ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad

Will the Council be supporting UK involvement in the bombing of Baghdad?

Would the Council not agree that the citizens of Iraq have already suffered enough following the economic embargo, and that further air attacks by the USA and Britain will only add to their suffering, and that in the name of democracy and human rights these attacks should be condemned?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Council has no common position on the issue of the no-fly zones in Iraq, including the bombings referred to in the question.

The Council considers it important to prevent the Iraqi Government from again acquiring weapons of mass destruction and recalls its full support for the relevant UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including resolution 1284/99. The Council agrees, however, that there is a need to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people resulting from the implementation of these sanctions. The oil-for-food program is of crucial importance in this context and the Council hopes that the implementation of the program could be streamlined in accordance with the recommendations by the UN Secretary-General. Within the framework of the UNSC resolutions, the Council is examining possibilities for further EU action in the humanitarian and cultural fields.

The Council also notes that the full cooperation of the Iraqi Government with the UN would lead to a suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions in accordance with the provisions of UNSC resolution 1284. The Council hopes that the recent contacts between the UN Secretary-General and representatives of the Iraqi Government will promote such cooperation in the future.

The Council has also noted with interest the discussions in the UN Security Council about improving the effectiveness of the sanctions, including better targeting, and thereby avoiding unnecessary human suffering.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0760/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Commission inspectors' investigation of BSE in Greece

From 12 to 16 February, Commission veterinary inspectors conducted inquiries in Greece into the implementation of measures concerning BSE.

In the light of the inspectors' report, will the Commission say:

1. whether adequate checks are carried out on cattle to detect the disease,

2. whether the measures to protect cattle from BSE are observed, and

3. under what conditions cattle are fed and slaughtered, and, in particular, what the situation is in Greek slaughterhouses and to what extent the criteria laid down by Community law are fulfilled?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The aim of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission to Greece from 12 to 16 February 2001 was to assess the monitoring measures introduced for the prevention of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

In accordance with Commission Decision 98/139/EC of 4 February 1998 laying down certain detailed rules concerning on-the-spot checks carried out in the veterinary field by Commission experts in the Member States(1), internal FVO procedures stipulate that a draft mission report drawn up by the FVO within 20 working days must be sent to the authorities of the Member State visited; the authorities must then reply to the FVO within 25 working days of receipt of the Greek version of the report. The FVO will not be able to publish the final report until this procedure has ended.

The final report of the mission should be completed by mid-May 2001 at the latest. In line with normal procedure, the report will be sent by the Commission to Parliament and published on the Internet. Independently of this report, the Commission has repeatedly called on all Member States to ensure full implementation and respect of Community legislation on BSE.

(1) OJ L 38, 12.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/01

by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Gare du Luxembourg, Brussels, and the free movement of services

The Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Belge (SNCB) has awarded a contract to the AEL-GROUP T-Tractabel consortium to draw up designs relating to the Gare du Luxembourg in Brussels in connection with construction of the projected D4 and D5 buildings in the Place du Luxembourg. The SNCB, acting in its capacity as owner, has applied to the Region of Brussels Capital (municipality of Ixelles) for a planning certificate authorising the station renovation works (application registered on 28 April 1998) for which it is the contracting authority.

Council Directive 92/50/EEC(1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be respected by all contracting authorities within the meaning of Directive 71/305/EEC(2) and any obstacles to the free movement of services must be avoided.

Can the Commission establish whether the SNCB issued an invitation to tender for the provision of services concering design and renovation work for the Gare du Luxembourg in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC?

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 185, 16.8.1971, p. 5.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0796/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: The workings of the Rapid Reaction Force

Last weekend at Camp David Tony Blair and President Bush gave a joint press conference having previously discussed, amongst other things, the implications of the so-called European Rapid Reaction Force. President Bush said, with the Prime Minister standing next to him, that the latter had assured me that there would be a joint command, that the planning (of the Rapid Reaction Force) would take place within NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that would then (my italics) serve as a catalyst for the defence forces moving on their own.

On the previous Thursday, Tony Blair told the Canadian Parliament that the initiative on European defence is not a standing army there will be no separate EU planning structures.

Does the Council believe that these interpretations of the workings of the Rapid Reaction Force are consistent with the Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy as agreed by the Member States at Nice.

President Bush also said: I was very hopeful when we discussed the Prime Minister's vision that such a vision would encourage our NATO allies and friends to bolster their defence budgets, perhaps.

Does the Council believe that that there is any evidence of this?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The issue of planning, which is what the Hon. Member seems particularly interested in, is dealt with in accordance with the European Council's decisions at Nice; strategic planning (i.e. the planning activities that start as soon as a crisis emerges and ends with European Union decision-making on the military strategic option) is done by the European Union's Military Staff.

