ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1891/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Persecution of the Greek minority in Albania and activities of Albanian extremists in Greece

According to a report by the Athens News Agency from Gjirokastra, the former Prime Minister of Albania, Mr Fatos Nano, formally condemned the leader of the official opposition, Mr Sali Berisha, on 29 May 2001 for the harsh policies he had pursued as President of Albania against the Greek minority living in the south of the country. Mr Nano described how he used to share cigarettes in the prison cells with Greek Albanians imprisoned by Mr Berisha. He also estimated that USD 1 billion in currency was flowing into the country from the hundreds of thousands of Albanians working in Greece.

The weekly magazine, Zoom, published in FYROM reported on 25 May 2001 that a major offensive was about to be launched by Albanian extremists in Greece, who have already formed a force called the Tsamouria Liberation Army. Citing secret service sources, the magazine reports that a complete plan of operations was drawn up early in the year in Switzerland (where most of the leaders of the Albanian extremist organisations live), the objective being the annexation of Greek territory to a Greater Albania.

What is the Commission's response to the information that terrorist operations may be launched on the territory of a Member State of the Union? What information does the Commission have concerning the persecution of the large Greek minority - which even the former Prime Minister of Albania has condemned - which was also repressed for decades by Hoxha's totalitarian communist regime? Is the Commission considering linking EU economic aid to Albania with respect for the human rights of the Albanian people and the ethnic minorities living in that country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission is not aware of any terrorist operations which might be launched by possible Albanian extremists in Greece.

Repression in Albania during the Hoxha era was, regretfully, quite widespread, and it certainly included representatives of the Greek minority. The situation has, however, evolved since 1991. Today, Albania is signatory of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of National Minorities and, in general, takes a constructive approach towards minority issues. It recognises the existence of an important Greek minority and is attempting to bring its legislation and practice up to international standards. During discussions in the framework of the Union/Albania High Level Steering Group in May 2001, the Albanian Government stressed its intention gradually to complete the legal framework for minority protection and to abolish the concept of minority zones. These steps will contribute to enhancing minority protection in Albania.

Community assistance to Albania has been, and will continue to be, linked to the respect of essential political criteria such as human rights and protection of minorities. The Commission closely follows up developments in these sensitive areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2192/01

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

(23 July 2001)

Subject: State of affairs regarding the Multiannual Guidance Plans for fisheries

What is the current state of affairs regarding the implementation of the Multiannual Guidance Plans (MGPs) relating to the various Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the fishing fleets fix annual capacity and fishing effort objectives that must be met in all fleet segments. A comparison of the current situation with the objectives in all segments for all Member States therefore represents a large amount of detailed information.

For this reason, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1) requires the Commission to present an annual report to the Council and to the Parliament on the results of the MAGP. The Commission has prepared the report on the results of the MAGP IV at the end of 2000, which will be submitted to the Council and to the Parliament in the coming weeks.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/01

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Pilots over 60 years of age

Could the Commission give an up-to-date progress report on its proposal to harmonise standards and requirements for flight crew licensing throughout the European Community, in particular, the upper age limit for flight crew, which in some states is 65 and in others 60?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission has indicated on a number of occasions that it intends to propose the creation of common requirements for the issuing of civil aviation flight crew licences based on the standard adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), known as the JAR-FCL.

However, major analytical work is needed to check that the said standard is compatible with Community law. The Commission will nonetheless do all it can to produce a consultation paper before the end of the year on the expediency and content of a legislative initiative on this matter.

In this context, the question will be raised of the age of pilots and its link with the safety of air operations, with a view to possible harmonisation at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1984/01

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Implementation of Habitats Directive

A decision was taken in the Netherlands to route the A73 trunk road between Maasbracht and Venlo along the east bank of the Maas. In the meantime a great deal of publicity has been created around a whorl snail (vertigo moulinsiana) population living within the area on the east bank. The whorl snail is listed in Annex 4 to the Habitats Directive. It is not to my knowledge known where any other whorl snail populations are to be found.

1. Is the Netherlands government required first to chart the population-spread of Annex-4 species before the survival of a population can be threatened by infrastructural development?

An industrial estate is being constructed in the area between Heerlen and Aachen. That same area houses a population of hamsters. There exists a hamster protection plan in the Netherlands, but it is only being implemented to a limited extent.

2. Does progress with industrial estate development - when considered against the background of the low level of implementation of the hamster protection plan - conflict with the Habitats Directive, which refers to hamsters in Annex 4?

There has been much debate in the Netherlands about the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, opponents of which see little enough reason in the mere presence of a snail or a hamster to go so far as to cancel a planned construction project. Nature conservationists are forced onto the defensive from the outset.

3. What can be done to ensure that the road will even so be diverted? How can the Commission help to ensure a diversion in good time?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission is currently investigating the facts raised by the Honourable Member in order to assess the compatibility of the construction of Highway A73 with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). The conservation of the whorl snail in the Netherlands is one of the subjects of this investigation.

