ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0327/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Chlorine in swimming pools

Press reports based on laboratory research carried out by the University of Louvain have caused widespread consternation, since this research has found that chlorine used to purify water causes severe lung problems among children under nine years of age.

Is the Commission aware of the results of this research and, if so, what are its views on the matter?

What measures does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

The study mentioned by the Honourable Member was carried out by the University of Louvain in order to assess the effects of atmospheric pollution on the pulmonary health of children, comparing children living in urban areas and children living in rural areas of Belgium. The study reports, among other findings, a cause-effect relation between frequenting indoor swimming pools as part of school sporting/recreational activities and compromised pulmonary health. Although no specific pathologies were identified, the health status of the lungs of the examined children was found to have decreased lung protective barrier function and being more prone to develop asthmatic type of allergic reactions. The authors postulated that a possible reason for their observations might be the inadequate ventilation of the indoor swimming pools involved in the study. The poor ventilation of the pools would have allowed for the accumulation in the air and subsequent inhalation by children of chlorine-derived toxic chemical species (hypochlorite and chloramines).

The results of this study are hardly surprising given the toxicity profiles of chlorine and its derivatives. In fact, effects similar to those reported in the study have been reported in the past following prolonged exposure to chlorine and its derivatives under closed or poorly ventilated conditions. These toxic gases are normally formed in all use situations where chlorine or hypochlorite (bleach) is used to sanitise and disinfect water bodies (drinking water, swimming pools, toilets, etc.) that are likely to contain organic matter. In use situations conducted outdoors or under ventilation

these gases are diluted to background air levels. For this reason, most commercially available chlorine or hypochlorite solutions carry warning labels cautioning the user to utilise these products under ventilation.

On the other hand, the possible health risks related to the use of chlorine in swimming pools must be weighted against its health benefits as the most effective means to sanitise and disinfect.

In light of this study and the knowledge of the health risks of chlorine, the Commission considers that proper ventilation of indoor swimming pools remains the most appropriate means to prevent the risks in question. The need for proper ventilation is well known by the competent authorities of the Member States, which are responsible in the first instance for health and hygiene measures related to the local specific conditions of this type of installations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1449/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Lawyers' freedom to provide services payment for travelling time

According to paragraph 336c of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, a lawyer can be appointed to represent a person, in both civil and criminal cases, the lawyer's fees for the case in question being met by the State. The fees cover client meetings, possible inspections as well as the hearing itself, but not travel expenses or the cost of travelling time, i.e. payment for the time the lawyer spends on travelling. The lawyer can claim direct expenses for transport, such as plane and train tickets, from the client, but not payment for time spent travelling. A convicted client in a criminal case refunds the State's expenses. In some cases, the court also allows the lawyer's direct expenses to be paid by the State.

Can it be regarded as inconsistent with Council Directive 77/249/EEC(1) of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services as well as with the principles of freedom of movement, that lawyers appointed to represent a client, whose fees for work associated with the case itself are provisionally met by the State, cannot receive payment for travelling time from the client, when the lawyer does not live in the area covered by the jurisdiction of the court or comes from another EU country?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1977, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2001)

The payment of fees to court-appointed lawyers does not fall within the scope of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977, aimed at facilitating the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services. The rule which prevents court-appointed lawyers from charging fees from their clients for time spent travelling cannot therefore be in breach of this Directive.

The principle of freedom of movement covers both the provision of services and establishment. As regards the provision of services, and assuming that a lawyer established in another Member State has been appointed by the court, which does not seem to be common practice, the rule in question does not appear to discriminate against this lawyer, even indirectly, insofar as the time spent travelling varies according to the proximity of the client or the jurisdiction and the available means of transport. For example, the time involved would be less for a lawyer established not far from the border than it would for a lawyer residing in the jurisdiction of a Member State with a large area.

As regards establishment, the time spent travelling is the same for a lawyer established in the host Member State as it is for a lawyer from this Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0594/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Working Time Directive

1. Under the Working Time Directive, do employers have to provide four weeks paid holiday in addition to public holidays? Alternatively, does the four-week mandatory paid holiday include public holidays?

2. Are Member States permitted to exempt small firms from the Working Time Directive? If so, what is the largest type of company which may be exempted? Which Member States have chosen to exclude small firms from the Working Time Directive? What criteria have been used by Member States to determine which firms are to be excluded (turnover, number of employees etc.)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

1. The Working Time Directive(1) (Article 7) stipulates that Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks. However, the Directive does not specify whether bank holidays should be included in this period of annual leave.

It could be argued that the term leave should be interpreted as time off during which the worker would otherwise be supposed to be at work. Furthermore, bank holidays are supposed to be days on which workers do not work it is not a matter of choice for them. Finally, it should be noted that, in quite a number of Member States, bank holidays or public holidays are not counted as part of annual leave.

