ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Urban audit in Braga

On 17 June 1998 the Portuguese newspaper Diário do Minho reported that the European Commission was to promote an urban audit of Braga to be carried out in the context of a programme to increase knowledge about the quality of life in cities, which would involve 58 European cities, the aim being to gather information for the drafting of urban policies as well as to increase knowledge about urban areas.

It added that the assessment, scheduled to take a year, was to be carried out by the European Economic Research and Advisory Consortium.

Can the Commission say what assessment was made of the Portuguese cities involved, which according to the newspaper article were Braga, Lisbon and Oporto?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

The urban audit was carried out by the Commission in 58 of Europe's largest cities to gather information on the quality of life.

The results, including a comparison of all the cities covered, were published in April 2000 and are available on following website: http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int/urban/audit

In Portugal, the audit was carried out in Lisbon, Oporto and Braga. Information on the three cities is given under the heading Search by city on the above site and can be compared with that for the other cities covered under the heading Search by domain. These sections exist only in English.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1748/01

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Takeover of Hidrocantábrico by the Villar Mir and EnBW group

The takeover of Hidrocantábrico by the Villar Mir and EnBW group threatens to strengthen the dominant position jointly held in the electricity generation market on the Spanish mainland. As a result, effective competition in that market may be obstructed to a significant extent.

Furthermore, the reported takeover affects competition in regional and local markets for the distribution and marketing of electricity in which Hidrocantábrico is present. These markets present all the characteristics of a distinct market and do not represent a substantial part of the common market.

Does the Commission consider that, under Article 9(3)(b) of Regulation 4064/89(1), the competent Spanish authorities should decide on the matter with a view to application of national legislation to protect competition, specifically Article 14 et seq. of Law 16/1989 of 17 July on the protection of competition and Royal Decree 1080/1992 which develops that law?

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

On 1 June 2001, the Commission has decided to undertake a full, second phase investigation of the proposed acquisition of joint control over Spanish utility Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico S.A. (Hidrocantábrico) by Spanish Group Villar Mir and Energie Baden-Württemberg (EnBW). The Commission considers that the proposed operation raises serious doubts, as it could consolidate the existing collective dominant position in the Spanish electricity market. It will also examine the extent to which the dominant position of Electricité de France (EdF), which jointly controls EnBW, could be strengthened. The Spanish government has asked referral of the case, but as the Commission is starting an in-depth probe, according to article 9 of the Merger Regulation(1) it does not need to take a decision on the request made by the national authorities at this stage of the procedure.

The Commission has from the date it decided to open a second phase investigation, a maximum of four months to reach a final decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0867/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Radon gas levels in schools and homes in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of a recent study carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland which shows that one-quarter of Irish schools and 91 000 homes throughout Ireland have high levels of radon gas which put the safety of the public at risk.

Can the Commission state whether the failure of the Irish Government to take effective action to remedy this hazard is in breach of European environmental legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland conducted a comprehensive survey of radon gas concentrations in homes and schools, respectively completed in 1999 and to be completed in 2001. The study demonstrates that in 8,8 % of Irish homes the reference level of 200 Becquerel per cubic meter (Bqm-3) is exceeded, while this level would be exceeded in one or more classrooms for 23 % of Irish schools.

The Irish Government is thus fully in line with the Commission Recommendation 90/143/Euratom of 21 February 1990, on the protection of the public against indoor exposure to radon(1). In this Recommendation, a reference level of 400 Bqm-3 is proposed for the consideration of single but effective measures to reduce the radon level, and a design level of 200 Bqm-3 for future constructions.

Member States are not required to take remedial action; this is the responsibility of the individual household. Ireland nevertheless initiated a scheme of grants to assist householders with the cost of remedying radon problems in their dwellings. It is hoped that this financial incentive to householders to take remedial action will significantly improve the situation.

(1) OJ L 80, 27.3.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Faster payment of its bills by the Commission

One topic considered in The Eurocrats, a Danish TV programme broadcast on Swedish television on11 February 2001, was the length of time the Commission takes to pay its bills for various projects. According to the report, not even four out of 10 invoices are paid on time, one example being an invoice submitted to the Commission for an environmental project in Ireland. It took eight Commission staff to scrutinise the invoice and sixty days to pay it.

Many small undertakings have bills unpaid by the Commission and are forced to wait far too long for payment. Part of the problem is that so many Commission staff have to verify each bill submitted.

What does the Commission intend to do to establish routines to speed up the payment of invoices and to reduce the manpower used to scrutinise them?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The Commission set a target in 1991 that payments should be made within 60 days of the receipt of a valid request for payment. Since 1997 it has paid interest on late payments.

In 2000, 74 % of payments were made within the 60 day limit. The Commission's aim, as stated in Action 10 in Part II of the White Paper Reforming the Commission(1) adopted on 1 March 2000, is to make 95 % of its payments within this limit by 2002.

The Commission has addressed the question of payment times on a number of occasions, most recently in July 2000. On this occasion it decided on a number of measures aimed at speeding up the payment of invoices. Neither the Commission nor outside consultants identified, however, excessive number of staff to scrutinise invoices as a cause of late payment.

