ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/99

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Commission recruitment policy with regard to officials

Could the Commission confirm that it applies an age restriction as one of its recruitment criteria for future officials, as a general rule this age limit being set at 45?

What are the reasons for such a policy?

Does the Commission intend to maintain its policy in this area, given that Article 13 of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty which entered into force in May 1999, now explicitly states that mldr the Community, mldr may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1999)

On 21 January 1998 the Commission decided to gradually implement a process of ending age limits for recruitment of personnel.

As a first step, the Commission fixed an age limit of 45 years for all competitions at the basic level of recruitment, in line with the approach taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 20 October 1997. Inter-institutional consultation on the report of the Reflection Group on Personnel Policy resulted in the other institutions declaring themselves ready to raise the age limit to 45 years.

It should be noted, however, that Parliament and Council did not bind themselves to adopting the position of principle taken by the Commission which involves the eventual abandonment of age limits in personnel recuitment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Failure by Greece to give notification of waste management programmes

The Commission has decided to initiate proceedings before the European Court against Greece for failure to give notification of waste management programmes in accordance with Directives 75/442(1), 91/689(2) and 94/62(3). Greece has now provided information concerning waste management within its territory.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it know the reasons for the delay by Greece in announcing its programmes?

2. What view does it take of the information provided by Greece?

3. Is Greece complying with the provisions of the above directives and, if not, in which areas is it out of line?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 1999)

Having noted that Greece had not reported waste management programmes, in infringement of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on dangerous wastes, and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Greece. As part of those proceedings the Greek authorities notified the Commission of a draft plan in December 1998. During a bilateral meeting in May 1999 the Commission commented to the Greek authorities on the gaps in the draft waste management plan. In the absence of any reaction from the Greek authorities the Commission decided to lay the matter before the Court of Justice on 1 July 1999.

On 31 August 1999 the Greek authorities passed on their comments concerning those made by the Commission on the draft waste management plan without, however, amending that draft.

The Commission has not been given any specific reasons for the delay in drawing up the waste management plans in Greece. The Commission is anxious to point out that infringement proceedings are also in progress against 12 other Member States as a result of a delay in sending waste management plans.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1661/99

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Milk quota situation

1. Do uniform rules regarding milk quotas always apply to all Member States?

2. Is the principle of equal treatment of Member States and of the farmers concerned applied in the case of milk quotas?

3. Do inaccuracies occur in the administration of quotas in many countries?

4. Is it always the relevant producer himself who has to pay the superlevy if the quota is exceeded?

5. Does the Commission have any information to suggest that Italy has paid LIT 3 631 billion in superlevy from its State budget?

6. If any measures (infringement proceedings) have been taken, what stage have they reached?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

1. Community legislation on milk quotas applies to all the Member States. In a number of respects this legislation permits choices regarding the specific implementing rules so that the Member States can take account of their specific conditions of production.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, but not on a scale which compromises the operation of the arrangement.

4. Yes, but in the case of deliveries collection is the responsibility of the dairy to which the producer delivers.

5. The Commission has collected from Italy the amounts due as a result of the quotas being exceeded. Following the work of commissione di garanzia quote latte (milk quota guarantee commission) which examined the reference quantities of all the producers individually and reported in February 1999, in July the Italian administration undertook to recover those amounts from the debtors. The Commission is awaiting details of this recovery. However, the settlement of any individual disputes is a matter for the Italian courts.

6. An infringement procedure concerning the failure by Italy to make a definitive recovery of the supplementary levy from producers who exceeded their quotas is still in progress. However, in view of the developments referred to in the previous paragraph since a reasoned opinion was issued, the Commission does not consider it necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice at this stage. Naturally, it reserves the right to do so if no satisfactory conclusion is reached soon.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2215/99

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Blackout of RAI TV programmes and free movement of services

It is now common practice on the part of RAI TV to encode certain popular films, sporting events and other TV programmes for overseas viewers.

1. Can the Commission say whether:

(a) in the light of the principles of the single market, it does not consider it disgraceful that the RAI is blacking out its programmes for overseas viewers, flying in the face of the principle of the free movement of services laid down in Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty?

(b) such discrimination against overseas residents and other EU citizens is not all the more reprehensible in that being penalised on account of a border, they are not even allowed to buy a decoder should they wish to do so?

(c) this behaviour is not in blatant defiance of the letter and the spirit of Article 3(a) of the Television without Frontiers directive, which stipulates that all Member States may require broadcasters to broadcast visibly and clearly all events of particular importance? In fact it is precisely those events that Italy has defined universal pursuant to Article 3(a) (e.g. football matches involving the national team, European cup matches and Formula One Grands Prix) that it is blacking out for overseas viewers.

(d) this conduct is not, moreover, incompatible with the RAI's public service duties, as the company, in fulfilling such duties, benefits from State aid (the canone, or TV licence) which is currently under the scrutiny of the Commission itself?

