ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2469/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reply to Question E-1056/99

In its answer to Written Question E-1056/99(1) of 20 April 1999, the Commission stated that it had asked the Austrian authorities for information on the type of insurance services, the items covered and existing insurance contracts.

- Has the Commission received this information?

- Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC(2) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and

- Council Directive 93/37/EEC(3) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts apply here?

- What is the outcome with regard to my Written Question of 20 April 1999?

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The insurance services addressed by the Honourable Member concern house insurance for buildings in the property of the municipality, that are concluded by the town of Vienna with insurance agencies for the property in possession of the town of Vienna.

As already announced in the Commission's answer to the question of the Honourable Member E-1056/99(1), the Austrian authorities were requested to provide further information concerning the nature of the contract, the threshold of the contract and the duration of the contract. On the basis of the information provided, the Commission found that the town of Vienna concluded 1850 house insurance contracts with a duration of 10 years. All but 100 contracts will expire in the year 2001. The insurances concluded by the town of Vienna can be qualified as services in the meaning of Annexe I A Category 6 (financial services) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. The obligation to publish if the threshold is met exists only for those contracts signed after the accession of Austria to the Community.

During a meeting between the Commission and the Austrian authorities on 3 December 1999, the municipality of Vienna declared that it will publish all the contracts as of 2001.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 149.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg

Parliament holds part-sessions in Strasbourg once a month. To that end, a huge number of officials and other staff are required to travel from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg. A large proportion of those travelling on mission in this way go by car.

- How many staff overall travel every month from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg?

- How many of the staff in question go by car?

- How high are the total costs (including the cost of overnight stays, meals, etc.) resulting from the removal to Strasbourg?

- Are there records concerning, or is it known, whether or how often Commission staff are involved in road accidents during such journeys?

- Is it known whether there have already been cases of death or serious injury resulting from road accidents during such journeys?

- Are there records of costs caused by accidents?

- Do the accident statistics for the days of travel to and from Strasbourg deviate from those for other days?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2000)

In 1998, which is the last full year for which complete figures are available, Commission officials from Brussels and Luxembourg undertook 2705 missions to Strasbourg in connection with duties related to the meetings of the European Parliament. These missions cost a total of 1,3 million in the year, and 124 of them took place by car. The Commission is not aware of any accidents during missions to Strasbourg by car. The Commission does not, therefore, have any details relating to accidents, injuries or deaths.

The Commission does not have detailed accident statistics for the relevant stretches of the Belgian, Luxembourg and French road systems which would enable calculations of relative accident rates to be made.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2859/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Public order and safety

Safety on the streets is recognised as an important benefit for the population and is a public service paid for by public taxation.

An adequate number of police and police stations must therefore be distributed all over the country.

Unfortunately, in Rome, in particular in district XX, the situation is different there are whole areas in a state of decline, characterised by social unrest, frequented by drug addicts, alcoholics and immigrants, where there are not enough policemen, or else areas where there is no police station, although the district has requested one. The events being organised to celebrate the Millennium will only aggravate the situation.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether there are any research findings, data or examples of good practice concerning the logistic and organisational methods of the forces of law and order;

2. whether there are similar problems in the others countries of the Union and how they are being solved;

3. what its general opinion of the whole issue is?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Commission shares the importance attached by the Honourable Member to ensuring safety and security on the streets.

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 co-operation. 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 within their national territories.

The issue of public order and safety has been regularly discussed in the context of the co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs. In this context, the Council has considered the threat to public order from international gatherings in a joint action of 26 May 1997 with regard to co-operation on law and order and security(1).

Within the framework of the OISIN programme(2) the Commission has been supporting a series of initiatives concerning police co-operation and the role of police forces in dealing with public order. For information on the projects supported in this context the Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the two reports on the implementation of the OISIN programme(3).

(1) OJ L 147, 5.6.1997.

(2) Joint Action OJ L 7, 10.1.1997.

(3) SEC(98) 1048 and SEC(1999) 1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2602/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Access of immigrants who are nationals of other EU Member States to government service posts in Luxembourg

On 19 March 1999, in its answer to Question E-4067/98(1) by Mr Sérgio Ribeiro, the Commission said that infringement proceedings against would be taken out Luxembourg under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

In the second half of the present year, DG V informed the CLAE (the Luxembourg liaison and action committee for non-nationals) that, despite the legislation adopted by the Luxembourg authorities, restrictions still existed as regards access to government service posts for immigrants from other Member States.

A competition is currently under way in Luxembourg city (the notice of competition appeared on 17 November 1999 and the deadline for applications is 24 December 1999) for a number of posts, for which Luxembourg nationality is specified as a condition for admission.

Can the Commission provide information on the situation regarding this?

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 128.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, following adoption of the act of 17 May 1999, it has dropped its infringement proceedings against Luxembourg.

This act provides that, in the research, teaching, health, inland transport, posts and telecommunications sectors and in the water, gas and electricity distribution services, the nationality requirement shall not apply to applicants who are Community nationals.

The ECJ judgment of 2 July 1996(1) referred only to these areas, to which the Commission had restricted its action in line with its global approach as set out in its Communication 88/C72/02(2).

