ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Human Rights

With reference to 'The European Union and the External Dimension of Human Rights Policy' (CES-0474/97) ((OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 117. )), will the Commission insert several specific human rights clauses in the Protocol attached to the Maastricht Treaty?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3029/97 and E-3030/97 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1997)

The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it has for some considerable time adopted a coherent approach on human rights, in particular as regards the aspects they raised.

In 1991 it put a communication before the Council to obtain a negotiating mandate defining the arrangements for the Community's accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This initiative, actively supported by Parliament, prompted the Council to ask the Court of Justice in April 1994 to rule on whether accession was compatible with the Treaty establishing the Community.

On 28 March 1996 the Court ruled that, as Community law stood, the Community did not have the competence to accede to the Convention. In its grounds it said that given the act's constitutional scope and its implications for the Community institutions it went beyond the limits of Article 235 and could not be implemented by amending the Treaty.

The intergovernmental conference, after examining this possibility, agreed to add, in the Amsterdam Treaty, a paragraph 1 to Article F of the Treaty on European Union stipulating that the Union was founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles which were common to the Member States. This Article comes on top of paragraph 2 of Article F of the Treaty on European Union, under which the Union 'shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ...'.

Moreover, a new Article F.1 was inserted into the Treaty on European Union and a new Article 236 into the EC Treaty on the measures to be taken if a Member State is in breach of the principles on which the Union is founded.

Under the new Article 6a, the Council can take any necessary measures to combat discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or convictions, a handicap, age or sexual orientation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3427/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (21 October 1997)

Subject: Transfer of appropriations from social programmes under the Greek Community Support Framework to other sectors

The Greek Government has recently requested the Commission for a transfer of appropriations within the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) away from programmes and measures under the European Social Fund which are far behind schedule to other sectors of the Greek CSF with a better take-up rate.

The appropriations concerned were designed for measures such as education, basic and further vocational training, job creation and combating exclusion from the labour market, i.e. sensitive areas of social policy which are also basic priorities of Union policy to promote employment and social conditions in Europe. Will the Commission, therefore, state its position on the Greek Government's request? What are the grounds for the transfer of appropriations and what amount ultimately will be cut back?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The main reason for which the Greek government, in the framework of the Community support framework (CSF) II mid-term review, recently asked for the transfer of European social fund (ESF) credits to other funds was the relatively low absorption rate of the human resources operations.

On 10th October 1997, a meeting of the advisory committee for human resources of the CSF 1994-1999 for Greece was held in Athens. During this meeting new proposals, submitted in terms of the mid-term review of the human resources actions, were considered. Assurances were given by the Greek authorities with regard to their determination to improve and accelerate implementation. In this context, a number of important measures taken in the meantime, in particular the creation of a national accreditation structure, should prove helpful. A general consensus was reached that there was no need at this stage to modify the credit allocations of the human resources programmes. It was also agreed that the monitoring arrangements of the implementation of the ESF co-financed actions in Greece will be strengthened, in order to underpin the rapid and effective execution of the ESF allocated appropriations.

The CSF monitoring committee, at its meeting on 30th and 31st October 1997, decided that at this stage the credits allocations of the human resources programmes should not be modified. The progress of all CSF operational programmes will be re-examined in the framework of the mid-term review of the CSF for Greece, during the first semester of 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3337/97 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (United Kingdom): 16-week loophole

Is the Commission aware that, under United Kingdom regulations, a woman who is less than sixteen weeks pregnant when she moves from one job to another is not entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay from either previous or new employer; yet if she had been pregnant for 25 weeks when taking up a new post her old employer would have been liable, and if she had fallen pregnant the day she took up a new post her new employers would be liable to pay, and claim back from national social security?

Does the Commission consider that this situation is grossly unjust, particularly when women whose income is the main source of revenue for a family, and who have not had a break in employment, find themselves in this situation?

Does the Commission consider that if the employer is, by European law, not permitted to allow his judgment to employ or not to employ to be clouded because a woman is pregnant (Dekker case), a women employee should then be forced into the position of turning a job down purely because she will not be eligible for SMP at 90 per cent for six weeks?

In the European Court's decision in the Dekker case (EOR35), as Advocate-General famously put it: 'Maternity can never - excuse the truism - concern anyone but women: to take it into account in justifying a refusal of engagement is therefore, by nature, discrimination directly based on sex'. Would the Commission agree that it is equally discriminating for a woman to be forced to refuse engagement on account of maternity?

In the United Kingdom, the basic safety net provided for women not qualifying for SMP is £52.50 per week for 12 weeks. In the light of the ECJ ruling in the Gillespie case that the equal pay directive neither requires full pay nor lays down criteria for determining the amount payable, provided that amount is not so low as to jeopardise the purpose of maternity leave, would the Commission not agree that the UK safety net for women who fall into the 16-week loophole is so low as to jeopardise the purpose of maternity leave, most particularly for women whose income is the main source of revenue for a family?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1997)

The Honourable Member's question concerns complex national legislation, and its alleged failure to comply with a fundamental principle of Community law. In order to allow a definitive reply, the British authorities have been contacted to clarify the precise impact of British legislation in the situation described by the Honourable Member.

