WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/00 by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission. Proposal for a Council Regulation determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.
Date: 2000-06-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU police cooperation, EU visa policy

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/167

5. What action will the Commission take to prevent long-term deterioration in cross-border rail traffic,
also taking into account the fact that the cross-border local trains between Mons (B) and Aulnoye (F),
introduced in 1996 to compensate for the loss of the old route between Paris and Brussels, were also
withdrawn on 28 May 2000?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the information given and fully
understands that the situation described leads to problems for people in the area in question who depend
on rail services to a greater or lesser extent.

The Commission tries in general to encourage railway undertakings to be much more receptive to the
needs and intentions of customers but would like to recall that the commercial decision of a railway
undertaking whether to let a certain train stop or not stop at any given station cannot formally be
influenced or changed by the Commission. This is due to the management independence of railway
undertakings granted to them by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the
development of the Community(cid:146)s railways (1).

Only the Member State in question could impose such a stop in the light of public service obligations.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/00

by Margot Ke(cid:223)ler (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be
in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt
from that requirement

1. When is the regulation scheduled to enter into force so that Bulgaria is no longer on the list of
countries for whose nationals a visa is required?

Is it not true that the opting-out provisions applicable to the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland

2.
are resulting in a multi -speed Europe and what message is this sending to the applicant countries?

In view of the numerous exemptions, the regulation appears to be of very limited value. Does it

3.
therefore still serve any useful purpose?

A change in political circumstances should alter the listing of a Member State accordingly (cid:129) in other

4.
words, how quickly is it possible for a country to move from one list to the other?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

1.
The Commission presented a proposal for a Council Regulation listing the third countries whose
nationals must be in possession of visas and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement on
26 January (1). The proposal is being examined by the Council and by Parliament. The Commission is
unable to offer any prior opinion as to when the Regulation will enter into force.

C 72 E/168

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

The applicant countries cannot rely on the Protocols on the position of Denmark and on the position
2.
of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which are annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty. What is more, the
Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union stipulates that (cid:145)the
Schengen acquis and further measures taken by the institutions within its scope shall be regarded as an
acquis which must be accepted in full by all States candidates for admission.(cid:146)

3.
In the Commission(cid:146)s proposal, the possible exemptions and derogations available to Member States
for certain categories of persons correspond to practices enshrined in international law or to usage based
on international custom.

4.
Articles 62, 64 and 67 (formerly Articles 73 J, 73 L and 73 O of the EC Treaty lay down the
procedure whereby a third country can move from the list of countries whose nationals must be in
possession of visas to the list of countries whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

(1) COM(2000) 27 final.

(2001/C 72 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2005/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Law No 196 of the 1997 TREU Package

(16 June 2000)

Given that the Official Journal of the European Communities (1) publishes the Commission decision of
11 May 1999 (2000/128/EC) concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment through training
and work experience contracts, both as regards fixed-term contracts awarded since November 1995 and as
regards the conversion of such contracts from fixed-term contracts to open-ended contracts under Article
15 of Law No 196 of 24 June 1997 (TREU Package), and in view of the fact that the Mezzogiorno is one
of the regions of Europe with the highest level of unemployment, that there are numerous businesses in
the Mezzogiorno which have entered into training and work experience contracts since November 1995
under an Italian law (L 863/84) which laid down access requirements and implementation arrangements at
odds with those established by the Commission, that such businesses would be heavily penalised merely
for complying with the laws of the Italian State, that the punitive recovery of the aid granted to those
businesses, over the past 15 years, would mean their certain financial collapse and the further loss of
thousands of jobs, what decisions does the Commission intend to take in order to prevent possible damage
to the businesses of the Mezzogiorno?

(1) OJ L 42, 15.2.2000.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

By decision of 11 May 1999 (2000/128/EC) concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment (1),
the Commission found that the aid for recruitment through training and work experience contracts was
compatible with the common market provided it concerned the creation of new jobs within the recipient
firm for workers who had not yet found employment or had lost their previous job, or the recruitment of
workers experiencing particular difficulties in entering or re-entering the labour market. As regards aid to
help convert training and work experience contracts into open-ended contracts, the Commission found
that it was compatible with the common market provided it satisfied the obligation to achieve a net
increase in stable employment in relation to jobs already existing in the firm.

All aid for recruitment through training and work experience contracts and for the conversion of training
and work experience contracts into open-ended contracts that did not comply with the above-mentioned
requirements was deemed incompatible with the common market; it must therefore be recovered in order
to restore the competition that existed before the unlawful aid adversely affected Community trade and
distorted competition.