ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1048/00

by Hubert Pirker (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Unresolved issues of ownership

It is a well-known fact that the confiscation of property without compensation is always a violation of international law. The political significance of these unresolved property ownership questions cannot be resolved by a reference to Article 295 of the EC Treaty.

In the context of the accession negotiations with the Republic of Slovenia, what is the Commission's view of these hitherto unresolved issues, and is it prepared to contribute towards righting this wrong?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

As indicated to the Honourable Member in reply to his Written Questions E-0697/00 and E-0698/00(1), the process of property restitution in Slovenia was assessed in the light of the Copenhagen political criteria, in the opinion of the Commission on Slovenia's application to the Union and in the subsequent yearly regular reports.

The Commission follows the overall development of this ongoing process in the context of bilateral relations with Slovenia. Sources indicate that of the overall value of claims, 52 % of the total have been restituted.

The accession negotiations embrace all areas of Community legislation and policy, the acquis, which each applicant country will have to adopt and implement fully by the time of accession to the Union. In this respect the Commission underlines that it has no legal competence to intervene directly in the process of restitution of property. This process does not fall under the acquis, since Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty states explicitly that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership.

As indicated in the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-0664/00(2), the implementation of international instruments on human rights, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, is primarily the responsibility of the relevant international organisations.

(1) See page 18.

(2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 85.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. Withdrawal from EMU.



Official Journal 072 E , 06/03/2001 P. 0120 - 0120



WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council (5 June 2000) Subject: Withdrawal from EMU Will the Council guarantee that any Member State may freely withdraw from Economic and Monetary Union by giving 12 months' notice, for example? Reply (26 September 2000) As was stated in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-0771/00, the Treaty contains no specific provisions concerning the withdrawal of a Member State either from the European Union in general or from the third stage of EMU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/00

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Aid for French départements affected by the recent storms

Following the violent storms which struck France towards the end of December 1999, a number of severely affected départements had to spend large amounts of money on rebuilding damaged infrastructures, even though much of the expense was covered by insurance.

Could the Commission take the plight of these departments and districts into account when next it decides which areas of France are eligible to receive assistance from the Structural Funds?

Also, would it be possible to restore the budget heading covering aid for the victims of natural disasters?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission decided on the list of French areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 programming period on 7 March 2000, on the basis of a proposal from the French authorities.

Under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), that list can be amended on a proposal from a Member State only in 2003, in the event of a serious crisis in a region and without increasing the eligible population of the region in question.

It is worth pointing out that the areas eligible under Objective 2 for the period 2000-2006, in accordance with the Commission decision of 7 March, contain 70 % of the population affected by the storms at the end of 1999.

However, areas which suffered damage but which are not eligible under Objective 2 can still receive other forms of Community assistance. An information note(2) lists the various Community instruments which can be used for this purpose.

The Commission has no plans at this stage to restore the budget heading covering aid for the victims of natural disasters. In view of the small amounts entered in the budget for this purpose up to 1997, Community financial assistance was purely symbolic and too often took the form of scattered operations on a fairly modest scale. The Commission now intends to concentrate on assisting the economic recovery of the affected areas by means of the Community structural instruments.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) SEC(2000) 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1420/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Corruption within the European Commission

Can the Commission indicate what disciplinary proceedings, if any, have been taken against individuals working for the Commission as a result of the wrongdoings exposed by Mr Paul van Buitenen?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1404/00 and E-1420/00 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission investigates all allegations of acts committed by officials that could give rise to the opening of disciplinary proceedings.

In the cases relevant to the Honourable Member's question, disciplinary proceedings were opened some time ago and, where appropriate, files have been transmitted to the judicial authorities of Member States.

After due process, disciplinary proceedings relating to six officials referred to in Mr van Buitenen's book have been concluded. In two cases the officials were acquitted, in one case the official was reprimanded, in two cases the officials were dismissed, and in one case the official was dismissed with partial reduction of entitlement to retirement pension.

In other cases, disciplinary proceedings and administrative enquiries launched before and after the date of the publication of this book are in progress.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1484/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Competence of European Court of Justice in relation to Article 7 of the EU Treaty

Even although the current bilateral measures by Austria's 14 EU partner states in reaction to the accession to power of the Austrian ÖVP/FPÖ (Austrian People's Party/Freedom Party of Austria) Federal Government do not constitute a case to which Article 7 of the EU Treaty would apply, the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty nevertheless have a direct bearing on the legal and political debate on the admissibility and fitness of purpose of those measures.

A comparison of the procedural provisions of Article 7 of the EU Treaty with the provisions governing the exercise of powers laid down in Article 46 of the EU Treaty reveals that a decision resulting in a determination by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty is not subject to review by the European Court of Justice. This means that any Member State against which any such determination is made will, in particular, be denied the right to seek redress before the Court for a possible violation of its right to a hearing as guaranteed by Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty.

