ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1614/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Vetting of civil servants handling secret documents

Civil servants in the Union and the Member States who handle secret documents as part of EU cooperation are now to be subject to certain checks. Only persons who have been through a personal vetting procedure which shows them to be unswervingly loyal are to be allowed to handle secret documents. This also applies to civil servants in the Member States. All breaches of secrecy are to be reported to the security agency to be set up in each Member State and then reported to Brussels. Any leaks of classified information are to be investigated and traced on the orders of the Secretary-General of the Council, the former Head of Nato, Javier Solana.

How are these rules to be implemented in Sweden where the principle of public access to official documents and the freedom to pass on information are enshrined in the constitution? Is Sweden exempt from the above rules in the European Union?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Honourable Member of Parliament refers apparently to Council Decision No 2001/264 concerning the adoption of the Council security regulations. The role of Member States in the implementation is spelled out in Article 2, paragraph 2 of this Decision:

Member States shall take appropriate measures, in accordance with national arrangements, to ensure that, when EU classified information is handled, the regulations referred to in Article 1 are respected, within their services and premises by:

(a) members of Member States' permanent representations to the European Union as well as by members of national delegations attending meetings of the Council or of its bodies, or participating in other Council activities,

(b) other members of the Member States' national administrations handling classified information, whether they serve in the territory of Member States or abroad, and

(c) Member States' external contractors and seconded personnel, handling classified information

No Member State is exempt from the before mentioned Council Decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2506/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: Identity papers

According to the Schengen Agreement, it is possible to cross the borders between Member States even without a valid passport or equivalent document. However, a person travelling in one of these countries can sometimes be asked to show their identity papers. There is no uniform legislation about such documents, which means that those which are valid in some countries (such as driving licences, gun licences or membership cards for professional organisations) are not recognised as valid in other countries. This situation sometimes leads to mistakes, misunderstandings or even sanctions.

In some cases it is difficult or even impossible to obtain a document generally recognised as valid, such as an identity card. The Belgian authorities, for example, do not issue foreign residents with identity cards even if they are citizens of the Union.

Can the Commission supply a list of the documents considered as valid identity papers in the various Member States and does it perhaps consider it appropriate to promote uniform legislation on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

The abolition of border controls on individuals does not release them from the obligation to hold, carry and present the documents required by the national laws of each Member State.

Citizens of the European Union are required by Community law to be in possession of a valid identity card or passport(1).

(1) Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Laser pointer pens

I understand that, in the United States, lasers are classified in a slightly different way from in the EU. The American national standard for lasers has six classes, and the method of allocation is different from the European standard. This has caused some problems with labelling. In some cases, American class 2 lasers would be classified as class IIIA using the European standard. Laser pointers usually contain class II lasers which give a suitable range and power for their intended purpose. Importing into the EU pointers classified and labelled in accordance with the American standard means that they may be classified incorrectly and consequently mislabelled. What measures have been taken, or are to be taken, to ensure that pens imported into the EU are labelled in accordance with the EU standard?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has examined in detail the issue of the safety of laser pointers with the assistance of the Emergencies Committee under Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety(1). It was agreed with the competent market surveillance authorities of the Member States that the placing on the market of laser pens intended for or likely to be used by non-professionals, belonging to class 3 and higher in accordance with European standard EN 60825, will not be allowed.

A comparative examination of the American standard shows that the European and the American classification structures do not present fundamental divergences in respect to laser pointers of classes 1 and 2. These categories are safe under reasonably foreseeable conditions, in particular concerning the functioning of the blink reflex. Member States have not reported specific problems on this issue.

Problems with labelling may appear if laser pointers are misclassified, due to an incorrect application of the standards. However, the Member States are aware of these problems and, according to their reports, take the appropriate measures when needed.

Recently, the International electrotechnical commission (IEC) has approved an amendment to standard IEC 60825 that introduces a new classification structure. Cenelec, the European electrotechnical standardisation body, has decided to incorporate this amendment into the relevant European standard. The American authorities have stated their intention to harmonise, to the extent possible, the requirements applicable in the United States to laser pens with those of the new international standard. Therefore, the Commission expects further progress in the near future towards further international harmonisation in this area.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1753/01

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Depleted uranium

Depleted uranium is the by-product of a basic practice in the nuclear industry, uranium enrichment. Consequently, it must be treated as a radioactive substance (or radioactive waste) pursuant to Directive 96/29/Euratom(1), and in particular Article 5 thereof.

Can the Commission say what practices involving the use of depleted uranium were the subject of reporting or authorisation on EU territory before the above-mentioned directive was adopted, in accordance with the previous Directive 80/836/Euratom?

