ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Commission plans for recognising and exchanging returned emigrants' driving licences

Spanish emigrants returning from Latin America in recent years find themselves facing serious problems both socially and in terms of employment due to the fact that they cannot get their driving licences validated because there is, in many cases, no bilateral agreement with their former countries of residence concerning mutual recognition and exchange of driving licences.

An EU Directive of 29 July 1991 lays down that driving licences issued by third countries can be exchanged for Community licences only if a bilateral agreement exists between the countries concerned. This Directive was transposed into the Spanish General Ruling on Drivers, adopted by the Royal Decree of 30 May 1997.

What are the commission's plans for easing the problem of recognising and exchanging non-Community driving licences and thus preventing the serious prejudice suffered by emigrants returning to countries like Spain, who find themselves deprived of a document which is frequently essential for finding a job?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

Article 1 paragraph 2 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1) provides for mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States. The justification for the recognition of licences issued in Member States lies within the harmonisation of the criteria for issue.

However, driving licences issued in third countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) do not have to be mutually recognised. Even in case a licence issued in a third country is recognised and exchanged for a Community licence by one Member State, another Member State is not bound to recognise this Community licence issued in exchange (as stated in Article 8 paragraph 6 of Directive 91/439/EEC).

The policy of bilateral recognition of licences issued in third countries lies within the discretion of individual Member States. In case a holder of a Community licence establishes his normal residence in a third country outside the EEA, the recognition of the licence depends on bilateral agreements in place, as does the recognition of a third country licence of holders who wish to establish their normal residence in a Member State.

At present, the existing lists of third countries whose licences are recognised at a bilateral level are heterogeneous for a variety of reasons. A coherent Community recognition policy would need to be based upon objective grounds, which would include an evaluation of examination standards, document security features and other driving licence-related aspects in a large number of third countries. For the time being, the Commission is not in a position to carry out such an exercise.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. This act is of relevance to the European Economic Area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3010/01

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Identity card for European citizens residing in Belgium

According to the answer to Written Question P-2506/01(1) by Mr Speroni, Community law stipulates that EU citizens travelling to other Member States must be in possession of an identity card or passport.

However, the Belgian State refuses to issue identity cards to EU citizens who are resident in Belgium but not Belgian citizens, which means that they must carry their passports when they travel.

Can the Commission say whether this attitude on the part of Belgium is compatible with EU legislation and whether it does not consider it appropriate to draw up a directive harmonising the relevant laws of the Member States?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 246.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2996/01 and P-3010/01given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The Commission can only confirm that valid identity cards or passports are the only documents recognised by all Member States when Union citizens leave their own country for a Member State other than the one of which they are a national; the status of the citizen in question (employee or self-employed worker, student, pensioner, service provider, person receiving services, etc.) is irrelevant in this context.

However, under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the Member States also recognise the laissez-passer issued to members and employees of the European institutions.

Identity cards or passports are issued by the Member State of which the citizen is a national, as these documents are issued or renewed in accordance with national law and must indicate the citizen's nationality. Belgium's position is in accordance with Community law. The Commission has no plans to propose the adoption of a Community instrument on the issue to Union citizens of identity cards or passports or on the renewal of such documents.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2999/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Implementation of Regulation (EC) 2666/2000

Council Regulation (EC) 2666/2000(1) provides for assistance to Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

What stage has been reached in implementing this decision and, specifically, what amounts have already been given to the above countries? In the event that the Regulation has not yet been fully implemented, when is complete implementation envisaged?

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 1.

Reply

(14 February 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 (CARDS) was adopted by the Council on 5 December 2000 and entered into force on 7 December 2000. Under Article 7 of that Regulation, the Commission shall implement the Community assistance, assisted by the CARDS Committee (see Article 10 of the Regulation). Each year, pursuant to Article 12, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a progress report on the Community assistance. That report shall contain information on the action financed during the year and on the findings of monitoring work and shall give an assessment of the results achieved in the implementation of the strategic framework, the multiannual indicative programmes and the annual action programmes referred to in Article 3(1).

In conclusion: implementation of the assistance is the responsibility of the Commission. Each year the Council and the Parliament are briefed in parallel on the activities and progress.

The first report will refer to 2001. That report has, of course, not yet come out.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3066/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Denial of compensation from Germany for former Italian military and civilian internees

In a surprising and significant decision, a German foundation (Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future) directly representing the German government and industry has ruled that Italian Military Internees (IMI), as well as many civilian forced labourers, are not entitled to the compensation provided for former internees.

