WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. The EU and Austria.
Date: 2000-04-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Council of the European Union, European Union membership, diplomatic relations, extreme right, powers of the institutions (EU)

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/167

(2001/C 46 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1541/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Infringement of Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

I have submitted a number of questions to the Council on the subject of Austria:

(cid:129) a priority question tabled on 21 February 2000 and registered on 25 February. Pursuant to Rule 44(5)
of the Rules of Procedure, priority questions must be answered within three weeks of being registered.
Accordingly, this question should have been answered by 17 March,

(cid:129) two questions tabled on 21 February and registered on 13 March. Pursuant to Rule 44(6) of the Rules
of Procedure they must be answered within six weeks of being registered by the Council: they should
therefore have been answered by 25 April.

In view of this infringement of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, is the Council aware of
the provisions of the Rules of Procedure currently in force and does it intend to comply with them in
future?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00

(10 July 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not bound by the deadlines mentioned, as
these ensue from Rule 44(5), (6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

It would, however, stress that with a view to better collaboration with the European Parliament in this area
the Council has acted swiftly to introduce a series of internal measures enabling it to reply to written
questions within two months.
its preparatory bodies have defined a procedure for
examining questions intended to strike the requisite balance between this objective and the essential need
to provide replies of the highest quality possible after consultation with the competent departments and an
exchange of views at Council level.

In this context

Over the years various factors have made it harder to keep this balance, with adverse consequences on the
promptness of replies, examples being the significant increase in the number of written questions put to
the Council, which should not be under-estimated, the emergence of questions in areas which call for in-
depth study, or the topical nature of certain issues which on occasion require some time for Members to
be given genuine updates.

The Council does, in any case, share the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and reaffirms its
commitment to providing, in all circumstances, the most appropriate and fullest replies possible to written
questions put to it. It will reflect on solutions to optimise the current procedures for studying questions, in
compliance with the requirements listed above.

(2001/C 46 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: The EU and Austria

A study carried out by the Irish Institute of European Affairs is critical of the measures taken by the other
fourteen EU Member States against Austria which, it says, violate not only Community law but also the
principles of democracy. The study, written by Eugene Regan, an Irish lawyer and former member of the
private office of EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland, is also highly critical of the action of the Portuguese
Presidency.

C 46 E/168

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

The main points of criticism are the interference in a democratic process, the type of action decided on by
the fourteen EU States which are to be implemented not within the Union but outside this legal area, and
the controversial action of the Portuguese Presidency which gave the new Austrian government no
opportunity to put its views across.

The author explicitly points out that there are no grounds for the assumption that (cid:145)Austria is a less
democratic country than Ireland or any other EU Member State(cid:146).

In the light of this sound academic study:

(cid:129) is the Council familiar with the study,

(cid:129) if not, does it intend to obtain and examine it, and finally

(cid:129) what does it intend to do to put relations with Austria back on a normal footing?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council has not examined the study to which the Honourable Member refers, and does not have a
view on it. The measures to which the question refers are not binding on the Council, and the Council has
not taken any view on them.

(2001/C 46 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Question H-0191/00

On 17 March 2000 I received a written reply to my oral question H-0191/00 on Israel and Russia. I should
point out that the Council discussed only the first and second paragraphs of my question while fully
ignoring the third, and decisive paragraph. In particular the Council failed to make the link with the action
currently being taken by fourteen Member States against Austria, which was the point of the question. The
question must therefore be regarded as largely unanswered, and I should now like a more detailed answer.

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to his earlier question on this issue. Since
the last paragraph of this question was addressed to the Portuguese Presidency, it would not be appropriate
for the Council to respond. This is in any case an issue on which the Council has not taken a view.

(2001/C 46 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Labelling of textiles

What provisions exist governing labelling requirements at European or multi-lateral
for textile
products from non-EU countries? What steps does the Commission propose to take to introduce improved

level