do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 271/99 by Manuel ESCOLÁ HERNANDO Transfer of resources and the Cohesion Fund
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: ESCOLA HERNANDO, European Parliament
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU initiative, Portugal, Spain, drought, hydrology, project evaluation, report, supply, water resources, water supply

C 341/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.11.1999

(1999/C 341/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Lack of transparency at Cedefop

Replying on 22 January 1999 to my question E-3391/98 (1) on the operation of Cedefop, Commissioner
Liikanen states that ‘he has nothing to add to his previous answer to Question E-2549/98’ (2).

I have repeatedly drawn the Commission’s attention to the unprecedented methods of recruitment used at the
above Centre which are undermining its image and denigrating its host country (for no reason).

Allegations in the Greek newspapers and magazines are growing in number, applicants for posts advertised at
Cedefop are protesting at the lack of transparency that prevails, but the Commission states that ‘it has nothing
to add’ to the answers it gives, so covering up the underlying intrigue.

When will the Commission decide to take a serious look at the recruitment of staff to Cedefop (and other
decentralised EU agencies), the lack of transparency in which is an affront and further tarnishes its image?

Does the Commission not think it should intervene immediately and effectively to investigate the allegations of
lack of transparency in these agencies in order to stop it being openly accused of complicity, which will
inevitably result in more motions of censure against it, with serious charges against people who have political
and professional responsibilities within the Commission?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 63.
(2) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

The Commission has nothing to add to its previous answers to Written Questions E-2549/98 and 3391/98.

(1999/C 341/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0271/99

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

Subject: Transfer of resources and the Cohesion Fund

(17 February 1999)

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities has recently issued a publication on
hydrological assessment in Spain and Portugal.

In the said publication, the Montgomery Watson consultancy firm (MWL) proposes conducting a number of
studies, one of which would deal with transfers between catchment areas in Spain, whilst another would
analyse funding for hydraulic works and the establishment of guidelines enabling the EU to support multi-
purpose hydraulic development. Likewise,
immediate action should apparently include establishing the
infrastructure to connect catchment areas.

Bearing in mind the aforementioned facts, has the Commission conducted or commissioned any of the studies
proposed by MWL?

Does it believe it necessary to conduct studies on the feasibility of connecting the Ebro catchment area to other
catchment areas?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 295/99 by Dagmar ROTH-BEHRENDT EU funding, information on the volume of monies in 1998 flowing to Berlin (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, ROTH-BEHRENDT
Subjects: Berlin, EU aid, aid recipient, statistics, use of aid

C 348/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.12.1999

(1999/C 348/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/99

by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: EU funding, information on the volume of monies in 1998 flowing to Berlin

Through which projects and Funds, and in what volume, did Community monies in 1998 flow to Berlin:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

from the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRD)

from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) . Guidance and Guarantee
Section

from the European Social Fund (ESF)

from the Community’s research programmes

from the Community’s energy programmes

from the Community’s environmental programmes

from the Community’s transport programmes

from the Community’s education and youth programmes

from the Community’s health programmes

10. from the Community’s social programmes

11. from the programmes for NGOs

12. from the cultural programmes

13. from the programmes for cooperation with third countries (CEEC, CIS)

14. from the town-twinning programmes

15. from other Community programmes?

16. How successful in the view of the EU, have the measures been?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 1999)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1999/C 348/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0314/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Gender mainstreaming in the European Commission

Is the Commission aware of the gender imbalance in certain of its directorates-general (for instance Agriculture
and Customs and Indirect Taxation) despite its equal opportunities policy?

Given this alarming situation, does the Commission have any specific plans for combating it?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 347/1999 of 17 February 1999 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 27th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1574/98
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

18. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 44/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 347/1999

of 17 February 1999

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 27th partial invitation
to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender
provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1574/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
last amended by
markets
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1148/98 (2), and in
particular the second subparagraph of Article 17 (5) (b)
thereof,

in the sugar

sector (1), as

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1574/98 of 22
July 1998 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
refunds on exports of white sugar (3),
levies and/or
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EC) No
1574/98 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the state
the Community and
and foreseeable development of
world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender
in question;

following an examination of

the tenders
Whereas,
submitted in response to the 27th partial invitation to
tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be
adopted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 27th partial invitation to tender for white sugar
to Regulation (EC) No 1574/98 the
issued pursuant
maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at EUR
50,230 per 100 kilograms.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 February
1999.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 17 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 38.
(3) OJ L 206, 23. 7. 1998, p. 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 295/99 by Dagmar ROTH-BEHRENDT to the Commission. EU funding, information on the volume of monies in 1998 flowing to Berlin
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, ROTH-BEHRENDT
Subjects: Berlin, EU financing, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund

C 207/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.7.1999

Why, then, did Commissioner Liikanen state in his answer of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/
97 (1) that the reasons for which the Commission does not admit holders of the Spanish ‘Ingeniero Técnico’
qualification to category A/LA posts in the European civil service include the fact that holders of the said
qualification are not eligible to study for a doctorate?

