ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1000/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Stockholm Declaration

What is the Commission proposing to do to ensure implementation of the Stockholm Declaration on the teaching of the Shoa?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0925/00 and E-1000/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2000)

The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism and, in general terms, to encouraging attitudes and values making for respect, acceptance and tolerance in multicultural social contexts in particular.

As regards Community action in the field of school education, the Comenius chapter of the Socrates programme provides for transnational cooperation for the purpose of intercultural education involving teaching establishments and other actors with a relevant interest. Over the five years during which Socrates I was in place, around 100 transnational projects a year were launched in this field.

In Socrates II, the intercultural dimension including the nurturing of attitudes and values underlying a pluralist society is given greater emphasis and is becoming one of the features common to school initiatives, training projects for those working in education, and the Comenius Networks.

It should, however, be stressed that the organisation and make-up of education systems in the Community are a matter for the Member States alone.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1521/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 May 2000)

Subject: Ratification of the Rome Statute and associated establishment of war-crimes tribunal

On 17 June 1998 the United Nations adopted the so-called Rome Statute, which will provide, on ratification by 60 member countries, for the establishment of a permanent international war-crimes tribunal. The statute moreover affords considerable scope for sanctioning violence against women in war, in particular by including rape, sex slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilisation and other forms of sexual violence in the definition of war crimes. Italy has hitherto been the only EU State to ratify the Rome Statute, all other Member States still having failed to do so.

Can the Council indicate whether it will call on the remaining 14 Member States to ratify the Rome Statute as a matter of urgency, thereby ensuring that no further obstacle can stand in the way of establishing a permanent war-crimes tribunal?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The European Union considers that the process of establishing the International Criminal Court has an historical dimension and that it sends a signal that the world can be made a safer and more just place to live in. The Member States were also very active and well coordinated in the work leading to the adoption of the ICC statutes. Furthermore, the EU is doing its utmost to ensure that the Preparatory Commission succeeds in its task.

The EU is of the opinion that a culture of impunity cannot be tolerated, especially with regard to gross violations of international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Where national courts cannot or do not want to act, the international community has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that justice is served. The International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have already contributed substantially to increasing compliance with international law. Consequently, the adoption of the Statute of a permanent International Criminal Court to try the most serious crimes and violations of humanitarian law is of great importance and the earliest possible entry into force of this statute represents one of the top priorities for the European Union.

Italy, France and Belgium have already ratified the ICC statute. The other Member States have all entered the process leading to ratification and, depending on their national procedures, they should be completed, for most of them, in the near future. The situation concerning ratification of the ICC statute in the EU is regularly raised by the Presidency in the meetings of the Council Working Group for International Law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Institutional reform

I note that in the report on Commission reform Mr Kinnock states quite vehemently that a significant increase in spending on the training of Commission staff is needed and must be secured. Can the Commission give its assurance that this increased spending will be funded from within the current Commission budget, from efficiency savings, and that the Commission will not ask the Parliament for any more money?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

A reinforcement of 2 million for training of Commission staff is envisaged in 2001. The total requested appropriations for training (budget line A-706) will then reach 7,5 million.

The additional training appropriations will be funded within the current envelope of Title A-7 (decentralised expenditure on support staff and administration). The appropriations requested for Title A-7 in the 2001 preliminary draft budget are set at the same nominal level authorised in the 2000 budget.

At the proposed 7,5 million level, provision for staff training will still only amount to about 0,05 % of total employment costs. This contrasts with provision in Member State administrations which is typically much higher.

As Reform proceeds and detailed proposals for necessary improvements in personnel policy are produced for consultation later this year it will be relevant to give consideration to increasing provision for training as an investment in improved efficiency and management. All analysis relating to such possible developments will naturally be available for parliamentary consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1007/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Safety in connection with the transport of fuels by sea

The initiative of developing the Union's northern dimension will, if put into practice, increase energy cooperation and trade between Russia and the European Union. It is for example predictable that the transport of oil and other liquid fuels by sea in the Baltic and particularly the Gulf of Finland will increase considerably in the next few years. The Baltic is a shallow and almost landlocked sea area, in which accidents involving tankers at sea could easily cause irreparable destruction.

In the light of the above, how does the Commission propose to improve safety regulations for the transport of polluting materials by sea? Does the Commission intend in future to introduce stricter safety regulations for oil shippers, e.g. regarding the hull design of their vessels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Following the accident with the oil tanker Erika in December 1999 and the consequent massive pollution of the French western coastline, the Commission adopted on 21 March 2000 a communication to the Parliament and the Council on the safety of seaborne oil transport(1). This lists a number of short and medium term measures aimed at enhancing the prevention of pollution by ships.

The Commission communication is accompanied by three legislative proposals, including a proposal for a regulation by the Parliament and Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design standards for single hull oil tankers(2). This legislative proposal aims at applying rapidly in the Community the latest internationally agreed construction standards for oil tankers to provide the highest degree of protection against oil pollution in case of grounding or collision.

(1) COM(2000) 142 final.