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The new Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation(1) does indeed provide that depleted uranium falls within the scope of practices (Article 2 (1)) and therefore comes under the rules for reporting (Article 3 (1)) or authorisation of practices (Article 4 (1)) or disposal, recycling or reuse of uranium or materials containing depleted uranium resulting from such practices (Article 5 (1)).

In Council Directive 80/836/Euratom of 15 July 1980(2), practices were only subject to authorisation in cases decided upon by each Member State in the light of possible dangers and other relevant considerations (Article 3).

Though Member States are required to institute the reporting and authorisation procedures required under Directive 96/29/Euratom (and previously Directive 80/836/Euratom), they are under no obligation to send the Commission a list of activities which have been subjected to these procedures, except in cases falling within the scope of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom of 6 December 1999 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty(3) provides that this is the case for the operation of nuclear reactors, the reprocessing or storage of irradiated nuclear fuel and U-235 enrichment of uranium, but in these cases depleted uranium occurs only as a residue of enrichment or fission of U-235. A specific authorisation for depleted uranium in the framework of Article 37 would therefore be required only in cases where it was processed or stored as radioactive waste in another installation. Recycling or reuse of depleted uranium outside the fuel cycle does not fall within the scope of Article 37.

The Commission therefore has no information on Member States' application of the basic standards for depleted uranium either before or after the date of implementation of Directive 96/29/Euratom (13 May 2000).

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.

(3) OJ L 324, 16.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Council

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Presence of Alpine troops in the military bodies of the European Union

The Italian Alpine troops have always been an example of a highly specialised force which, over the years, has also shown great adaptability in its deployment in peace operations outside Europe and has been remarkably efficient in dealing with the aftermath of major natural disasters in the field of civil protection.

Will the Council therefore say:

- whether any technical assessments have been carried out, at European level, on the degree of efficiency of the Italian Alpine troops and on their possible incorporation into EU military bodies, and

- whether these specialised troops could not also be used to provide mountain training, particularly in the Alps, to other EU specialised military bodies?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

1. It is not for the European Union to make technical evaluations of the effectiveness of Italian Alpine or any other particular troops. It is for Member States to decide what troops to commit to the Helsinki Headline Goal and to assure their level of effectiveness. The actual capabilities of individual units become a factor at the force generation stage.

2. It is up to the Italian authorities whether to offer mountain training to other countries' troops and up to other countries whether to seek or accept it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1685/01

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Adverse effect on competition of system of awarding ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) licences

1. What is the Commission's opinion of the ECMT scheme in the context of EU enlargement?

2. How does the Commission view the fact that large batches of ECMT licences are awarded to only a relatively small number of East European transport undertakings?

3. How does the Commission view the development of the ECMT licence system, which was originally introduced on the basis of a resolution of the Council of Ministers to assist liberalisation, into a systematically entrenched branch of the economy that has the effect of distorting competition?

4. If current practice in relation to the award of ECMT licences is continued, does the Commission consider that new transport undertakings will have fair opportunities for access to the market?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

1. The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) is not subject to Community law and the award of ECMT licences is decided by the ECMT member states and not by Community bodies. Since those States which are currently candidates for accession are going to have free access to the market, their road hauliers will no longer need ECMT licences for operating in the enlarged Community market and will therefore use their ECMT licences only for transport between ECMT countries that are not members of the Community.

2. There are no large batches of ECMT licences, and with so few of them available they only allow a limited number of operators, in western, central or eastern Europe, to carry out international transport operations between ECMT countries for one year.

3. It is true that transport operations carried out under ECMT licences are not conducted in the same competition conditions. These conditions are not the same in any of the ECMT's 40 member countries. On the contrary, the misuse of ECMT licences (e.g. for cabotage purposes) is distorting competition. Effective control of the use of ECMT licences is in the hands of the competent authorities of the ECMT countries.

4. Given that the number of ECMT licences being granted is increasing slowly but surely and that the award of these licences to transport undertakings is decided annually by the competent authorities of the ECMT countries, it is very likely that new transport firms will have access to ECMT licences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1979/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Pensions of Spaniards formerly employed in Gibraltar

The retirement pensions of some 9 000 Spaniards who used to work in Gibraltar have not been increased since 1990, even though the consumer price index has risen constantly from one year to the next and the pensioners themselves have been protesting against their treatment.

Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71(1) and 574/72(2) coordinate the Member States' different statutory social security systems. The basic rules deriving from Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 where retirement pensions are concerned stipulate, firstly, that benefits must be paid under each body of law to which a worker has been subject; secondly, that they must be calculated in proportion to the periods completed under the legislation of each country concerned; and, finally, that old age benefit or benefits may be transferred to any part of the EU.

