ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to map by 2001 research and development excellence in all Member States in order to foster the dissemination of excellence. Was this target met?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The mapping of research and technological development excellence in Europe, as called for at the Lisbon European Council on 23-24 March 2000, is being undertaken in close conjunction with a High Level Group of representatives designated by the Member States. A pilot exercise covering a limited number of scientific and technological topics was launched on the basis of the methodology described in the Commission document(1). This pilot exercise should lead to the validation of a methodology which should be put into widespread use in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, as foreseen in the Commission's proposal concerning activities to strengthen the foundations of the European Research Area.

However, before implementing the comprehensive pilot exercise, it has proved essential to carry out preparatory studies due to the complexity of the exercise and the innovative nature of such a task at European level. Significant progress has already been made and the conclusions of these preparatory studies are presently available. Moreover, contracts to develop the comprehensive pilot exercise are currently under negotiation and should be concluded in March 2002.

The conclusions of the pilot exercise will be presented at the end of 2002.

(1) SEC(2001) 434.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Transposition by Greece of Directive 98/35/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers

According to the Commission's Communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers(1), the key to improving the qualifications of EU seafarers and enhancing their employability and mobility is proper maritime training. Well trained seafarers will in turn help Europe's maritime industry to become more competitive and achieve higher safety and environmental protection standards. It is worth pointing out that 80 % of maritime accidents are due to human error.

Directive 98/35/EC(2) on the training of seafarers which contains the international IMO Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (the STCW Convention) ensures the minimum level of training for seafarers in the European Union. The Directive also provides for a Community procedure for recognising the diplomas of third countries and constitutes a major step forward in ensuring the quality of crews and the upgrading of naval professions, since a large number of third-country nationals work as seafarers in the Community.

Given the importance of shipping for Greece and the fact that the Member States should have incorporated the above Directive in their national law by 1 July 1999, can the Commission provide information on the implementation of this Directive in the Member States?

(1) COM(2001) 0188.

(2) OJ L 172, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

As the Honourable Member rightly pointed out, the Commission emphasised in the Communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers(1) that, maritime training is a fundamental issue both for promoting employment and safeguarding safety and the protection of the marine environment.

As the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission ensures that the provisions of Directive 2001/25/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers(2), which transposes into Community law the international requirements on maritime education, training and certification of seafarers(3), are fully complied with throughout the Community.

With the exception of the Netherlands, which shall soon complete the implementation into Dutch law, all the Member States have communicated the implementation measures adopted to transpose the Directive. The Netherlands still need to finalise three ministerial decrees required for the full implementation of the Directive. Their adoption is expected shortly.

(1) COM(2001) 0188 final.

(2) OJ L 136, 18.5.2001. This Directive revokes Council Directive 94/58/EC of 22 November 1994 as amended by Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998.

(3) Laid down by the International Convention of the International Maritime Organisation on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended in 1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0734/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Cameroon

With reference to Cameroon, can the Commission say which projects were funded from the EU budget in the 2000 financial year?

Can it also provide details of the total aid provided to the country under all the relevant budget headings in 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/02

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Use of unoccupied housing in border regions

1. There is a large number of unoccupied houses in many of the towns and municipalities on the EU's external border along the Oder and Niesse rivers. In Görlitz, on the German side, 25 % of housing is unoccupied, while in Zgorzelec, on the Polish side, the number of empty dwellings is just as high. Would the Commission have any misgivings about Germany providing housing for Polish citizens?

2. Would the Commission provide funding to support such a project in Görlitz and would it make the necessary recommendations to the public authorities in the border regions as well as to the German and Polish governments?

3. Does the Commission think that similar projects could receive support in other border regions, for example projects between Germany and the Czech Republic or between other Member States which share a border with applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2002)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that matters concerning the renting of housing are governed by the private law of the Member States so that it has no standing on such questions.

The Structural Funds have no legal basis which would permit the Commission to support the provision of housing in Germany for Polish citizens. Specifically, Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund(1), which defines the scope of this Fund, contains no provision for housing assistance.

However, under the strand of the Interreg III Community Initiative concerned with cross-border cooperation, the housing required for Polish nationals to participate effectively in projects being implemented in Germany, such as training periods in firms or language courses, could be considered eligible as part of a wider cooperation project. Such eligibility would naturally apply to all the frontier regions of the Union.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Parental leave for men

Parental leave has been available to women for a long time, but are mothers alone responsible for the upbringing of their children?