How does the Council assess this situation, having regard to the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty as one of the fundamental principles of the Union?

Does the Council see both a need and an opportunity to make good this deficiency of compliance with the rule of law in the course of the current Inter-Governmental Conference on the amendment of the Treaties?

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

The question put by the Honourable Member refers to a possible amendment of the Treaty on European Union. It should be noted that the revision of the treaties falls within the competence of the Intergovernmental Conference, not of the Council.

As regards the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to Article 309.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1514/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Haemophiliacs

Does the Commission have any plans to rectify the fact that settlements made to haemophiliacs suffering from viral infection after receiving contaminated blood products vary widely across the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

With regard to compensation for haemophilia patients who may have been infected by contaminated blood, the Commission's long established position remains unchanged. This is a matter for the Member States. The Commission has no plans to intervene in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1846/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Licensing and supervision of aircraft pilots

Does the Commission regard the present arrangements for the licensing and supervision of aircraft pilots in the Member States as satisfactory?

In particular, does it see any potential conflict of interest in the fact that examiners responsible for testing pilots are employed by industry rather than by a government agency (as is normal in connection with the licensing of car drivers)?

To what extent have qualifications now been mutually recognised by Member States?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

There is no Community legislation at the moment on the licensing and monitoring of the professional ability of aircraft pilots.

The Commission does not consider that there is a gap in the existing arrangement in the Member States in this area but, rather with a view to introducing joint rules and requirements for the licensing of pilots, it plans to put forward, during the last quarter of the year, a legislative proposal on the basis of the Joint Aviation Requirement-Flight Crew Licensing (JAR-FCL), which was developed by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and has already been adopted by some Member States. This text is the result of consultations with the participation of both representatives of the industry and the professions concerned and also includes provisions on instructors and examiners.

With regard to the specific question of examiners responsible for testing pilots being employed by industry rather than by a government agency, there might be a certain conflict of interest; however, this situation arises from the need for such examiners to have the experience and high number of flying hours which they can only acquire by exercising their profession. When the above specific joint rules are being considered, care will have to be taken to ensure a fair balance between the two requirements of independence and expertise by laying down clear, strict rules for the exercise of the profession of examiner.

With regard to the mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation, there is Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 16 December 1991(1), but this is concerned only with personnel performing duties essential to the operation of an aircraft during flight time. This therefore excludes examiners and instructors, for whom, depending on the level of training required in the Member States, the mutual recognition of qualifications is dealt with either by Council Directive 89/48/EEC 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(2), or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC(3).

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1899/00

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: EU assistance for the Internet website Südtirol-Online

1. Is it true that, as part of the ADAPT programme, the Commission has assisted the Internet service Südtirol-Online of the Athesia publishing house with 1 billion lire through the project sponsor D.Net?

2. How does the Commission explain the contention that, while the official project description states that the EU assistance is intended for the Internet training of 40 to 50 journalists, only 11 people are employed at Südtirol-Online? How has the Commission reacted to public criticism levelled in this connection at Athesia, D.Net and Südtirol-Online, and what information can it provide on precisely how resources have been spent on this project? What overall conclusion has been reached in any evaluations so far made of this project?

3. What does the Commission think of the accusation that Südtirol-Online has for some time tolerated extreme right-wing chat fora on its website? Given these criticisms, how can EU assistance for this Internet service be justified?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member relates to the management of projects cofinanced by the European Social Fund (ESF) under the various Community Initiatives. In accordance with Community rules and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, management of these projects falls within the competence of the Member States.

Having contacted the Member State, the Commission can confirm that the project's budget is LIT 982 900 000, of which a sum of 442 000 000 is cofinanced by the ESF, 147 435 000 by the national budget (fondo di rotazione), and LIT 393 160 000 provided by the private sector. The amount of the advance already paid by the ESF is LIT 73 000 000.

The Commission has asked the national authorities to check on the entire project. In accordance with the partnership principle, no further advance payments will be made.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2126/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Misuse of EU funding in Basilicata Petition 47/96

Dott. Giovanni De Blasis, head of the legislative office of Basilicata Regional Council, submitted a petition on the misuse of Community funding intended for vocational training, which was entered in the general register under number 47/96.

On 26 June 1999 the EP's Committee on Petitions deemed the issues raised by Dott. De Blasiis admissible and started examination of the petition, deciding at the same time to ask the Commission to state its views on various aspects of the problem.

Can the Commission say what the outcome of its examination was and, if it reached some conclusion, what steps it has taken?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3138/98 by Mr Rauti(1).

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 51.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2153/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Ethics and European law

Is the Commission aware that the French Ethics Committee (Comité Consultatif National D'Ethique) has urged the French National Assembly not to translate into French law the recent directive on the patentability of the human genome?

