ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4126/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE), Ulpu Iivari (PSE) and Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: EU sanctions against the US

The trade dispute between the European Union and the United States over the system of tax breaks for American exporters through the Foreign Sales Corporation is leading the European Commission to impose sanctions of some $4 billion in order to offset the damage done to European companies by the US tax breaks. Although the United States missed the first compliance deadline, the new law recently passed by Congress continues to offer tax breaks to American companies similar to the old system. Although the European Commission is still continuing to exert pressure on the United States, it intends to postpone the application of sanctions until at least the middle of next year.

1. Does the sum of USD 4 billion cover the real damage suffered by European companies because of the unfair US tax-break system?

2. Does the European Commission intend to postpone the application of sanctions till the middle of 2001?

3. What kind of and how many companies appear in the list of American undertakings subject to sanctions?

4. Is there any other kind of pressure that the European Commission intends to apply in order to protect its companies in this instance?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

1. The sum of USD 4 billion corresponds to the amount of the subsidy given by the United States to its exporting companies and is therefore considered an appropriate countermeasure that will induce the United States to bring its legislation into conformity with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

2. The agreement on procedures reached by the Community and the United States at the end of September 2000 provides that the Community will only impose countermeasures on the United States if the WTO finds that the new American legislation continues to breach WTO rules. The Community has always defended the position that sanctions can only be imposed after the WTO has ruled on the legality of the measure. It is for the WTO to be judge and jury, not for any one WTO party. The WTO process will take some time: it is unlikely that the question of sanctions will come up before the autumn of 2001.

3. It is difficult to identify what and how many American companies are affected by the Community sanction list as the list of products presented by the Community to the WTO is preliminary and very broad. Affected companies will be known once the final amount and the final list of products subject to sanctions have been established.

4. The Commission will continue to do everything to protect the rights and interests of Community companies, as it has done during the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) proceedings. The Commission considers that the full respect of the WTO dispute settlement procedures is the best way to ensure that Community companies are protected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4024/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Terms on which European Commission staff are entitled to receive the dependent child allowance

On what terms are payments made to the dependants of European Commission staff?

1. What rate of exchange is applied to payments made by the Commission to the dependant's bank account in the country of the dependant?

2. Do members of the European Commission's staff have to prove that the person is financially dependent on them?

3. How is the dependent child allowance calculated?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2001)

The Commission only makes a payment to (the bank account of) a person other than the official (in the name and on behalf of the official) if the member of staff does not have the custody of the dependant children and if the custody has been entrusted to that other person by law or by an order of court or of the competent administrative authority. In all other cases the Commission pays directly to the official's bank account.

Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff regulations defines a dependent child as follows: the legitimate, natural or adopted child of an official, or of his spouse, who is actually being maintained by the official. Furthermore, Article 2(4) of Annex VII defines the conditions for a person to be treated as dependant child as follows: Any person whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure may, exceptionally, be treated as if he were a dependent child by special reasoned decision of the appointing authority, based on supporting documents.

Payments are made in euros in all Member States having adopted the euro. In other Member States the exchange rate used for the implementation of the general budget of the Community on 1 July 2000 is used ( 1 = GBP 0,6257 for the United Kingdom).

Based on supporting documents, the household allowance is paid to a married official or other servant whose spouse is either not gainfully employed or whose salary does not exceed the basic salary of a Grade C3/3 official or to an official or other servant who has one or more dependent children. The Staff Regulations(1) set the household allowance at 5 % of the basic salary.

Under Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations the dependent child allowance is 223,99 per child per month. Based on supporting documents, the allowance is granted automatically for children under 18 years of age and on application, with supporting evidence, for children between 18 and 26 who are receiving educational or vocational training.

(1) Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, general implementing provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Western Sahara

The Settlement Plan adopted in June 1990 by the UN Security Council with a view to holding a referendum for the self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara, the proclamation of a cease-fire by the parties involved, impartial and objective measures to identify those entitled to vote and the organisation of structures to enable the Sahrawi people to be consulted in future have not yet been implemented.

