ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1138/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Preservation of North Sea cod stocks

Is it true that while the Commission has closed off 40 000 square miles of fishing grounds in the North Sea to cod and haddock fishermen in an effort to preserve the ever-dwindling stocks of these fish in Northern European waters, it has permitted the mainly Danish industrial fishing fleet to catch hundreds of thousands of tonnes of small fish for agricultural fishmeal in the same area, making a mockery of its conservation policy, not only because the cod and the haddock can be easily scooped up by 16 mm mesh nets but because the small fish are a vital part of the marine food chain on which the larger fish are ultimately dependent?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

Within the recently-implemented emergency measures to protect the cod stock in the North Sea, provisions are included to permit fishing for sandeels from 1 March and south of 59° N. These conditions allow continuation of a well-established fishery which previous investigations have shown to generate little by-catch of cod or other bottom-living species. To obtain reassurance that this remains the case, the Regulation insists that, on at least 50 occasions for each concerned Member State, vessels operating under the defined conditions carry on board observers to sample the percentage of each species caught.

There have been many assertions that such fishing deprives species such as cod, haddock, whiting etc. of their food. However, there is little if any evidence that this is in fact the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1165/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE), Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE), María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Secrecy in connection with 83 scientific reports on the Spanish Hydrological Plan

In October 2000 the Spanish Government asked about 130 scientists to draw up scientific reports on different aspects of the proposed Plan Hydrológico Nacional. The deadline was the end of November 2000. Eighty-three of them have produced one. Most of them are critical of the Plan. Now, the Spanish Government refuses to make these 83 studies public. The Spanish Government does not even allow the authors to publish them and therefore argues against one of the scientists who has put his report on the Internet.

Is this behaviour of the Spanish Government in conformity with the EU Law on access to environmental information?

Does the European Commission have access to these 83 studies?

Will the European Commission ask the Spanish Government to make these studies public?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(1) stipulates that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest.

Paragraph 4 of that Article specifies that the public authority must respond to a person requesting information as soon as possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for a refusal to provide the information requested must be given and must be based on one of the exceptions laid down in Article 3(2) and (3).

Article 4 of Directive 90/313/EEC also provides that a person who considers that his request for information has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal system.

Directive 90/313/EEC was transposed into Spanish law by Law No 38 of 13 December 1995, as amended by Law No 55 of 29 December 1999 introducing national review procedures.

With only the information supplied in the Written Question to go on, the Commission is unable to establish whether the Spanish authorities have received a request for access to information on which they might have failed to act appropriately, possibly in violation of the provisions of the Directive.

Should a request for access have been refused, in violation of the provisions of the Directive, by the authority to which it was made, it would be for the person who made the request to seek a review as provided for in Article 4 of the Directive and by the transposing Spanish legislation.

The Commission does not have access to the 83 studies referred to in the question.

No provision of Community law empowers the Commission to ask the Spanish Government to make the studies public.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Transfer of footballers - Solidarity fund

Can the Commission indicate the estimates it has made on the scale of this fund and its allocation scheme?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1052/01, E-1053/01 and E-1054/01 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2001)

On 5 March 2001, International Federation for Football Associations (FIFA) submitted an undertaking to change its rules as regards international transfers of football players. According to the general principles

of the undertaking, it is FIFA's responsibility to implement inter alia a system of training compensation in case of players aged under 23 that encourages and rewards the training efforts of clubs, in particular, small and amateur clubs without limiting freedom of movement of players in a disproportionate way. FIFA will also implement solidarity mechanisms that would redistribute a significant proportion of income to clubs involved in the training and education of a player, including amateur clubs.

The Commission has always been supportive of the principle of a solidarity fund to be used to promote training of young players and to reduce the gap between big and small clubs or between amateur and professional football.

At this stage, no detailed figures or estimates have been provided to the Commission.

As regards merchandising, according to the general principles of FIFA's undertaking to change its rules, the loss of merchandising income is not a criterion that can be considered in calculating a training fee. As far as compensation for unilateral breach of a contract is concerned the question is primarily to be answered on the basis of the national law applicable.

FIFA has undertaken that after two seasons experience there will be a general review of the new arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Transfer of Brix Knudsen

Brix Knudsen, a Commission official, was Director of UCLAF. He was personally attacked by certain commissioners during the debate on fraud in the ECHO projects in Bosnia. Brix Knudsen is no longer director of UCLAF but is now a director with non-active status. Was he moved because of the criticisms of him by certain commissioners during the discussion of the ECHO scandal?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Mr Brix Knudsen was appointed a Director in the Anti-Fraud Coordination Unit (UCLAF) in October 1993. OLAF (the European Anti Fraud Office) was established by Regulation in 1999 and became operational on 1 June. Mr Knudsen continued to serve as a Director in the new body until the end of May 2000, thus ensuring a smooth hand over of responsibilities to the Director General of OLAF, who had been appointed on 1 March of the same year.

