ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/590

(2004/C 78 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3561/03

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: ‘Parasubordinated’ workers and social dumping

A problem which has arisen within the Swedish labour market over the past few years, mainly in the construction sector, is that workers from the candidate countries are working for pay and under working conditions far interior to those offered by Swedish collective agreements. These workers, from Poland and elsewhere, are able to evade the existing regulations by being given the status of self-employed workers, in spite of the fact that they should to all intents and purposes be regarded as employees. Behind this arrangement is often a kind of hiring firm which acts as an agency supplying the services of the foreign workers to the Swedish contractors, and helps them to obtain the ‘F tax certificates’ and other required documentation. The hiring firms in these cases should clearly be regarded as employers, but they act on the basis that they are merely an agency for services carried out by self-employed workers.

If this practice increases in extent, it will lead to widespread social dumping. The situation is surely not unique to Sweden.

1. What is the Commission's view of this situation?

2. Does the Commission propose to take any measures with a view to dealing with this problem?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

It is not clear from the Honourable Member's question whether the circumstances described fall within the scope of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1).

In the case of postings within the meaning of this Directive, the definition of a worker is that which applies in the law of the Member State on the territory of which the worker is posted, according to Article 2(2).

If, however, these are placements with the objective of having the workers habitually perform their work in Sweden, the ratione personae scope of the working and employment conditions is, in general, also determined by Swedish law.

In view of this, it is up to the host Member State to ensure that the category of persons mentioned by the Honourable Member is covered by its worker protection legislation.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/17

(2004/C 78 E/0017)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism

The G7 laid down in 2002 in Genoa that multilateral financial institutions should set up an independent compliance mechanism. In response, the EBRD recently issued a proposal for such a mechanism. In Europe, to date, the proposal has attracted little attention.

As long ago as 1993, the Washington-based World Bank set up a comparable body by establishing the Inspection Panel. The panel was set up to operate as a public forum for individuals to submit complaints to the Bank whenever they believe that they are being harmed, or may be harmed, by a project which has World Bank funding.

The EBRD proposal has been commented on in the following terms by two former Inspection Panel chairmen:

— the proposed compliance mechanism does not guarantee independence for the panel body;

— the mechanism cover only part of the EBRD's activities;

— disclosure of information concerning drafts subject to the mechanism is conditional and vague;

— persons appointed to the compliance panel do not enjoy sufficiently clear autonomy and effectiveness;

— to judge from the proposal, much more emphasis is placed on problem solving than on compliance.

1. Is the Commission aware of the EBRD proposal and, if so, has it checked the draft against the criteria laid down by the G8 in July 2000, such as independence, transparency, etc.?

2. Does the Commission agree with the above criticisms?

3. If so, does the Commission plan to take action in this connection vis-à-vis the EBRD?

4. Does the Commission plan to draw greater attention to the proposal and, if so, in what way?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism referred to by the Honourable Member has already been discussed by the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors of the EBRD and has been endorsed in principle by its committee for financial operations and policies, which is responsible for such matters.

A wide-ranging public consultation exercise on the draft proposal was launched in October 2002 on the EBRD website and the comments received will be examined and taken into account in the final drafting of the Independent Recourse Mechanism. The Honourable Member's criticisms have therefore been passed on to the EBRD Board of Governors by the Commission.

It should, however, be noted that the final decision on the matter, which is expected in April 2003, will be taken by the EBRD Board of Directors alone. It should also be remembered that, while all G8 members, the European Community and all the Member States are represented on it, the Board of Directors must also take account of the institution's mandate and specific operational requirements.
While the Commission does not have the intention to propose legislation to prohibit building on the seafront, the problems associated with construction in the coastal zone are being looked into.

In 2001, the Parliament voted a budget allocation of EUR 5 million to look into the increasing problem of coastal erosion. Based on this resource, the Commission launched a major pan-European project called ‘EUrosion’ (2), which is to deliver by May 2004 policy recommendations for the Union, national, regional and local levels in how to deal in a sustainable way with coastal erosion.

Finally, in its Chapter IV.3.b (i) the Parliament and Council Recommendation 2002/413/EC of 30 May 2002 on the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe (3) invites Member States to consider in particular measures to control additional urbanisation on the coast, in the context of the national strategies for integrated coastal zone management due by February 2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/450

(2004/C 78 E/0473)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3153/03

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: EU Info-Points

At the end of September 2003, the Commission informed the EU information centres that from January 2004, under the new Financial Regulation, overheads will no longer be subsidised. This endangers the very existence of the Info-Points and information carrefours that have until now undeniably served citizens, the European Parliament and not least the European Commission well. These Info-Points are essential in building trust between the people of Europe and the European Union institutions.

1. Why did this communication come so late and unexpectedly that those in charge of the Info-Points and carrefours were unable to make the necessary preparations for the new situation when planning their budget for 2004?

2. Why was no arrangement made to guarantee the survival of these valuable Info-Points, even though the Financial Regulation the Commission is referring to has been in existence for over a year (since June 2002)?