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

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2786/98 by
Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi (1)

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 150.

(1999/C 207/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/99

by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: EU funding, information on the volume of monies in 1998 flowing to Berlin

Through which projects and Funds, and in what volume, did Community monies in 1998 flow to Berlin:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

from the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRD),

from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) C Guidance and Guarantee
Section,

from the European Social Fund (ESF),

from the Community’s research programmes,

from the Community’s energy programmes,

from the Community’s environmental programmes,

from the Community’s transport programmes,

from the Community’s education and youth programmes,

from the Community’s health programmes,

10. from the Community’s social programmes,

11. from the programmes for NGOs,

12. from the cultural programmes,

13. from the programmes for cooperation with third countries (CEEC, CIS),

14. from the town-twinning programmes,

15. from other Community programmes?

16. How successful in the view of the EU, have the measures been?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings
as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 277/99 by Riccardo NENCINI German Institute of Art History in Florence
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, NENCINI
Subjects: Germany, Tuscany, arts, discrimination on the basis of nationality, history, pay, teacher, university

C 325/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.11.1999

Article 4 also provides for the workers concerned to be protected against any dismissal pronounced by the
transferor or the transferee, but does not hinder any dismissals that may occur for economic, technical or
organisational reasons leading to changes in the area of employment.

The Commission does not take measures in individual cases, as requested by the Honourable Member, and
does not know about the case he mentions.

If the national provisions transposing Community law are not complied with, it is primarily the responsibility
of the national courts and authorities to deal with any resulting dispute.

(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.

(1999/C 325/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: German Institute of Art History in Florence

The German Institute of Art History in Florence, a body under the control of the German Ministry for Research
and Technology, has 33 permanent staff, 15 of German nationality and 18 of other nationalities.

Although they perform the same tasks, the non-German staff receive much lower salaries than the German
staff, the latter being paid normal civil service rates, while the former receive a much lower salary based on the
rate scales for the Germany Embassy in Rome.

This represents unacceptable discrimination on the basis of nationality.

Will the Commission take steps to tackle this clear case of discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

The Commission considers that all staff employed at the Institute of Art History in Florence by the German
authorities are subject to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. Any differences in pay
between employees should therefore be based on objective reasons independent of nationality.

It is for the employer to establish the terms of employment, including pay, on the basis of the tasks and
responsibilities of the employees.

However, it should be noted that Member States may make special arrangements for civil servants, where such
arrangements are justified by the nature of the legal relationship between the government and the employee or
civil servant. However, the category of civil servant must be open to all European workers without
discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Commission considers that it is the employer’s responsibility to apply these general principles of
Community law to the different individual cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 298/99 by Kenneth COATES Private prisons
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: COATES, European Parliament
Subjects: human rights, penal institution, prison system, prisoner, private sector, suicide, violence













EUR-Lex - 91999E0298 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0298

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 298/99 by Kenneth COATES Private prisons  


Official Journal C 325 , 12/11/1999 P. 0102 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/99by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(17 February 1999)Subject: Private prisonsThe construction of private prisons has become a very general policy in the United States of America and is spreading to the United Kingdom.How far is it extending throughout the European Union? How many private prisons have been opened in each Member State? How does their staffing ratio compare with that in corresponding public institutions? What statistics exist about self-injury and suicide amongst prisoners in these institutions?Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission(24 March 1999)The Commission underlines the need for respect of human rights in compliance with the European Convention for the protection of human rights and the prison standard rules for treatment of prisoners adopted by the Council of Europe in 1973.However the Commission does not keep an exhaustive database of private penitentiary institutions in the Union. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to other international organisations, such as the Council of Europe, which regularly publishes statistics on prisons situaton in Europe.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/1999 of 17 February 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1318/93 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2067/92 on measures to promote and market quality beef and veal
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural guidance, beef, marketing, product quality, sales promotion