There appears to be little prospect of an early referendum in view of the points of disagreement that emerged at the exploratory meeting held in London on 14 May 2000, at which the interested parties outlined their respective positions. Would the Council state, therefore, whether any progress has been made towards resolving the situation? Does the Council consider that the EU should encourage the efforts of the international community by launching a Europe Maghreb dialogue with a view to hastening the achievement of a political and lawful solution to the conflict?

With reference to the fate of the prisoners who were snatched from their families over 25 years ago and have been used as means of exerting pressure or as bargaining counters, could the Council explain what role the EU should play in order to bring to an end this ongoing and premeditated abuse of human rights?

Could the Council shed light on the misuse of funds provided up to now by the EU to assist the communities involved?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

1. The Council fully supports and encourages the UN's efforts to resolve the conflict in the Western Sahara, while not claiming to take the UN's place in doing so. It is convinced that the process initiated in this context, particularly the direct talks between the Parties, is the best or even, the only, means of succeeding, and that the current deadlock can only be resolved by means of a frank and open dialogue on all the aspects of the conflict between the Parties involved.

2. The Council's ambition is to create a climate of trust between the Parties, which is necessary for a lasting settlement in the context of stabilisation of the region. Whatever the solution, it should be based on full observance of democratic principles and human rights, and encompass the worrying issue of Moroccan refugees and prisoners, particularly those in urgent need of medical care. In this connection, the Council fully supports the efforts made in this respect by the International Committee of the Red Cross and encourages all the Parties concerned to make every endeavour to find a solution rapidly to this humanitarian problem. As for the return of refugees in accordance with the principles laid down by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, this is a decisive element of the UN settlement plan.

Regarding the European Union's humanitarian commitment, the Union is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to the Saharan refugees via the ECHO programme. Aid amounting to about 20 million managed by the Humanitarian Aid Office has been earmarked for the period 1999 to 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3878/00

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Resources for sufferers of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome

Can the Commission guarantee that there will in future be sufficient resources for sufferers of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Syndrome, such as care and rehabilitation? Can the Commission also guarantee that sufficient funds have been set aside for preventive measures and research?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2001)

Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty specifically requires that mldr Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care mldr.

For this reason, the resources for care and rehabilitation are largely under the responsibilities of the Member States.

However, funds for intensifying research on the outstanding questions related to animal and human transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE's) were provided through a European action plan, which was proposed by the Commission in November 1996. This action plan was rapidly adopted by Council and Parliament with a supplementary budget of 35 million bringing the total amount of Community funding up to 50,7 million. Since then, 54 projects involving 150 research laboratories, throughout Europe, have been funded by the Commission under the research Framework Programme 4 (Biomed, Biotech and FAIR programmes).

Research efforts are being pursued in the Fifth framework programme where all aspects foreseen in the action plan, such as: clinical and epidemiological research on human spongiform encephalopathies (SE), the infective agent and its transmission mechanism, diagnosis of (SE), evaluation of the risk from (SE),

treatment and prevention of (SE), and co-ordination of research activities between Member States, are included in the Quality of Life programme. Three new projects have been selected for funding to pursue the continuous surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) cases, harmonise diagnostic methods and investigate manufacturing processes to reduce risks of contamination. Forthcoming calls for proposals in the Quality of Life programme this year and in 2001 will offer a further opportunity to strengthen this effort and focus on critical areas where research is needed.

In addition, as far as Community actions in the area of public health are concerned, surveillance of vCJD is foreseen under the Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(1).

Furthermore, collaborative networks of persons directly or indirectly affected by vCJD would have the possibility of submitting project proposals in reply to call for proposals published in the framework of the Community action programme on rare diseases (1999-2003) or of the Community action programme for the prevention of AIDS and other communicable diseases (1996-2000; prolongation 2001-2002 proposed by the Commission).

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3282/00

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

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006

In the current programming period Objective 1 regions are those whose per capita GDP measured in standard purchasing power and calculated on the basis of Community data for the three most recent years available on 26 March 1999 is less than 75 % of the average in the 15 Member States which currently make up the EU.

