ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Access to European civil service A grade posts for Spanish university graduates in nursing studies

Spanish university graduates in nursing studies have a full university education, evidenced by a degree certificate, as stated in "Royal Decree 1665/91" transposing Directive 48/89/EEC(1) into Spanish law. Despite all this, the degree in question is not included in competitions for European civil service A category posts.

1. Why does the Commission exclude holders of these degrees from these competitions?

2. Does such exclusion not infringe Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and therefore constitute discrimination?

3. Staff regulations lay down that to qualify for category A the only requirement is to have completed a university education attested by a degree certificate. On what provision of the Staff Regulations or of Community law does the Commission have its requirement that the degree in question must make the holder eligible for PhD studies?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1999)

All the replies which the Commission has already given to Written Questions E-2749/97 by Ms García Arias(2), E-4186/97 by Ms Dührkop Dührkop(3), E-635/98 by Mr Hernández Mollar(4), E-995/98 by Ms Sornosa Martínez(5), E-997/98(6) and E-1001/98 by Ms De Esteban Martin(7), E-1309/98 by Ms González Álvarez(8) and E-3777/98 by Ms Sornosa Martínez(9) concerning "technical engineers" apply to the qualifications of "Diplomados en Enfermería". In fact, under Spanish law(10), the qualification referred to by the Honourable Member is - like the diplomas in "Ingeniería Técnica" - a diploma obtained on completion of a short university course. In order to obtain the qualification "Diplomado en Enfermería", it is therefore also necessary to have completed three years' study.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 136.

(3) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15.

(4) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 11.

(5) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 55.

(6) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 69.

(7) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 50.

(8) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 32.

(9) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999.

(10) "Ley de Ordenación general del Sistema Educativo" (Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre); "Ley de Reforma Universitaria", 1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0584/99

by Giacomo Santini (PPE) to the Commission

(3 March 1999)

Subject: Freedom to practise medicine in France

In addition to setting the seal on mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates, and other qualifications held by doctors in the Union, Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 is intended to facilitate free movement(1).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Given that no doctor may practise on any part of French territory unless he or she has previously registered in France, is it not the case that the peculiar provision to that effect in French national law infringes the Community legislation currently in force?

2. Is advance registration in another Member State, an arrangement admittedly applying to other professions, a necessary and justified condition to which entitlement to practise should be subject in the specific case of the medical profession?

3. What steps will the Commission take to deal with special needs of European citizens, for example visiting professional sportspeople from other Member States who cannot be treated in France by their accompanying medical teams, because the latter are prohibited, de facto, from exercising their professional prerogatives?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 1999)

1. No. The French legislation provides for registration with the Doctors Registration Board (Ordre des médecins) in the case of doctors wishing to exercise their right of establishment, and a simple prior declaration in the case of the provision of services involving a temporary stay in French territory, in accordance with Article 17 of Directive 93/16/EEC, quoted by the honourable Member.

2. Yes, if it is a prior declaration in the case of the provision of services.

3. In the case cited by the honourable Member, doctors accompanying professional sportspeople in a Member State other than the one in which they are established must be considered as being service providers. Under those circumstances, they are obliged to make a prior declaration to the authorities of each Member State in which they intend to provide services involving a temporary stay in their territory, in accordance with Article 17 of Directive 93/16/EEC.

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0714/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in the Basque Country in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/99

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Scope of Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, division, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States

Could the Commission confirm that its supplementary answer to Written Question E-3558/96(1), from which it appears that "Apart from the internal market and the environment, there are no problems of any note in other areas of Community law", implies that Directive 90/434/EEC(2) referred to above (the "Mergers Directive") does in fact apply to Gibraltar?

When the United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1973, it was specified that the Treaty would also apply to Gibraltar with the three exceptions of the Customs Union, VAT and the Common Agricultural Policy.

However, Gibraltar has its own legislation in internal policy areas, such as company law and taxation.

Although Gibraltar is a British colony, Article 3 of the Mergers Directive 90/434/EEC(3) nonetheless states that the term "company from a Member State" means "any company which ... takes one of the forms listed in the Annex, ... moreover, is subject to one of the following taxes, without the possibility of an option or of being exempt: ... corporation tax in the United Kingdom".

It has been conceded that holding companies established in Gibraltar may benefit from Directive 90/435 of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States.