(2) COM(2000) 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1045/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Construction of a metro system in the metropolitan area of Oporto

Work is about to start on the construction of a metro system in the metropolitan area of Oporto in line with a project agreed with the Commission.

Proposals have since been made for the addition of new stretches of track and changes to those originally planned in response to transport problems in and around the city.

The Commission:

1. Can it say how much Community funding has been earmarked for the current project to construct a metro system in the metropolitan area of Oporto?

2. Have additions and/or changes to the current project already been received? If so, which?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

In 1994 an indicative amount of 60 to 70 million was allotted to part-financing of the Oporto light metro system under the development support infrastructure programme of Portugal's Community support framework (Transport subprogramme measure 4: Congestion relief in the Lisbon and Oporto urban areas).

The Commission approved the first phase of the project on 11 December 1998 and the European Regional Development Fund assistance is 71 770 000. It has so far received no request for modification of the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2099/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Excessive cross-border transfer charges and cartel behaviour of banks in EU

Does the Commission regard the survey published on 23 May on cross-border transfer payments to be the start of more detailed examination of the banking industry's poor record across the EU on charges to citizens? Or does it intend to publish the long-awaited report on the alleged cartel behaviour of certain banks as announced by former Commissioner Van Miert in September 1999 and now the responsibility of Commissioner Monti? Would it not have been appropriate for the Commission to dovetail the work of this report with the findings of the survey announced by Commissioners Byrne and Bolkestein on 23 May so that we could have had a more complete picture?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The question of excessive cross-border transfer charges is not a matter of competition policy but of the internal market and competition. The Members of the Commission with responsibility for these policies have asked the banks and the Member States to do more to reduce the level of bank charges to customers.

From the point of view of the competition rules, a bank is free to set its charges at any level provided that it does so freely and independently. If consumers feel that the charges applied by one bank are too high they will penalise it by taking their custom elsewhere. On the other hand, if the banks were to combine to fix their charges, either to increase them or to maintain them at a high level, this would constitute a serious violation of the Community rules on competition, since price-fixing agreements are against the consumers' interests.

At the beginning of 1999, immediately after the introduction of the euro, and following a large number of complaints about the cost of cross-border transactions, the Member of the Commission responsible for competition took the decision to launch a series of investigations in the eleven Member States participating in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

The purpose of these investigations is to establish whether the banks or banking federations or associations had struck an agreement to fix the structure or level of bank charges paid by customers. The investigations were concerned with several kinds of bank transactions, including exchanging banknotes and cross-border transfers.

As regards exchanging banknotes, the Commission has just sent statements of objections to over a hundred banking establishments and federations in four Member States. These statements of objections present the documentary evidence gathered by the Commission which shows that these banks and banking federations fixed charges for exchanging banknotes and coins. Other statements of objections concerning the same type of operation will be sent to banks and banking federations in other Member States before the summer.

On the question of cross-border transfers, the investigations, which involve the processing of a large mass of information, are still in progress.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Equal Initiative in the Netherlands

It is clear from a letter of 30 September 1999, from the then Netherlands Minister for Social Affairs and Employment to the Netherlands Government, that the Netherlands Government is planning to allocate the funds which the Netherlands is hoping to obtain from the Equal Initiative primarily to projects on behalf of asylum-seekers.

1. Can the Commission guarantee that the Netherlands will participate in all the pillars of the Equal Programme in a financially balanced way?

2. How does the Commission propose to safeguard the cross-border aspect between Member States in the case of projects for asylum-seekers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

1. When dealing with projects under the Community Initiative Programme (CIP), the Commission will verify that the proposed measures and the associated budgets have a direct bearing on the scope and specific problems of the labour market in each Member State.

The Community Initiative EQUAL is based on a thematic approach in the context of the four pillars of the European strategy for employment (eight themes) and on education and training measures in favour of asylum seekers.

Under no circumstances, and despite the relatively large number of asylum seekers in the Netherlands, will the measures and financial resources earmarked for this target group adversely affect the eight themes of the pillars of the European strategy for employment. The five-month negotiation period with the Commission will make it possible to prepare a single EQUAL planning document.

2. The EQUAL programme does not in any way call into question the national provisions applicable to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are required to conform with the rules and specific legislation in force in the different Member States in all circumstances.

Transnational cooperation in the context of EQUAL takes on several forms and is not confined to the physical mobility of the final beneficiaries. Experience with ADAPT and EMPLOI has shown that different types of transnational actions can be developed including the simple exchange of experience and information; the development of innovative approaches in parallel; the adoption or transfer of new methodologies; joint developments with sharing of tasks, and, finally, the exchange of trainees and management personnel.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/00

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Partisan strategies regarding requests for funding from the ERDF and the Cohesion funds