In June 2000, at his own request, Mr Knudsen was appointed as a Principal Advisor Ad Personam to the Director General of Administration (DG ADMIN). He subsequently applied for, and was appointed to, the post of Director in the Directorate General for EuropeAid Co-operation Office (AIDCO) in January 2001.

The Commission's appointment of Mr Knudsen as Director in DG AIDCO was solely based on the requirements of the vacant post and the qualifications of the successful applicant. The term non-active status used by the Honourable Member is clearly not relevant or accurate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0314/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Working parties

There are hundreds of Communities' working parties in which Council respresentatives meet to discuss legislative proposals.

In order to improve transparency, can the Council:

1. List all active working parties, specifying the nature of the national and EC delegation and the mandate of the working party?

2. Supply a copy of the present agenda for future meetings of each working party, which should be placed on the internet on a regular basis?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

1. The Council would inform the Honourable Member that committees or working parties may be set up by Coreper, or with its approval, for the performance of certain previously defined preparatory or study tasks. The list of the various committees and working parties involved in the Council's preparatory work is regularly updated by the General Secretariat of the Council. Annexed to this reply the Honourable Member will find the latest version of this list (5916/01 + COR 1). Only those committees and working parties on this list may meet as a Council preparatory body.

As far as the nature of the bodies in question is concerned, the name of every working party clearly indicates the kind of issues for which it is responsible.

2. Regarding the publication of the agendas for meetings of these various working parties, groups and committees, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Written Question P-504/01, put by Chris Davies in which it is stated that, in accordance with the Council Decision which takes effect on 1 May 2001, the General Secretariat of the Council may make available to the public as soon as they have been circulated the documents which are clearly not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Council Decision 93/731/EC, such as the provisional agendas of committees and working parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/01

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Working environment of pregnant women

On 6 July 2000 Parliament adopted a highly critical opinion (A5-0155/2000) assessing the practical implementation of Directive 92/85/EEC(1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding

EU rules and regulations on the working environment are based on the principle that it should be irrelevant whether a female worker is pregnant and the Directive, therefore, provides for a risk assessment in relation to pregnancy.

The Danish newspaper Erhvervsbladet of 8 February reports that female painters are almost automatically reported sick even though paint which may be harmful to health is used in only a few situations in the trade. In the same article, health and safety consultants put forward the view that, in the vast majority of situations, the ergonomic problems can be resolved. Employers in the painting trade complain about this situation as they need their female workforce.

On the whole, the directive is based on the principle that women may not be subject to indirect discrimination as a result of being pregnant or breastfeeding.

What initiatives has the Commission taken to follow up Parliament's opinion?

Does the Commission agree that the working environment for painters is such that pregnant workers need not be reported sick to any greater extent than other groups of employees?

(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2001)

The Commission entirely agrees with the Honourable Member that the working environment for painters is such that pregnant workers need not be reported sick to any greater extent than other groups of employees.

On 5 October 2000(1) the Commission adopted a Communication on the guidelines on the assessment of the chemical, physical and biological agents and industrial processes considered hazardous for the safety or health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, based on Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).

The Commission, which attaches the greatest importance to protection of the health and safety of women at work, considers that these guidelines are an essentially practical tool for use by all involved in occupational health (doctors, engineers, industrial hygienists, etc.) in order to achieve higher standards of protection.

Further, during the course of 2002, the Commission will produce a report on the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, on the basis of which proposals to amend Directive 92/85/EEC will be considered.

(1) COM(2000) 466 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: The Sensus project: the European equivalent of DARPA

The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for European police and intelligence services by analogy with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. DARPA, a government body, coordinates the research and development programmes of the American Department of Defense.

Two language technology laboratories appear to play a crucial role in DARPA and the Sensus project. Dragon has developed translation technology for US intelligence services and it has cooperated in the Multilingual Interview System (MIS). This system was intended for automatic translation of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian interviews in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Spring 1998) and of Arabic, Farsi, Hindi and Urdu in the Persian Gulf (Summer 1998). Via its subsidiary Sail Labs, formerly Gesellschaft für Multilingual Systeme mbH, Lernout & Haspie (L & H) was closely involved in the European Sensus project. To complete the picture it should be pointed out that L & H took party in DARPA's Dominate the Battlespace project in 1997.