Some of the Commission's measures will have the effect, nevertheless, of improving routines and reducing the number of staff involved in scrutinising invoices.

These include:

- the clarification of the terms of the contracts; this includes laying down the particulars that must be included in contracts and ensuring that technical annexes setting out what the contractor is to deliver to the Commission at each stage of a project are drawn up with precision and can be verified by both parties;

- the simplification of financial and procedural provisions in the contracts; this includes the simplification of financial clauses and reduction of the number of supporting documents to be produced for payment requests under contracts which are based wholly or partly on procedures for the reimbursement of costs, by setting standard amounts for certain categories of expenditure such as travel expenses;

- the improvement of Information technology (IT) tools and procedures; this includes the provision of a common system for recording invoices received and monitoring their processing for payment.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/01

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Information brochure accompanying protective gloves

The information brochure which must, under EC Directive 89/686/EEC(1), be enclosed with every pair of protective gloves is extraordinarily long and complicated in its content.

Are these laborious, long-winded instructions really necessary?

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Protective gloves are indeed personal protective equipment (PPE) within the meaning of Directive 89/686/EEC(1). This Directive aims to guarantee the free movement of PPE which preserves the health and ensures the safety of users. The term users is used here in its widest sense, covering anyone who uses PPE, whether for work or for leisure activities (do-it-yourself or sport). The protection offered by PPE, and in this case protective gloves, can cover a wide variety of risks (electrical, mechanical, chemical, or the risk of ionising radiation etc.).

To ensure suitable protection for the user's hands, gloves must be accompanied by an appropriate description. In practical terms, the information supplied by the manufacturer must enable users correctly to select, use and maintain the protective gloves in the context of their intended use and according to the type of risk to be prevented. It is therefore justifiable to require that the notes supplied by the PPE manufacturer convey the relevant information using precise terminology and technical instructions.

That is why point 1.4 of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC stipulates that the notes that must be drawn up by the manufacturer and supplied when personal protective equipment is placed on the market must contain all relevant information on:

- storage, use, cleaning, maintenance, servicing and disinfection;

- performance as recorded during tests to check the levels of protection;

- the classes of protection appropriate to different levels of risk and the corresponding limits of use;

- suitable accessories;

- the obsolescence deadline;

- the type of packaging suitable for transport;

- the significance of any markings.

(1) Council Directive of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (89/686/EEC) as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 (OJ L 220, 30.8.1993, p. 1), Council Directive 93/95/CEE of 29 October 1993 (OJ L 276, 9.11.1993, p. 11) and Directive 96/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 September 1996 (OJ L 236, 18.9.1996, p. 44).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0563/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG External Relations

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for External Relations provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1303/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Employment rights for ministers of religion

Can the Commission detail for each Member State those which fail to confer employment rights on ministers of religion and specify which religions are included in those exceptions?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The application of labour law and employment rights to ministers of religion differs substantially between Member States. In some cases, ministers of religion are not covered by labour law because they do not have the status of an employee. In others, churches or other religious communities are exempted from the application of certain aspects of labour law. In addition, some legislative acts include special provisions for churches and religious communities.

The rules concerning the application of employment rights to ministers of religion in the Member States are therefore very complex. No systematic and detailed overview of the different situations exists. It is therefore not possible to specify which religions are included or not in each case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Common fisheries policy - Sea angling

Sea angling is not only a sport, it also provides employment and makes a significant contribution to regional economies. Could the Commission state what plans it has to give greater recognition and support to this sector of the fishing industry within the context of the common fisheries policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The Commission has at present no plans directed specifically at sea angling.

However, the Commission is at present in the process of formulating recovery plans for hake and cod in Community waters. These plans should also be of consequent benefit to other major fish stocks including haddock, whiting and saithe. If successful, the ensuing increased abundance of these fish stocks will offer increased opportunities for sea angling.

The Commission is also awaiting a report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on the state of stocks of bass in Community waters and suggestions on means to solve existing problems. The Commission will act as required on this report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1223/01

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: The case of Vinh Binh Trinh in Vietnam

Is the Commission aware of the case of Mr Vinh Binh Trinh, a Dutch citizen who was convicted in Vietnam for illegal investment in 1998, the circumstances of whose arrest and conviction were dubious, to say the least?

Does the Commission share the concern that cases like this may scare off other potential European investors and also that they may have a negative impact on relations between Vietnam and the European Union?

Will the Commission urge the Vietnamese authorities to reconsider the case of Mr Trinh, as they did last year with respect to similar cases concerning Canadian, Thai and Laotian investors?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission has been informed that Mr Vinh Binh Trinh was convicted in the first instance by the Ba Ria Vung Tau People's Court to 13 years of imprisonment and severe fines on charges of bribery and violation of the regulations on land management and protection. Mr Trinh appealed the decision of the Vung Tau People's Court to the People's Supreme Court of Ho Chi Minh City. The case was heard on 4 and 5 May 1999, when the Court upheld the decision of the Court of first instance, at the same time reducing the prison sentence to 11 years. Mr Trinh was awarded bail on medical grounds, but failed to report at Vung Tai prison by the due date of 30 September 1999. It is reported that he has fled the country for Thailand.

