ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/00

by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding the social rights of gypsies

It is a deplorable fact that a large number of travelling population groups, and notably gypsies, in the European Union and Europe in general live on the fringes of or even outside the existing social framework. There are abundant examples which support the view that gypsies usually suffer from social exclusion and enjoy only limited social rights to health, welfare and education. This is due to a combination of many different factors, such as social prejudice, the absence of any consistent state intervention and widespread attitudes which almost amount to breaking the law (i.e. in respect of gypsies' rights), even though these attitudes are held unconsciously.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to promote or support uniform or special social aid programmes for gypsies, with a view to increasing social awareness of gypsies, maintaining their civil identity and respecting the separate ethnic identities of the specific population groups involved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Combating exclusion has been specifically set as an objective of the Community and the Member States by the Amsterdam Treaty. Although the primary responsibility for preventing and combating social exclusion lies with the Member States, the Community can and must help where it can make a real additional

contribution. This is the framework within which the Community can contribute to combating the social exclusion of all vulnerable individuals and groups, including travelling people, and the Commission has outlined possible proposals in this area in its communication Building an inclusive Europe(1).

In addition, the recent proposals on combating discrimination adopted by the Commission on 25 November 1999 will forbid discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in employment, education, social protection and social security, social advantages and access to goods and services(2). In combating both direct and indirect discrimination in these fields, the Community will contribute to eliminating some of the barriers to inclusion faced by the Roma and other travelling people. The Commission has called on the Council and the Parliament to make rapid progress on this package of proposals.

(1) COM(2000) 79 final.

(2) COM(1999) 564, 565, 566 and 567 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(13 March 2000)

Subject: EU health, Aids and population policies

Does the Commission have any intention to increase staff managing the (now merged) Aids and population budget lines?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0745/00 and E-0746/00 given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The Commission is presently reviewing the Community's past experiences in the field of health, human immunedeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and population and presenting orientations for the Community's future efforts.

This exercise is part of the general discussion and reformulation of the Community development policy and the related discussion on a poverty action plan, a gender action plan and a review of priorities in social policy areas.

Informal discussions have taken place with the experts from Member States and some other major partners. In general, the orientations have been well received, and will now be discussed in management, before wider consultations.

The policy orientations will of course also become available for discussions in Parliament, but should be considered within the larger framework referred above.

As regards management of the specific budget line mentioned by the Honourable Member, considerations will be given to human resources and technical assistance within the context of the overall exercise of policy and resource priority setting that is ongoing. Part of this exercise will be addressed in the follow up on the white paper(1) on reform of the Commission.

In this framework the distribution of human and financial resources will be part of an overall exercise on priority setting and distribution of resources which will be completed by September 2000.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0340/00

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Transportation of live animals

I understand that Commission reports reveal that German, Dutch, Spanish, Belgian, French and Irish authorities are approving route plans for journeys to other Member States which, if scrutinised, indicate that Council Directive 91/628(1) on requirements for unloading and resting of live animals will, or may, be breached during the journey.

What action does the Commission intend to take to rectify this possible breach?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0340/00, E-0341/00 and E-0425/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is aware, following the reports of its food and veterinary office and from the complaints of various organisations, that enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC concerning the protection of animals during transport is inadequate in many Member States. These problems are being kept under close review by the Commission and are drawn to the attention of the Member States' authorities as and when they occur. In particular, infringement proceedings in this field have been opened against one Member State and others are under preparation.

In addition, Article 13 of the Directive provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council shortly taking into account all available information.

Meanwhile, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has been established to consider problems in the implementation of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport. The Commission may consider amending Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of the working group on transport and in the light of the experience acquired by Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Professional recognition of dental technicians

In view of the professionalism required to practise as a dental technician and the fact that in many EU Member States such technicians have already been granted professional status, can the Commission say what steps the Italian Government has taken to recognise the profession of dental technician?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Commission has no information on the steps mentioned by the Honourable Member. Since the profession of dental technician has not, in fact, been subject to any Community harmonisation, the Member States alone remain responsible for granting official status to, and regulating, this profession (conditions governing training, access to and pursuit of the profession). Furthermore, Council Directives 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988(1) and 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992(2) on the general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas, which can be applied to recognition among Member States of qualifications obtained by dental technicians, do not impose any obligations on the Commission to carry out detailed studies into all the professions to which these Directives may apply. In this context, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the profession of dental technician (odontotecnico) is already regulated in Italy, as it has been included for Italy in the list in Annex C of Directive 92/51/EEC.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0808/00

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Sanctions against Yugoslavia

In connection with their decision to suspend air traffic with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for six months the Member States of the European Union have drawn up a list of several hundred Yugoslav citizens who are subject to a general ban on entry to the European Union.

Will the Commission say:

- Which institution drew up this blacklist and which criteria did it use to do so?

- Was the European Parliament consulted before this step was taken and if not, is there any intention of remedying this situation?

