do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3162/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Absenteeism in Commission staff.
Date: 2001-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, absenteeism, report, statistics

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/119

(2002/C 147 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3162/01

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

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Absenteeism in Commission staff

Although no names or identifying marks are requested in order to ensure that individual staff’s privacy is
protected, would the Commission provide the rates of absenteeism and sickness in the European
Commission’s staff? What have the rates been in previous Commissions and what are the current rates?
Does the Commission believe that these rates are acceptable? Could the Commission provide the rates DG
by DG?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

It is very difficult to obtain comparative figures on absence levels in national administrations. The limited
data available to the Statistical Office does not, however,
indicate that the sickness leave level at the
Commission is any higher than the average in those administrations.

Changes in the informatics and management systems for recording absences, particularly the decen-
tralisation to the level of individual Directorates General decided upon in 1997 and implemented in 1999,
make it very difficult to compare the rates of absenteeism in previous periods with the figures available for
2000. However, to the extent that the figures are available and comparable they do not suggest any
deterioration over time and there are no indications that the level of sickness leave at the Commission is
unusually high.

A Commission report sent to Parliament in June 2001 states that, with an absenteeism level of 3,6 % in
2000, the Commission is below the average for all the European Institutions (5,8 % for the European
Parliament, 5,5 % for the Council, 5,9 % for the Economic and Social Committee, 3,9 % for the Court of
Justice, 3,4 % for the Court of Auditors, and 3,3 % for the Committee of the Regions).

That full report is, naturally, available to the Honourable Member in Parliament. Relevant extracts from it
; with tables showing absences by duration, by staff category, and by Directorate General ; are being
sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2002/C 147 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Money laundering convictions

Does the Commission have any statistics on the number of convictions for money laundering in EU

1.
Member States?

If so, can the Commission please state how many convictions there have been in total across the EU

2.
and in each individual Member State, during the last ten years?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2242/2001 of 19 November 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2001-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit

20.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 303/9

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2242/2001

of 19 November 2001

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

In compliance with the above criteria,
the standard
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 (2), and in particular
Article 4(1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
standard values for imports from third countries,
in
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 November 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 November 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

L 303/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.11.2001

to the Commission Regulation of 19 November 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining
the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 30 10

0806 10 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
070
096
204
999
052
999
052
999
204
999

052
204
464
999
052
388
524
528
600
999
052
064
400
508
999
060
400
404
800
999
052
400
999

85,3
17,0
12,7
37,1
38,0
11,1
11,1
94,7
94,7
71,1
71,1

50,9
76,2
174,2
100,4
43,3
30,5
55,5
52,9
68,5
50,1
118,4
89,0
316,6
357,9
220,5
38,0
77,7
92,9
199,4
102,0
102,9
121,6
112,3

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2000 (OJ L 243, 28.9.2000, p. 14). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Copies of the acquis and screening reports.
Date: 2001-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, accession to the European Union, electronic document, provision of documents, report

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/61

(2002/C 160 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3140/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2001)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from EU Member States in Russia

This is a supplementary question to written question E-2363/01 (1) and the Commission’s reply to it.

Does the Commission actually intend to have nuclear waste from Member States stored in the Russian
Federation, or are any of the Member States planning to do so?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 121.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2001)

The competence of the Community with respect to the export of radioactive waste is described in its reply
to the Honourable Member’s written question E-2363/01 (1). The responsibility for decisions on where
radioactive wastes are to be stored rests with the Member States themselves.

The Commission believes that, at the present time, taking into account the actual state and limited
remaining capacity of its existing facilities, the Russian Federation is not in a position to fully assure the
safety of newly imported spent nuclear fuel or radioactive waste. Efforts are being made to improve the
situation, according to information available.

The Commission has not been informed of any such arrangements or plans by Member States.

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 121.

(2002/C 160 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Copies of the acquis and screening reports

Will the Commission forward an electronic copy of the existing acquis, as communicated to the candidate
countries, and copies of all screening reports?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

The main bulk of the acquis was transmitted to the candidate countries in the context of the negotiations
on accession at the beginning of their negotiations. In addition, any new acquis that comes into force is
transmitted to them in the context of an updating exercise. An electronic version of all the existing
Community legislation, as it is made available to the candidate countries, is available on the Commission’s
Internet site, EUR-LEX, which the Honourable Member can find at http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/
search/search_lif.html.

