ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/400

(2004/C 84 E/0465)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0439/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: Nitrogen oxide emission limits

In the answer to my Written Questions E-3639/03 (1) and E-3502/03 (1) on pollution in the Wipp and Eisack valleys and air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic, I was referred to Directive 1999/96/EC (2), under which stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will be reduced by 30 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

In the light of the danger to the health of residents in areas of heavy traffic, would it not be useful to bring this phase forward, perhaps to 2005, and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions even further, by around 40 or 50 %?

What is the Commission's view on this?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/382

(2004/C 84 E/0444)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0379/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Dismissal of pregnant workers

Workers at the Citizens' Service Centres (KEPs), whose creation and operation is funded by the European Union, have been taken on with freelance contracts although there is not the slightest doubt that these contracts in fact conceal employment, as the work they do meets fixed and constant needs. The workers at the KEPs are thus deprived of leave, allowances etc. There are cases of women who have been dismissed by the KEPs because they have become pregnant.

On 10 February 2004 the case of Philomela Kontari is being heard in a court in Corfu. She worked at the Paxos KEP and was dismissed in her eighth month of pregnancy because, on medical orders, she was temporarily not supposed to work, until the birth, because of complications in the pregnancy.

1. Can the Commission investigate and decide whether the freelance contracts of the staff at the KEPs, which are funded by Community appropriations, illegally conceal employment contracts?

2. Does the Commission consider that in the case of pregnant women Greece is contravening Directive 92/85/EEC (1), which seeks to improve the health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, and Directive 76/207/EEC (2) on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

1. The determination of the nature of a working relationship, and in particular whether it is an employment or a self employment relationship is an issue that has to be addressed by the Member States' competent authorities

2. According to the information provided to the Commission, Greece has properly transposed Directives 92/85/EEC and 76/207/EEC as regards the protection of pregnant workers against dismissal. The Commission services will however contact the Greek authorities with a view to obtaining further information in relation to the position of pregnant workers in KEPs and will inform the Honourable Member of Parliament as soon as the information is received.

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

(2) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/402

(2004/C 84 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Exploitation of Portuguese workers in France

The French and Portuguese media have denounced the unacceptable exploitation, tantamount to full-blown slavery, of Portuguese workers in France, specifically in the Loire-Atlantique region. A complaint has of course already been launched against the IDG (International Deboning Group), which failed to fulfil its job contracts, pay salaries, transport, bonuses, holidays and so on to its Portuguese workers.

What measures have been taken or are going to be taken to protect the rights of Portuguese workers, and to ascertain the responsibility of French public organisations in maintaining these situations of full-blown slavery?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

As the Commission has already pointed out in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3834/03 (1), whether the cases in question come under Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2) or under Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (3) depends primarily on whether their employment in France is permanent. If so, French employment law is applied in full, and discrimination on grounds of nationality is not permitted. If not, the Portuguese workers concerned are covered by a ‘hard core’ of protective rules, set out in the above Directive, on the working and employment conditions in force in France, and the remainder of their working conditions are governed by the law of the country of origin.

Effective monitoring and surveillance of compliance with working and employment conditions are primarily the responsibility of the national authorities and courts, and any specific information which individuals, including the Honourable Member, may have on non-compliance with the relevant working conditions should be submitted to these authorities.

The Commission does not have any reason to doubt that the supervisory measures and sanctions provided for by the legislation of the Member State to which the Honourable Member refers are generally effective and proportionate and act as a deterrent. Nor does it possess any information to suggest that the French authorities are any less diligent in addressing infringements of the obligations arising from Community law than in applying the corresponding purely national legislation.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(3) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/540

(2004/C 84 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Fluoridation of drinking water

On 25 December 2003 the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)), which permits Member States to add fluoride to drinking water, came into force. The benefits and risks of water fluoridation are far from well established, and scientific controversy and health concerns have loomed over the issue for many years.

The York Review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water, commissioned by the British Department of Health in 1999, could not accurately determine the effect of fluoridating water on teeth, because the evidence was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since then there has been, according to the authors of this review, no other scientifically defensible review to alter its findings.

In light of this and of the fact that in the UK and Ireland some nine million consumers have fluoride added to their drinking water without their consent, what research is the Commission promoting and funding into the safety of water fluoridation? Does the Commission agree that such research is an essential step in enabling Member States to follow the precautionary principle and to prohibit this form of mass-medication, if they so choose?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility and the Commission is not involved as long as the maximum limit set out in Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption is respected. Fluoridation, like other water treatment processes, is an issue that should be addressed by the national authorities.

