ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Shipbuilding

The Commission has recently announced its intention of putting forward a temporary mechanism to protect the European shipbuilding industry against the unfair competition from Korea to which it has been exposed for years; this mechanism might possibly be in operation from 1 May 2001.

Just exactly what will the temporary protection mechanism consist of?

What measures are planned to support Europe's shipyards until 1 May?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

On 29 November last year the Commission decided that it could propose, if no negotiated solution were reached with Korea by 1 May, the introduction of a temporary support mechanism pending the outcome of any action that might be taken by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The Commission is already considering what form such a temporary support mechanism might take. It would be confined to those segments of the market in which Community shipyards have been directly affected by distortions in international competition.

Furthermore the TBR investigation under way(1) is to be completed by 1 May so that the Commission can report to the Council on that day.

This procedure nevertheless gives the Koreans a chance to propose a solution to the problems observed and may do much to restore world prices to commercially viable levels. The issue was raised by the Commission at meetings with the Korean ministers of trade and industry on 14 and 15 February this year.

Should bilateral contacts fail to provide a solution acceptable to the Community, the Commission will apply the guidelines drawn up by it and approved by the Council on 5 December last year.

Moreover, the Community shipbuilding industry continues to benefit, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98(2), from other forms of support (aid for innovation, aid for R & D, regional aid for modernisation and restructuring aid) to help it adjust to international competition.

In short, the Commission will continue to use every available means to defend the European industry.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0441/01

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Recruitment of permanent officials at the European Commission

Can the Commission indicate:

1. How many permanent officials it has recruited since 1 January 1991 through open competitions, broken down by nationality, category and grade?

2. How many of these new officials broken down by nationality, category and grade, have since terminated their employment with the Commission on a permanent basis? How many are presently on unpaid leave (CCP), broken down by nationality, category and grade?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission has recruited 5 119 permanent officials through open competitions from January 1991 until end of February 2001.

>TABLE>

The table comprises the officials recruited on the Operational Budget (budget de fonctionnement) and it includes figures for the Office for Official Publications and the European anti-fraud office (OLAF).

A table concerning the breakdown by nationality, category and grade is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

Of these officials, 171 (3,34 %) have terminated their employment with the Commission on a permanent basis since 1991. The main reasons are resignation (94), transfer to another European Institution (54) and invalidity (15). A table concerning the breakdown by nationality, category and grade is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

Currently (as of early March 2001), 194 (3,79 %) of these new officials are on unpaid leave (CCP). A table concerning the breakdown by nationality, category and grade is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Redefinition of the NUTS

The Commission has submitted a proposal for the redefinition of the nomenclature of territorial units for statistical purposes (NUTS) with a view to drawing up the map for the Structural Funds which will form the basis for the decisions to be adopted for the forthcoming programming period.

The map drawn up on the basis of these units for statistical purposes must take account of both richer and poorer regions within a single Member State.

To what extent and in what fashion is the Commission linking this redefinition to that applying to cohesion policy?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

The proposed Regulation does not seek to redefine the nomenclature of territorial units for statistical purposes (NUTS) used in the implementation of cohesion policy but to make good the absence of a legal basis for the current classification.

The Commission is not intending by means of this regulation to modify the existing maps of Community regions defined by the current NUTS classification of the Statistical Office of the European Communities. On the contrary, it is proposing to put in place clearer rules as a regulatory framework for future changes to the classification.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1452/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Labour leasing agencies

The Greek General Confederation of Labour has complained that agencies leasing workers to businesses have mushroomed recently in Greece. The agencies act as intermediaries between the companies and the workers, hiring workers on behalf of the final employer on whose premises they will work. In other words, they loan or lease workers to companies, usually without paying the workers their social security or their rightful pay, and without the job rights established by other workers in the company.

Since such terms of employment result in a permanent squeeze on workers' incomes as a whole and undermine their job rights, does the Commission consider that there is a need for Community provisions to safeguard workers against such practices? Does the Commission know whether this development has also occurred in other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

In view of the growth in temporary work, the Commission proposed a directive as early as 1982 to create a framework for this employment model, which is rapidly becoming popular in Europe. This proposal, which was amended in 1984(1), was never adopted. While the Directive(2) on the health and safety of temporary workers was adopted in 1991, two other more general proposals concerning atypical work (covering part-time work and fixed-term contracts) came to nothing. Following this failure, discussions with the social partners at European level were begun in 1995 concerning the flexibility of working hours and the safety of workers. The social partners agreed to negotiate on this issue but to do so by separating the various subjects, which led to a framework agreement implemented by the adoption of a Directive on part-time work in 1997(3) and a Directive on fixed-term work in 1999(4). Finally, in May 2000, the social partners decided to open negotiations on temporary work. Unfortunately, one year later, on 21 May 2001,

they had to acknowledge that they were unable to reach an agreement. In accordance with Article 138 (ex Article 118a) of the EC Treaty, the Commission could make use of its power of initiative and submit a proposal for a Directive on working conditions for temporary workers to the European Parliament and the Council in the next few months.