Is the Commission aware that a large number of regional and local authorities in Spain have requested an extension of the deadline for the submission of ERDF and Cohesion fund projects until 5 July since the Spanish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance failed to provide adequate information in this regard and the 5 May deadline took many local authorities by surprise, making it impossible for them to have equal access to funding from these European programmes? Is it also aware that, as a result, the Partido Popular Government stands accused of pursuing a biased strategy consisting in concealing deadlines and preventing equal access to European funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the deadline for applications nor of the accusations mentioned. In this regard, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, according to the regulations in force, it is the Member State which is responsible for organizing the selection process for candidate projects for structural fund and Cohesion fund support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2679/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: European procurement

Does the Commission believe that there is an obligation on Member States with regard to public procurement to extend its scope from those products and services conforming with EU standards to cover those that may be equivalent to these standards?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

The purpose of the rules on the use of technical specifications in public procurement is to ensure transparency and non-discrimination in the award of contracts. Contracting entities cannot reject bids conforming to or equivalent to European standards, or if these do not exist other relevant standards, for reasons of non-compliance with technical requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1740/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Funding of the pre-accession procedure for Cyprus and Malta

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the appropriations provided for the applicant countries Cyprus and Malta are moved from chapter B4 of the budget, concerning external aid, to chapter B7, concerning pre-accession aid, in accordance with the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on (paragraph 48)?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

As part of the a revision of the financial perspective(1), the Commission has proposed transferring the amounts relating to financial support for Cyprus and Malta from heading 4 to heading 7. The aim of this transfer is to harmonise the treatment of these two countries with that of the other candidate countries already part of heading 7, which covers pre-accession (the Regulation on the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta was adopted on 13 March 2000 Council Regulation (EC) No 555/2000)(2).

In this context, a subheading for the Mediterranean countries under heading 7 is being proposed (because Cyprus and Malta cannot avail themselves of the Ispa and Sapard pre-accession instruments).

The amount of this transfer for the period 2001-2006 is 20 million per year.

On the more strictly budgetary front, under the 2000 budgetary procedure, two new headings were created under Title B7-0: B7-040 Pre-accession strategy for Malta and B7-041 Pre-accession strategy for Cyprus. These two headings were given a token entry (p.m.), since the relevant amounts are still entered under heading B7-4012 Pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta.

In view of the adoption of the above-mentioned regulation, the Commission proposes to allocate amounts to the two new headings in the preliminary draft budget (PDB) 2001. These will be 7,5 million for Malta (B7-040) and 11,5 million for Cyprus.

(1) COM(2000) 262 final.

(2) OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2811/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Improving the standard of slaughterhouses in candidate Member States

In view of the impending accession of a number of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs), representatives of the EU's agricultural sector are establishing contacts with possible partners in those countries. It appears that slaughterhouses in the CEECs rarely, if ever, comply with the strict European standards. Representatives of the Belgian slaughterhouses also point out that a number of slaughterhouses have had to be demolished because of their limited capacity. Provided the plans are modified, there is sufficient expertise within the Union to rebuild the demolished slaughterhouses, if so requested by the CEECs, thereby enabling them to be used again.

Can the Commission say whether it supports this approach (recommissioning of old and/or dismantled slaughterhouses) and whether it is willing to provide financial aid for pilot projects for the (re-)construction and modification of these CEEC slaughterhouses so that they comply with European standards?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1168/00

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Monitoring the process of liberalisation of air transport

The main objective of the liberalisation of air transport undertaken on the Community's initiative was to improve access to that means of transport for EU citizens.

It was believed that liberalisation would lead to a marked increase in competition among air transport operators, resulting in:

- more airlines operating on each route (more choice for users),

- greater frequency (offering more possibilities for choosing flights at convenient times),

- generalised reduction in prices and improvement in the quality of service.

After a promising initial phase in which it appeared that these objectives might be achieved, distortions have gradually become apparent which are compromising the desired results.

The process of alliances between operators, through mergers, code-sharing or other commercial agreements, is gradually giving rise to more serious situations of dominant position than were seen previously, and the consequences are highly detrimental to the interests of passengers.

One example is the Lisbon-Brussels route:

- the route is now operated exclusively by the Qualiflyer group (TAP and Sabena),

- night flights are being ended from the start of the summer period,

- fares have risen steeply and conditions for bookings and advance payments have been tightened,

- only one counter is available (Qualiflyer), leading to a substantial increase in congestion and a lack of personal service.

In this light, will the Commission monitor developments in relation to the consequences of liberalisation in detail, and will it intervene in cases such as that described above to preserve the principles on which the liberalisation of air transport in the EU was based?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission is continuously monitoring the air transport sector to ensure that the liberalisation measures constituting the third and final air package, in force since 1 January 1993, are properly implemented and that the competition rules provided for in the EC Treaty are fully applied. In its communication of 20 May 1999 entitled The European airline industry: from single market to world-wide challenges(1), it presented the results of ten years of liberalisation of civil aviation. While these may appear to be positive overall, the communication mentions the disappointing fare increases and stresses that there are still large differences in fares per kilometre across the Community.

With regard to the Lisbon-Brussels route, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the route is now operated exclusively by the Qualiflyer group. It is taking a detailed look at the compatibility of the Qualiflyer group agreements with the provisions of Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 182 final.