The Commission is not in a position to make any comment on the conduct of the case. It understands that Mr Trinh received consular assistance initially from the Dutch Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City and subsequently from the Dutch Embassy to Vietnam, and has been advised to consider the available options of a further appeal, which is open to him under Article 242 of the Criminal Law of Vietnam, or a request for grace on humanitarian grounds. An appeal must be lodged in person and, since the warrant for his detention remains in force, Mr Trinh would face immediate imprisonment should he return to Vietnam.

The other cases referred to in the question apparently concern individuals who have been granted early release under general amnesties for serving prisoners. Such amnesties do not apply to persons who are not in prison.

The Commission is not aware that the case of Mr Trinh has had any impact on European investment in Vietnam or on relations between Vietnam and the Union. Together with other donors, the Commission regularly participates in the ongoing dialogue between foreign investors and the Government of Vietnam, where the various concerns of investors are fully discussed. In this context, concerns about certain elements of corruption in Vietnam have been raised, and both investors and donors have expressed support for the efforts of the Government of Vietnam to deal with this problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0843/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Breaches of Community rules

With regard to possible breaches of Community rules, will the Commission provide details of instances in which Denmark has drafted legislation and taken decisions which have ultimately had to be reworked at the request of the Commission and, if a summary of that information is available, could the Commission forward it to me?

Where there were differences between Danish legislation and Community rules, was it possible to resolve those inconsistencies bilaterally or was it ever necessary to take matters to the court? Is there a summary available of the methods used to resolve any inconsistencies there may have been?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

Breaches of the Community rules are so many and varied that there is no specific list or instrument showing the cases where legislation or decisions adopted by a Member State have had to be reworked at the request of the Commission in the course of infringement proceedings.

Some information may be gleaned, however, from the statistics on infringement proceedings which are to be found in the annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law(1). Over the period 1979-1999, for example, about 1 300 infringement proceedings were initiated against Denmark. Over the same period the Court of Justice gave judgment on 11 applications lodged in this context, ruling in favour of the Commission in nine of the cases. About one hundred infringement procedures against Denmark are currently in progress.

Almost 50 % of all infringements involved a failure to notify national measures transposing Community directives (non-notification), whilst in 10 % of cases the said measures did not comply with the requirements laid down in the directives (non-compliance) and almost 40 % of cases related to improper application of the Community rules, either in general or in particular respects. It is mainly in such cases of improper application that the Commission may request Member States to amend national measures since cases of non-notification and non-compliance are covered by the obligation to transpose Community directives correctly. It should also be pointed out that some 40 % of cases are cleared up before a letter of formal notice is sent out, the complaint having been found to be unjustified.

(1) For the 1999 report, see OJ C 30, 30.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: The beer tie

Following the recent opinion of the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice in the case of Crehan v. Courage (C-453/99), what is the Commission's current view of the beer tie whereby pub tenants are obliged to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by the company owning the pub?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission's current policy on beer ties is set out in the new general Block Exemption Regulation on Vertical Agreements(1), together with the associated Guidelines on Vertical Restraints(2). The new Block Exemption applies to contracts signed since 1 June 2000. In brief, it states that suppliers whose market share does not exceed 30 % may impose a non-compete obligation (tie) on their buyer for as long as the buyer occupies the supplier's premises. Where the buyer does not occupy the supplier's premises, the maximum duration for ties is five years.

The Commission or national competition authorities may withdraw the benefit of the Block Exemption where particular agreements have effects which are incompatible with the conditions of Article 81(3) (ex-Article 85) of the EC Treaty, for example where markets are foreclosed by parallel networks of tying agreements. The Commission may also disapply the Block Exemption in relation to an entire sector where parallel networks cover more than 50 % of the relevant market.

The Block Exemption does not apply to suppliers with more than 30 % market share. Their ties are assessed in accordance with the detailed guidance provided by the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints. The Commission encourages suppliers to make their own assessment using these Guidelines. Relevant factors are the supplier's market share, its tied market share, the duration of the tie, the market power of competing suppliers, the existence of entry barriers and the total share of the market which is tied.

Where an assessment under the Guidelines leads to the conclusion that a supplier's ties are likely to produce appreciable anti-competitive effects (whether alone or together with similar ties operated by other suppliers), the Guidelines go on to describe the types of efficiencies which may justify an individual exemption under Article 81(3). The Guidelines stress that exemption is not available to dominant undertakings.

In general terms, the new Block Exemption and Guidelines adopt an economic approach. They recognise that tying agreements, like other forms of vertical restrictions, can have positive effects and that competition concerns generally only arise where the supplier has some degree of market power or where access to markets is made difficult by networks of similar agreements.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ L 336, 29.12.1999).

(2) Commission Notice (OJ C 291, 13.10.2000).