Can the Commission confirm that Directive 90/434/EEC applies to the holding companies known as "qualifying companies" subject to company tax in Gibraltar?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

Article 227(4) of the EC Treaty provides that the Treaty applies to Gibraltar except as specified in Article 28 of the 1972 Act of Accession - direct taxation is not among the listed exceptions.

434343/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, division, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States therefore applies to Gibraltar in full.

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 6.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0542/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it declared "the tuna canning industry is the most important Community canning sector in terms of employment and the volume of trade, and that to encourage the huge growth prospects in this sector there is a need (...) to carry out rigourous checks on the origin of products and the quality and technical and health conditions of imported products so as to prevent consumer fraud and unfair competition for the Community industry".

Can the Commission say what measures have been adopted to comply with Parliament's request and thereby encourage the growth prospects in the Community tuna canning industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1999)

The Commission can reassure the Honourable Member that the Community legislation is in place to carry out rigorous checks on imported fishery products.

Under Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(2) provisions applied to imports of fishery products from third countries shall be at least equivalent to those governing the production and placing on the market of Community products (Article 10).

Imports of fishery products are only allowed from third countries fufilling the conditions of Directive 91/493/EEC and Commission Decision 97/296/EC of 22 April 1997 drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorized for human consumption(3) as last amended by Decision 99/136/EC(4).

Finally there is Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries(5) which is replaced from 30 June 1999 by Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997(6).

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1993, p. 295.

(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(3) OJ L 122, 14.5.1997.

(4) OJ L 44, 18.2.1999.

(5) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990.

(6) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0371/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Delays in construction of Athens underground railway

Construction of the Athens underground railway, a project jointly funded by the Union, was due for completion by the end of 1998. However, according to the second progress report drawn up by the Global View company, there are certain difficulties with the project which were unforeseen only to a minor extent and were not major causes of delay, whereas most delays were caused by choosing the wrong mechanical equipment for particular soils, even though they were not different from those described in the geotechnical surveys. The Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, however, agreed to a two-year extension for completion of the work owing to unforeseen geological conditions, without holding the contractor responsible. It should be noted that in 1994, the contract was amended, making DRS 6,7 billion available to the contractor to speed up the work so that the project would be finished and operational by October 1998.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the Commission's opinion about the cause of the delay, given that the geotechnical surveys had anticipated the technical difficulties?

2. What guarantees does the contract for the construction of the Athens underground railway provide to ensure due completion of the work on time and why are they not being invoked in these circumstances?

3. What is the amount of unused Community appropriations for this project and is there any risk that its budget may be cut because of low take-up?.

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

According to the information which the Greek authorities have provided to the Commission, there are two main reasons for the delays in building the Athens underground railway: archaeological excavations, which lasted much longer than the six months per site provided for in the contract signed in 1991, and geological conditions which were not foreseen, despite the 1 125 soil tests carried out over the 18 kilometre length of the tunnel.

The contract includes clauses covering unjustified delays. It is up to the two contracting parties to decide whether to invoke these clauses, if such delays do occur. This has not so far happened.

The European Regional Development Fund allocated EUR 783 million to the Athens underground railway project under the Community support framework for 1994-99. Of this amount EUR 90 million remains to be paid in 1999 and 2000. There is no doubt that all this amount will be paid before the end of 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0123/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Aircraft pollution

Does the Commission intend to present proposals for a directive on the reduction of environmentally polluting substances from aircraft, an issue which is becoming increasingly important, but on which the Commission remains silent?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

The Commission has stated its serious concern about the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions on several occasions. Since these emissions contribute to global environmental problems such as climate change and atmospheric ozone depletion, regulatory action on aircraft engine emissions has a much more significant reduction potential if introduced at international level. This was clearly highlighted in the explanatory memorandum to the Commission proposal of 3 December 1997 for a Council directive on the limitation of the emission of oxides of nitrogen from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes(1).

At international level there are currently mandatory certification standards in force for emissions of smoke, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from aircraft engines, laid down in Volume II of Annex 16 to the Convention on international civil aviation. All Community Member States are signatories to that Convention and the international standard is applied in all Member States.

As indicated in its Report on the main results of the 32nd session of the assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and its implications for the Community(2), the Commission envisages taking an active part in the work of the committee on aviation environmental protection of ICAO with a view to contributing to continued progress in reducing the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions.

