ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 January 2002)

Subject: The Spanish presidency and the working languages of the EU

The entry of new countries into the EU, the official languages of which will be recognised on an equal footing with the current ones in the Union of fifteen countries, may accentuate the trend whereby, although the languages of all the Member States are recognised, some of them acquire the status of preferred working languages, as is currently the case for French and English.

Certain countries want their language to have the same recognition as English or French, the argument being based on the number of people speaking that language in the EU. However, in the EU there are languages, such as Spanish or Portuguese Galician, one of the languages of the Spain, belongs to the same family spoken by hundreds of millions of people on four continents, and therefore of a universal nature, which must be taken into account in settling this debate.

It would be absurd if the EU, which must play a fundamental political and economic role in the world, should underestimate the value of these two languages as preferred working languages, when, out of all the languages which are or are going to be the official languages of the EU, they are among the three most spoken languages in the world. What will the Spanish presidency's position on this issue be?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

Article 290 TEC states that the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Community shall be determined by the Council, acting unanimously. The position of the Council on this issue is set out in its Regulation No 1 (EU) of 1958, as subsequently amended on the accession of new Member States, which states that there are currently eleven official working languages of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0799/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Newcastle disease in cormorants

In September 2001, Newcastle disease, an infectious disease of poultry, was found in a sample taken from cormorants as part of a research project in Denmark.

The relevant legislation is Council Directive 92/66/EEC(1) of 14 July 1992, concerning poultry, racing pigeons and other birds kept in captivity. Wild birds living freely, such as cormorants, are not covered by this directive, but when an infection is detected in such birds, individual Member States must inform the Commission of any measures they have taken.

The directive also stipulates that minimum Community control measures should also be provided for against Newcastle disease in certain species other than those specified in the directive.

In view of the discovery of Newcastle disease in cormorants in Denmark, will the Commission state:

- How many cases of Newcastle disease in cormorants have been detected in the Member States and what measures have been taken to control the disease?

- Do the same guidelines apply as apply to outbreaks of the disease in poultry, where the entire flock has to be killed, and what can be done to ensure against infection?

- What Community control measures have been taken against Newcastle disease in cormorants?

(1) OJ L 260, 5.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Newcastle disease is a viral disease of domestic and wild birds including migratory feral waterfowl and other aquatic birds. The seriousness of this disease varies widely and is dependent on several factors including different degrees of virulence of distinct virus strains and the host species.

Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of Newcastle disease, takes into account the particular characteristics of this disease and establishes in which cases disease control measures should be applied, e.g. in case of serious disease of poultry.

The Member States must provide information to the Commission in cases of disease confirmed in wild birds. According to the official data available to the Commission, the confirmation of Newcastle disease in a cormorant in Denmark in 2001 has been the first report of such a disease in cormorants within the Union. However, scientific literature mentions the detection of Newcastle disease in cormorants in the United Kingdom (Scotland) in the 1940's.

Council Directive 92/66/EEC does not include control measures as regards Newcastle disease in wild birds. The lack of scientific knowledge as regards the role of wildlife in the epidemiology of Newcastle disease has so far made it impossible to establish precise rules at Community level. Therefore, it is up to the Member States to study the local epidemiological situation and to decide which measures could be successfully applied.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1145/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 April 2002)

Subject: Failure of Commission officials to use their mother tongue

Parliament provides interpreting facilities in all the official languages of the Union for all meetings of its parliamentary committees. However, some Commission officials (principally Greek and Dutch) who attend these meetings and are asked for their opinions almost exclusively use English (and French to a lesser extent) when they could quite easily speak in their mother tongue.

Are the Commission's departments under instructions which prohibit their officials from using their mother tongue and compel them to speak only in English and French? What steps will the Commission take to persuade some of its officials that they may and should use their mother tongue as it is an integral aspect of multiculturalism in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

No circular has been issued at the Commission which forbids its officials to use their mother tongue or obliges them to use only English or French.

The Commission would first of all stress that under Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, one of the general conditions of recruitment is that applicants have a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Communities and a satisfactory knowledge of another language of the Communities to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties. It is therefore not stipulated that knowledge of a particular Community language takes precedence over knowledge of other languages.

The Commission would furthermore point out that according to the implementing provisions in its Rules of Procedure, it uses three languages in practice, namely German, French and English.

The Commission therefore does not see any objective reason for compelling its officials to use a particular language even if this is their mother tongue and depart from the existing rules and established practice.

As regards the specific case of the Commission's participation in parliamentary committee meetings where interpretation into all the EU's official languages is available, the Commission's officials are free to choose the language they wish to speak. Thus, for example, some choose for convenience to express themselves in the language in which they have been dealing with a particular question, whilst others because of the technical nature of the discussions use a language familiar to the largest number of participants so that most of them can follow the proceedings directly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0189/02

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Labour medicine

On 12 December 2001 the Italian Senate adopted Act No 824, by which decree-law No 402 of 12 November 2001 on urgent measures relating to health personnel acquires the status of a law proper.

