do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 793/99 by Gianni TAMINO Freedom of treatment
Date: 1999-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: Italy, blood disease, competence of the Member States, freedom of self-determination, health care, infancy, juvenile court, parental responsibility

C 325/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.11.1999

(1999/C 325/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/99

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Freedom of treatment

Ketha Berardi is a 10 year old girl with leukemia whose parents have decided no longer to subject her to
chemotherapy because of the serious side-effects it has; they intend to resort to the treatment offered by
Professor Di Bella.

At the request of the doctors treating her, however, juvenile court judges have ruled that the chemotherapy
must continue and have threatened to deprive them of their parental authority.

Leaving aside any medico-scientific assessment of chemotherapy and the treatment offered by Professor
Di Bella, does the Commission not think that the behaviour of the Italian doctors and judges conflicts with the
principle of freedom of treatment which should be one of the rights of European citizens as mentioned by
Parliament in recital C of its resolution A4-0075/97 (1) on the status of non-conventional medicine?

(1) OJ C 182, 16.6.1997, p. 67.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national
authorities concerned.

(1999/C 325/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0957/99

by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 April 1999)

Subject: Free movement of workers

Is the Commission aware that a number of Italian universities still do not respect free movement of workers as
required by the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Is the Commission aware that since 1989 EU citizens have been complaining about the discriminatory
practices at Italian universities, whereby foreign teachers are offered only one-year contracts, which is not the
case for Italian teachers?

Is the Commission aware of the Allué and Coonan judgment of 2 August 1993 in which the Court of Justice
ruled that such practices contravened Article 48(2) of the Treaty?

Is the Commission aware that these violations of a general principle laid down in the EC Treaty have still not
ceased?

Will the Commission remedy the situation? If so, how? If not, why not?

(1999/C 325/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0974/99

by Nelly Maes (V) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Failure to apply the right of freedom of movement for workers to foreign language lettori at Italian

universities

Parliament has already on a number of occasions declared itself against the current discriminatory treatment of
lettori at Italian universities (in its resolution of 13 July 1995 and opinions of 15 April 1996 and 3 July 1996).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 782/99 by John IVERSEN Aid for shipyards in the EU
Date: 1999-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, IVERSEN
Subjects: Denmark, EU aid, European Union, OECD, State aid, bankruptcy, cessation of trading, control of State aid, shipbuilding

21.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 370/107

The Commission suggests the Honourable Member could address a similar question to the Italian
competition authority.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; corrected version OJ L 257,
21.9.1990; as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC)
4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 180, 9.7.1997; corrigendum in OJ L 40,
13.2.1998.

(1999/C 370/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0780/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Financing of political parties

As indicated, inter alia, in the Tsatsos report (A4-342/96), and as has been the practice for many years,
European political parties receive funding from the Community.

However, I cannot clearly identify the grants paid in the budget. I should therefore like to put the
following questions to the Commission:

1. How much Community funding is allocated to European political parties in the budget for 1999?

2. Which parties received grants, and how much is paid in each case?

3. What is the required legal basis for this in primary and secondary Community legislation?

4. Were the appropriations increased in the 1999 financial year with a view to the European elections,

and if so, by how much?

5. What preconditions must a party meet in order to qualify for EU funding?

6. How much money is budgeted for the individual political groups in Parliament, broken down into

staff expenditure, administrative expenditure and travelling expenses?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

Following the Tsatsos report an item was established in the Parliament Section of the general budget (item
3710) to provide funding for political parties. In the 1998 and 1999 budgets this item received only a
token entry.

Point 6a of the Tsatsos report notes that a basic instrument would have to be adopted to give effect to this
item. The budget remarks on item 3710 cite Article 191 of the EC Treaty (former Article 138a) as the
legal basis in primary law.

Only the administration of Parliament, as authorising officer of Section I = Parliament = of the budget,
can answer the Honourable Member’s question regarding the breakdown of appropriations between the
parliamentary political parties

(1999/C 370/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0782/99

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Aid for shipyards in the EU

On 26 January 1999 the Danish shipyard Aarhus Flydedok A/S went bankrupt with the loss of some 2000
jobs. The bankruptcy is bound up with the unfair conditions of competition in the shipbuilding industry.
Shipyards in some Member States apparently still receive state aid whereas other have to manage on
market terms, which does not seem to fit in with the objectives of EU policy. The most recent example of
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 800/99 by Gerhard HAGER Austrians in the Commission
Date: 1999-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, European official, Finland, Sweden

C 370/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

six applicant countries, with which these negotiations have been opened. The Commission will inform the
Parliament on the results of this screening in meetings with interested parliamentary committees as usual.

(1999/C 370/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Austrians in the Commission

People with whom I come into contact in my home Member State of Austria frequently ask me about the
Austrian nationals employed at the EU institutions.

I should therefore be glad if you could answer the following questions:

1. How many Austrian nationals are employed at the Commission?

2.

In which DGs are they employed (please provide a detailed list)?

3. How many of these Austrians are A, B, C or D grade officials respectively?

4. How many Swedes and Finns are employed at the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 1999)

The Commission currently employs 285 Austrian citizens as officials or temporary staff paid from

1.
the operational and shared-cost research budgets.

Their distribution by Directorate-General appears in the table which is being sent direct to the

2.
Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

As the summary at the end of that table shows, there are 125 A, 57 B, 57 C and 8 D officials. There

3.
are also 16 LA officials.

For the purposes of comparison, the number of Finnish and Swedish officials, also broken down by

4.
category, is given in the same table.

(1999/C 370/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: EU buildings

Varying information appears from time to time in the press about the buildings owned by the EU
institutions.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission:

1. Which buildings in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg are in the sole ownership of the EU

institutions or the Commission?

2. What is the value of these buildings (broken down by individual building)?

3. Which buildings are partly owned by the EU?

4. What is the value of these buildings and what is the EU’s share in their ownership?

5. By what contractual arrangements has the EU obtained the use of additional buildings which are not

in the ownership of the EU but in which EU institutions’ offices are situated?