ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Relations between the European Union and Iran

The election results in the recent parliamentary elections in Iran have demonstrated the strong desire of the Iranian electorate that Iran should emerge from the international isolation in which it has been for years. However, the European Union's response to the changes taking place in Iran has so far been limited.

Will the Council say whether it intends to take advantage of current favourable circumstances to improve relations with Iran, thus supporting the opening which Iranian society is seeking with the West?

Reply

(26 June 2000)

The EU is encouraged by developments in Iran, including the results of the first round of the Parliamentary elections in February.

Following these elections, the European Union has recalled its long-standing interest in consolidating and expanding the Comprehensive Dialogue it leads with Iran and reiterated its willingness to promote the establishment of closer ties with the Iranian Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Integration of foreigners in Switzerland

In Switzerland there exists an extra-parliamentary committee known as the Federal Committee on Aliens, the main task of which is to deal with matters relating to the integration of foreigners and which comprises 28 members, seven of whom are foreigners representing their respective communities (including representatives of communities originating in EU Member States), the others being representatives of government, business and industry.

The Swiss Federal Council recently decided to incorporate the Federal Committee on Aliens into the Federal Aliens Department, a body which comes entirely under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice and the Police and which is responsible for policing foreigners, allocating work-permit quotas for foreigners and issuing visas. The decision was strongly opposed by the chairman and members of the Federal Committee on Aliens (who have since submitted their resignation) and by the 650+ foreigners' associations in Switzerland, who are proposing that the Committee should remain under the jurisdiction of the Interior Ministry or an independent delegate.

Does this new guardianship of the Federal Committee on Aliens not run counter to the spirit of the Agreement on the free movement of persons between, on the one hand, the European Community and its Member States and, on the other, the Swiss Confederation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Agreement on the free movement of persons with Switzerland, signed on 21 June 1999, has not yet come into force. It needs first to have Parliament's assent and to be ratified by the Contracting Parties.

The Agreement does not stipulate anything about the internal administrative organisation of the Contracting Parties.

For its part the Commission does not have any reason to believe the new internal administrative organisation in Switzerland to be contrary to the spirit of the Agreement.

Nevertheless, the Commission will closely follow the implementation of the Agreement, once it has come into force, and raise any difficulties with the Swiss authorities in the joint committee which is to be established under the agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0565/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Confidential documents

Will the Commission confirm that any of its employees found to have given early sight of a reasoned opinion or other quasi-legal document to an interested party prior to publication would be instantly dismissed? Has this happened in the past?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

According to Article 17 of the Staff Regulation and the Commission's decision on public access to Commission documents, officials are bound by an obligation of discretion in relation to information which comes to their attention whilst carrying out their duties. However, this obligation of discretion does not forbid access being given to internal documents on the express condition that access be granted in accordance with the procedures and under the rules in the Commission Decision(1). Access will be denied if the document is covered by one of the exceptions expressly provided in the Code of Conduct.

Failure to respect the obligations set down in the Staff Regulations may give rise to disciplinary proceedings. Decisions about whether there has been an infringement and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate are made in those proceedings. The removal from post of an official or other servant is the most severe sanction foreseen in Article 86 of the Staff Regulations. It is therefore only applied in cases where it is proportionate to the professional fault in question.

In the last five years no official or other servant has been removed from office for giving access to a confidential document as described above to an affected party prior to publication.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994. Commission Decision (94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom) of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1028/00

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Breach of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam

The Austrian coalition Government has been the target of intense criticism since taking office last February. In a clear bid to underline EU public opinion, thousands of Europeans marched through the streets of Vienna, encouraged by global backing from all the EU institutions.

On 11 March 2000 at the Spanish-French border that separates the Basque people, Paris sent police forces to hinder the passage of Basque citizens going to a popular march in the northern town of Bayonne. The goal of this gathering was to denounce the dispersal of Basque political prisoners all over France and Spain and the violation of their rights and those of their relatives. The French Government, with full agreement from Madrid, applied Article 2 of the Schengen Convention that allows borders to be closed on an exceptional basis. Paradoxically, we note that, while the Vienna march was encouraged, that of Bayonne was forbidden.

1. Can the EU Member States inform the European citizens as to which human rights they are allowed to defend?

2. Can the Schengen provisions, as applied by the French Government totally contradict fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the very principle of free movement of persons inside the EU?

3. Can the Basques live in an EU without their internal iron curtain?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention enables Member States, provided they comply with certain procedures laid down by the Schengen acquis, to re-introduce checks on persons at internal borders for a limited period where public policy or national security so require. Under current Community law on the free movement of citizens of the Union, such checks may be imposed on grounds of public policy or public security.(1)

The exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly may, under Article 10(2) and Article 11(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, be subject to certain restrictions provided for by law and taking the form of measures necessary on grounds of national security or public policy in a democratic society.

