ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility of a Commission official

In the fraud case involving Messrs. Perry Lux, some of the few project documents that remained showed that Mr Gomes-Reino, the Director of ECHO, had signed three or four contracts with Perry Lux and Hubert Onidi one. The latter was forced out of his post at the Commission. Mr Gomes-Reino on the other hand was absolved by the Commission.

Does the Commission thereby consider that a Commission official holding a director's post can sign and hence approve a project but not subsequently have to take responsibility for its negative consequences?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the various disciplinary proceedings opened in connection with the Perry Lux-European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) file included a case against Mr Gómez Reino.

The proceedings were instituted to clarify Mr Gómez Reino's responsibility as Director of ECHO. Particular attention was given to the lawfulness of certain contracts signed by him for the intended purpose of implementing humanitarian aid measures but inter alia used instead to obtain the human resources needed for implementing those measures.

Following due disciplinary process, none of the allegations against Mr Gómez Reino was found to be justified in fact or in law. He was cleared of the charges brought against him in the disciplinary proceedings on the grounds that he could not be held responsible for the acts of which he was accused since they were concealed from him. At no time was Mr Gómez Reino accused of deriving any personal benefit from any irregularities.

As in all other cases, the decision taken in the disciplinary proceedings which were the subject of the Honourable Member's question is final unless new evidence comes to light. No new evidence has become available.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2088/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Regulation on the set-aside of European farmland

The European Union authorises plots of land set aside under the relevant regulation to be used for the cultivation of leguminous plants for use as fodder. However, that positive measure is erroneously restricted to farms which convert to organic farming.

Because of that restriction, the cultivation of leguminous plants offers no solution to some pressing agricultural problems such as manure, sharply diminishing soil fertility and the heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States. What is more, the difficult relationship between conventional farmers and organic farmers is being further exacerbated.

Accordingly, an extension of the set-aside regulation to all farms is becoming a matter of urgency.

Will the Commission extend the regulation on the cultivation of leguminous plants on land set aside to all farms, since its restriction to organic farms offers no solution to pressing agricultural problems such as manure, sharply diminishing soil fertility and the heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States? If not, why does it oppose an extension of the regulation on the cultivation of leguminous plants on land set aside to all farms? What alternatives can it put forward for tackling pressing agricultural problems such as manure, sharply diminishing soil fertility and the heavy dependence on concentrated feed (protein) from the United States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1038/2001 of 22 May 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1) is not intended to offset the shortfall in plant proteins resulting from the total ban on the use of meat and bone meal in animal feed.

It is nevertheless clear that the BSE crisis has made public opinion highly critical of current agricultural production methods, particularly as regards animal feed, and demonstrates the need to return to more environment-friendly farming practices. One appropriate means of encouraging this can be to use the set-aside scheme to promote organic production of fodder legumes.

That was the intention behind expanding the scope for using set-aside land under the support system for producers of certain arable crops established by Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999.

The measure was restricted to agricultural holdings whose entire production complies with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(2), in order to prevent any abuse which could jeopardise this production method.

A more general measure on set-aside land would undermine the purpose of the set-aside scheme, which must remain an instrument for controlling production.

The Commission therefore sees no need to take further measures at present.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

(2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1375/01

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Age discrimination in the field of research and development

One of the main themes from the Stockholm Council was the challenge posed by an ageing population. It was stated that there is a need to work to increase the rate of employment especially among older people.

In addition, section 2.2 on Human Resources and mobility of the Sixth multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 recognises the need of making the most of the potential offered by all sectors of the population within the field of science and technology.

In the light of these aims, can the Commission ensure that there will be no upper age limits for training programmes in the Sixth framework programme, as there were with the Fifth framework programme?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission does not foresee any upper age limits for the Human resources and mobility activity of the multiannual framework programme 2002-2006 for research, technological development and demonstration activities. Applications from researchers to the actions within the activity will be considered on the basis of the relative qualifications and experience of candidates at various stages of their careers. In some instances, the training elements envisaged will necessarily be directed at researchers at the early stages of their research careers, for example in the case of certain global support measures such as research training networks, although this will not preclude participation by older researchers who have started their research careers later in life or have experienced a break in their careers. Other actions, such as support for research teams of the highest level of excellence or scientific prizes for research work carried out, will generally involve more established researchers at later stages of their careers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Subject: Non-compliance with Community legislation on waste water treatment

Ten years after the adoption of Community provisions on waste water treatment, some 37 towns and cities of more than 150 000 inhabitants continue to release their waste water into the environment without any treatment.