In addition to this consideration, it is undoubtedly the case now that the average in the applicant countries lies far below both this 75 % figure and average GDP in the existing Objective 1 regions, and this will certainly still be the case when the first applicant countries accede to the EU.

In view of these facts, will the Council say what criteria will be employed in selecting the future Objective 1 regions in the next programming period beginning on 1 January 2007, after the accession of some of the applicant countries?

What guidelines will govern the approach in respect of structural aid to current Objective 1 regions in the EU which exceed the 75 % average when the new programming period commences on 1 January 2007 as a result of the accession of applicant countries? Is a transition or phasing-out period similar in nature to that of the current programming period being considered as an option? Or conversely, as would appear logical, will a new transition system be set up for those Objective 1 regions whose GDP exceeds 75 % of average GDP in the Member States as a whole, including the new Member States, but remains below that 75 % mark in respect of the Fifteen?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council has not yet received a proposal from the Commission defining the criteria for selecting future Objective 1 regions for the next programming period, from 1 January 2007. Consequently the Council cannot give a more precise reply to the Honourable Member's questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3990/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Exemption from passport requirement for Russian citizens in the Kaliningrad enclave

The Russian Government has reportedly made inquiries within the EU concerning the possible incorporation of part of its territory into the Schengen area. At present, the inhabitants of the small Kaliningrad enclave are not required to carry passports to enter Poland or Latvia. In Russia's view, when those countries become members of the EU, the exemption from the obligation to carry a passport should be replaced by membership of the Schengen area.

What is the Commission's view of this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

The Commission has not been approached formally by the Russian authorities on the question of whether Schengen could be extended to include Kaliningrad. Nevertheless some concern has been expressed by the Russian authorities as to the implications of the enlargement of the Union on movement across the borders of Kaliningrad.

On 17 January 2001 the Commission adopted a Communication on The EU and the region of Kaliningrad and transmitted this Communication(1) to the Council and the Parliament. The Communication aims to offer ideas and options for a Union debate with Russia, Lithuania and Poland on future co-operation with Kaliningrad.

(1) COM(2001) 26 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4061/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 January 2001)

Subject: Falun Gong

Falun Dafa, or Falun Gong, is a spiritual practice based on mediation similar to Taichi or Yoga which improves people's physical and mental health. Falun Dafa practitioners in China have been widely persecuted. Large numbers of Falun Dafa practitioners were arrested on 1 October 2000 on Tiananmen Square as they were protesting peacefully, on China's National Day, against the repression of their movement. Falun Dafa followers have been tortured, imprisoned and killed for merely practising this very peaceful pastime. One 42-year-old woman was beaten to death while in police custody in Shangdong Province in October 1999. She is one of 48 people who have died from beatings and torture because they practice Falun Dafa. Falun Dafa has thousands of followers all over the world.

1. As a supporter of China's entry into the World Trade Organisation, albeit subject to the human rights clause, does not the Council think that this widespread persecution constitutes a serious obstacle to any further normalisation of relations with the People's Republic of China?

2. Will the Council specify what measures it has taken, or intends to take, to put an end to this blatant breach of international human rights conventions?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

1. The Council has on several occasions expressed its ongoing concern at the harsh measures taken against the leaders and followers of Falun Gong, notably excessive prison sentences, detentions without trial and physical abuse.

2. The conclusions of the January General Affairs Council on the EU-China Human Rights dialogue identified specific areas in which the European Union considers that the dialogue process should secure progress. These areas include, inter alia, untrammelled exercise of freedom of religion and belief, both public and private and respect for the fundamental rights of all prisoners, including those arrested for membership of the political opposition, unofficial religious movements or other movements, such as the Falun Gong. The Council will continue to follow closely developments in these areas and call upon the Chinese authorities to take measures in compliance with international human rights norms and standards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4073/00

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2001)

Subject: The mysterious lawyer who worked for Mrs Cresson

On 25 May 2000 the German magazine Der Stern printed a report headed The mysterious lawyer, referring to a Mr Timm Riedinger. Riedinger is supposed to have been in the service of former Commissioner for Research Edith Cresson and to have processed Commission projects on her behalf. According to the report, the Commission could not at the time find any trace of Mr Riedlinger in its records.