In developing and prioritising military strategic options, the Military Staff may draw as appropriate on planning support from external sources, in particular NATO. For operations requiring recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be done in NATO. For an EU operation without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be carried out by a European national or multinational headquarter.

Member States also committed themselves further to improve their capabilities. It is still early days, but capabilities nationally and multinationally are being improved in ways which would not be taking place in the absence of the ESDP. The Progress Catalogue, a first version of which should be ready at the end of the Swedish Presidency, will identify follow on initiatives where progress is needed. A main element will be the definition of the Review Mechanism outlined at Nice, which will allow the monitoring of quantitative and qualitative progress towards achieving the Headline Goal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of economic statistics

1. Does the Commission agree that US practices in the publication of market-sensitive economic statistics are a proper benchmark for euro area practices?

2. Will it then indicate whether its objective is to match US practices and, if so, on what timescale and by what means?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission (Eurostat) is currently analysing American practices in the realm of market-sensitive economic statistics. A report comparing Community and American practices will be submitted in autumn 2001 to the Statistical Programme Committee (SPC). This report is expected to explain performance differentials and come up with recommendations for improving the performance of the Community system most notably in terms of timeliness. The SPC will discuss this report and its recommendations and take the necessary steps for improving the timeliness of economic statistics for the Community.

It should be noted that important actions are already under way in the framework of the Action Plan on European Monetary Union (EMU) Statistical Requirements prepared by the Commission in close co-operation with the European Central Bank (ECB) at the request of the (Ecofin) Council. If it will be possible for the Community to meet American standards in terms of timeliness, however, remains to be seen given the fact that the Community and American statistical systems are very different. Moreover, American practices are not always considered to be superior to Community practices.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0757/01

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Rendering inoperative by the Netherlands government of certain articles in the Electric Power Production Sector (Transitional Arrangements) Act

The Netherlands government announced on 30 January 2001, in response to questions in the Second Chamber, that it had rendered inoperative a large number of articles in the Electric Power Production Sector (Transitional Arrangements) Act.

When did the Netherlands government have contact with the Commission about rendering a large number of articles in the Electric Power Production Sector (Transitional Arrangements) Act inoperative?

Has the Commission set or proposed to the Netherlands government a standstill period as regards implementation of the liberalisation of the electricity sector? If so, how long is this standstill period to last? And has the Commission set a standstill period for other Member States and, if so, what consequences does this have for the liberalisation of the whole electricity sector in the European Union?

Can it state what follow-up action has been taken in response to Mr van Velzen's question of 26 September 2000?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2001)

The Dutch government has not been in contact with the Commission concerning the rendering inoperative of certain articles of the Transitional Law on the electricity production sector.

The Commission has not asked for a standstill period regarding the Dutch process of market opening, nor has it suggested that this could be considered.

The Commission will shortly ask the Dutch authorities to provide further information regarding the reservation of capacity on the interconnectors to determine the reasonableness and proportionality of the measures taken within their objective the protection of the long-term Samenwerkende Elektriciteits-produktiebedrijven (SEP) contracts. Once this information has been received it expects to be in a position to reach a rapid conclusion on the issue.

As indicated in the answer to Written Question P-3106/00 by the Honourable Member(1), the Commission is continuing to examine the applicability of the competition rules, especially as the facts of the situation recently changed. As for the problem regarding State aid, the Commission has, most recently, sent a letter on the matter to the Dutch Government, dated 19 February 2001.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/01

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Aid to Namibia and fundamental rights

Namibia is a country which benefits from European funds, being allocated a sum of 52 million over the period 1996-2000. The second priority of the agreement between the European Union and the Namibian Government is the development and consolidation

of democracy and the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. What is the Council's view of the statements made by the President of Namibia, Mr Sam Nujoma, and his decision to detain and deport from the country all gays and lesbians on the grounds that Namibia's constitution does not allow homosexuality?

This is in breach of the values and fundamental principles of the European Union, Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, legislation on development cooperation and the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Is the Council planning any action to denounce this flagrantly discriminatory measure?

Will the Council inform the Namibian Government that this decision violates fundamental human rights and contradicts the principles and basic values of the European Union?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council has made a démarche to the Namibian authorities concerning the human rights situation in the country. This démarche was followed up by the publication of a declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the EU on human rights in Namibia. This text clearly states the EU's position on the threats and verbal attacks against minorities in Namibia which the EU finds unacceptable. The EU furthermore encourages the Government of Namibia to maintain its respect of human rights and to uphold the rule of law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1019/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Unemployment rate and pay settlements

Is the Commission able to find, or can it report on any independent findings about a relationship between the short-term unemployment rate (defined as those seeking work for less than one year) and the acceleration or deceleration of the growth of basic pay settlements in each EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

In economic theory, labour demand depends negatively on the cost of labour. All other things equal, wage increases beyond productivity growth lead to a reduction of labour demand and employment and an increase in unemployment. Whenever unemployment is above (below) its equilibrium level, real wages should decrease (increase) in order to restore equilibrium. Empirically, the responsiveness of wages to the level of unemployment may differ considerably from Member State to Member State. A Commission contribution to this literature is notably Mc Morrow (1996)(1) who attributes slow employment growth in Europe as compared to the United States or Japan to sticky real wages.