- Is it true that this list includes the names of the Minister for Refugee Affairs, Belgrade's ambassador in Skopje and senior officials in the fields of the economy, trade and healthcare, i.e. persons directly involved in alleviating and eliminating the consequences of the war?

- What does it mean by the phrase persons who have contributed substantially towards strengthening the Milosevic regime?

- Is it aware that by imposing tougher sanctions in this way it is actually undermining the position of the Yugoslav opposition movement which considers that EU sanctions are strengthening the present regime in Belgrade?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2000)

The Commission recalls that the Council has determined the criteria by which individuals are included in and removed from the list of those to whom visas will not be issued for entry into Member States. The visa ban lists are adopted by Council Decision implementing Article 1 of common position 1999/318/CFSP(1).

The Parliament was not consulted in advance on this list. Under Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, such consultation is not foreseen.

The list contains the names of members of the Belgrade regime and their supporters. In exceptional cases, exemptions may be made if this would further vital Union objectives and be conducive to political settlement in accordance with Article 1(4) of the common position.

The Commission considers that the phrase to which the Honourable Member refers is self-explanatory.

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's assessment that the toughening of the sanctions strengthens the Former Republic of Yugoslavia regime and is detrimental to the Serbian opposition. The sanctions are, as far as possible, applied in such a way as to impact on the regime but not the population. The visa ban, for instance, is recognised as an effective sanction against the regime in Belgrade, while some of the other sanctions have already been partly lifted (e.g. the flight ban and oil embargo as regards Kosovo and Montenegro) or are being temporarily suspended (e.g. the flight ban on Serbia, as part of a wider package of strengthening both the visa ban and the financial sanctions). The suspension of the flight ban was, inter alia, a response to demands by the Serbian democratic opposition.

(1) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0451/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from different tax arrangements within the EU

Can the Council confirm that a working party of Council officials has encountered in a number of Member States sixty sets of tax arrangements which are deemed to have the effect of distorting competition?

Is it true that the report identifies the Netherlands as the front runner in this respect, with nine schemes coming in for criticism?

What are the nine?

Is it true that no fiscal arrangements having the effect of distorting competition were found in Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom (the large Member States)?

What is the Council's opinion of this official report and when will it present its own political appraisal?

Reply

(16/17 May 2000)

1. The report of the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to which the Honourable Member refers and which was submitted to the Council (Ecofin) on 29 November 1999 can be consulted on the Council's Internet site (ue.eu.int/newsroom, under miscellaneous, 4901/1999).

2. While deciding to make the text accessible to the public via the Internet, the Council has not as yet taken any position on its content, and is therefore unable at this stage to give a reply concerning the substance of the questions put.

3. The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that the European Council in Helsinki agreed that a High Level Working Party would be set up which will, in the framework of the overall report which it is to submit to the Council, put forward possibilities for solutions, particularly as regards the Code of Conduct, since the latter forms part of the tax package, in accordance with the conclusions of the Ecofin Council on 1 December 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/00

by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Council

(20 March 2000)

Subject: Surveillance of international telecommunications

At the hearing The European Union and Data Protection, held at the EP on 22-23 February 2000, STOA delegate Duncan Campbell reported on the current situation with regard to Echelon, the global interception system. It emerged that Echelon had intercepted economically significant data in Europe to the detriment of the European economy.

Contrariwise John Mogg, Director-General of the Commission, and Commissioner Martin Bangemann said that Echelon was nothing more than press rumours. This was clearly rebutted in statements from senior officials such as Martin Brady, Director of the Australian Secret Service, Defence Signal Directorate.

There are many indications that the Council and the Commission have been well aware of this interception system, but have taken no action and deliberately kept Parliament uninformed.

All of this notwithstanding, the Council and the Commission have even amended the European legislation in a US-friendly sense by following the main thrust of an American law of 1994 (CALEA) and the Council took account of their wishes in its resolution of 17 January 1995(1) on the lawful interception of telecommunications.

1. Which Council services at what time were aware of telecommunications interception in Europe and what action was taken against it?

2. What measures will the Council take in future to safeguard electronic communications in Europe against bugging operations and to guarantee the protection of personal and economic data?

3. Was the Council aware that Enfopol documents emanate from the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar) under US chairmanship and why was Enfopol 90 never discussed, but only dealt with through a written procedure?

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.

Reply

(8 June 2000)

1. The deliberations of the Council on the technical aspects of the lawful interception by the competent authorities of the Member States of telecommunications are prepared by the Police Cooperation Working Party. This was the case for the abovementioned Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 and for the Council conclusions of 28 May 1998 on encryption and law enforcement.

As concerns Echelon, the Council has already given several replies to parliamentary questions (H-0330/97, P-0501/98, 0-0057/98, H-0546/98, H-0872/98, H-0889/98).

2. As concerns the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, the Council recalls the European Parliament and Council Directive of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(1).

3. In the Council Enfopol documents are preparatory documents concerning police cooperation. In 1999 the Council examined a draft for a Resolution on the lawful interception of telecommunications in relation to new technologies. This draft text was not adopted by the Council.