This decision is unjustified from a legal standpoint and is already the subject of an appeal by associations representing former internees and forced labourers in Germany, who have thus been compelled to meet further substantial legal costs, in addition to those already sustained in submitting their applications and the necessary documentation.

What will the Council do to prevent this very serious discrimination, which would undo the immense political, moral and historical good, in terms of reconciliation between the peoples of Europe, that has been achieved by the practice of providing compensation for survivors of the terrible and tragic events of the second world war?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

The Council is not competent to intervene to resolve the situation described by the Honourable Member, as it has already indicated in reply to Questions E-2155/01 and P-2437/01.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: Organisation of strategies for developing regional economic competitiveness

In order to enhance the effectiveness of its development strategies, the Commission is supporting on-the-spot experiments with new ideas put forward by the regions to increase their economic competitiveness and their own ability to meet the challenges of the information society.

To that end it has set out the following three themes to provide reference points for action by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in this area for the period 2000-2001:

- regional economies based on technological knowledge and innovation,

- new information technologies serving regional development,

- regional identity and sustainable development.

The first invitations to tender have been published and the closing dates for submitting project proposals have passed.

1. What has been the response by the regions to this opportunity?

2. Do the three proposals reflect the three guidelines laid down by the Commission?

3. What are the timescales for approval of the projects and hence for getting them started?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission communication of 31 January 2001 concerning the guidelines for innovative actions under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in 2000-2006(1) aroused very great interest among the regions. In response to the Commission's invitation to present a regional programme of innovative actions by 31 May of each year until 2005, 103 of the 156 eligible regions presented a programme in the first year and three specific network programmes were also submitted.

The breakdown among the three strategic topics shows that over two thirds of the regions presented a programme covering both technological innovation and the information society. Appraisal of the programmes shows that overall their quality is high and that a very large number of proposed actions have an innovative content. Moreover, these programmes have stimulated a broad partnership across the public, private and cooperative sectors for their preparation and implementation.

Individual decisions on part-financing the majority of programmes could still be taken in 2001 or at the beginning of 2002.

(1) COM(2001) 60 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings

The Commission has sent Greece a letter of formal notice concerning its failure to incorporate into Greek law by 1 January 2001 Directive 98/78/EC(1), on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group.

1. Has Greece replied to the letter of formal notice?

2. For what reasons has the above Directive not been incorporated into Greek law?

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

1. Under Article 11(1), Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group should have been transposed into the national legislation of the Member States no later than 5 June 2000. Under Article 11(2) the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 should be applied for the first time to the supervision of accounts for the financial year beginning January 2001 or during that calendar year. So far, the Greek authorities have replied neither to the letter of formal notice sent on 8 August nor to the reasoned opinion notified on 29 December 2000. For that reason, the Commission decided on 28 March 2001 to refer the matter to the Court of Justice under Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

2. Not having received a reply from the Greek authorities, the Commission does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2884/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE)and Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Minority languages and freedom of expression in Greece

Mr Sotiris Bletsas, a member of the Society for Aromanian (Vlach) Culture, has been convicted last 2 February 2001 to fifteen months in prison and a fine of GRD 500 000 for dissemination of false information (under Article 191 of the Penal Code). The charges were based on the fact that, in July 1995, he had distributed at the Aromanian Festival a publication of the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages which referred to the minority languages in Greece.

On 21 September 2001, the Athens First Court of Appeal postponed the hearing on Sotiris Bletsas' case to 18 December because of the absence of all three prosecution witnesses. The appeals trial had previously been postponed on 4 July. This was also because of the absence of the prosecution witnesses. Although Greek law states that these witnesses could be held in contempt and punished, especially when they are present at the beginning of a hearing and then fail to appear for his trial, the court has not invoked this law.

In its answer to a previous Written Question (E-0487/01(1)), the Commission considered this topic to be of major importance and said that it was following it carefully. Has the Commission asked the Greek Government to provide a copy of the sentence and any other information related to this matter? Does it share the deep concerns expressed by several associations, political parties and academics?

Does the Commission consider this attitude compatible with the European values of freedom of expression and opinion and of cultural and linguistic diversity?

Could the Commission's legal services verify whether Article 191 of the Greek Penal Code complies with the spirit of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law recognised by the treaties?

In strictly legal terms, does the Commission consider that the Greek State should investigate the improper summons, which contributed crucially to the postponement as well as to the need for the postponement itself? Will the Commission verify whether this attitude might violate the right to a fair trial?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

In the Commission's opinion, the rights of persons belonging to minorities form part of the fundamental principles common to the Member States referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission was therefore concerned at the decision of 2 February 2001 by the Greek court of first instance to convict to Mr Sotiris Bletsas under Article 191 of the Penal Code for dissemination of false information. The Commission subsequently wrote to the Greek authorities requesting a copy of the sentence and any other relevant information.