The short-run Phillips curve(2) provides a framework for thinking about the dynamics of wages, inflation and the equilibrium rate of unemployment. However, one should be careful when interpreting estimated Phillips curves, since the confidence intervals of estimates are generally quite large.

As with most of the literature, these studies deal with unemployment in general, rather than with the narrower concept of short-term unemployment. Still, there is no reason to believe that results would change considerably if one applied the analysis to short-term unemployment.

To conclude, a brief look at the evidence would seem to suggest that a negative relationship exists between the (short-term) unemployment rate and wage settlements, but it is not possible to be precise about the quantification of this relationship.

(1) The Wage Formation Process and Labour Market Flexibility in the Community, the United States and Japan, Economic papers No 118.

(2) For an overview, see e.g. OECD (2000): EMU one year on, Economics surveys, February.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR), Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Fur animals in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware of the recent decision taken by the Netherlands Government to ban the husbandry of fur animals in the Netherlands after a period of 10 years, without any compensation for the fur producers?

2. Is it true, as the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture stated on 26 January 2001, that the European Commission has indicated that Member States have the right to determine such bans individually and that the Commission has approved a precedent in the United Kingdom?

3. If the answers to the two preceding questions are in the affirmative, could the Commission indicate which articles of the European treaties allow Member States to take such measures?

4. Does the Commission share the view that, where Member States determine such measures autonomously on the basis of ethical considerations, this would release those Member States from the obligation to compensate the producers?

5. Would the Commission accept trade in fur products of EU or third-country origin being prohibited in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

1. The Netherlands have notified the Commission under Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and the Council, of 22 June 1998, on technical standards and regulations(1) of a draft law under which the rearing of fur animals would be banned after a transitional period of 10 years (notification 2001/64/NL). The Commission is currently examining the draft law in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC.

2. and 3. The United Kingdom notified a draft law prohibiting the breeding or keeping of animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur to the Commission in 1999. As to its position in this respect, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Members' attention to its answer to written question E-1512/00 by Mrs Kauppi(2).

4. In the case where a national measure does not infringe Community law, the question of compensation for damages caused by the said measure must be assessed within the framework of national law, taking account also of the need to respect Community provisions on state aids.

5. A prohibition of trade in fur products in one Member State would of course have to be regarded as an obstacle to intra-Community trade. The legality of such a measure with regard to the rules of the EC Treaty concerning free movement of goods would however depend on several factors such as the justifications for the measure invoked by national authorities. As far as the Commission is aware, no Member State plans to enact any such measure. The question as to the Commission's position in this respect is therefore entirely hypothetical.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Property rights and enlargement

As is widely known, the Real Socialist regimes in the Central and Eastern European countries abolished private property, which was confiscated. With the gradual return to democracy, the governments of some of those countries have decided to recognise that the rightful owners (or their descendants) of property that was confiscated still have a right to that property with particular reference to houses and land. Such persons are thus able to regain possession of the property confiscated from them, although the procedures for doing so are complicated. In some cases, however as has happened in Romania former owners are being offered not the land that was in their possession at the time of confiscation, but a replacement. This has given rise to dissatisfaction and tensions, due not so much to any comparison between the financial value of what was lost and what has been returned in its place, but to sentimental reasons, since the confiscated property is intimately bound up with family memories and traditions.

Can the Commission state whether, during the negotiations with the applicant countries:

1. it is checking whether property rights have been restored?

2. it is able to establish whether confiscated property has actually been returned to the rightful owners or their descendants?

3. it has set up a service which may be contacted by citizens of the countries concerned who wish to appeal against decisions by the public authorities to offer them property other than that which was confiscated?

4. it is willing to apply all possible pressure with a view to ensuring that property rights are fully respected, particularly those of families whose property was confiscated?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The confiscation to which the Honourable Member refers took place before the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome. Article 295 (former Article 222) of the EC Treaty states that the Treaty should in no way prejudice the system of property ownership in the Member States. The matter therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the candidate countries themselves and not the European institutions. Consequently, the system of ownership is not being discussed in the accession negotiations, nor is the Commission carrying out any investigations. Any complaint from citizens of the candidate countries must be made to those countries' authorities or to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission did, however, touch on the problem in its 1997 opinions on the applications from the associated Central and Eastern European countries. Where necessary, it has referred to the problem in the reports on the progress made by the candidate countries towards accession, which it presents every year to Parliament and the Council, and in particular in the 1999 and 2000 reports on Romania.