Screening reports are preparatory documents detailing the positions of the candidate countries in relation
to the acquis communautaire, in the context of the negotiations on accession. They are not solely the
property of the Commission, but also of the Member States and the candidate countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3167/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Co-financing of cooperation and development projects.
Date: 2001-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: co-financing, cooperation policy, development aid, development policy, financing method, non-governmental organisation

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/63

(2002/C 160 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3167/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Co-financing of cooperation and development projects

The Commission has laid down in its development policy that all NGOs submitting a bid must guarantee a
minimum contribution of 15 % to direct costs from private European financial resources.

It appears that Denmark is not obliged to provide this 15 % contribution, which most NGOs find so
difficult to obtain and which other Member States are supplying from public rather than from private
funds.

Can the Commission confirm and explain the reasons for this exemption for Danish projects?

Can the Commission clarify what
it understands by private funds and which Member States are
contributing to the co-financing of cooperation and development projects with public or semi-public
funds?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

In Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 of 17 July 1998, point 3 of Article 6, the following is stipulated
with regard to contributions towards co-financing:

The Community contribution shall not, as a rule, exceed 50 % of the total cost or 75 % of total
financial contributions, except in exceptional cases. Even in such cases, NGOs shall make a significant
contribution to projects and the Community contribution shall not exceed 85 % of the total financial
contributions.

The General Conditions for co-financing which came into force in January 2000 and which are based on
Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 elucidate the above regulation with regard to the NGO contribution
as follows:

The NGO presenting an application for co-financing must, as a rule, provide a significant financial
contribution, originating from private sources in the EU or other European countries, equivalent to at
least 15 % of the total financial costs of the operation.

Private funds are generally all funds generated or mobilised by the NGO from non-governmental sources,
e.g. through general fundraising campaigns and collections, through sponsorships from individuals or from
private companies etc.

A project may be co-financed by various donors. Funds from any other sources, e.g. public funds or
private funds from non-European sources, may be included as income towards a project, but they cannot
be taken into consideration as part of the 15 % the NGO has to contribute from private European sources.

Since the entry into force of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1658/98 and the new General Conditions
(Januray 2000) the rule with regard to the NGOs’ contribution from private European sources has been
applied to all proposals introduced by European NGOs. In other words, the exemption for the Danish
NGO’s has been abolished.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3166/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Sellafield and the Irish Government.
Date: 2001-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, Ireland, United Kingdom, government, legal action, nuclear power station

C 160 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

(2002/C 160 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3165/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Sellafield and the Irish Government

Bearing in mind the Irish Government’s invariable opposition to and regular and consistent attempts to
forestall developments at the nuclear establishment in Sellafield, what evidential weight does the Council
give to actions and submissions of the Irish Government, and does it consider the latter’s activities to be
consistent with accepting the ‘Acquis Communautaire’?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

Actions and submissions of the Irish Government in respect of activities at the Sellafield site are a matter
for that Government. The last part of the question, regarding the compatibility of the Irish Government’s
activities with the ‘acquis communautaire’, is a matter for the Commission.

(2002/C 160 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3166/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Sellafield and the Irish Government

Bearing in mind the Irish Government’s invariable opposition to and regular and consistent attempts to
forestall developments at
in Sellafield, what evidential weight does the
Commission give to actions and submissions of the Irish Government, and does it consider the latter’s
activities to be consistent with accepting the ‘Acquis Communautaire’?

the nuclear establishment

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission services are following the on-going developments concerning the actions and
submissions of the Irish authorities relating to the operations in Sellafield.

The Commission services are aware of the action of Ireland against the United Kingdom before the UN
Tribunal of Law of the Sea and the action against the United Kingdom referred by Ireland to an arbitral
tribunal under the OSPAR Convention. In this respect, the Commission would like to recall that under
articles 292 (EC) and 193 (Euratom) any dispute between two Member States concerning the application of
interpretation of the Treaties should not be submitted to any method of settlement other than those
provided by the Treaties.

The Commission has also written to the United Kingdom authorities to request clarification on the various
issues raised.