Can the Commission obtain information on this matter from the appropriate authorities?

Can it check whether Community social security legislation is being infringed?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1962/01, E-1979/01 and E-2033/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Honourable Member wishes to know the Commission's position regarding the problems encountered by numerous pensioners who formerly worked in Gibraltar, who complain that their pensions have not been increased since 1990 or subject to any periodic adjustment.

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it is in the process of examining the problem in question with regard to Community law, and in particular the principle of equality of treatment provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) and Article 10, which waives residence clauses for the payment and calculation of pensions.

In order to be in a position to examine the complaint, the Commission has asked the British authorities to provide detailed information on the pensions adjustment scheme in Gibraltar and to give their opinion on its compatibility with Community law.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of any further action taken on the matter.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 74, 27.3.1972) (updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1729/01

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Cyprus

How does the Commission intend to take Turkish Cypriot views fully into account in drawing up this year's report on the state of the accession negotiations with the Republic of Cyprus?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1728/01 and E-1729/01 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the preface to its Opinion on the application by the Republic of Cyprus for membership of the Union(1), where on pages 7 to 10 (paragraphs 6 to 12) the issues relating to the legality of the application are reviewed in detail.

The Commission intends to take the same approach as in previous years in relation to the north of Cyprus when drawing up the Regular Report for 2001 and would draw the Honourable Member's attention to page 17 (paragraph 1.3) of the Report for 2000(2).

(1) COM(93) 313 final.

(2) COM(2000) 702 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2104/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) and Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Fishery structural measures and tax on collective earnings in Portugal

Under the successive Community support frameworks, Portuguese vessel owners, like their counterparts in the other Member States, have received aids for the scrapping, immobilisation, refitting, modernisation and construction of fishing vessels, the aim being to modernise the fishing fleets.

As is well known, under these joint funding arrangements the Member State concerned has to contribute too. However, in the wake of a statement by the Association of Industrial Fishery Vessel Owners, the Portuguese tax authorities have concluded that this financial aid should be liable to the tax on collective earnings or IRC. This means that in reality the Portuguese state not only does not contribute: it actually benefits financially in net terms from the total funding of the project.

Can the Commission state its position on this practice of the Portuguese tax authorities as regards the Community support funds for the restructuring of fishing fleets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

In their question the Honourable Members say that the Portuguese tax authorities levy corporation tax (IRC) on financial aid granted under the Community support framework for the restructuring of the fishing fleet. The fifth subparagraph of Article 32(1)

of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) makes it clear that no deduction, retention or further specific charge can be made that would reduce contributions from the Funds, which must be paid in full. That principle does not mean, however, that payments made by the Community cannot be included in the tax base, since the tax is payable on the taxpayers' income as a whole and not specifically or mainly on the Community assistance.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/01

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Environmental legislation in Hungary

In addition to the alarming crises of waste and waste water management, there is a lesser-known threat to the environment in post-socialist Hungary. Extensive new building has resulted from the real estate boom following the prospective EU accession, destroying the remaining green areas, increasing traffic, polluting air, endangering old buildings in the vicinity and threatening public health, particularly but not exclusively in and around Budapest. Because of a lack of appropriate environmental regulations, many municipal officials reportedly permit the kind of environmental destruction that would not be allowed in the Member States. It is also reported that corruption plays an important part in the granting of building permits.

Protection of the environment is one of the core issues in the negotiations about accession of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Although the negotiations with Hungary are well under way, there seem still to be major problems in respect of environmental legislation governing construction and the exploitation of green areas. It is of great importance that the European Union supports Hungary in improving its environmental legislation as well as its administrative capacity to implement the EC acquis.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that environmental legislation in Hungary will comply with the EC acquis and to support Hungary in developing environmental laws in line with those of the EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

In the framework of the pre-accession strategy, the Hungarian Government is currently preparing for membership to the Union. In this context it is aligning its legislation in the various policy fields, such as environment. These efforts are closely monitored by the Commission through the various available instruments (institutions of the Europe Agreement, accession negotiations) and Hungary is consequently invited to accelerate efforts where needed. During the last Association Committee hold in Hungary, the Government was invited to consider the integration of environmental protection requirements in all policy areas, in order to better contribute to an overall sustainable development of the country.

As to the particular problem addressed by the Honourable Member, there exists no specific legislation at the level of the Union regulating the conservation of green areas in urban areas.

The decisions about the organisation of urban sites is therefore up to the responsible Hungarian authorities.