This species is mentioned in Annex II and Annex IV (a) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC each Member State shall propose a list of sites in respect of the species in Annex II that are native to its territory and which the sites host.

Pursuant to Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC Member States are obliged to take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range.

The hamster is an animal species mentioned in Annex IV(a) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission is aware of the potential risks which the Aachen/Heerlen industrial development entails for the conservation of the local hamster population, and is taking all necessary steps to ensure that applicable Community environmental law and Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora are fully respected in this case.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2381/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: European platform for old people's homes

Will the Commission describe its policy for improving the living conditions of the elderly, particularly as regards old people's homes?

Will it also say whether an association of representatives of old people's homes exists at European level and, if so, whether the competent Commission services are working together with it as part of its policy for the elderly?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission issued a general policy statement about older people in the May 1999 communication Towards a Europe for All Ages(1).

Residential and other types of long-term care form part of social protection provisions, which are the responsibility of Member States. The Commission has no competencies in this area.

The Commission is not aware of the existence of any European association of representatives of residential care homes. However, there is a European Association of residential care home managers and a European network of directors of social services.

The E. D. E. is The European Association for Directors of Residential Care Homes for the Elderly (Home page address: http://www.ede-association.org).

The European Social Network connects the national associations of directors of social services at the European level (Home page address: http://www.socialeurope.com; E-mail address: info@socialeurope.com).

Both organisations are known to have participated in various calls for proposals and to have received project support. Representatives of the Commission have occasionally accepted invitations to address the annual conferences of these organisations. But in general there is no collaboration between the Commission and these organisations.

Finally, there is EACHH, The European Association for organisation of Care and Help at Home, (contact address: Association Européenne d'Organisations d'Aides et de Soins a Domicile, Av. Ad. Lacomble 69, B-040 Bruxelles, tel. 02 739.35.11, fax 02 739 35.99). Yet, as the name indicates this organisation is concerned with home care and not with care in residential homes.

(1) COM(1999) 221 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1951/01

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Alpine Convention

Why is the Commission no longer participating in meetings of the standing committee and the Alpine Conference set up by the Alpine Convention?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1951/01 and E-1952/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission recognises the importance of the role the Alpine Convention can play in the promotion of sustainable development in the Alpine region. The Alpine Convention is in fact an important international instrument aimed at protecting the alpine ecosystem and ensuring the integration of environmental and social concerns in a number of different sectors of economic life.

The Commission understands the concern of the Honourable Member with respect to the lack of participation of the Commission at the last meetings of the Standing Committee and at the Ministerial Meeting in October 2000. However, resource constraints currently prevent the Commission from considering active involvement in the work of the Alpine Convention a priority.

This has to be seen together with the fact that the subsidiarity principle plays a major role as far as the implementation of the Alpine Convention and its Protocols is concerned. In fact, in a regional context, action by national and local governments can be more effective than action at Community level. Furthermore, a number of Protocols to the Alpine Convention cover areas where Community competence is limited, in particular those of tourism, soil protection and mountain forests.

By no means however should this be interpreted as a lack of interest in or appreciation of the work being done under the Alpine Convention. It should be underlined that the objectives to which the Community is committed as a Contracting Party to this Convention are being fulfilled in the different areas covered by the Convention through Community action and legislation, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives, the Natura 2000 network, as well as the 6th Environmental Action Programme.

The submission, on 16 January 2001, of a proposal on the signature of the Transport Protocol to the Council(1) is also a sign of the interest the Commission maintains with respect to the Alpine Convention.

(1) COM(2001) 18 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1292/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Closure of the Delphi Packard plant in Olvega (Spain)

The Delphi Packard company, which received a large amount of publicly funded start-up aid from the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León and the province of Soria for its plant in Olvega, has taken the unilateral decision to close that plant, the driving force behind industrial development in the Moncayo area, with the loss of 520 jobs.

Delphi Packard, a multinational company, invests ESP 10 000 million each year in its Olvega plant. The profits in excess of ESP 1 000 million generated by that plant are evidence of its viability.

The hasty announcement of the closure and the treatment of the workers at the plant, who have been presented with a letter of undertaking requiring them to sign up to a transfer or take voluntary redundancy, constitute a breach of Spanish employment law.

Given that its plant is situated in an Objective 1 region, will the Commission say whether Delphi Packard has received assistance of any kind from EU Structural Funds?

If so, what steps can the Commission take to ensure that Delphi Packard complies with the undertakings that it would have given in order to receive assistance from those Funds?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2001)

The Delphi Packard company in Olvega (Soria) has received Structural Fund financial assistance through the Community Initiative ADAPT amounting to 251 636 from the European Social Fund. Moreover, as a complement to the above mentioned co-financing, it has received European Regional Development Fund support for an amount of 49 000 to finance the computer equipment needed for the training of its personnel dealing with new technologies.