As regards posts in central or local government (as referred to in the notice of competition in question), it is for the national authorities, on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice and under its supervision, to judge the applicability of Article 39(4) (formerly Article 48) of the EC Treaty on a case by case basis, depending on the duties and responsibilities attaching to each specific post(3).

The Commission is currently reviewing the situation in the Member States as regards access to government service outside the above sectors, in particular at the regulatory level.

Since the pertinent Community rules have primacy and are directly applicable in the legal systems of the Member States, citizens of the Union may assert their right to freedom of movement vis-à-vis the national authorities.

(1) Case C-473/93 Commission v Luxembourg [1996] ECR I-3207.

(2) OJ C 72, 18.3.1988.

(3) In this connection, see the above Court judgment, paragraph 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2600/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Participation by Commissioners in direct political action by the parties or electoral coalitions to which they belong

In the past, Commissioners such as Neil Kinnock, Jacques Delors and Emma Bonino have played an active role, while in office, in election campaigns and other political activities organised by the political parties to which they belonged. On 26 November 1999 Romano Prodi, president of the Commission, took part in the closing rally of Arturo Parisi's election campaign in Bologna, appearing on the dais and in effect declaring his support for the candidate, as reported by the Italian press agencies Ansa, And Kronos, Dire and Agi and on 27 November 1999 by various newspapers, starting with Resto del Carlino, which is published in Bologna and distributed throughout the Emilia and Romagna regions.

Could the Commission state whether it considers that Commissioners should refrain, while in office, from taking part in direct political action and electoral campaigns organised by their own parties or electoral coalitions? Does it also agree that, by refraining from participating in direct political action organised by the parties to which they belong, Members of the Commission would uphold their role as representatives of all the citizens of the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2459/99, E-2600/99 and E-2628/99 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

As the Commission has had frequent occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament(1), the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

(1) The Honourable Members are referred in particular to the answer by Mr Rey to Oral Question No 10/68 by Mr Habib-Deloncle, and Commission answers to Written Questions No 44/83 by Mr Gendebien OJ C 197, 25.7.1983, No 1682/85 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke OJ C 55, 10.3.1986, E-1404/97 by Mr Pasty OJ C 391, 23.12.1997 and E-2617/98 by Mr Wibe OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/99

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Reviews of the Animal Transport and the Pig Directives

It is my understanding that the European Commission is due to come forward with a review of the Animal Transport Directive as well as a long overdue review of the Pig Directive.

Could the Commission give me some indication of the stage it has reached in preparing substantial new proposals in these areas and when we can expect to see them.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Community legislation on the protection of animals during transport is drawn up on the basis of the results of scientific research and practical knowledge, both of which indicate that animal transport is feasible if specific animal protection conditions are met. Concerning future activities the Commission will work to consider a proposal on the basis of the specific opinion of the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare, setting up standards for mechanical ventilation in vehicles transporting livestock. This proposal is foreseen for the beginning of 2000.

A working group of the standing veterinary committee has recently been established to consider particular problems of the enforcement of Council Directive 95/29/EC on the protection of animals during transport(1) in respect of long-distance transport operations including the import of horses from third countries. During the next year the Commission may consider putting forward proposals to amend current Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of this working group.

Council Directive 91/630/EC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs(2) provides for a report from the Commission on the keeping of pigs in intensive rearing systems with particular regard to the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups. The Commission asked the scientific veterinary committee on animal health and animal welfare to make such a report. The scientific committee adopted the report on 30 September 1997. A copy of the report is available on the Internet at the web site of the Health and consumer protection Directorate general. The draft Commission proposal will include in particular provisions for the keeping of sows in groups and establishing separate areas for the performing of their normal behaviour pattern. The Commission proposal will be submitted to the Council and the Parliament for approval during this year. The Commission will propose to apply these updated provisions as soon as possible on newly built farms. The application of the new requirements in existing systems is a matter of discussion between experts taking into consideration in particular the social-economic implications.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2656/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 January 2000)

Subject: Compensation of EU citizens in the case of road accidents in Switzerland

Loopholes in Swiss legislation allow insurance companies to delay paying compensation in respect of third party liability. This source of legal uncertainty also affects EU citizens who are the victims of road accidents in Switzerland. They find themselves involved in legal proceedings without any prospect of obtaining fair compensation within a reasonable period of time.

The forthcoming ratification of the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU in the course of 2000 should be taken as an opportunity to resolve this legal problem as soon as possible. EU citizens in Switzerland are entitled to the same protection which Swiss nationals enjoy in the fifteen Member States of the EU. It is also worth noting that former Commission President Santer was informed of this problem in writing on 12 March 1998 and 27 July 1998 (letters from Dr Eric Suy, president of VTB-VAB and Belgium's Deputy Prime Minister, Elio de Rupo).

1. What action has the Council taken to remedy the loopholes in Swiss legislation, which result in a lack of legal certainty in the case of road accidents in Switzerland?

2. Will the Council take advantage of the ratification procedure for the transport agreement between Switzerland and the EU to demand from the Swiss Government a rapid, fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem? If not, why not?

