WRITTEN QUESTION E-3571/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Proposal for a secrecy clause in the sixth research framework programme.
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, EU programme, Sweden, confidentiality, industrial secret, research policy

C 222 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

According to critics of nuclear plants in the applicant countries, nothing much has been done to improve
safety other than numerous documents being delivered from the capitals of the applicant countries to
Brussels. No specific upgrading of safety seems to have taken place and no evidence has been produced to
show that the nuclear plants are safe.

Can the Council say what measures will be taken in regard to upgrading nuclear safety at Temelin and
Paks and in the applicant countries in general?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would like to point out that in May 2001 the Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS)
produced an initial report with a number of safety recommendations addressed to the candidate countries;
it drew up a second report in June 2002, on the basis of the replies received from those countries and
their commitments to take the appropriate measures. The Honourable Member will note that the number
of recommendations in the second report has been reduced considerably, both for the candidate countries
in general as well as for the two countries he mentioned in his question, i.e. the Czech Republic and
Hungary. All these countries have accepted and addressed all the WPNS recommendations contained in the
initial report and have promised action to deal with the problems outstanding and the questions which are
still unsolved. The review which gave rise to these reports was conducted without prejudice to the
responsibilities of the national authorities in the candidate countries. This was not a check for the purposes
of a normal approval procedure, but an assessment such as usually carried out by experts.

For further information, the Council invites the Honourable Member to consult the regular evaluation
reports the Commission is producing, in which the reports already mentioned and the candidate countries’
implementation of safety recommendations are taken into account.

(2003/C 222 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3571/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a secrecy clause in the sixth research framework programme

It is being said in Sweden that the proposal to incorporate a secrecy clause in the sixth research framework
programme is not consistent with the Swedish Constitution. According to the newspaper Ny Teknik, in the
draft contracts under the new framework programme, secrecy is the rule and openness the exception.

Under Swedish law, however, the universities must be open to scrutiny and they do not have the right to
classify research of public interest as secret. The Swedish Ministry for Education has reportedly informed
the Commission of
its wish to adhere to the same rules which applied for the fifth and fourth
programmes.

Does the Commission intend to take the Swedish views into account or is the abovementioned proposal
for a secrecy clause already fixed?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2003)

The report quoted in the newspaper Ny Teknik refers to one of the initial versions of the draft contract for
research projects under
the sixth framework programme. Following comments from the Swedish
delegation during a meeting of the contracts working group of Member States and Associated States, the

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/89

Commission produced a revised version of the draft contract. The confidentiality clause provides that the
the confidentiality of any information
Commission and the contractors undertake to preserve
communicated to them in relation to the execution of
the project, which has been identified as
confidential in relation to the execution of the project. This and the other aspects relating to confidentiality
are in compliance with the provisions of Swedish law.

(2003/C 222 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Fostering the cross-border mobility of workers (cid:1) EURES

The draft Commission decision implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) in connection with
vacancy clearance contains the following recital: ‘In the light of the experience gained and the most recent
developments in the environment in which EURES operates, the network should be integrated more
effectively into the work of
the Member States’ employment services and the current division of
responsibilities and decision-making procedures should be redrawn’.

As a result of this change, all EURES funding will be allocated to national employment services. No
funding will be set aside specifically for projects in border areas, even though, following the enlargement
in 2004, efforts should focus on such border areas in particular.

How much importance does the European Commission attach to funding for border areas under EURES?
Will the above-mentioned ‘Commission decision’ contain a specific article acknowledging the existence of
the EURES for border areas (EURES-T) and its objectives? If not, why not?

The EU enlargement in 2004 will increase the significance of border areas. How does the Commission
intend to ensure that border areas continue to receive the same volume of funding following the EURES
reform?

Interaction between employment services and the two sides of industry held the key to the successful
implementation of many innovative EURES projects. Can the Commission guarantee that the two sides of
industry will continue to be involved in EURES in the future?

What other forms of aid does the European Commission provide to foster the mobility of workers in
border areas?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Furthering the cross-border mobility of workers in the border regions is an essential component of EURES.
The objectives of EURES, as defined by the new Commission Decision (1), are to promote the development
of European labour markets open and accessible for all, the transnational, interregional and crossborder
exchange of vacancies and job applications, transparency and information exchange on the European
labour markets, including on living conditions and on the opportunities for acquisition of skills, and the
development of methodologies and indicators for this purpose. In line with Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community the
activities developed within the framework of EURES comprise transnational, cross-border and sectoral
activities. The Commission Decision refers to cross-border activities including the employment services
responsible for border regions and the social partners at various instances. The composition and the main
principles for the future organisation of the EURES cross-border partnerships will be established in the
EURES Charter, that the Commission will adopt in Spring 2003.