As soon as the information is available, the Commission will reply in full.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/97 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Aid to fruit farmers

As a result of severe frost at the beginning of April many fruit farmers in the EU have lost much, if not all, of their crop Does the Commission have any plans to make any assistance available to these farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997)

The Commission is aware of the problems caused to fruit farmers by the severe frost in April 1997 but is not in a position to offer aid directly to these farmers for the losses incurred. It is possible for the Member States to offer national aid schemes under Article 92.2(b) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission after being informed of the major natural disasters in several regions of the Community has recently made a change under the operational programme for fruit and vegetable producer organisations (Regulation (EC) No 1501/97 of 29 July 1997 ((OJ L 202, 30.7.1997. ))) aimed at limiting the impact of such disasters on the implementation and financing of these operational programmes.

This amendment means that in the case of a natural disaster, registered by the national authority, the value of the marketed production of a producer organisation is considered to be equal to at least 70% of a theoretical average value based on the area covered, the average yield and average price obtained by the producer organisation for the product concerned during the three years preceding the natural disaster, instead of one year.

Also in objective 1 and 5b regions the Community can contribute to the restoration of agricultural and forestry protection potential damaged by natural disasters. The monitoring committee for the appropriate Community support framework (CSF) or single programming document (SPD) may decide to provide some funding to this aspect within their existing financial allocations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/97 by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Chronic intoxication of sheep by copper

Are there any European regulations establishing limit values above which intoxication of sheep by copper is recognised as chronic?

If not, does the Commission not consider it necessary to harmonise limit values so that the level of intoxication recognised as chronic is the same throughout Europe?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3568/97 and E-3569/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1997)

The Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: World trade and protection of animals

The Commission has stated on many occasions that it would be more promising to promote animal protection through multilateral agreements with third countries.

1. In the light of the experience of negotiating animal protection provisions within the Union, is this idea realistic? What actual type of agreement is envisaged?

2. If it is realistic, could an improvement of the WTO regulations be pursued at the same time?

3. What measures can be taken by the EU to encourage animal protection in third countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3414/97, E-3415/97, E-3417/97 and E-3418/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2569/94 by Mrs Oddy ((OJ C 145, 12.6.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Harmonization of traffic regulations

In the light of the large number of pedestrians killed in road accidents every year, does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation that will have a significant effect in reducing this number?

In particular, does the Commission have any plans to introduce harmonization legislation as regards the guidelines used to prosecute drivers guilty of killing pedestrians?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The Commission has prepared an Action Programme, including legislative measures, with the aim of trying to reduce the numbers killed and injured on Europe's roads. The Honourable Member is referred to the Communication entitled 'Promoting road safety in the EU: the programme for 1997-2001 ((Doc. COM(97) 131 final. ))', which lays out in detail the Commission's approach.

The Commission currently has no plans to introduce legislation to harmonise criteria for prosecuting drivers killing pedestrians since this is an area that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, has to be left to the criminal justice systems of the Member States.

Work is going on in the Council, with the Commission's participation, to establish a Convention between all Member States to ensure that traffic offences leading to disqualification from driving (withdrawal of licence or right to drive) committed in a Member State other than the Member State where the offender is residing, will be given effect by the Member State of residence when the offender returns there.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Incident at the Sellafield nuclear complex, Britain

On 11 September 1997 one of the ageing Magnox reactors at Calder Hall in the British nuclear complex of Sellafield had to be shut down due to a fault on the control rod motor electrical supply.

Although no radioactivity appears to have been released many would view any incident in the Magnox reactors as a grave development, given the fact the technology used is nearing obsolescence in terms of developments since the plants were built?

Has the Commission undertaken any evaluation of the safety standards at Sellafield's Magnox reactors and the other ageing reactors in the European Union? If not, will it do so? Is the Commission satisfied with the safety standards of these reactors or does it accept that they are inherently unsafe?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

The safety of any nuclear installation is the responsibility of the operator which is regulated and licensed by the national nuclear safety authority. In the case of the Calder Hall the operator, British nuclear fuels Ltd (BNFL), undertakes periodic reviews to ensure that the safety of the reactors is upgraded to be in line with modern practices as far as is reasonably practicable. These reviews are submitted to the safety authority for independent assessment and approval.

The Commission has no competence to request safety evaluations of any specific installations. Nevertheless the Commission promotes discussion among Member States' nuclear safety authorities on various issues, including ageing of nuclear installations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/97 by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Use of stray dogs and cats for vivisection in Belgium

Is the Commission aware that Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) appears to be being breached in Belgium, with particular reference to video and eye-witness evidence that stray dogs and cats are being used for experiments?