Can a Member State suspend implementation of any European legislation on moral grounds? What steps will the Commission take to ensure that European law is not compromised in this way? Will it consider establishing its own Ethics Committee/Ethics Unit so that these important issues are not nationalised but treated at Pan-European level?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of the Opinion No 64 of the French ethical committee (comité consultatif national d'éthique) of June 8th 2000, concerning Directive 98/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998, on the protection of biotechnological inventions(1).

Agreement on this Directive was achieved after discussions within the Parliament and the Council where much consideration was given to the ethical aspects surrounding biotechnological inventions. The Directive seeks both to address these ethical considerations and to provide the necessary incentives to encourage research and development in the area of biotechnology.

Under Article 15(1) of the Directive, Member States are required to comply with the Directive not later than 30 July 2000. Any Member State challenge of the validity of the Directive before the Court of justice would not release it from its obligation to transpose the Directive into national law by the specified deadline. The Commission, in its role as the guardian of the treaties, is required to ensure that Community legislation is applied correctly by the Member States.

The European group on ethics (EGE) in science and new technologies was set up by the Commission in 1992 in order to advise the European institutions on ethical issues. The EGE has an explicit mandate under the Article 7 of the Directive to evaluate the ethical aspects of biotechnology.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against disabled people in Rotterdam

At the final of the European football championships in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, on 2 July 2000, an Italian group of disabled people, holders of valid tickets, were the victims of shameful treatment on the part of the stadium staff and the Dutch police.

A few days earlier the group had obtained authorisation from those responsible for the stadium to occupy seats in a section easily accessible for wheelchairs, but most of them were refused the seats when they arrived at the stadium. Only after lengthy discussions were those accompanying them allowed to carry them to another section, which was higher up and inaccessible to wheelchairs. The disabled people were also forced to leave their wheelchairs at the entrance, together with their supplies of water and other essentials.

1. Does the Commission not consider that such incidents are contrary to the provisions of the Treaties, in particular Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which stresses the European Union's opposition to any form of discrimination, not least against the disabled?

2. Does the Commission not consider that this was a deliberate act of discrimination against physically disadvantaged European citizens at a sports event of Europe-wide importance?

3. Does the Commission agree that the Netherlands should no longer be allowed to organise sporting, cultural, artistic or other events of European significance until there are guarantees that all European citizens are able to enjoy them fully and freely, irrespective of their circumstances and nationality?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2471/00, E-2526/00 and E-2554/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission very much regrets the events which occurred at the Euro 2000 football final in Rotterdam.

The aim of Community policy is to promote the full participation of disabled people in economic, social and cultural life, and the Commission, in application of Article 13 of the Treaty, has proposed a number of measures to combat discrimination against people with disabilities(1).

However, access for people with disabilities to public premises and buildings and to places which are open to the public is still the responsibility of the Member States.

Finally, in line with its Communication of 12 May 2000 entitled Towards a barrier free Europe for people with disabilities(2), the Commission is proposing to undertake a series of initiatives to improve access for disabled people to public transport and the built environment.

(1) COM(1999) 564 final.

(2) COM(2000) 284 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2554/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding the rights of the disabled and events in Rotterdam

On the evening of 2 July in Rotterdam, the night before the final of the Euro 2000 football championships, a group of 140 disabled persons, 100 of whom were confined to wheelchairs, suffered a terrible experience.

First of all, the airport in Rotterdam was not equipped to allow disabled passengers to disembark and they had to be carried off the airplane one at a time. However, worse was to occur at the stadium itself, where, despite the fact that it had been notified of the special needs of the group when the tickets were purchased (at a cost of LIT 510 000 each), the disabled persons were allocated seats in the third tier of the stand at the top of eight flights of stairs.

The spectacle of the helpers carrying the disabled persons over their shoulders attracted the attention of a RAI film crew who were there to film the match. The journalists were taken away, beaten and injured and were detained until late at night by the Dutch police.

1. Does the Commission believe that the behaviour of the Dutch police could be seen as a form of racism?

2. How can it be acceptable that a Member State has not yet done anything to remove architectural barriers to the disabled?

3. What measures will the Commission take to shed light on these events and ensure that the Netherlands begin to respect the rights of disabled people as quickly as possible?

4. What provisions exist in the Netherlands to safeguard the rights of the press and freedom of information?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2471/00, E-2526/00 and E-2554/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission very much regrets the events which occurred at the Euro 2000 football final in Rotterdam.

The aim of Community policy is to promote the full participation of disabled people in economic, social and cultural life, and the Commission, in application of Article 13 of the Treaty, has proposed a number of measures to combat discrimination against people with disabilities(1).

However, access for people with disabilities to public premises and buildings and to places which are open to the public is still the responsibility of the Member States.

Finally, in line with its Communication of 12 May 2000 entitled Towards a barrier free Europe for people with disabilities(2), the Commission is proposing to undertake a series of initiatives to improve access for disabled people to public transport and the built environment.

(1) COM(1999) 564 final.

(2) COM(2000) 284 final.