2. Furthermore, does the Commission not consider it advisable and indeed necessary to launch specific Community initiatives to prevent radio and TV programmes, and services targeted to overseas users in general, from being blacked out, denying consumers the possibility of gaining regular and easy access to such services? This would hopefully put an end to this undeniable discrimination, which is seriously undermining the completion of the single market and EU citizens' perception of a true area without borders.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

The Commission acknowledges the relevance of the honourable Member's question with reference to the operation of the internal market, and also in the light of the many letters of complaint that have been received on the matter its importance for citizens' perception of an area without borders.

However, the Commission does not at the moment have all the facts that are needed to provide a satisfactory reply to the honourable Member's questions.

The Commission will accordingly shortly submit a request for information to the Italian authorities.

In the light of the facts that it will then have at its disposal, the Commission will be in a better position to assess the need for any measures in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/99

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Functional foods

Does the Commission envisage proposing new regulations on the labelling of what are known as functional foods such as the new cholesterol-lowering margarine which Unilever is currently trying to launch on to the market?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1455/99, E-1456/99, E-1457/99 and E-1458/99 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The Commission does not intend to propose new Community provisions for the labelling of so-called functional foods. This category does not currently exist in Community law, and the products concerned are therefore subject to the general provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1) on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

In 1997, Unilever submitted in the Netherlands a request for placing on the Community market a yellow fat spread with added phytosterol-esters, under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(2). Unilever must have considered that its product was not substantially equivalent to the product made in Finland by Raisio, as it did not invoke Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 which lays down an abbreviated procedure for products which are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food ingredients.

The Commission itself did not formulate objections to the initial assessment report of the Dutch authorities concerning the Unilever product. Reasoned objections were however presented by several Member States; hence an authorisation can only be granted under the procedure laid down in Article 13 of

Regulation (EC) No 258/97. As the objections presented by the Member States related to public health, the Commission consulted the scientific committee for food, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. The opinion of the scientific committee for food is currently awaited.

As far as the Raisio product is concerned, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-1506/99 by Mr Mulder(3).

(1) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1902/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Telematics Programme

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding (specifying whether payments have already been made) under the Telematics programme (1994-1998) as part of the fourth framework programme in the field of research (budget ECU 898 million, equal to LIT 1 740 billion) and how much each of them has been granted?

Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The 850 million net financial contribution to the various types of organisation funded under the Telematics application programme (TAP) from 1994 to 1998 can be broken down between large enterprises 247 million, small and medium-sized enterprises 130 million, universities and higher education institutions 180 million, research organisations 120 million, international organisations 7 million and others 166 million. The total paid as of 1 October 1999 was 605 million.

In total TAP funded some 800 projects with approximately 8 000 project participants. The Commission cannot give the details of all these projects or participants in the context of a reply to a parliamentary question, but the Commission (Information society Directorate general) would be delighted to provide the Honourable Member with any more specific information he may require on a particular region or project.

As far as the continuous assessment of projects and programme is concerned, at project level the implementation is followed by projects officers. In addition, the TAP projects are subject to an annual, ongoing, external technical audit. The TAP programme itself is subject to a yearly monitoring exercise since 1995. The 1999 monitoring report should be available by April 2000 and it will also cover the whole of the new user friendly information society (RTD) programme. A five year assessment (1991-1995) of Community telematics research was performed in 1996 by an independent panel. A similar assessment of the last five years (1995-1999) is currently being performed and the report should be issued in July 2000. Also, information on the programme activities and its successful projects is available on the website www.echo.lu/telematics.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1886/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Commercial fishing problems

Overfishing and the need to preserve dwindling fish stocks are matters of great concern to the European Union.

Virtually no concern is expressed about the welfare of fish being caught and, in particular, the method by which they are killed. Scientific studies in both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have shown that fish possess the physiological, anatomical and biochemical structures which, in mammals, are identified with pain sensitivity.

What steps has the Commission take to review the killing methods used in commercial fishing in the light of this scientific evidence and when will it be making proposals to minimise the suffering which is certainly being caused?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

Processes involved in fishing are rather different from those applied to domestic animals bred for food. While the latter need specific slaughtering methods, and these are well covered by legislation, fishing generally involves the direct killing of fish without any resort to specific slaughtering methods.

It is generally accepted, therefore, that there is very little room for cruelty against fish during the fishing process.

The Commission is unaware of any behaviour of fishermen leading to unnecessary suffering of fish and therefore has not taken any initiative in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Habitats Directive.



Official Journal 219 E , 01/08/2000 P. 0047 - 0047



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Habitats Directive What programme of action is the Commission proposing in order to ensure that all Member States implement the requirements of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC(1)) in their entirety? (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1999) The first stage of implementation of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, requires Member States to adopt and send implementing legislation to the Commission. The Commission has taken legal action against Member States which have not sent such legislation. A further crucial stage in the implementation of the Directive involves the proposal of national lists of sites by the Member States. Although it is more than four years since expiry of the deadline for such lists fixed by the Directive, most Member States have still not sent complete lists. The Commission will continue to pursue the legal actions it has already started for this failure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/99

by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Jean Monnet European Professorship

Is the Commission aware of the decision taken on 30 September 1999 by the Alcalá de Henares University in Madrid against maintaining the Jean Monnet European Professorship in European Culture?