Should the Commission identify any anomaly regarding the use of the financial support granted, it would take the appropriate regulatory measures to ensure respect of the relevant Community legislation(1) and the conditions under which this support was granted.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Mount Kailas

A number of press agencies and specialist magazines have recently reported that the Chinese authorities have given permission for a Spanish expedition, led by Mr Jesús Martínez Novos, to climb Mount Kailas in Tibet. This mountain, which is over 6 000 metres high and which the Tibetans also call Gang Rinpoche, is a sacred place for three religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Tibetan Buddhism). The Dalai Lama has responded by condemning the Chinese decision and declaring the attitude of the Chinese authorities and the members of the Spanish expedition to be an affront to the feelings of those who practise the three religions concerned.

What steps has the Council been taking or will it take to persuade the Chinese authorities to desist from their policy of provocation and respect religious freedom? Furthermore, does not the Council consider it embarrassing to say the least that Union nationals should be aiding and abetting the brutally repressive policy which the Beijing regime is inflicting on the Tibetan people and the adherents of the above three religions? What will it do to make the climbers abandon their plan?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council has neither been informed of nor has it discussed the expedition referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2069/01

by Maria Martens (PPE-DE), Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Recognition of diplomas in shipping

Ships sail under the flag of a country. As a general rule, they sail under a captain of the same nationality as the flag. In a few cases that can be difficult, in particular where no captains can be found with the same nationality as the flag. That is the case in the fisheries sector. German law requires German fisheries vessels to sail under German captains. But there are too few German captains. Captains of other nationalities are available, in particular Dutch ones. The potential of the fisheries sector is being severely restricted by that German law, which is tantamount to non-recognition of the training of ships' captains.

1. How does the Commission assess problems in the fisheries sector relating to the recognition of diplomas?

2. Do the Commission's efforts in the area of diploma recognition cover training as a ship's captain?

3. Can the Commission state where the obligation to sail under a captain of the same nationality as the flag stands in relation to European rules and regulations applicable to the free movement of labour?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware of any problems in the fisheries sector relating to the recognition of diplomas. In the case in question, anyone of German nationality who has received captain's training in another Member State may obtain recognition in Germany of the diploma attesting their training, in accordance with the rules contained in Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least 3 years' duration(1) or 92/51/EEC on a second general system for the recognition of professional education, supplementing Directive 89/48/EEC(2). Generally speaking, the rules are as follows: the diploma must be recognised unless the authorities of the host Member State - Germany in this case - establish that there are substantial differences between the training of captains in Germany and the training followed by the applicant. In that case, they are entitled to oblige the applicant to undergo an aptitude test or to complete an adaptation period, leaving the applicant the right to choose between the two.

The Honourable Members' attention is drawn to the Commission's answer to written question E-3440/97 by Mrs Van Dijk(3) concerning the question of nationality condition for the captain and the first officer of ships sailing under the flag of a Member State.

The Commission maintains this position; therefore the obligation to sail under a captain of the same nationality as the flag does not violate the Community rules on free movement of workers.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(3) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2511/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: National Drugs Monitoring Centre in Venezuela

The Commission is planning to finance the setting up of a National Drugs Monitoring Centre in Venezuela, for which purpose it has already signed a cooperation agreement with the Venezuelan authorities.

Pursuant to the Regulation ((EEC) No 302/93 of 8 February 1993(1)) under which the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) was set up, the EMCDDA has neither the legal nor the technical capacity to undertake technical-assistance projects in Latin American countries. This is acknowledged by the Commission in its answer P-1768/01, in which it also states that the Venezuela Monitoring Centre's main objective will be to collect information on drugs and drug addiction a task which, within the Union, falls to the Member States and not to the EMCDDA.

Since the Commission's plan to support the establishment of a National Drugs Monitoring Centre in Venezuela will be of such importance to the EU's drugs policy in Latin America and to the impact of that policy in the region, would the Commission say when it thinks this cooperation project with the Venezuelan Government could be launched?

(1) OJ L 36, 12.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

The Honourable Member asks about the timetable for implementation of the project to provide backing for a National Drugs Monitoring Centre in Venezuela.

Because of the need to draw on the pool of expertise within the civil services of the Member States, the programme has been scheduled to start in the second quarter of 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2247/01

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Status of Hong Kong

Press reports indicate that the Hong Kong Administration may be about to adopt a law empowering the Government of the People's Republic of China to dismiss the territory's leader, which would mean that Hong Kong risks losing its statutory autonomy and flies in the face of the undertakings given at the time of the changeover only a few years ago.

These developments apparently come in the wake of negotiations between the Beijing Government and the Hong Kong authorities, and according to the press, are causing great concern and have lead to widespread protests. The new law is scheduled for next Wednesday, 18 July.

Is the Council aware of these facts and can it confirm or disprove them? Is it aware of any similar developments in Macau? What impact will these developments, if confirmed, have on EU relations with China?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The Council is aware of the press reports to which the Honourable Member refers. It has, however, no reason to believe that the authorities in Beijing or in Hong Kong currently intend to promote legislation that would undermine the Joint Declaration or Basic Law, to which the EU remains firmly attached. The same holds true, moreover, for Macau. The Council will, however, continue to monitor developments.