In addition to constituting a health hazard for the local population, this non-compliance sets a deplorable example for candidate states wishing to join the European Union who themselves are criticised for not harmonising their environmental legislation with that of the EU quickly enough.

Can the Commission say why it has not taken more resolute action to date against the offending parties and what measures it now intends to adopt in order to force the latter to comply with EU provisions and treat their waste water prior to disposal as provided for in said provisions.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

The Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment(1) (hereafter the urban waste water Directive) sets clear objectives in terms of deadlines and environmental objectives to achieve:

- designation by the end of 1993 of sensitive areas according to criteria set out in the Directive;

- by the end of 1998, tertiary treatment for all agglomerations above 10 000 population equivalent (p.e.)(2) in the catchment of such sensitive areas;

- by the end of 2000, secondary treatment for all agglomerations above 15 000 population equivalents in the catchment normal areas (i.e. such waters not identified as sensitive);

- by the end of 2005, secondary treatment for all remaining agglomerations within the scope of the Directive.

It is evident that most Member States have major shortcomings with regard to all these deadlines and with the identification of sensitive areas.

In the course of the last two years and on the basis of the information transmitted by the Member States, the Commission has checked the degree of compliance with the first requirements of the Directive. It must be noted that the Commission work has been slowed down, in some case substantially, by the delays with which almost all Member States have provided information.

The Commission considers that, whilst considerable efforts have been made by certain Member States, the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive is behind schedule and incomplete, with regard to compliance with both the necessary treatment objectives and the deadlines fixed.

To achieve better implementation, the Commission will continue to monitor and help ensure compliance. The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary steps, including recourse to the procedure set out in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, to ensure full compliance with this legislation.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) Population equivalent means the organic biodegradable load having a five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1093/01

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Link between Crohn's disease and paratuberculosis

Could the Commission give a brief summary and findings from the study it has conducted on a possible link between Crohn's disease and paratuberculosis?

Will the Commission be taking any further action in this area?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

A report entitled Possible links between Crohn's disease and paratuberculosis was adopted by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare in March 2000. The report is available on the Commissions web site at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out38_en.pdf

The report is a comprehensive review of the subject which merits being read in its entirety. However, the Committee summarises its findings as follows:

The currently available evidence is insufficient to confirm or disprove that Mycobacterium paratuberculosis is a causative agent of at least some cases of Crohn's disease in man. There are sufficient grounds for concern to warrant increased and urgent research activity to resolve the issue.

The Commission is funding, through the Quality of life and management of living resources programme of the Fifth Research and Technological Development (RTD) framework programme, a research project on the improvement of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of sarcoidosis and Crohn's Disease (Sacrohn). The project started on 1 October 2000 and continues until October 2003. The project aims at developing new molecular detection methods and culture techniques, in particular using molecular typing techniques to establish any possible links between ruminant sources of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis and the aetiology of Crohn's Disease.

At this early stage no concrete results are available from this project to see whether there may be any links between Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in (products from) ruminants and Crohn's Disease.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0525/01

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

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Stability pact in Spain

In 1997, a year before the final choice of the countries which would comprise the EMU, Spain met not one of the parameters established at Maastricht:

- the inflation rate had been fixed as 3,6 % in 1996, well above the average of the best-performing countries,

- the public deficit, which in 1995 had reached its maximum of 7,3 % of GDP, fell to 4,6 % in 1996, a figure much higher than the 3 % maximum demanded in Maastricht.

Under these conditions, the Spanish Government decided to freeze the salaries of its officials, a decision which has recently been contested by a ruling handed down by the High Court.

How does the Commission estimate the amount by which public spending and, therefore, the deficit (assuming constant fiscal pressure) would have risen had the salaries of civil servants been raised to keep pace with the CPI?