Is the Commission also aware of evidence indicating that dogs and cats are being kept in conditions well below legal requirements? If so, what action does the Commission propose to take concerning this breach of law by a Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

Having received a complaint regarding the matters evoked by the Honourable Member, the Commission contacted the Belgian authorities to verify that Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes was being complied with.

In view of the information it was given, the Commission intends to pursue its investigations. In so doing it will not fail to take all requisite measures to uphold Community law, including the institution of infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty if necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3489/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 November 1997)

Subject: Mismatch in entitlement to incapacity social security benefits between the UK and Spain

Can the Commission advise on the principles arising from the case of my constituent, Mr Thomas Hawking, who moved from the UK to Spain in 1995 before becoming incapacitated by serious illness in 1996?

The Commission should note that he made continuos social security contributions in Spain, but was denied benefit because two years of contributions were insufficient and also that his move made him ineligible to claim benefit back in Britain because his previous full contributions there had ceased at the time of his move, leaving him less than two full years of entitlement there.

Does the Commission agree that this is patently unfair? Does it plan to bring forward proposals to end such anomalies on behalf of citizens exercising their right of free movement in the European Union? In the meantime, what mechanisms exist in the Commission or in the Member States to allow personal review of such cases?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1997)

The Honourable Member raises a question of entitlement to an invalidity pension for a migrant worker.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families working within the Community ((An up-dated version of this Regulation has been approved by Council Rgulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2.12.1996 - OJ L 28, 30.1.1997. )) provides detailed rules on invalidity. In particular, a person who was insured in a Member State where the amount of pension is independent of the length of insurance periods should get a pension from the Member State where he was insured at the moment when he became an invalid. The institution of that Member State should determine whether the person concerned satisfies the conditions for entitlement to benefits, taking into account, where necessary, periods of insurance which have been completed under the legislation of any other Member State (Article 38). The only condition is that the person was insured at least one year in the Member State where the pension is claimed.

However, the information given by the Honourable Member is too general to enable the Commission to determine whether, in this particular case, Community law has been respected. Therefore, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to submit more details of the case, so that the Commission may examine them in the light of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/97 by Laurens Brinkhorst (ELDR) to the Council (13 September 1997)

Subject: Institutional conditions for enlargement following the outcome of the IGC negotiations

1. Does the Council recall the following statement in the Conclusions of the European Council at Corfu (June 1994): 'The institutional conditions for ensuring the proper functioning of the Union must be created at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, which for that reason must take place before accession negotiations begin'?

2. How does the Council reconcile this statement with the outcome of the Amsterdam summit, in particular the view that '(...) the way is now open for launching the enlargement process (...)'?

3. Is the Council of the opinion that these institutional conditions have been met by the draft Treaty of Amsterdam and the Protocol on enlargement?

4. If the Reply to the above question is positive, can the Council indicate which improvements in the institutional conditions justify this judgement?

5. Is the Council of the opinion that the accession negotiations can be concluded without improvement in the institutional conditions for ensuring the proper functioning of the Union?

Answer (26 January 1998)

As the Honourable Member reminds us in his question, the European Council agreed as early as 1994 * initially at its Corfu meeting and later in Essen * that the institutional conditions for ensuring the proper functioning of the Union must be created at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, which for that reason must take place before accession negotiations began.

A number of reforms were adopted at the Intergovernmental Conference held in 1996 and 1997 and were incorporated in the Amsterdam Treaty, signed on 2 October 1997.

In addition, a Protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union was annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty. That Protocol deals with points of institutional reform for an enlarged Union and provides for subsequent negotiations on reform.

Lastly, at its meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 December 1997, the European Council said that as a prerequisite for enlargement of the Union the operation of the institutions must be strengthened and improved in keeping with the institutional provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3664/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Extending the fisheries exclusion zone in the Mediterranean

It has been publicly announced that the Spanish Government has recently decided to extend its Mediterranean fisheries exclusion zone to 50 miles.

Can the Commission tell me what legal bases in both international and Community law the Spanish Government has used for this decision?

Can the Commission also state whether this decision excludes all non-Spanish vessels from the new fishing zone and whether the decision prevents the catching of any and all species of fish?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1997)

The Spanish Government has established a fisheries protection zone in the Mediterranean 49 miles in breadth from the baselines starting from Punta Negra-Cabo de Gata and running eastwards to the median line with the other bordering countries.

The legal basis on which this decision, taken without appropriate prior consultation, was adopted is Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. The Commission's information is that the Spanish authorities have not yet drawn up a chart showing the exact delimitation of the zone, as required under Articles 74 and 75 of the Convention.

The Spanish authorities state that the primary purpose of the zone is conservation of bluefin tuna.

Community rules will apply as soon as the zone is operational. Access by Community fishing vessels must be free from discrimination by nationality. Access to fishery resources by non- Community vessels will be possible only on the basis of an agreement negotiated by the flag State with the Community.