Article 1a of this act extends the right to take responsibility, as competent doctor, for health and safety measures in the workplace to doctors specialising in either hygiene and preventive medicine or legal and insurance medicine.

Does the Commission not consider this law to be in flagrant breach of the EU directive on health and safety in the workplace, under which this competence is reserved for doctors specialising in labour medicine?

Does the Commission not consider further that doctors specialising in hygiene and preventive medicine or legal and insurance medicine should be allowed to practice at national level only, given that their training, unlike that of specialists in labour medicine, is not recognised at European level?

In addition, given the deficiencies of the existing training arrangements for specialists in hygiene and legal medicine as far as workplace health and safety is concerned, does the Commission not consider that the implementation of the above-mentioned Article 1a could jeopardise employees' health and safety?

What action does the Commission intend to take to deal with this breach of Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission has just received a complaint alleging that Act No 824 adopted by the Italian Senate is in breach of Community law.

The Commission will undertake a detailed analysis of the legislation in question and will then provide the Honourable Member with a supplementary answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Illegal practice of unions of agricultural cooperatives in Greece concerning payment of Community aid to farmers

According to complaints made by farmers and written statements by representatives of farming associations submitted to the Public Prosecutor, some unions of agricultural cooperatives in Greece illegally and coercively withhold part of the Community subsidies paid to farmers. The Commission is aware of this matter and has informed me that it is considering referring Greece to the European Court of Justice.

A new piece of information has now also come to light. Not only do some unions of agricultural cooperatives force farmers to sign supposedly voluntary declarations authorising the unions to withhold between 2 % and 5 % of their subsidies, they also, in the event of farmers refusing to sign, refuse to fill in the forms relating to stocks and destination, which are essential documents required for payment of the subsidies. According to the complaints, typical examples are the unions of agricultural cooperatives of Apokorono-Sfakia and Maleme in Crete.

Since the practice followed by some unions of agricultural cooperatives is increasingly at variance with Community legislation, what action will the Commission take in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The situation described in the question made by the Honourable Member results from a private relationship between the agricultural cooperatives and their members. In the circumstances the Commission views are that Community law has not been contravened. For further information the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answers to written questions E-0128/02 from Mr Alavanos(1) and E-0238/02 from Mr Trakatellis and other(2).

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 148.

(2) See page 99.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: The EU's objectives in the ILO world commission

The ILO has set up a world commission to consider the relationships between globalisation, the liberalisation of trade and social development. Naturally these issues are also important to the EU.

One of the chairs of the world commission is the president of an EU Member State, Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland.

The world commission intends to report its findings in March 2003.

What are the EU's objectives in connection with the world commission's work?

Are there any plans for debating the objectives and/or the world commission's conclusions with the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission fully supports the establishment by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation and has also expressed its interest in contributing to its work.

The World Commission can help the international community to better understand the complex interface between globalisation, trade liberalisation, poverty reduction, social development and decent work, including core labour standards. The World Commission could also propose innovative and effective approaches and initiatives in order to strengthen the social dimension of globalisation. The Commission hopes that the international community will then be better equipped to harness globalisation and maximise the economic and social benefits of globalisation and trade. The World Commission should seek the contribution of other international organisations such as World Trade Organisation (WTO), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad), World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), etc. in order to develop an integral and comprehensive approach.

The World Commission will address its report to the ILO in 2003. Decisions on new initiatives and actions remain with the ILO Governing Body and the International Labour Conference which are composed of Member States on a tripartite basis.

The Commission contributes actively to the social dimension of globalisation. On 18 July 2001, it adopted a Communication on promoting core labour standards and strengthening social governance in the context of globalisation(1) and a Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility(2) which are being discussed by the Parliament.

The cooperation with the ILO has been intensified and a new exchange of letters between the Commission and the ILO was signed on 14 May 2001 in order to strengthen the cooperation. A high level meeting between the Commission and the ILO on 14 February 2002 launched a new phase of cooperation including technical and development cooperation on core labour standards, capacity building, poverty reduction, social dialogue, social protection and decent work.

(1) COM(2001) 416 final.

(2) COM(2001) 366 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Commission action following the ECJ judgment in Case C-1/00 of 13.12.2001

What measures, if any, is the Commission taking following the judgment of 13 December 2001 of the European Court of Justice in Case C-1/00 Commission v France (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Refusal to end the ban on British beef and veal)?

In the light of the continuing illegal French ban on British beef, has the Commission initiated the procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty which would lead to its being able to specify the fine that France would have to pay.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission, not having received satisfactory assurances from the French Government concerning its compliance with the Court's judgement, has opened the procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty. The letter of formal notice under the relevant procedure giving France 30 days to submit its observations was sent to that Member State on 21 March 2002. A reply was issued by the French authorities on 19 April and is currently under consideration.