What steps has the Commission taken in the meantime to establish whether Mr Riedinger was in fact entrusted by Mrs Cresson with the processing of Commission projects?

Will the Commission also state:

(a) which projects were involved?

(b) how and by whom Mr Riedinger was paid for his services?

(c) whether his activities on behalf of the Commission were compatible with Article 213 of the EC Treaty and in particular the provision requiring the Members of the Commission to be completely independent in the performance of their duties?

(d) whether it intends to start proceedings against Mrs Cresson before the Court of Justice for breach of her obligations?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

(a) and (b). The Commission has carried out checks to establish the extent of any working relationships between Mr Riedinger and the departments which between 1995 and 1999 were under Mrs Cresson's authority.

So far these checks have shown that:

1. A contract concerned with a feasibility pilot study on the creation of a European Institute of Comparative Law was concluded between the Directorate-General for Research and Mr Riedinger at the beginning of 1996. An amount of 11 000 was committed in July 1995 but the file shows that this study was not carried out and that no payment was made.

2. A contract concerned with a feasibility study on the networking of the forward study centres of Central Europe and the Community was prepared by the Joint Research Centre. However, according to the information available to the Commission at this stage, this contract was never signed and, consequently, the amount of 84 200 committed on 1 June 1995 was not paid. The commitment was cancelled in 1999.

3. A contract for 10 500 was concluded in 1996 between the former DG XXII and a lawyers' office to cover travelling and subsistence expenses arising from accompanying Mrs Cresson to South Africa and to pay for the drafting of a report by Mr Riedinger on the legal framework for sending young European doctors to South Africa as part of European voluntary service. The files show that this contract was not honoured and gave rise to no payment.

4. An administrative inquiry to elucidate the circumstances in which these contracts were concluded is in hand and the OLAF has been informed.

(c) and (d). Until the conclusions of this inquiry are available, the Commission considers that the questions under (c) and (d) are premature.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Extension of the Athens Underground

The Greek Government has decided to extend the existing line of the Athens Underground from the present terminal Ethniki Amini to Stavros Aghias Paraskevis in order to improve links with the new airport in Athens. According to reliable sources the Government has decided, in order to save money and speed up the project, to cancel 4 of the 5 stations originally planned on the new section of the extension which would have served the districts Cholarghos, Aghia Paraskevi, etc.

In order to finance this extension it is planned to use the Community funds already approved for the Underground extension to Aigaleo, a typical working-class area of Athens. A link with a run-down area of the City is thus being sacrificed in an attempt to improve links with the airport, a line which is of very questionable value, given that the scheduled station at Stavros is located many kilometres from the airport. Is the Commission aware of these significant changes and if so what view does it take of these developments?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Community support framework (CSF) for Greece for the 2000-2006 programming period contains finance from the European Regional Development Fund for extensions of the new lines 2 and 3 of the Athens underground railway and construction of a rail link from the centre of Athens to the new Spata airport.

The draft operational programme (OP) Main roads, ports, urban development 2000-06 submitted to the Commission by the Greek authorities includes:

- for line 2: the Sepolia-Thivon extension of 2,8 km comprising three stations and the Dafni-Ilioupolis extension of 1,1 km comprising one station;

- for line 3: the National Defence-Stavros extension of 5,4 km comprising five stations and the Monastiraki-Egaleo extension of 4,7 km comprising four stations.

Several studies carried out during the period of preparation of this OP showed that these extensions are the ones which will best serve a major part of the population of the city of Athens, especially in the most densely populated districts.

This OP should be approved by the Commission at the beginning of 2001 and the last date for payments regarding the work part-financed is the end of 2008. The Greek Ministry of Public Works may give priority to construction of the tunnel for the National Defence-Stavros extension, with a reduced number of stations, in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games. The complete extension with all the stations envisaged will, however, have to be completed by the end of 2008.

Moreover, in the future the Greek authorities may undertake the construction of other lines, extensions or stations on the Athens underground railway, not included in the CSF for 2000-2006.