(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, page 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural artefacts

A new convention on the restitution of stolen cultural artefacts is being promoted in the United Nations calling for negotiations to be held in such cases between the parties concerned.

1. Has the Commission expressed its support for the convention in question?

2. Has it proposed that the Member States sign this convention?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

As far as the Commission is aware, there are no proposals emanating from the United Nations for the adoption of a new convention on the return of stolen cultural artefacts, this issue having already been the subject of the 1995 Unidroit Convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. The Commission took part in the work on drafting this Convention as an observer.

The Commission shares the general aim of combating illicit trade in cultural objects, which was the driving force behind the Unidroit Convention, but given the Community's responsibilities in this field as Community law stands at present, it has not yet registered its support for the Convention by proposing that the Member States sign it.

The Commission would like to point out that for the European Economic Area (EEA), Directive 96/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State(1) lays down arrangements and a procedure, to be applied among the States which are party to the EEA Agreement, for the return of cultural objects which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of one of these States. This Directive is an accompanying measure to the process of completing the internal market, as its purpose is to supplement border controls in providing the means of affording suitable protection to cultural objects.

Community regulations have been taken into account by the Unidroit Convention, Article 13 of which stipulates that in their relations with each other, Contracting States which are members of organisations of economic integration or regional bodies may declare that they will apply the internal rules of these organisations or bodies and will not therefore apply as between these States the provisions of this Convention the scope of application of which coincides with that of those rules.

A declaration of this type has been made by two of the five Member States which have signed the Convention: the Netherlands, which did so upon signing the Convention, and Finland, which has already ratified the Convention, when its deposited its instrument of ratification. The other Member States which have signed the Convention to date are France, Portugal and Italy. Italy has already deposited its instrument of ratification and thus become party to the Convention.

(1) OJ L 60, 1.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1138/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The role of the Authority in a crisis is to mobilise and support (and if necessary implement) (section 52 ff). It will not take decisions on specific measures in crises. This will remain the task of the Commission and the regulatory committees consisting of representatives of the Member States.

Does the Commission acknowledge that the current decision-making procedures have not always operated satisfactorily in crises because of the different views of the Member States? If not, does the Commission believe that the approach to crises hitherto has been exemplary? If so, is the Commission considering giving the Authority responsibilities in future for tackling crises?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1121/00, E-1124/00, E-1126/00, E-1129/00, E-1130/00, E-1131/00, E-1132/00, E-1135/00, E-1136/00, E-1137/00, E-1138/00 and E-1139/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

In the White Paper on Food Safety(1), the Commission set out the general guidelines it intends to adopt concerning the future establishment of the European Food Authority and invited all the parties concerned to respond and contribute to the discussion during the consultation period. Regarding many of the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to finalise its proposals or fix the details of operational mechanisms until it has had an opportunity to consider the opinions expressed during the consultation procedure.

However, with regard to the question of responsibilities, the White Paper states that risk assessment, the gathering of data and providing information to consumers in areas for which the Authority is responsible should be a matter for that Authority. For legal reasons and reasons of democratic responsibility, the Commission believes that, under the current framework, the transfer of regulatory powers to an independent authority cannot be justified. However, any future extension of the Authority's powers would have to be considered in the light of the Commission's assessment of the Authority's performance and the degree of confidence that it has generated without ruling out a possible need to amend the Treaty.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1178/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: EU enlargement and the regions

We have reached a crucial historical moment, not only for the EU but for the entire continent of Europe. The twelve applicant states (other than Turkey) have a total population of over 100 000 m. This means that the total population of the EU will rise by 27 %, although, as we know, the number of MEPs is not expected to rise to more than 700, that is, only 11 % more than the present number.

Given that no proposals exist to modify the role and competences of the EU institutions, does the Commission not consider that the representation of the regions is likely to be seriously undermined? Has the Commission not provided for new measures to ensure that regions such as the Basque Country (with 3 million inhabitants) or the Catalan-speaking regions (totalling 12 million inhabitants) can enjoy their due representation as compared with prospective Member States such as Malta or Cyprus? Does the Commission have no plans for a wide-ranging reform of the Committee of the Regions, with a view to its becoming a truly representative organ of the regions?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

As regards representation of the regions in Parliament, the Commission would recall the answer given to oral question H-666/99 from Mrs Evans during question hour at the November 1999 part-session(1).

As regards the Committee of the Regions, the Commission, in its opinion of 26 January 2000 on the Intergovernmental Conference, proposed the same geographical formula as the European Parliament. For the Committee of the Regions as a whole, the Commission proposed a ceiling of one third of the number of representatives (233 members), so as to safeguard the Committee's effectiveness.

As regards the Committee's future role, the Commission considers that in an enlarged Union cooperation between the regions will assume even greater significance, as will evaluation of the impact of proposed legislation at regional level. The Committee of the Regions' consultative role must therefore be maintained so that it can fulfil its mission, which is to represent, at European level, the interests of the regional and local authorities.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).