(1) See Article 39(3), Article 46(1) and Article 55 of the EC Treaty, together with Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ 56, 4.4.1964).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/00

by Ole Krarup (EDD) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Cost of changeover to euro

In the general debate concerning the abolition of national currencies and the introduction of the common currency, some Member States have focused on the cost of the changeover. According to the English firm of chartered accountants, Chantrey Vellacott DFK, it will cost the UK 4,2 % of one year's national product to convert pounds to euro.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say whether it has likewise made analyses of the costs involved for each Member State in converting to the euro and, if so, will it disclose that information?

Is the Commission informed of any comparable studies carried out by independent analysts which shed light on the possible costs of conversion? If so, will the Commission likewise disclose such information?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

The Commission has not produced any studies on the costs for individual Member States for the transition to the euro, neither does the Commission plan to produce a study on the subject. The Commission does not believe that studies focusing on the costs for the transition to the euro could be complete or relevant. Although it is true that the change over to the euro results in costs, it should be noted that the transition to euro also has a revenue side. Reports focusing on costs only would therefore not be able to provide a complete picture of the question.

As for the question of independent studies, there are a number of studies made by banks, accounting firms and law firms. However, the Commission cannot and should not recommend one or other of these studies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0271/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Functioning of the internal employment market between the EU and Switzerland

A European citizen, Kosta Parlavanzas, has submitted a substantial set of documents in which it is stated that Switzerland pursues a deliberate, systematic policy of restricting employment opportunities for foreign workers to a period of between 20 and 30 years, after which they are sent back to their country of origin with no transfer of pension rights.

Is the Commission in possession of any research into the legal status of European immigrants in Switzerland?

Does the Commission consider it possible or desirable for relations between the EU and Switzerland to continue and to be deepened (particularly in the context of the European Economic Area) if the latter country fails to implement the basic employment rules of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

The Commission agrees that the current legal situation of Community nationals working in Switzerland is not satisfactory. It has therefore negotiated a wide-ranging agreement on the free movement of people to align the Swiss provisions with the acquis communautaire in this area, including that on social security and pension rights.

The Agreement was signed on 21 June 1999 and will come into force after Parliament's assent and after ratification by the Contracting Parties.

Once the Agreement has come into force, the Commission will closely monitor its implementation by Switzerland and raise any difficulties in the joint committee which is to be established under the Agreement.

The Agreement on free movement of people is linked to six other sector agreements (on air and land traffic, research, agriculture, public procurement and mutual recognition of conformity assessment), which can only enter into force together. Switzerland will therefore not obtain advantages in other areas without granting the agreed improvements for Community citizens in Switzerland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0074/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2000)

Subject: Risks linked to BSE

When does the Commission intend to propose the complete removal of infectious high-risk beef tissues and organs throughout the Member States of the European Union, as called for by the chairman of the European Scientific Committee?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Commission has already presented a proposal(1) in January 1999 to the Council and the Parliament for a regulation laying down the rules for the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). This proposal, which includes comprehensive provisions on the removal of specified risk materials (SRMs), is currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council. The Commission urges both institutions to accelerate their consideration of this very important proposal which is essential to the creation of a comprehensive framework to protect the public from the dangers associated with TSEs.

In addition, the Commission has already proposed, on a number of occasions, safeguard measures providing for the removal of specified risk materials (SRMs) throughout the Community. The most recent effort, in December 1999, to introduce a safeguard measure failed to secure the necessary support of the Member States. Discussions are continuing with the Member States with a view to presenting a further proposal before end June 2000 which is capable of securing this support. The Commission has stressed repeatedly the need for such a safeguard measure pending the adoption of the proposed regulation outlined in the proceeding paragraph.

Finally, the Commission repeats the necessity for Member States to introduce and maintain national measures on the removal of SRMs until Community-wide measures are in place.

(1) Draft Commission Decision regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC, document SEC(1999) 1944.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Indicative allocation of ERDF resources earmarked for investment in Galicia as an Objective I region during the 200-2006 period

Replying to one of my questions (E-1433/99)(1) on 21 December 1999, Commissioner Barnier said, on the subject of the geographical distribution of ERDF financial resources during the 2000-2006 period, that the Commission would indicate to Member States, as a guide, the amount that should be made available to each eligible region if the method used by the Commission to allocate Objective 1 resources to each of the Member States were applied at national level.

Will the Commission state how much would be allocated on that basis to Galicia, including the amounts to be administered by Central Government and the autonomous community itself?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 2.