3. Is the Commission prepared to introduce transitional measures to ensure the uninterrupted service of Info-Points during 2004?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/53

(2004/C 84 E/0059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Reduction of VAT on CDs and cassettes

At the recent Ecofin Council in Luxembourg 7 October 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein announced that the Commission was against any reduction of VAT on audio recording media and CDs as this might create distortions of competition. A minority of members of the Council were in favour of lower rates.

Against the background of the current discussions in Unesco concerning the creation of an international legal instrument to safeguard cultural diversity will the Council examine whether a reduction of VAT is feasible and desirable for CDs by new artists and/or artists singing in local or regional languages and/or home-grown musicians (irrespective of whether or not they sing in their own language) and/or for certain genres of music? At the opening of the recent Unesco conference, President Ciampi said that Italy advocates the adoption of a legal instrument on cultural diversity, guaranteeing every country the protection of its own historical identity and the uniqueness of its physical and intangible cultural heritage.

Is the Council prepared to authorise some reduced VAT rates for CDs with the specific aim of safeguarding cultural diversity?

If so, what steps will the Council take to bring this about in the near future?

If not, what measures does the Council consider have higher priority in safeguarding cultural diversity?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Commission proposal concerning reduced VAT rates is currently being examined by the Council.

Until those proceedings have been completed, the Council cannot reply to the Honourable Member's questions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/733

(2004/C 84 E/0826)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3154/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Mobile telephone safety

Given the findings of recent studies which show that the new generation of mobile telephones can interfere with many types of heart pacemaker, can the Commission detail what measures are being taken to prevent harm to the health of EU citizens?

It would seem that newer pacemakers that are fitted with a ceramic filter are immune. Can the Commission confirm that steps are being taken to introduce these models across the industry and to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of using the old models?

Can the Commission also detail what information it has provided regarding the safety of using mobile telephones in conjunction with a pacemaker since 1994?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the studies to which the Honourable Member is referring. Similarly, the Commission is not aware that under the vigilance systems in place with regard to medical devices, incidents have occurred.

Pacemakers must meet the requirements established by Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on active implantable medical devices (1). These requirements imply, amongst others, that the devices must be designed and manufactured in such a way that, when implanted under the conditions and for the intended purpose, their use does not compromise the clinical condition or the safety of patients. More specifically pacemakers must be designed and manufactured in such a way as to remove or minimize, as far as possible, risks connected with reasonably foreseeable environmental conditions, such as magnetic fields, external electrical influences, electrostatic discharge, pressure or variations in pressure and acceleration. Also, the manufacturer must provide an instruction leaflet allowing the physician to brief the patient on contra-indications and precautions to be taken. These should cover, in particular, the precautions to be taken as regards the risks of exposure mentioned above. This information is to be updated in the light of new risks that may occur.

From research performed on this matter, the Commission understands that interference between mobile phones and pacemakers can be avoided provided a distance of 20-30 cm from the pacemakers is ensured.

The Commission would expect relevant new information to be provided by physicians in their relations with patients. In addition, national health care systems may have to provide information through the various means at their disposal.

(1) OJ L 189, 20.7.1990.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/105

(2004/C 88 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 August 2003)

Subject: Protection of excavations at ancient Salamis, Cyprus

Professor V. Karageorghis of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus, who carried out excavations at ancient Salamis in collaboration with the French archaeological expedition before the invasion of the island, claims that a Turkish professor, S. Ozgurel, is excavating at ancient Salamis without having obtained authorisation from the previous excavators. Since, firstly, it is international practice to obtain permission from the previous excavator and, secondly, Turkey has been a signatory since 1965 to the Hague Convention, Article 5 of which expressly prohibits any archaeological work on territory occupied by foreign forces without the consent of the lawful government of the country, will the Commission say what representations it will make to the Turkish Cypriot authorities to stop these illegal excavations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

In general, responsibilities in the field of culture remain with the Member States. The competences of the Community are limited.

Concerning the excavations at ancient Salamis, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member. There is no legal basis for the Commission to undertake action in this case.
4.

The Commission is aware that medicinal products containing Metronidazole are authorised for use for particular indications for treatment of human beings and possibly also companion animal species. Metronidazole is, however, included in Annex IV of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, i.e. forbidden for use in veterinary medicinal products intended for use in food producing animal species since 1998. The substance is genotoxic and residues in food from treated animals might constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer at whatever limit. The benefit/risk assessment made for use of substances in human medicine is not applicable in the same way for veterinary medicinal products, where residues may be considered harmful for the consumer. As Metronidazole is forbidden for use in food producing animal species, the Commission can under no circumstances authorise such use in the Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/617

(2004/C 78 E/0652)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/03

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

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Statements by André Sapir (adviser to the Commission President, Romano Prodi) concerning EU cohesion policy

Voicing a commonplace view which appears to be shared by Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany, André Sapir (an adviser to the Commission President, Romano Prodi) recently stated in Barcelona that ‘cohesion has served its purpose but what we need now is growth’. He even declared that cohesion policy should in future focus on the actual Member States and not on the regions with the lowest per-capita income.

