protection. The proposal is part of the legislative package which the Commission forwarded to the Council at the end of August 2000 in the context of the review of the regulatory framework for telecommunications. The Council began its examination of four of the proposals in the package without delay. As regards the proposal in question, and on the basis of the current scheduling of meetings, it is planned to include this item on the agenda for the Council meetings on 5 and 6 April and 27 and 28 June 2001, with a view to holding a debate whose content will be dictated by the stage reached in the technical work by the Council Working Party.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3804/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation 615/98/EC

The first sentence of Article 5(3) of Regulation 615/98/EC(1) reads as follows: The export refund shall not be paid for animals which died during transport or for animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of the documents referred to

in paragraph 2, the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1, that the Directive on the protection of animals during transport was not complied with.

In this connection, can the Commission explain:

1. Who has the power to communicate other elements to the competent authority?

2. Is it to be regarded as unlawful assumption of authority for an animal transport inspector responsible for carrying out transport checks to enter his own comments on the control copy T5?

If so, can the Commission guarantee that other elements are in fact communicated effectively to the competent authorities by other means than entry on the control copy T5?

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2001)

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 applies to live bovine animals covered by an export declaration for the purpose of receiving an export refund. If, during the animals' transportation to their first unloading in the third country of final destination, it is established that Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1) was not complied with, the export refund is not payable.

The Commission would like to comment as follows in answer to the questions raised:

1. Responsibility for applying the Community provisions on export refunds rests with the national bodies which each Member State has designated for that purpose. In accordance with their managerial autonomy, it is for the national bodies which have been assigned the task of assessing compliance with the rules to determine who is entitled to pass all other elements on to the competent authority.

2. Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 stipulates that certifying compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2 is a matter for the official veterinarian at the exit point. Such certification is to be recorded on the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the Community (either in Section J of the control copy T5 or in the most appropriate place on the national document).

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 stipulates that the refund shall not be paid mldr for animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of mldr all other elements at its disposal mldr that the Directive on the protection of animals during transport was not complied with. The comments of an inspector who is responsible for checking a consignment of animals may constitute all other elements within the meaning of Article 5(3).

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4148/00

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Rules governing the funding of obligatory BSE tests on cattle aged over 30 months

It is reported that, on 19 December 2000, the Agriculture Council decided that no European funds would be used to cover any part of the cost of obligatory tests to be carried out on all cattle aged over 30 months entering the food chain in order to prevent BSE-infected meat from entering the food chain. The same applies to the cost of the ban on the processing of meat waste into animal feedingstuffs.

Does not the Commission fear that, if funding rules are left without further ado to the discretion of the Member States, the disparities in the options chosen may lead to distortion of competition and to deflection of certain trade flows? Does not the Commission therefore take the view that rules should be adopted which would apply to all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Commission co-financing of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) tests for cattle is subject to the legal framework laid down by the Commission Decision 2000/773/EC of 30 November 2000 approving the programmes for the monitoring of BSE presented for 2001 by the Member States and fixing the level of the Community's financial contribution(1), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market(2).

In the case that measures to combat BSE would constitute State aid in the sense of Articles 87-88 (ex Articles 92-93) of the EC Treaty which might distort competition, such measures would be assessed by the Commission under the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector(3) and in particular under point 11.4 thereof (aid for combatting plant and animal diseases).

(1) OJ L 308, 8.12.2000.

(2) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.

(3) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4032/00

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Workers' rights on flag of convenience vessels

The necessary prerequisite of a proper job is that the work place meet proper health and safety standards, independently of whether it is fixed or mobile, and that the employment be stable, within the range of hiring possibilities provided for under whatever legal system applies.

Stability of employment is not achievable when there is uncertainty, as is the case with flags of convenience, under which legal security is scanty or non-existent, and there is a very real possibility of workers' social rights being flouted or ignored.

Does the Commissioner intend to tackle the question of specific rules and regulations for the working conditions of EU workers serving on board flag of convenience vessels calling at Community ports?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of respecting the social rights of European workers serving on board vessels flying the flag of a third country.

As regards protecting the health and safety of workers on board vessels, the Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of assuring an appropriate level of protection for these workers, independently of their work place, and particularly when they are on board vessels arriving at Community ports, irrespective of their flag.

In this respect, it is important to mention Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels(1), and Council Directive 92/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on board fishing vessels(2).

However, the definitions of vessels in these Directives (Articles 1 and 2 respectively) imply that the minimum requirements do not apply to vessels flying the flag of a Member State or registered under the plenary jurisdiction of a Member State.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(3), to which the Community is a Contracting Party, provides that every State shall take such measures for ships flying its flag as are necessary to ensure safety at sea with regard, inter alia, to the manning of ships, the labour conditions and the training of crews, taking into account the applicable international instruments. Consequently, the rights of workers on board are defined by the law of the flag State, whatever their nationality.

However, it should also be pointed out that Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995(4) concerning port State control of vessels stipulates inter alia on-board inspection on vessels putting into the ports of Member States, including vessels flying a non-European flag, of internationally applicable social conditions under Convention 147 of the International Labour Organisation (convention concerning minimum standards to be observed on merchant vessels).

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 179, 23.6.1998.

(4) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.