3. What further steps will the Council take to ensure that the Swiss Government finds a fair and reasonable solution to this legal problem as soon as possible?

Reply

(16 March 2000)

In respect of the elements of the question that fall within the Council's competence, the Council would like to state the following:

1. The Council considers that the transport agreement with Switzerland constitutes a balanced set of reciprocal rights and obligations. It is in the interest of the Union that it can enter into force as soon as possible. The said agreement does not cover insurance matters.

2. The problem of long settlement procedures concerning road accidents in third countries has been recognised by the institutions of the EU and they have been prepared to tackle the problem with the proposal for the fourth motor insurance directive aimed at creating simplified administrative and legal procedures to speed up the payment of compensation by the liability insurer of the responsible party. After the Parliament approved amendments at its Plenary Session of 15 December 1999, this proposal is entering into a conciliation procedure in the near future.

3. In particular, as regards accidents between Community residents and residents of Switzerland and improving the compensation practices of Swiss companies relating to such accidents, this could only be achieved through negotiating a bilateral agreement concerning compensation for traffic accidents between the parties concerned.

4. Notwithstanding the absence of any mandatory compensation framework, it is always possible for insurance companies to conclude voluntary agreements regarding compensation practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Cleaning up the legacy of asbestos pollution in the European Union

The use of asbestos fibres has been banned since 1997 because of the risk to public health. This legacy of pollution therefore needs to be disposed of as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. A detailed inventory of asbestos and clear directives on disposal are of the utmost importance in this respect.

1. Does the Commission have an accurate and detailed inventory of the historical use of asbestos in the 15 EU Member States on the basis of sales figures of the asbestos producers? If not, will the Commission set about creating such an inventory so that disposal can be carried out rapidly and efficiently in the near future?

2. How much asbestos was produced and used in the European Union in 1997?

3. In the Commission's opinion, in how many factories was asbestos used?

4. In the Commission's opinion, in how many office buildings was asbestos used?

5. In the Commission's opinion, in how many homes was asbestos used?

6. In the Commission's opinion, in how many school buildings was asbestos used?

7. In the Commission's opinion, which buildings need to be cleaned up as a matter of priority?

8. What directives has the Commission drafted to achieve a rapid and efficient disposal of the legacy of asbestos pollution?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The marketing and use of five of the six different types of asbestos have been banned in the Community since 1991. On 26 July 1999, the Commission adopted Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos)(1) which extends this ban to all types of asbestos from 1 January 2005 at the latest. There are only very limited exceptions to this ban, and these will be reviewed by the Commission before 1 January 2003. This Directive should prevent any increase in the stock of asbestos in the Community.

The Commission does not have a detailed inventory of the use of asbestos in the Member States.

The Commission does not have the information requested in items 2-7 of the Honourable Member's questions.

Asbestos waste is subject to general waste legislation, namely Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(2) (as modified). Furthermore, asbestos waste constitutes hazardous waste under Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991(3) when it is contained in insulation materials present in construction and demolition waste. Council Directive 87/217/EEC of 19 March 1987 on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos(4) contains some basic rules as regards the removal and disposal of asbestos waste. Those provisions do not require a rapid and efficient disposal of such asbestos waste.

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(4) OJ L 85, 28.3.1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2814/99

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Ijzeren Rijn line trains through the middle of Dutch nature conservancy areas?

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Minister of Transport, Tineke Netelenbos, intends to allow goods trains to use the Ijzeren Rijn route? They would permanently be allowed to pass through the Weerterbergen and Budelerbergen habitat areas near Weert and Budel, and could also temporarily transit another habitat area, de Meinweg, near Roermond. Statements to this effect were quoted by the Eindhovens Dagblad and De Limburger on 11 December 1999.

Will the Commission call the Netherlands Government to account for its plan to violate European nature conservancy legislation, namely the Habitats Directive, in the Weerterbergen, Budelerbergen and Meinweg areas? If so, when and how?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any decision taken by the Dutch authorities to allow the re-opening of the existing route of the Iron Rhine railway line through the Weerterbergen, Budelerbergen and Meinweg area. The Commission has not seen the articles in the newspapers that are mentioned by the Honourable Members. According to the information that the Commission received so far i.e. statements of the Dutch prime minister the Dutch authorities will make an environmental impact assessment as well as an assessment in line with Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(1) before the decision about the re-opening of the Iron Rhine railway line will be taken. Furthermore, a trilateral working group has been created, with Belgian and German government representatives, to consider the possible redevelopment of the route. The Commission understands that this working group is now considering commissioning further technical studies of the route, which may be supported by Community funds under the Trans-European networks (TENs) framework. The project to redevelop the Iron-Rhine route has already been allocated 1 million in TENs funding.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Members to its answer to written question P-1875/99(2) by Mr de Roo, in which it said that it would ask the Dutch authorities for more information about the re-opening of the Iron Rhine railway line and its implications under the relevant directives, and that it would take no other steps for the present, since it had no indication so far that there had been an infringement of any directive. Subsequent contacts between the Commission and the Dutch authorities indicate no reason for the Commission to change the position that it has taken.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ C 170 E, 26.6.2000, p. 113.