The Honourable Member may also be interested in reading the Commission's report on the state of implementation of the Working Time Directive, adopted on 1 December 2000(2).

2. The Working Time Directive does not allow Member States to exempt small firms from its scope. In accordance with Article 137 (ex Article 118) of the EC Treaty, the text of the Directive takes due account of the aim of avoiding the imposition of administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ L 307, 13.12.1993).

(2) COM(2000) 787 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1028/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Treatment of Afghan refugees in Pakistan

Would the Commission outline how it intends to respond to the news stories emanating from Pakistan about Afghan people who are apparently living in appalling conditions in refugee camps?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission is aware, from its own sources and from press reports, of the conditions prevailing in certain camps for refugees in Pakistan, notably the camp at Jalozai, where conditions are said to be precarious.

The Commission, through the European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO), has already made available 1 135 million from its 2001 budget to improve the condition of refugees in two camps in Pakistan: Shamshatoo and Jalozai. These funds, allocated to the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) International Rescue Committee and the Danish Refugee Council and to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will, in Shamshatoo, be used to improve basic hygiene, transportation of drinking water to those parts of the camp which have no access to wells, the distribution of 5 000 hygiene kits and 5 000 kerosene lamps. Three wells with generator pumps will be dug and a hand-pump water distribution system installed. It is hoped that some 43 500 people will benefit from this operation.

UNHCR will use its funding from ECHO for the purchase of 4 500 tents, 18 500 blankets, 8 500 cooking sets, 12 000 heaters and 12 000 kerosene lamps for eventual use in the Jalozai camp, once the Pakistani authorities have given UNHCR permission to screen the refugees in this camp.

In this regard, the Union Troika, conscious of the situation in the Jalozai camp, met the Pakistan authorities and made a démarche on 24 February 2001 expressing concern at the Afghan refugee situation in Pakistan, particularly in Jalozai and noting the potential for a humanitarian disaster there.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Xerox announcement about restructuring

Xerox is currently in the process of restructuring its European Manufacturing Operations at Venrey, in Holland, Mitcheldean in the UK and Dundalk in Ireland.

In view of the negative publicity when Xerox undertook a similar operation in 1999 that led to the European Parliament condemning it for failure to consult adequately the workforce and its clear wish this time to make any such announcement when the European Commission does not have restructuring or consultation of workers on the agenda, would the Commission care to suggest to Xerox some dates when it would be appropriate for it to make its announcement?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0362/01, E-0363/01 and E-0366/01 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

With regard to employees' rights, decisions on corporate restructuring need to be taken in compliance with the national legislation implementing a number of directives in the field of labour law and industrial relations, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1), Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(2) and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(3).

All these Directives provide for adequate and effective information and consultation of workers' representatives before decisions are taken and implemented which can affect them. Xerox is of course bound by these obligations with regard to any decision falling within the scope of the above mentioned Directives in relation to its European operations.

However, given that all Member States involved in the envisaged restructuring operation have properly incorporated into their national law the provisions of the Directives mentioned above, the Commission wants to underline that any issues arising in this area are a matter for the national industrial relations' procedures and/or the national courts in the first instance.

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that concerning employment aspects no meetings or contacts with representatives of Xerox or companies representing Xerox or workers' representatives took place with Commission officials and that no such meetings or contacts are planned for the future.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan

The Taliban Government in Afghanistan recently announced its criminal decision to destroy a host of non-Muslim monuments located on Afghan territory. These artefacts which include Hellenistic monuments and Buddhist statues have survived for thousands of years, but the Taliban has already begun or will begin shortly to turn them into heaps of stones in an anachronistic display of hatred and contempt for the treasures of human artistic creation.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to take immediate action and, if so, what action to put an end forthwith to this destruction and to save whatever monuments can still be salvaged from the destructive rage of the Taliban, given that many of these monuments are also symbols of Europe's cultural creation? Can it make any funds available to protect the world's cultural heritage? How does it view the idea of setting up a special EU fund for buying up cultural treasures which are threatened with destruction?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Despite what has probably been an unprecedented number of appeals from governments, international organisations, religious and cultural organisations from around the world, the leader of the Taliban organisation in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, has refused to reconsider his order that two Buddhist statues at Bamiyan should be destroyed. It now appears from press reports that the statues have been destroyed.

When the news from Afghanistan concerning the edict to destroy the statues first reached the outside world, the Union immediately issued a declaration urging the Taliban leadership not to implement what it called this deeply tragic decision, which would deprive the people of Afghanistan of its rich cultural heritage.

The Union's latest Common Position on Afghanistan of 22 January 2001(1) states that the Union shall urge all factions to respect and protect the cultural heritage of Afghanistan and shall encourage activities in the field by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) and the Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage (SPACH).

The budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the world cultural heritage. There are at present no plans by the Community to create a special fund to buy cultural treasures threatened with destruction.