The policy that individual Member States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors and takes into account local customs and habits as well as the fact that ingestion of fluoridated compounds may also result from the use of fluoridated toothpastes, fluoride rinses, fluoride treatments in dental offices, food and beverages. At present, the Commission is not promoting nor funding specific research into the safety of water fluoridation.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/811

(2004/C 84 E/0906)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Start of construction work on the Brenner base tunnel

After years of negotiations, building work on the Brenner base tunnel is due to start in 2006. This infrastructure project will involve diverting traffic and will therefore have negative repercussions on people living near the route, including greater noise nuisance, both during and after construction of the tunnel.

What steps is the Commission envisaging to protect local people during the building work?

Is the Commission providing funds for the construction of noise barriers?

Does the Commission intend to do anything to reduce the nuisance while construction work is going on?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

According to the current timetable of the Brenner base tunnel the construction of a pilot tunnel to explore the geological situation on the entire tunnel length may start in 2006.

Any environmental impact during and after the construction phase is subject to a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment required by the Italian and the Austrian law.

Initial environmental studies have revealed certain potential conflicting matters. The responsible environmental authorities in Italy and Austria have already requested the close examination of those issues.

The measures necessary to minimize or avoid environmental nuisances during and after the construction phase will be defined in the environmental impact statement on either side of the border. Those measures will become part of the tunnel project and will in so far be subject to potential EU financial support.

In addition, the Commission-proposal of July 2003 to amend the ‘Eurovignette’ directive (1) suggests explicitly that ‘any infrastructure costs designed to reduce nuisance related to noise’ be considered eligible cost factors in calculating user fees.

As the Commission is not conducting the project, the measures will have to be implemented by the project promoter, i.e. the Brenner Base Tunnel EEIG (and future BBT SE) and followed by respective national authorities.

(1) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.
Under the terms of the EC Treaty and the Treaty on the European Union, the Community does not have general competence as regards fundamental rights. The Commission could intervene only in the event of violation of fundamental rights in the field of application of Community legislation, which is not the case in the situation described in the written question.

However, if a person considers that his or her fundamental rights have been violated, he/she may apply to the European Court of Human Rights for redress, once all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/686

(2004/C 78 E/0732)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0230/04

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003

Can the Commission provide a breakdown for each Member State of the level of commitments and expenditure effected by the close of 2003 under the Community Support Frameworks?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/324

(2004/C 84 E/0378)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/04

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

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Could the Commission confirm that it has altered the presentation of the Guarantee Fund in the balance sheet, to bring it more in line with the actual situation as established by the EIB?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/886

(2004/C 84 E/0979)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: The European School in Amsterdam

Parents of a number of pupils, as well as teachers at the European School in Amsterdam have expressed deep concern at the Netherlands authorities' announced cut in public funding for the school, apparently the result of a decision to cut subsidies for basic-level foreign language teaching.

The Portuguese authorities claim that they provide funding for a school in Portugal where Dutch is taught, and hence would expect reciprocal treatment, and have so far refused to take over the task of funding from the Netherlands.

Since teaching the language of the country of origin in primary schools is vital in facilitating freedom of movement and is practised and funded by substantial Community appropriations for the European school system, this issue is bound to be of interest to the Community institutions.

Can the Commission therefore say whether it does not consider that a legislative initiative should be launched in the form of a policy strategy providing guidelines for the Member States in this sphere, or any other initiative aimed at avoiding mutual shirking of responsibility and helping to ensure that language teaching may continue, as it is extremely important for communication and freedom of movement in Europe?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

On the basis of the information provided, the question concerns the organisation of education systems. As it is, according to Article 149 of the EC Treaty, responsibility for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems lies with the Member States. The role of the Commission in the area of education is to encourage cooperation between Member States and to support and supplement their action.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that, on 25 July 1977, the Council adopted Directive 77/486/EEC on the education of the children of migrant workers (1). This Directive is concerned with promoting improvements in the conditions of freedom of movement for workers as regards the reception and education of their children, and underlines how important it is for host Member States to take appropriate measures, in conjunction with the Member States of origin, to promote the teaching of the mother tongue and of the culture of the country of origin of such children, with a view principally to facilitating their possible reintegration into the Member State of origin. The Commission has no plans to put forward any new legislative proposals.