(1) Amended proposal for a Council Directive concerning the supply of workers by temporary employment businesses and fixed-duration contracts of employment (OJ C 133, 21.5.1984).

(2) Council Directive 91/383/EEC of 25 June 1991 supplementing the measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of workers with a fixed-duration employment relationship or a temporary employment relationship (OJ L 206, 29.7.1991).

(3) Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE (OJ C 14, 20.1.1998).

(4) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ L 175, 10.7.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0712/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Humanitarian and economic disaster in Mongolia

For the second year running, Mongolia has found itself in the grip of an extremely harsh winter which, with temperatures of minus 30°C and very heavy snowfalls preventing animals from grazing, poses a grave threat to a large proportion of the country's 30 million livestock. Last year's economic disaster resulted in the deaths of 2,4 million livestock and was followed by an extremely dry summer. The Mongolian Government and experts from the United Nations Development Programme estimate that without a rapid injection of aid on a massive scale, some 12 million livestock are likely to die during the coming weeks, which in humanitarian terms would be nothing short of disastrous. The climatic conditions at the end of January caused the deaths of more than 500 000 livestock and left more than 75 000 Mongolian families struggling to survive.

The European Union, India, Israel and other countries have responded to the appeal launched jointly by the Mongolian Government and the United Nations with offers of several hundred thousand dollars in aid. But the need for aid has been estimated at USD 8,7 million, a figure that does not include approximately USD 4 million in food and other aid animal feed is the top priority needed to contain an economic disaster that is already taking hold and is fast becoming a humanitarian tragedy?

Is the Commission in agreement with the overall assessment of the aid needed?

If so, does it intend to limit its humanitarian intervention and emergency aid to the amounts already committed?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

In the last few weeks the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has received information on the situation in Mongolia from United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations. According to the reports, Mongolia is experiencing a second consecutive winter of blizzards and extremely low temperatures whose negative effects are exacerbated by the previous summer's prolonged drought. Such climatic conditions result in serious humanitarian problems for the population in the affected regions. They have lost a large proportion of livestock which is their main source of income.

ECHO is financing urgent humanitarian operations to meet the needs of the people in the most badly affected regions. Their main priority is to satisfy immediate food requirements caused by the disastrous winger (dzud). The Commission is in the process of approving a decision to grant aid worth 1 030 000 for a period of six months. This is in addition to the aid granted by ECHO in 2000 which was worth 1 875 000 to assist Mongolian families suffering from the consequences of the harsh winter of 1999/2000 and the subsequent drought.

The Commission is continuing to assist Mongolia through the TACIS programme. It aims to facilitate its transition towards a market economy by supporting reforms begun by the Mongolian government. Its long-term aim is to help reduce Mongolia's vulnerability to the economic effects of natural disasters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0781/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Publication of an OLAF report

It is undoubtedly very much in the general interest that instances of fraud at the Commission's Stockholm Information Office be fully and publicly clarified, so as to prevent further speculation.

Will the Commission publish the OLAF report on fraud at the Commission's Stockholm Information Office? If not, will it state the reasons why the report is to remain secret?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Commission has already had the opportunity to set out its position on publication of the report on this case by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in its answer to Written Question P-3457/00 by Mme Paulsen(1). In its answer, the Commission states that, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999(2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF, the investigation report was sent to the Commission and to the Swedish judicial authorities. Information communicated and obtained in this context is subject to professional secrecy and may not be passed on to persons other than those within the Community institutions or in the Member States whose duties require them to know it, nor may it be used for purposes other than to combat fraud and corruption.

In adopting Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999, the co-legislators thus decided that it was in the public interest for this kind of report to remain confidential.

Following authorisation by the Swedish judicial authorities, OLAF has stated that it sent its report in confidence to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, at its request, on 19 March 2001.

Judicial proceedings are still in motion in Sweden.