L 44/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18. 2. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 351/1999

of 17 February 1999

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1318/93 on detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2067/92 on measures to promote and market
quality beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2067/92
of 30 June 1992 on measures to promote and market
quality beef and veal (1), and in particular Article 4
thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1318/93 (2),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1849/97 (3), lays
down the detailed rules for applying the above Regula-
tion;

Whereas in order to allow the competent body to make a
more
promotion
programmes the time limit set in Article 5(1) of Regula-
tion (EEC) No 1318/93 should be extended;

examination

thorough

the

of

Whereas Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1318/93
does not set a time limit within which the Commission is
to determine the successful applications;

Whereas, in the light of experience and in order to guar-
antee continuity in the implementation of measures, such
a time limit should be set;

Whereas Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No
1318/93 should be amended accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 1318/93 is hereby amended as
follows:

1. in Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.
The competent body shall draw up a list of all
the applications for financing which it has received
to the Commission with a reasoned
and send it
opinion on each of them before 30 April.';

2. in Article 5(2), the first subparagraph is replaced by the

following:

scrutiny

Following

the Management
by
‘2.
Committee for Beef and Veal
in accordance with
Article 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 (*),
the Commission shall determine
successful
applications by 30 September at the latest.

the

(*) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.'

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 1999.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 17 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 57.
(2) OJ L 132, 29. 5. 1993, p. 83.
(3) OJ L 264, 26. 9. 1997, p. 11.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 357/1999 of 17 February 1999 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, export licence

18. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 44/21

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 357/1999

of 17 February 1999

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/
96 of 14 November 1996 on detailed rules for imple-
menting Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards
export refunds on fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended
by Regulation (EC) No 1287/98 (2), and in particular
Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2776/98 (3),
fixes the indicative quantities for system B export licences
other than those sought in the context of food aid;

Whereas, in the light of the information available to the
Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative
quantities laid down for the current export period for
lemons will shortly be exceeded; whereas this overrun will
prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme
in the fruit and vegetables sector;

Whereas, to avoid this situation, applications for system B
licences for lemons exported after 17 February 1999
should be rejected until the end of the current export
period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for lemons
submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No
2776/98, export declarations for which are accepted after
17 February 1999 and before 17 March 1999, are hereby
rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 February
1999.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 17 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15. 11. 1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 178, 23. 6. 1998, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 346, 22. 12. 1998, p. 44.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 270/99 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS Lack of transparency at CEDEFOP
Date: 1999-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Cedefop, administrative transparency, recruitment

C 341/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.11.1999

(1999/C 341/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Lack of transparency at Cedefop

Replying on 22 January 1999 to my question E-3391/98 (1) on the operation of Cedefop, Commissioner
Liikanen states that ‘he has nothing to add to his previous answer to Question E-2549/98’ (2).

I have repeatedly drawn the Commission’s attention to the unprecedented methods of recruitment used at the
above Centre which are undermining its image and denigrating its host country (for no reason).

Allegations in the Greek newspapers and magazines are growing in number, applicants for posts advertised at
Cedefop are protesting at the lack of transparency that prevails, but the Commission states that ‘it has nothing
to add’ to the answers it gives, so covering up the underlying intrigue.

When will the Commission decide to take a serious look at the recruitment of staff to Cedefop (and other
decentralised EU agencies), the lack of transparency in which is an affront and further tarnishes its image?

Does the Commission not think it should intervene immediately and effectively to investigate the allegations of
lack of transparency in these agencies in order to stop it being openly accused of complicity, which will
inevitably result in more motions of censure against it, with serious charges against people who have political
and professional responsibilities within the Commission?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 63.
(2) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

The Commission has nothing to add to its previous answers to Written Questions E-2549/98 and 3391/98.

(1999/C 341/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0271/99

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

Subject: Transfer of resources and the Cohesion Fund

(17 February 1999)

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities has recently issued a publication on
hydrological assessment in Spain and Portugal.

In the said publication, the Montgomery Watson consultancy firm (MWL) proposes conducting a number of
studies, one of which would deal with transfers between catchment areas in Spain, whilst another would
analyse funding for hydraulic works and the establishment of guidelines enabling the EU to support multi-
purpose hydraulic development. Likewise,
immediate action should apparently include establishing the
infrastructure to connect catchment areas.

Bearing in mind the aforementioned facts, has the Commission conducted or commissioned any of the studies
proposed by MWL?

Does it believe it necessary to conduct studies on the feasibility of connecting the Ebro catchment area to other
catchment areas?