The Commission intends provide further reflections on the reduction of aircraft engine emissions in a proposed communication to the Council and the Parliament on air transport and the environment.

The Commission, consequently, has not been and will not be "silent" on the issue of environmental pollution resulting from aircraft emissions.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(2) COM(98) 677 final.
The Commission is not aware of the use of precursors of nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, in processed
foodstuffs.
Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996, concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of
certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of β-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/
602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (2) prohibits the administering to a farm or aquaculture animal, by
any means whatsoever, of substances having androgenic action, such as nandrolone. If residues ofnandrolone are found in foodstuffs, the foodstuffs must be removed immediately from the market anddestroyed.
(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
(2000/C 27 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/99
by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(15 September 1999)
Subject: Child labour
Can the Commission state which European countries have still not ratified the ILO Convention on
protection against extreme forms of child labour?
Can it state which ACP countries have still not done so?What action will it take to speed up the ratification process?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(27 October 1999)
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention concerning the prohibition and immediate action
for the elimination of the worst forms of child labour (Convention 182) has to date been ratified by oneMember State of the ILO, namely the Republic of Seychelles. It should be noted that the Convention hasnot come into force yet. This will occur only twelve months after the Director-General of the ILO hasregistered the first two ratifications. The Commission, for its part, strongly supports the principles
underlying the Convention and hopes for widespread ratification.
The Commission is continuing to fund several projects throughout the world, particularly in developing
countries, that are aimed at improving childrens lot. These projects involve supporting measures geared toproviding legal protection, enabling children to go back to school or making society aware of childrensrights. Since 1997, projects of this kind have been financed in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Togo,Nepal and Ghana.
(2000/C 27 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1617/99
by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission
(7 September 1999)
Subject: The forthcoming Directive on Metrology
I understand that the Commission is currently preparing a new directive on metrology.France is the only EU Member State that insists that all measuring instruments, such as distance measurers,
must be approved by a national authority, in this case the Directions rØgionales de lindustrie, de larecherche et de lenvironnement (DRIRE). To gain approval, companies need an office and warehouse inFrance which DRIRE inspectors can visit in order to inspect each instrument individually.C 27 E/150 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/99

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Notification from the Japanese authorities of plans to send highly enriched uranium spent fuel to the US via EU ports

Have the Japanese authorities, since January 1998, sought permission, or otherwise notified the Commission of plans to send highly enriched uranium spent fuel to the United States via ports in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission has no legal competence to authorise the transport of nuclear material into or out of the territory of the Community. That responsibility rests with the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.

As far as Euratom safeguards is concerned, there is no obligation for notifications or reports to be sent to the Commission for the transit of nuclear material via ports in the Community. A declaration is only required if the material is unloaded from the ship or the airplane for interim storage in a nuclear installation of the Community before it is shipped to its final destination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/99

by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Lawfulness of the medium- and long-term fixing of charges for electricity for SMEs and domestic consumers

Does the Commission agree with the interpretation according to which an electricity undertaking may assess the reduction in income in the medium and long term resulting from the arrival of free competition and, consequently, that it may fix its prices or charges for consumers without taking account of the potential effects on costs in the coming years of fluctuations such as trends in the prices of energy products, developments in water management systems, exchange rates and interest rates and the expansion or contraction of supply and demand? Is that interpretation consistent with the free market principles laid down in the Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1999)

The question put by the Honourable Member concerns the mechanism whereby an electricity utility determines its selling prices.

Generally speaking, in a free and competitive market an enterprise sets its selling prices in the light of its production costs, which normally constitute the lower limit, and the prices charged by its competitors, which normally constitute the upper limit. In many cases, production costs are made up in part of provisions to cater for future events that have already been identified but have not yet been quantified exactly or are not certain.

The admissibility tests for such provisions are not standard in all Member States, although hypothetical events or events that are simply probable but cannot be quantified may not, as a rule, be taken into account.

Establishment of such provisions in accordance with the general concept of prudence is required by Community legislation, viz. Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies(1), by national laws on annual accounts and by international accounting principles, while the corresponding financial estimates are a matter for the directors and/or managers of the enterprise.

This is why, in the case at issue, the Commission is unable to take a position on the Honourable Member's proposed interpretation without knowing more about the points mentioned.

(1) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978.