There are now laws in all Member States granting parental leave to men also. However, owing to the different emphasis placed on the importance of the issue, the advantages that fathers take of this leave varies greatly from country to country.

Germany is currently working on an interesting approach to parental leave, whereby it would be possible for both partners to take parental leave at the same time, with the additional possibilty of continuing to work part-time for up to 30 hours per week. This avoids the problem of a drastic reduction in family income and makes parental leave more appealing to men in particular.

Can the Commission say what measures it has taken so far to ensure EU-wide harmonisation regarding parental leave for men?

Would it not be in Europe's interest to support families by offering equal conditions to young mothers and fathers for the care of their children?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The key measure taken so far was the adoption of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 implementing the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation and of Enterprises of General Economic Interest (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)(1).

Clause 2(1) of the framework agreement grants both male and female workers an individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child to enable them to take care of that child, for at least three months, until a given age up to 8 years. Point 8 of the General Considerations to the agreement further notes that men should be encouraged to assume an equal share of family responsibilities.

The Commission is at present examining the implementation of the Directive in the Member States and intends to adopt a Communication on the matter later this year. The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member at the apparent low take up of parental leave by men. The Commission therefore has chosen under its gender equality funding programme for 2002 the issue of reconciliation of work and family life as a priority theme and has set out in its call for project proposals(2) a particular emphasis on the participation of men in care tasks.

(1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996.

(2) OJ C 23, 25.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Regeneration of beaches on the Malaga coastline

The tourism authorities of the province of Malaga, Spain, have been the first to take action to tackle the disastrous condition of the beaches in many parts of the Costa del Sol as a result of the recent storms and the serious damage caused.

The main tourism authorities of the province at all levels have shown deep concern for this problem, since, unless the beaches are regenerated within a few months, the adverse effects on tourism in the Costa del Sol will be significant.

Will the Commission say what emergency Community aid could be used to help combat the effects of the disastrous storms which devastated the Costa del Sol's beaches?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Commission cannot grant exceptional aid because Parliament removed the specific budget line for emergency aid in the event of natural disasters in the Member States in 1997. That line had an annual budget of 5 million. The Commission must therefore aid the reconstruction of the affected regions through existing instruments, under regional policy in particular.

The province of Malaga is covered by Objective 1 of the Structural Funds under the 2000-2006 Operational Programme for Andalusia. In their capacity as manager of the various operational programmes, the Spanish authorities can decide to jointly finance infrastructure projects and projects to redevelop damaged productive activities, provided that they meet the programme's objectives, are eligible for the Structural Funds and comply with the legislation in force.

The Commission will promptly consider any notifications submitted by the Spanish authorities, but any decision on whether to grant aid or not is for them alone to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Distortion of competition caused by the supplementary pension fund of the German building industry

1. How does the Commission view the disadvantageous position of the German building industry, in comparison with the rest of Europe, caused by the obligation to pay into the building industry's supplementary pension fund in Wiesbaden?

2. What is the Commission's reaction to this distortion of competition? Have there been any investigations, examinations, decisions or other deliberations as to how to rectify this discrimination against the German building industry?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The European competition rules prohibit certain agreements between undertakings that would be harmful to competition (Article 81 of the EC Treaty), the abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 of the EC Treaty) and certain forms of State aid which may distort competition. However, national rules resulting from legislation or collective agreements and which are likely to weaken a sector's competitiveness are not covered by European competition law, since it would be contrary to the principle of the bargaining autonomy of the social partners if Community law prevented the social partners from negotiating pay levels and arrangements for workers in a given sector. As regards legislative rules, it should be noted that provisions such as those referred to by the Honourable Member are not damaging to undertakings in other Member States and therefore there is no need for the Community to intervene.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0693/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Telecom Italia subscriber fee

Telecommunications operators in Italy are no longer functioning in monopoly conditions, and Telecom Italia should therefore logically have abolished its user subscriber fee in 2001. Does the Commission have an opinion on the real reasons why Italian users are still being burdened with this fee?

Reply given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The rental fee (canone) covers maintenance costs for the copper pair between the telephone exchange and the subscriber. It is intended to pay for a service provided by Telecom Italia and is just as justified in a competitive situation as in the era of monopolies.

To this end, Article 17(2) of the European Parliament and Council Directive 98/10/EC of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment(1) provides that tariffs for use of the fixed public telephone network and fixed public telephone services must follow the basic principles of cost orientation. National regulatory authorities must ensure that organisations providing voice telephony services which have significant market power act in accordance with this principle. The relevant regulatory authority in Italy is the authority for the guarantee of telecommunications (AGCOM).