Would the Commission have recommended that Spain join a first wave of EMU, if the salaries of public workers had been increased in accordance with CPI forecasts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

The Commission cannot estimate how public expenditure and the government deficit in Spain would have developed in recent years if public servants' wages had increased in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation. In such an event, the government could have varied other budgetary items of both revenue and expenditure. There is thus little value in answering a hypothetical question regarding Spain's participation in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1440/01

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Magazine prices in Member States

Given the present situation where costs incurred for magazines published in Britain and sold in Ireland are all quoted in sterling, can the Commission inform me if it is legitimate for magazine costs to differ quite radically, apart from postage costs, when magazines are sold and distributed in another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Concerning variations of prices for magazines between Member States, a number of reasons may justify such price differences. Substantial cost differences may occur for example due to different distribution schemes, shipping costs, tax regimes, etc.

Accordingly, different prices cannot a priori be regarded as unjustified and cases must be looked at according to the specific circumstances prevailing.

Pricing practices for magazines have been dealt with in the past in some instances under EC competition law procedures. In one case the Court of Justice concluded that in the context of a selective distribution system for newspapers and periodicals which affects trade between Member States, a requirement that fixed prices must be respected renders that system incompatible with Article 81(1). However, the Commission may, in considering an application for exemption under Article 81(3), examine whether, in a particular case, such an element of a distribution system may be justified(1).

The Commission will keep these elements in mind when considering cases in this area which may be brought to its attention.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 July 1985, SA Binon & Cie v. SA Agence et messageries de la presse, Case 243/83, ECR 1985 p. 2015.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The Commission's staff policy

The Commission is reforming its staff policy with the aim of improving the efficiency of its operations. This is a perfectly correct objective. Some staff representatives have already threatened legal action if the reforms do not satisfy officials. If a strike occurs, will the Commission take the line that the officials should be paid for the time they are on strike?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The payment of salaries during a strike is not provided for in the Staff Regulations. Point 10 of the Annex to the Framework Agreement between the trade unions and staff associations and the Commission of 1974 stipulates that the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations involved in the dispute shall together decide on the conditions for resuming work. This implies that the question is addressed on an ad hoc basis following a strike.

The Commission's practice is to deduct from the salary of officials who participate in a strike an amount equivalent to their pay over the period of the strike. This practice was followed most recently on the occasion of a half-day strike by some officials of the Commission services in Luxembourg on 31 January 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/01

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

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Environment

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 Environment 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 E-0737/01

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2001)

Subject: Mobility of researchers

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate, to take steps to remove obstacles to the mobility of researchers in Europe by 2002 and to attract and retain high-quality research talent in Europe. What steps have been taken?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

In accordance with conclusions of the Lisbon European Council, the Research Council of 15 June 2000 adopted a Resolution requesting that the Commission and the Member States cooperate fully to remove obstacles to the mobility of researchers by 2002. A panel of high-level national experts was thus set up during the Summer of 2000. Four different types of obstacles were defined, for which concrete measures will be drawn up: legal and administrative obstacles; social and cultural obstacles; career-related obstacles; and obstacles of a cross-sectorial nature. The high-level group held four meetings between October 2000 and March 2001. It sent its report to the Commission on 4 April 2001.

Following the work carried out by the high-level group, the Commission will draw up a communication on the mobility of researchers within the European Research Area by June 2001. In this, the Commission will set out a series of proposals promoting a favourable environment for the mobility of researchers throughout their career.

These actions will be carried out in conjunction with other existing or developing initiatives in the field of mobility, such as the proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobility within the Community for students, people undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers;(1) the Mobility Action Plan(2), a High-Level Skills and Mobility Task Force; and the Group of Directors-General responsible for the public sector.

(1) COM(1999) 708 final.

(2) OJ C 371, 23.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Lack of analytical index in Selected instruments taken from the Treaties

In reply to my Question P-0418/01(1), the Commission informed me that the Council was responsible for the publication of the Selected instruments taken from the Treaties.

Can the Council therefore say why there is no analytical index in the paper version of the Selected instruments taken from the Treaties and why, in the Intranet version, protocols, declarations, instruments and institutional texts have been omitted? Furthermore, why is the latter version not available in the usual Word format?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 223.

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The version of the Selected instruments taken from the Treaties provided on the Internet at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/treaties/index.html is identical to the printed version and contains all the annexes, i.e. all the protocols, declarations, other Treaties and acts and institutional texts. The format mentioned by the Honourable Member was not used for reasons of data security and software copyright.

It is true that the Selected instruments does not contain an analytical index. However, the Internet provides the possibility of searching by key words.