Reply given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

As the Honourable Member was informed in the reply to his Written Question E-1433/99(1), the Commission has in fact forwarded to the Member States covered by Structural Funds Objective 1 a proposal for an indicative distribution of the appropriations allocated to that Objective for the 2000-2006 programming period.

The Commission will send the distribution proposal as forwarded to the Spanish authorities directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's General Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0783/00

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Checks on the use of vegetable fats

How will the Commission monitor the use of vegetable fats in the manufacture of chocolate if the European Parliament and Council Directive relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption (COM(97) 682)(1) is adopted?

(1) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

First of all, the Commission would like to point out that monitoring the content of foodstuffs is a responsibility of the Member States. Where the specific technical requirements

of Community legislation are concerned (notably for verification of maximum constituent levels and presence of other elements) Member States use analytical methods as part of their controls. Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs(1) confirms such analytical work as incumbent on the national authorities.

Their work of checking that products meet the specified requirements is of wide scope (technical installations, stock records, analyses etc.). A particular analysis method cannot be considered as in itself the sole means of irrefutably concluding that a product does or does not meet the legally binding requirements.

Nonetheless, given the political sensitivities over chocolate and the desirability of a single European analysis method, the Commission asked the Joint Research Centre (Ispra) to find one. Having assessed all the possible methods with the Member States' laboratories, the JRC has formulated a method applicable to ordinary chocolate that it considers very satisfactory. This is based on determination of the triglyceride profile, which turned out to be the most suitable (EUR Report 18992 EN(2)). There are of course for all analysis methods criteria of reproducibility and repeatability but these do not call the method into question in any fundamental way. To facilitate analysis, the JRC is preparing reference material that can be used as an internal standard for the analysis and will permit calibration of the analytical technique (high-temperature gas chromatography).

Moreover, as stated in the communication to Parliament on 18 November 1999(3) on the Council common position on chocolate products, the Commission will include, in the next coordinated Community foodstuff control programme, arrangements for checking conformity for these fats with the requirements of the new Directive due to be adopted shortly by the Council following Parliament's recent second-reading opinion. Such arrangements may cover both analysis methods and the other types of check provided for in Directive 89/397/EEC.

(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989.

(2) Report (including description of method) available from JRC (E. Anklam, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, I-21020 Ispra).

(3) SEC(1999) 1912 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1131/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission believes that the Authority should have legislative status in order to perform its tasks independently, to maximise its impact on protection of the health of consumers and to be independent of the EU Institutions.

Does the intended independent position give the Authority the power to ask the Commission for an interpretation of policy decisions reached in the light of opinions from the Authority? If not, why does the Commission not think it necessary for the Authority to be able to inquire into the follow-up to, or implementation of, its opinions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Financial support for the Italian oil industry

In her answer to Question E-0218/00(1), Mrs de Palacio states that, since 1975, the Commission has provided aid to Italy totalling 119,36 million.

Can the Commission give a breakdown of this figure by year and by undertaking subsidised in Italy?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1040/00, E-1041/00 and E-1042/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Since 1975, the Community has run programmes to give financial support to innovative technology for exploration, production and transport of hydrocarbons. In reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0218/00(1), the Commission provided a breakdown of this support by year and by Member State. As regards the request for a detailed breakdown by company, the Commission can provide data for the period 1990-1998. This information is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be noted, however, that the attribution of the support to certain Member States could be somewhat misleading, as contracts in addition to the main contractor often involve several participants from different Member States.

With regard to the data requested for the period 1975-1990, it should be noted that a reply to the Honourable Member's questions would, due to lack of electronic support for data at that time, require a lengthy and difficult research which the Commission is not in a position to undertake.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1560/00

by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports

Given the entirely unsatisfactory answer to my question concerning the Member States' current duties to report to the European Union (Written Question P-0222/00(1)), could the Commission make another attempt at providing an answer, particularly in view of the substantial reporting requirements imposed by the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council?

Otherwise the Commission might create the impression that it has lost track of the reporting requirements imposed on the Member States over the years.

Could the Commission break down the various reporting requirements, indicating the relevant legal provisions, policy fields and legal bases and the frequency with which reports should be submitted?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 201.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

As the Commission has already indicated in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-0222/00(1), the compiling of a list of Member States' reporting obligations, specifying the legal provision, policy field, legal basis and required frequency, would necessitate lengthy and costly research which the Commission does not intend to carry out at the moment, as it has other priorities. Research of this type should in fact be carried out within all the Directorates-General or departments which are responsible for Community legislation or programmes and monitor the Member States' reporting obligations in their respective fields. Thus there is no question of the Commission having lost track of these obligations.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 201.