(1) OJ L 21, 23.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1389/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Crisis in the oriental tobacco sector in Puglia, Italy

There is crisis in the oriental tobacco sector in Salento (Puglia) due to a reduction in production quotas, which places it at a disadvantage in relation to Greek oriental tobacco in view of the higher level of Community subsidies available for the latter. This being so, does the Commission intend to take action to provide a structural solution to the problems of the tobacco sector by introducing, if only as a temporary measure, Community aid for such products linked to their quality?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

The present crisis for Salentini tobaccos arises in essence from the difficulty of selling them despite the reduction in their production quotas.

Greek oriental tobacco, for which there is good demand, is unaffected. It can be sold at satisfactory prices.

A structural solution to the oriental tobacco problem in Apulia is provided by the production quota buy-back mechanism designed to facilitate voluntary abandonment of tobacco-growing, introduced when the common market organisation (CMO) for raw tobacco was overhauled in 1998.

Before the 1998 changes it was also possible under the tobacco CMO to launch rural development programmes to permit redeployment to other activities in tobacco-growing regions in difficulty.

The Commission has no plans for additional quality-linked measures given that the provisions now in force already include premium modulation according to quality. Under decisions already adopted by the Council these modulation provisions have been further strengthened this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Firing of depleted uranium shells into the Solway Firth, United Kingdom

What evaluation has the Commission made of the environmental survey conducted by consultants W.S. Atkins on behalf of the British Ministry of Defence in 1994, released in January 1995, into the impact on the marine and terrestrial environment of the test-firing of depleted uranium shells in the United Kingdom into the Solway Firth (from the Dundrennan range near Kirkcudbright, in Scotland) and at Eskmeals (Cumbria, in England)? Is it aware of any similar survey conducted by France into its depleted uranium testing site at Granat?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Test ranges of depleted uranium munitions may be either terrestrial or in a marine environment.

In the case of marine test ranges, the Commission stated on several occasions - most recently in its reply to Oral Question H-0055/01 by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou during question time at Parliament's February 2001 part-session(1) - that no contamination of the marine environment which could be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium concentrations would result from this activity. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue has so far not been addressed under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention.

As far as terrestrial test ranges are concerned, under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has a right of access to the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the air, water and soil, hence in the environment, for verification purposes. The Commission has thus no access to nuclear or military sites as such, and the Commission would request access only in so far as on-site monitoring facilities are necessary for the assessment of the impact on the environment beyond the site perimeter.

The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, and other sources of information brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission was not aware of the British study with regard to the Solway Firth, nor of a similar study conducted by France.

On the basis of the existing Community legislation, mechanisms ensuring monitoring of radioactivity in the environment already exist. The implementation of such provisions does not highlight a particular need for these to be augmented by the Commission conducting environmental sampling for depleted uranium.

(1) Oral reply of 13.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Regularising the work of tourist guides

The EU lays down the principle whereby a tourist guide may provide services in a country other than his/her country of origin when accompanying a group of foreign tourists, provided that he/she does not provide those services in places where a specialist guide is required, such as museums and sites which form part of a country's historical or architectural heritage.

However, this is the EU's only stipulation regarding the work of tourist guides.

Does the Commission not think that the presence of a properly trained tourist guide is a requirement if the excursions which are marketed throughout Europe (involving whole- or part-day visits to a particular geographical site and implicitly or explicitly including natural, cultural and historical attractions) are to be conducted satisfactorily?

In any event, is the Commission planning to take any further steps to regulate the work of tourist guides at EU level?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The principle to which the Honourable Member refers to has been established by the Court of Justice in its case law on tourist guides (judgments of 26.2.1991, Case C-154/89 France [1991] ECR I-659, C-180/89 Italy [1991] ECR I- 709 and C-198/89 Hellenic Republic [1991] ECR I-727). The Court has held that requiring that tourists are accompanied by a specialised professional guide is justified where there is a need to protect the general interest in the proper appreciation of places and things of historical interest and to ensure the widest dissemination of knowledge of the artistic and cultural heritage of a country. According to the reasoning of the Court, what is relevant in order to determine whether this interest exists or not, is not the duration of the excursion, but the artistic, architectural, historical or otherwise cultural character of the attraction to be visited.

The Commission does not intend to propose any specific measure concerning the profession of tourist guide. Under Articles 40 and 47 (ex-Articles 49 and 57) of the EC Treaty, Community Directives concerning professions are only aimed to facilitate the free movement of people

while the regulation of professional activities falls under the responsibility of Member States. The Commission is, however, working on the improvement of Community legislation in the field of mutual recognition of professional qualifications in general. In June 2001, the Commission launched a public consultation to prepare for a new Directive in this field(1). The Commission has a proposal for a more uniform, transparent and flexible regime for professional recognition programmed for adoption before the Spring European Council in 2002.

(1) European Commission Staff Working Paper on The Future Regime for Professional Recognition (May 2001).