What are the impact and the significance of such statements made by a person who, in his capacity as Mr Prodi's adviser, dares to dismiss (describing it as ‘a political point of view’) the idea that the regions are ‘partners with a special role to play in the implementation of Community policies’? Who authorised him to state that an ‘economic’ rather than a ‘political’ reason lies behind the idea of concentrating projects in the Member States and gearing them to growth in the EU's wealthiest and most industrialised regions, thereby marginalising areas which would have plenty of development capacity if only the structural divides caused by detrimental policies conducted by the EU and its Member States could be bridged?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The question of the Honourable Member refers to a statement made by André Sapir in an interview published in El País in early November 2003. The occasion of the interview was a seminar at IESE Business School, where Mr Sapir was presenting the report of the independent study group established on the initiative of President Prodi, which he chaired. His statements reflected the views expressed in the report rather than the views of President Prodi or the Commission. As a matter of fact the cover page of the Sapir report states that: ‘The Report represents only the opinion of the independent Group and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.’
1.

The fact that this is a dedicated facility does not mean that it distorts the market, since other facilities are available for ‘competitors’. For Member States this is clearly the case, through European Investment Bank (EIB) activities and those of commercial banks. For third countries there are also the EIB and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), for example, which finance other energy sources. It is to be noted that Euratom loans are given at the market rates available to the Commission.
2.

The Commission takes no responsibility for what the Honourable Member says. It has, on a number of occasions (1), voiced the opinion that services of general interest play a key role in the development of a European social model and that the Member States remain free to define services of general interest and how to organise them. However, it has to be ensured that any restrictions to applying the rules of the EC Treaty, and particularly restrictions on competition and limitations of the internal market freedoms, do not exceed what is strictly necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the general interest mission. In particular, when the Member States decide to entrust the management of such services to a third party, the choice of third party should be made in accordance with the rules and principles of Community public procurement law. In this context, it should be pointed out that the College has recently adopted a Green Paper on services of general interest (Internet site http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest), which relays the Commission's thoughts on this matter and invites all interested parties to submit their opinions and suggestions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/475

(2004/C 88 E/0487)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3851/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Ratification of international conventions in the field of human rights

Will the Commission indicate the most recent state of play (broken down by country) as regards all 25 current and future Member States' signature and ratification of all United Nations, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Council of Europe and other international conventions in the field of human rights, equality, protection of minorities and anti-discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Within the United Nations there are several conventions on human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination.

All 25 current and future Member States are party to the following core conventions in these fields:

— the International covenant on civil and political rights;

— the International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights;

— the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment;

— the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women;

— the International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination;

— the Convention on the rights of the child;

— the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees.

Within the Council of Europe, there are several conventions and protocols on human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination. The two most important conventions are the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All 25 current and future Member States are parties to them.

The question also mentions the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). To the Commission's knowledge, there are no conventions on human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination within the framework of the OECD. Regarding the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, all 25 current and future members of the Union are participating States. As such, they subscribe to political commitments of OSCE in the fields of human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination. The OSCE, as a political organisation, has no legally binding texts in these fields.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/199

(2004/C 78 E/0204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Endometriosis research funding

How much funding has been provided by the EU towards endometriosis research in the past three years?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

The Commission has not funded proposals addressing specifically endometriosis research in the last three years.

A project funded in the Fifth Research and Technological Development Framework Programme: ‘Life Sciences Programme’ (Key action environment and Health) on ‘Comparison of exposure-effect pathways to improve the assessment of human health risks of complex environmental mixtures of organohalogens’ partly addresses this disease; it studies possible associations of environmental exposure and endometriosis. As endometriosis is not the main focus of this project it is, however, not feasible to estimate the specific funding for endometriosis in this project.
1.

The Commission refers to its answer to Written Question E-3529/02 by Mr Pronk (3). In addition, the Commission would like to stress that, under Belgian law, every worker has a right to paid annual leave of at least four weeks. Article 2 of the Consolidation Law on annual leave of 27 June 1971 provides that workers (…) are entitled to annual leave in proportion to the work performed (…). Workers' right to leave is an acquired right, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. Workers may not waive their entitlement to annual leave. Article 3 of the aforementioned law provides that the amount of leave is defined by leave cycle, on the basis of the amount of services performed during the cycle. (…). Leave must total at least twenty-four days per twelve months of work (…). For the purposes of calculating this amount, the cycle is defined as the calendar year preceding the year in which the leave is to be granted (…). Belgian legislation should thus not be confused with legislation such as that in question in the Bectu case (4), since it does not make the entitlement to paid annual leave subject to a minimum period of work but merely defers the practical exercise of this right to the following calendar year. In the view of the Commission, this complies with Article 7(1) (see the argument put forward in the answer to question E-3529/02).