Inspired by the MIS success of its rival Dragon, L & H has set up a number of so-called Language Development Companies to develop language technology in Hindi, Farsi, Arabic and Urdu. Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst and coordinator of the Sensus project, set up three Language Development Companies. In early 2000 L & H took over Dragon. The US National Security Agency was strongly opposed to this take-over because of the strategic and sensitive technology which came into the possession of the European group.

Is the Council aware of the National Security Agency's opposition to L & H's take-over of Dragon, given the possible impact of the American attitude on the Sensus project, because of (a) the participation of L & H subsidiary

Sail Labs and (b) the shareholdings of Sensus coordinator Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski in three Language Development Companies? If not, will the Council seek information about the National Security Council's attitude towards L & H's take-over of Dragon, in view of the possible impact this attitude might have on the Sensus project?

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

(16 July 2001)

The events mentioned in the three Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01, E-1083/01 are not within the competence of the Council of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/01

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: UNMIK's crime statistics

With reference to the crime statistics compiled by UNMIK (http://www.civpol.org/unmik/statistics.htm), which list in detail which crimes were committed in Kosovo and where (and the ethnic group to which the victim or victims belonged), can the Council indicate:

- how many arrests were made subsequent to those crimes, and

- how many of those arrested were actually convicted?

The Council should restrict itself in its answer to the period from the date on which UNMIK took over police duties in Kosovo to the beginning of 2001.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1173/01 and E-1209/01

(20 July 2001)

The Council is very concerned about the quantity of illegal arms in Kosovo, which contribute to violence and to the level of criminality not only in Kosovo, but also in the whole region. In answering to the Honourable Member's question last year, the Council pointed out that the EU has no direct responsibility for public order and security in Kosovo, including the establishing of relevant crime statistics. Following UN Security Council Resolution 1244, these are matters entirely in the hands of UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) and KFOR (the NATO Kosovo Force). Both report regularly, to the United Nations Secretary General and Security Council and to NATO (including on the issues raised by the Honourable Member).

The Council strongly supports the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 1244, including on the important and delicate aspects referred to by the Honourable Member. It also applauds the efforts deployed by UNMIK and KFOR as well as the success they achieved in combating criminality and the illegal trafficking of arms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0038/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Effects on soldiers' health of shells tipped with depleted uranium

The deaths from leukaemia and other forms of cancer of soldiers who took part in the Nato bombing of the former Yugoslavia and the broader consequences for their health have caused widespread indignation among European public opinion and have dented the credibility of the national governments and the European institutions.

Does the Commission intend to undertake comprehensive and systematic scientific studies concerning these consequences and to announce the findings? What other measures does it intend to take to establish who is responsible and to protect the citizens of Europe from these consequences?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0038/01, E-0062/01, E-0063/01 and P-0148/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The Commission has invited the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty to give an opinion on the possible health consequences of exposure to ionising radiation emitted by depleted Uranium. It has also facilitated a round-table discussion between international organisations with programmes in this area.

The responsibility for soldiers who have served in the Balkans is with Member States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The responsibility for taking action for the protection of people visiting the region is also with Member States. The Commission will transmit any relevant information it receives from international organisations and the opinion of the Group of Experts under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty in order to help Member States to decide on appropriate actions. The Commission itself will take account of the scientific advice in offering medical follow-ups to its civil servants and contractors sent to the region.

The information available at this stage does not provide any indication that foodstuffs are contaminated with depleted Uranium.

The Commission is thus following developments relevant to the assessment of the possible link between cases of ill-health among those who have carried out missions in the Balkans and the use of depleted Uranium in missiles fired on targets in the region. Among the principle sources of information is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which has carried out a sampling campaign in the region, the results of which be available in March 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0568/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Research

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Research provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0795/01

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Greek and Turkish missing persons

What is the Commission doing whether as part of the Cyprus accession negotiations process or otherwise to seek further progress in the resolution of the issue of both Greek and Turkish Cypriot missing persons?

Some 2000 persons in total (both sides combined) have been missing since 1974. The humanitarian interest in resolving the question of their fate is clear and non-resolution is a factor of continuing poison in relationships on the island.

How can the Commission offer to facilitate and advance a solution on missing persons in the interests of reconciliation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-0506/01 by Mr Davies(1) on the question of missing persons in Cyprus.

In particular it would like to underline that the agreement on an Accession Partnership with Turkey now provides the framework for the discussion of a wide range of matters of interest to both the Union and Turkey, within the framework of the enhanced political dialogue, provided for by that Agreement. The Commission intends to make full use of this facility in the future.

(1) See page 131.