What is the Commission's assessment of the work achieved by this Professorship with regard to the objectives sought by the Jean Monnet European Professorship programme, and what is the Commission's overall judgement of the work undertaken by its holder?

What are the precedents existing in European Member State universities concerning the extension of the initial seven year period for these professorships?

What opinion does the Commission hold on the above-mentioned decision?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the decision by the Complutense University of Madrid not to maintain the Jean Monnet Chair in European Culture following the seven-year contractual period. It expressed its regret to the Rector of the University given that it is an experimental professorship in an area little explored by academics and that it considers the subject area to be of particular interest in terms of the Union's cultural foundations.

The annual activity reports submitted by the Jean Monnet professor of European Culture showed the special contribution made by this Jean Monnet Chair.

More than 95 % of universities have maintained their Jean Monnet Chairs following the initial seven-year period (1990 chairs: 44 out of 46; 1991 chairs: 43 out of 44). Where the chairs were not extended, in two cases the courses were maintained but split among several professors rather than one, and in the other case the chair was not maintained because the University Council did not accept the replacement proposed by the university, as the person in question was not a professor.

The Commission does not intervene in universities' internal decisions as it fully respects their authority and autonomy in academic issues. For information purposes, a copy of the letter from the Commission to the Rector of the Complutense University will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Endocrine-disrupting chemicals

What measures does the Commission intend to take in response to the recommendations made by Parliament in October 1998 in the presentation contained in its report A4-0281/98(1)?

(1) OJ C 341, 9.11.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

The Commission is currently in the process of finalising a Community strategy for endocrine disrupters, adoption of which was initially foreseen for March 1999, but which was delayed due to the resignation of the Commission. The objectives of the strategy are to identify the problem of endocrine disruption, its causes and consequences, and to identify appropriate policy action on the basis of the precautionary principle in order to respond quickly and effectively to the problem.

The strategy focuses on man-made chemicals and addresses the key requirements of further research, international co-operation, communication to the public and appropriate policy action, all of which are elements of the resolution adopted by the Parliament in October 1998. Recommendations are made for actions in the short-, medium- and long-term to cover these requirements.

Short-term actions represent a timeframe of 1-2 years and include the establishment of a list of substances for further evaluation of their role in endocrine disruption, the use of existing legislative instruments, the establishment of monitoring programmes, the identification of specific cases of consumer uses for special action, information exchange and international co-operation, communication to the public and consultation of stakeholders.

Medium-term actions will require a 2-4 year horizon and involve the development of agreed test methods (primarily in the framework of the Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD), the gathering of research results from ongoing research projects, the launching of further research to address new research requirements and the identification of substitutes and voluntary initiatives.

Long-term actions will require a timeframe of more than 4 years and entail the amendment of existing and proposed legislation in order to take specific account of endocrine disrupters.

The strategy has undergone an extensive consultation process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2085/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Negation of property rights in the Abruzzo National Park

The Abruzzo National Park Authority has recently obtained funding from the European Regional Development Fund for the Abruzzo region, measure 3.1, action b, under the sector for town planning, environmental assets, national parks and nature reserves.

In the town of Civitella Alfadena, however, the protective measures linked to such funding have taken no account whatsoever of the previously acquired property rights of several townspeople, who have had the roads leading to their homes closed off, despite the fact that they were in possession of all the relevant legal permits.

In the light of the above:

1. does not the Commission consider this situation to be prejudicial to people's property rights?

2. does it not believe the negation of such property rights to be contrary to the spirit of ERDF funding?

3. does it not consider it would be advisable to ask the municipal authorities of Civitella Alfadena for an explanation of the above?

4. what is the Commission's general opinion on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1999)

The Commission is aware of the problems with the implementation of a project in Civitella Alfadena and has asked the Abruzzo authorities, who are responsible for carrying out projects under the 1994-1999 Objective 1 multifund operational programme, to look into the matter.

If any irregularities are found the Commission will take the necessary steps under the rules in force, in particular the provisions of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instrument(1) concerning the reduction, suspension and cancellation of assistance.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Institutions' employees discharged

Please state the number of employees and the proportion of employees asked to leave the service of the Commission, Parliament and Council in each of the last five years and compare this with the number and proportion in the civil services of the five largest Member States.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

The Commission has dismissed eleven people in the past five years.

This breaks down by year as follows:

- 1995: 4

- 1996: 0

- 1997: 1

- 1998: 3

- 1999: 3 (up to November)

The Commission does not have any information about dismissals of staff by the Council or by the Parliament. This question should be addressed to the administrations of the Council and the Parliament respectively.

The Commission has no statistics relating to civil servant dismissals in Member States and no legal authority to require provision of such figures.