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, following the appeal hearing of 18 December 2001, Mr Bletsas has been acquitted of all charges laid against him.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3435/01

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Old style UK driving licences

It would seem that Spain no longer recognises the old green UK driving licence. It will now only accept the new style driving licence, which includes a photograph of the driver. Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is legal for Spain to refuse to accept valid UK driving licences?

Anwer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences(1) stipulates in article 1(2), that driving licences issued by Member States shall be recognised.

Commission decision 2000/275/EC of 21 March 2000 on equivalences between certain categories of driving licences(2) specifies in its first recital that directive 91/439/EEC provides that all

driving licences issued by Member States, including those issued before implementation of that Directive in national legislation, have to be mutually recognised.

Therefore, all driving licences from Member States that are still valid in the issuing country have to be recognised in the other Member States.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) OJ L 91, 12.4.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3630/01

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(8 January 2002)

Subject: President of the Convention

Is the correct that at the EU summit in Laeken the Council took only a few minutes to discuss and agree on the appointment of Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as president of the Convention and is it also true that only one name was put forward for the office of president and that the name of Wim Kok was therefore not even mentioned?

Why were only former heads of government considered when the president and vice-presidents were appointed and not serving members of parliament?

Why is there not a single woman among the president and two vice-presidents?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

After a substantive discussion of all the relevant issues and taking into account a number of different options, the European Council meeting in Laeken agreed to appoint Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as president of the Convention.

The Council is in no position to speculate on the subjective motives of the participants.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3628/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Regional planning studies for the Cyclades

Further to my Question E-1266/01(1) to the Commission, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Greek government's position on the protection of the region of Molos Marmaron on the island of Paros is still unclear and that:

- the Greek Ornithological Society has drawn up a study (with funding from the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works) on the protection of threatened species of birds of prey in Greece, and the region of Molos Marmaron on Paros is designated as one of the regions of special importance for the survival of these birds;

- according to Document 48133/2208/15.05.01 of the Directorate-General for the Environment of the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, the region of Molos exhibits hydroscopic features and has small dispersed wetlands;

- the Greek Ministry of Agriculture's Directorate for Environmental Protection has drawn up a document confirming that it will be recommending the adoption of the plan and the protection measures proposed by the Greek Ornithological Society.

In view of the above, can the Commission say whether Greece has abandoned plans for the construction of a commercial harbour and whether it intends to protect the region in question? If this is not the case, what does the Commission intend to do to protect the region of Molos?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 70.

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

As it stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-1266/01, the Commission is not systematically consulted about the planning and implementation of medium-size infrastructure projects, especially when they are not part-financed under the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund. The Commission is therefore not in a position to say whether or not the Greek authorities are intending to abandon plans for the construction of the said harbour.

A complaint concerning the planned construction of a commercial harbour in Molos Bay on the island of Paros was received by the Commission and recorded under Number 2001/4260. Citing several EU directives, the complainants argue that the project in question could seriously harm the environment.

On 29 November 2001, a letter was sent to the Greek authorities requesting information on the existence of such a project, and in particular on compliance with the environmental impact study approval procedure and on the measures taken to prevent or limit any negative impact on the environment.

Once it has received the Greek authorities' response, and taking into consideration the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission will examine whether or not there is any incompatibility with Community provisions in force and will take whatever action it deems appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Transfer of OLAF officials

With reference to the subject of question P-0964/01(1), it is curious that two OLAF officials (Organisation Lutte Antifraude Européenne) who had been investigating the VAT margin scheme for several months, and collaborating with the Italian authorities, have been transferred to different areas of responsibility.

Their successors will now naturally first have to familiarise themselves with the subject, which will result in further delays.

Can the Commission explain this transfer and give a clear reason for it, thereby dispelling any suspicion of a connection between the officials' transfer and the matter of the margin scheme?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 164.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

The Commission would point out that the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) is responsible for the operational aspects of the investigation referred to by the Honourable Member; OLAF acts fully independently in these matters(1).

With regard to value added tax (VAT), OLAF, at the request of the competent national authorities, gives assistance in conducting investigations and ensures that where it cooperates, no delays occur in dealing with the cases.

(1) See Commission Decision of 28 April 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom establishing the European Antifraud Office (OLAF), and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Antifraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.