(1) OJ L 199, 6.8.1977.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/773

(2004/C 84 E/0870)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Setting up of a regional coordination centre for social policy for the Balkans

Some considerable time ago the Commission announced the setting up, or joint setting up, of a regional coordination centre for social policy in the Balkans. The establishment of the centre was scheduled for spring 2004.

What is the situation as regards the establishment of this regional social policy coordination centre for countries in south-eastern Europe?

In particular:

— how far have preparations for setting up the centre come;

— what is the scheduled date for its activities to begin;

— where will the centre be;

— what staff and financial resources will be assigned to the coordination centre;

— what are the centre's tasks;

— what partners will be involved in the setting up and operation of the centre;

— how will the countries in the region be involved in the setting up and operation of the centre?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The establishment of a regional co-ordination centre for social policy is envisaged as a continuation of the project: ‘Strengthening Social Cohesion by promoting Coordination of National Social Security Schemes in South Eastern Europe (SEE)’ under the auspices of the Initiative for Social Cohesion of the Stability Pact for SEE.

The regional co-ordination centre will be financed by the 2003 CARDS regional programme (EUR 2 million over three years) and established in close co-operation with the Council of Europe (co-financing EUR 200 000). The overall project implies more than the mere setting up of a regional co-ordination centre (the location of which has not yet been decided). The objective is to share with, and propose to, the national authorities various co-ordination instruments and to share EU ‘best practice’ in relation to matters with trans-border implications.

The activities of the project will focus on three major areas:

— support for co-operation on social protection reform;

— institutional support and vocational training in the social sector;

— support for social dialogue and information exchange, in particular regarding social and civil rights and trans-border questions (equal treatment, export of benefits, etc.).

Preparatory work for the establishment of the centre has been on-going since September 2003 and the terms of reference for the CARDS project are almost finished. Certain procedural details as well as the deployment of human and budgetary resources still need to be agreed between the Commission and the Council of Europe. However, it is envisaged that a direct agreement will soon be signed with the Council of Europe and that the activities of the centre will start at the latest at the beginning of June 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/607

(2004/C 84 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Reclaiming subsidies granted for setting up industrial activity

Amongst all the many consequences which have arisen and will continue to do so from the eastwards enlargement of the EU, the eastwards relocation of many industries from the oldest Member States is outstanding.

On occasion, the businesses now relocating had in the past received subsidies from the national or regional authorities concerned to set up business on their territory.

Does the Commission believe that it is legal and legitimate that companies which are abandoning regions from which they have received subsidy, in order to relocate in eastern Europe, should return the national or regional subsidy money when they abandon their subsidised premises?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member is not exclusively linked to the enlargement of the EU. Already in 1997, when it adopted the guidelines on national regional aid (1), the Commission took into consideration the necessity of striking a balance between the freedom of enterprises to decide where and when to invest in a rapidly changing environment and the stimulation of such mobile investment in assisted areas. Therefore, under point 4.10 and 4.14 of the guidelines on national regional aid, aid for initial investment and aid for job creation is conditional, through its method of payment or through the conditions associated with its acquisition, on the maintenance of the investment in question and of the employment created for a minimum period of five years. This condition is included in all regional aid schemes approved by the Commission and must be respected.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/194

(2004/C 84 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Age discrimination in the provision of goods and services

Employment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC (1) (due to have been transposed into Member State law, 2 December 2003) confirms that the European Union has committed itself to the fight against age discrimination in employment. However, the Commission has so far not attempted to deal with the issue of age discrimination beyond the area of employment.

Anecdotal evidence of older citizens being refused car insurance on the basis of their age highlights the need for anti-discrimination legislation in the field of goods and services provision. Does the Commission intend to propose age discrimination legislation in areas other than employment? If so, when, and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission does not intend, for the time being, to propose legislation on particular grounds of discrimination outside of the employment sphere. The Commission believes that such a proposal would be premature; given that the date of transposition of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, has so recently passed (December 2003), the impact of this Directive on the national legal systems will be considerable and there will be a need to take stock of developments in this regard.

However, the Commission does believe that there needs to be a wider reflection on the various instruments at Community level which aim to achieve equality in practice. In this regard, the Commission intends to launch a public consultation (Green Paper) in Spring 2004 on the Future Strategy to combat discrimination. This paper will take stock of progress made in EU anti-discrimination policy and will raise issues/questions regarding future policy development. It will also address the new challenges posed by the enlargement of the EU and will help to map out the way ahead for EU action on equality over the next five years or more.

In addition, in 2006 the Commission will present to the Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of the 2000/78/EC Directive.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.