The question of a lump sum or penalty payment referred to in Article 228(2) only becomes relevant at a later stage in the proceedings, namely if after failure of the Member State concerned to comply with the Commission's reasoned opinion the Commission brings the case before the Court of Justice.

In such a case the Commission is required to specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty which it considers appropriate. The final decision on whether or not to impose the lump sum or penalty and its amount rests with the Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/02

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: The rights of ethnic minorities to be granted licences in St Lucia

In response to an enquiry from one of my constituents, regarding a manifesto pledge of the St Lucian Labour Party to introduce a licensing regime whereby only indigenous operators will be granted licences to operate key ancillary businesses, what is the Commission's position on whether this policy would breach European law on the rights of ethnic minorities if applied in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

The Commission notes that the question concerned is phrased in terms which are too general (the situation reported by the Honourable Member relates to the island of St Lucia, outside the territory of the European Union) for it to be able to provide an appropriate, detailed answer.

The Commission notes, in particular, that several important elements are not stated in the question, particularly in so far as:

- it is not specified whether a particular Member State is concerned;

- the legal source for restricting the granting of the licences in question is not identified: it is therefore not known whether this concerns legislation or public- authority practice, public regulation or action by a private entity;

- the field concerned is not specified in sufficient detail: it is therefore impossible, by mere reference to key ancillary businesses, to establish whether it concerns one or more economic activities under the terms of the EC Treaty, with respect to which it might be necessary to apply the principles of the internal market and, in particular, the rules relating to one or more freedoms of movement;

- the question does not state the reasons which might be put forward by the bodies or subjects concerned in order to support this intended action: it is therefore impossible to know whether it involves overriding requirements of public interest within the meaning of the case law of the Court of Justice, and whether there is a cause-and-effect link between the intended measure and the possible objective.

In the absence of the above-mentioned elements, the Honourable Member will appreciate that the Commission is not in a position to reach any kind of assessment, even in summary terms, and cannot provide him with a more detailed answer. In order to do this, the Commission would need additional information relating to the various aspects mentioned above.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0440/02

by Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Missing CAP funds in France

There have been reports that an official French audit of the common agricultural policy by the French Audit Office revealed a secret, uncontrolled system of agricultural subsidies that is open to abuse and is rarely penalised even when detected, with much of the money going to activities other than agriculture. Moreover, it has been reported that one-third of all subsidies are inflated or wrong as a result of mistakes or fraud and that only one-fifth of these sums are ever recovered.

Could the Commission please verify the validity of this audit? How can it justify this atrocious behaviour towards European taxpayers, and how does it plan to rectify this gross injustice? How can such a large amount of money be so fraudulently used by the largest recipient of CAP funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission is also aware of the audit report of the French Court of auditors (Audit Office) on the management of agricultural subsidies in France to which the Honourable Member makes reference. The audit report in question does raise criticism of the French administration in a number of areas. The Commission is in the process of examining the report in more detail. However, no confirmation of the points raised by the Honourable Member has been found.

The Commission wishes to bring to the Honourable Member's attention that the service of the Commission charged with the audit of agricultural expenditure (formerly the clearance of accounts) has carried out a substantial number of missions in France over the years. In addition, an independent French body, the CCCOP, carries out a detailed annual examination of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure in France, including the re-examination of several hundred individual claims per year.

These controls have, over the years, identified a number of different problems in the control system operated in France for EAGGF Guarantee and these have led to financial corrections imposed on France in the clearance of accounts process, totalling around 457 million since 1994.

The Commission uses the various published reports as a part of its risk analysis when planning audit missions to the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) and Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Council. Human rights in Algeria.



Official Journal 229 E , 26/09/2002 P. 0105 - 0105



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) and Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Council (4 March 2002) Subject: Human rights in Algeria Would the Council outline how it intends to ensure that an assessment of the human rights situation in Algeria, and an assessment of that country's compliance with the human rights article of the new EU-Algeria Association Agreement, will be a separate agenda item at all future meetings held under the Association Agreement, and especially at all Association Council meetings? Joint answerto Written Questions E-0559/02 and E-0561 (26 June 2002) The Council, in accordance with the established practice in its political dialogues, and for as long as necessary, will put questions concerning the respect for human rights on the agenda for the political dialogue with Algeria, and on that for the Association Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1528/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Measures against Economy Class Syndrome

From the plane straight into Casualty. This has been a common route for many EU citizens who, after a flight of more than six hours, have arrived at an EU airport suffering from Deep Vein Thrombosis.

According to experts, Economy Class Syndrome is due to dehydration resulting from the dry atmosphere in planes, the pressure decrease in aircraft on takeoff, and above all, the lack of mobility. Therefore doctors recommend that airlines allocate greater space for passenger seats.

Can the Commission indicate if, in accordance with medical opinion on the matter, it can exercise influence over airline companies to ensure that aeroplane seats provide passengers with more space in order to avoid the overcrowding which encourages Economy Class Syndrome?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0442/02 by Mr Evans during question time at Parliament's June 2002 part-session(1).

(1) Written answer of 11.6.2002.