Furthermore, Article 4c of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services(2), as amended, requires that Member States to allow these organisations to align telephone tariffs on real costs. The purpose of this is to stop prices being held below costs in some markets. The existence of retail prices that are lower than access charges to the unbundled local loop stifles the demand for new entrants and hinders the emergence of real competition at the local level.

Consequently, in accordance with the applicable Community law, the former monopolies must be able to charge their customers a rental fee (canone) that generates sufficient income to cover the cost of providing the access service to their subscribers. The Commission has taken action against several Member States that had restricted the freedom of incumbent operators to align their rental fees on real costs.

In the case of Italy, it should be remembered that a price-capping system is applied by AGCOM to Telecom Italia's tariffs. So whenever Telecom Italia increases rental fees, it must lower other prices to remain inside the ceiling imposed by AGCOM. For the average consumer, then, this is a neutral-impact operation.

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998.

(2) OJ L 192, 24.7.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0094/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(22 January 2002)

Subject: European Schools

Parents' participation in the governance of schools is becoming more prevalent in EU Member States. This is a welcome development and is in the interests of pupils, families, teachers, the well-being of schools and the strength of the various communities. The exception appears to be the European Schools in Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain and elsewhere since parents have little or no right to participate in the governance of the schools attended by their children. In view of the fact that all of the Member States are represented by national civil servants in the governing bodies of the European Schools, what arrangements are they prepared to undertake in order to ensure that, in the interests of democratic participation and inclusivity, there is appropriate parents' representation on those governing bodies?

The European Schools are quite rightly funded through budgets financed by Member States and are therefore of direct relevance to the European Parliament. Does the Council consider that the current arrangements allow for levels of staffing by qualified teachers and teachers' assistants that are equivalent to levels that are normal in the Member States of the EU at primary and secondary schools in the public sector?

Is the Council aware that the representatives which Member States appoint to the governing bodies of the European Schools are characteristically civil servants who do not live in the countries where the schools are located, do not have children in the schools, and do not have any clear collective responsibility for accounting for their decisions to any plainly defined body or group? The officials concerned may have expertise and experience in their own countries and they are likely to be well motivated. But by what means do Member States ensure that their representatives on the governing bodies of the European Schools are properly acquainted with the daily and strategic teaching and resource needs and with the levels of provision and performance of the schools?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

While the Council notes and understands the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member concerning the effective administration of the European Schools, it recalls that the European Schools were established on the basis of the Convention defining the statute of the European Schools, adopted in 1957, to which the Member States only (and not the European Community) are contracting Parties. The new Convention signed by the Community and the Member States on 21 June 1994, which inter alia modified the decision-making procedure within the organs of the Schools, has to date still only been ratified by 11 out of the 12 Member States signatories, and is consequently not yet entered into force. The questions raised therefore fall outside the institutional competence of the Council, and should be addressed to the Member States which are responsible for appointing the members of the Board of Governors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0733/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Cape Verde

With reference to Cape Verde, can the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for funding from the European Union's budget for 2001 and give the total amount for investment in that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0834/02

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Subject: Scrapping of fishing fleets

At question time on 12 March 2002, Commissioner Fischler replied to a question which I put concerning the support for scrapping of fishing fleets which was approved in connection with the 2002 budget procedure. However, he did not fully reply to the question or to the supplementary question concerning one aspect: may EU subsidies under such schemes also be paid for the scrapping of vessels which were built with the aid of previous EU subsidies? I would therefore reiterate the question: may they?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

As the Member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries explained in his answer to the Honourable Member's oral question H-83/02 during question time at Parliament's March 2002 session(1), the funds made available in the context of the specific measure, due to the non conclusion of the agreement with Morocco, are additional funds to the funds already available under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), which is one of the four Structural Funds.

The FIFG finance is open to all Member States and the rules and arrangements have been fixed in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(2). According to these rules, the scrapping of fishing vessels is one of the eligible measures. One of the most important eligibility conditions for scrapping is that vessels are 10 years old or more. This condition also applies to vessels which have received public aid to be built. So vessels, which in the past, have received Community aid for construction are not necessarily excluded.

It should, however, be stressed that this is not a scrap and build scheme, as the main conditions attached to the management of the fleet require that capacity built with public aid is compensated by a withdrawal of, at least, the same capacity without public aid, and that capacity withdrawn with public aid cannot be replaced.

(1) Oral reply, 12.3.2002.

(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.