The Commission will keep Parliament informed of the outcome of the proceedings in due course.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/01

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Sea bass fishing situation

Nearly a year ago a written question (E-1334/00)(1) was tabled on the sea bass fishing situation and on stock levels of that species. The situation hardly seems to be improving. On the contrary, the volume of sea bass caught with trawl nets is reported to have soared.

The question consequently arises of whether to introduce a special fishing permit, one that would be exceptional and non-transferrable, to ensure a return to catch levels compatible with the capacity of stocks to renew themselves.

The question also arises of suspending fishing operations generally during the period of greatest vulnerability, viz. 15 February to 31 March.

What does the Commission think of those two suggestions?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

As indicated in the response to the Honourable Member's written question(1), the Commission, requested the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to report on the state of exploitation of bass stocks in the north-east Atlantic and to suggest technical means by which problems might be solved. The appropriate working group of ICES is expected to report on this topic in May 2001. The report will be the basis of further consideration of this topic by the Commission.

Either of the possibilities put forward by the Honourable Member is conceivable but, until ICES has reported and until the Commission has undertaken its further considerations, it is premature to decide on precise management measures.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: GATS applied to public services in public or private ownership

Do the GATS rules apply differently to public services depending on whether such services are in public or private ownership? Can governments and public authorities restrict access to third-country service providers in domestic public service markets which have already been privatised?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Provisions under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) apply throughout, irrespective of whether ownership of the service provider is private or public. However, all activities linked to the exercise of governmental authority are excluded from the scope of the GATS.

These general provisions must be read in connection with the specific commitments that each World Trade Organisation (WTO) Member has taken. This reflects the bottom-up approach of GATS, based on voluntary, sector-by-sector commitments for the opening to foreign service suppliers. These commitments indicate the level of market opening for each member in each services sectors and are included in country annexes attached to the treaty.

It must be underlined that the commitments entered into by the Community and its Member States during the Uruguay Round do not impair the prerogatives of Member States with regard to the establishment of the most appropriate organisation of the sector concerned: Members are neither obliged to privatise any part of the public sector, nor to limit the possibility of subsidising a service.

Whether governments and public authorities can, under GATS rules, restrict access to third country service providers in domestic public service markets is not a question of whether these have been privatised or not (which is a domestic policy decision), but depends on whether the Community and its Member States took any commitments in this respect during the Uruguay Round and if so, what commitments This means that any decision on privatisation in a specific sector, if not linked to a specific Community GATS commitment in the sector concerned, does not provide a legal framework for the provision of services by foreign suppliers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project

Coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of a certain Stephan Bodenkamp. Officially he is employed by the Amt für Auslandsfragen in Munich. A ruling from a Munich court (20 December 2000) shows that Bodenkamp's real name is Christoph Kionowski and that he is an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, although apparently he has now been suspended.

1. Is the Council aware that coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If so, does the Council support this choice of coordinator of the Sensus project?

2. Will the Council ask the Commission to relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project since he is an agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Council continue to support the Commission's decision to entrust him with coordination of the project?

3. Will the Council ask the Commission to relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his sentencing by a Munich court for forging a contract with a German technology firm in the context of the Sensus project? If not, why does the Council support the Commission's decision to nevertheless entrust him with coordination of the project?

4. Will the Council ask the Commission to relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his suspension by the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Council continue to support the Commission's decision to nevertheless entrust him with coordination of the project?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01 and E-1083/01

(16 July 2001)

The events mentioned in the three Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01, E-1083/01 are not within the competence of the Council of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1724/01

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: Farmers in Europe

How many farmers are there in each of the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

It is difficult to answer this question for the following raisons:

1) there is no common definition of farmers and even the definition of farm may vary greatly from one country to another;

2) the threshold adopted for the minimum size of farms has not yet been harmonised;

3) a clear picture will only be obtained when all applicant countries have carried out a full agricultural census, according to the Community methodology.

The following table gives an overview of the number of farms in candidate countries on the basis of the official figures that the Statistical Offices in the applicant countries have supplied to Eurostat. Employment in agriculture, as provided by the Labour Force Surveys, is also given for information. Although these figures for agricultural employment may differ from those provided by the agricultural census, they are more comparable as they are based on the same international standards.

>TABLE>

The second column of this table contains for most countries the total estimated number of units owing agricultural land, of which the largest part produces only for their own consumption. The third column consists of the estimated number of units that the applicant countries themselves consider to be agricultural farms according to their classification. The fourth column provides the number of economically active persons who gain a significant part of their income from agriculture, according to Labour Force Survey definitions, in the second quarter of the year 2000. Due the seasonal evolution of agricultural activity, figures on employment may vary throughout the year.