WRITTEN QUESTION P-2757/03 by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council. Nuclear crisis in North Korea.
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, North Korea, international security, nuclear non-proliferation, the EU's international role

C 70 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Aspects which are perceived as particularly problematic are the cost of housing and personal difficulties in
acclimatising to life in the big city. It may also be observed that if translators worked in their home
countries, this would cost the Commission less. More permanent residence in the home country would
also perform an important role in helping translators to keep in touch with their own culture and thus in
maintaining their professional skills.

Could translators be offered more flexible working conditions by making it the norm for them to work
from their home countries?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission understands the considerations put by the Honourable Member but has to confirm that
officials working as translators have the same rights and obligations as other officials and they are
employed under the same terms and conditions of the ‘Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and
other servants of the European Communities’. They must, therefore, comply with Article 20 of the Staff
Regulations, which provides that:

An official shall reside either in the place where he is employed or at no greater distance therefrom as
is compatible with the proper performance of his duties.

As a result, to allow officials who do not originate from the country in which they are employed to work
on a permanent full-time basis from their home countries would not normally be regarded to be in
accordance with the requirements of the Staff Regulations. The same provision also applies to translators
employed in exceptional cases as auxiliary agents or temporary agents.

The Commission does not intend to derogate from this provision in the context of the introduction of
telework schemes.

(2004/C 70 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2757/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Nuclear crisis in North Korea

With a view to resolving the nuclear crisis in North Korea, negotiations attended by representatives of
North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the USA have recently been held in Beijing.

As is stated in the most recent Commission report on the Humanitarian Aid Office (1), the EU is the main
donor of humanitarian aid to North Korea, to which country it allocates much of the humanitarian aid
which it assigns to Asia.

In the conclusions issued at the recent Thessaloniki Summit the European Council Presidency emphasised
its ‘readiness to contribute to a multilateral diplomatic solution to the crisis’.

Can the Council explain why the European Union was not represented at the Beijing negotiations?

What action does the Council intend to take in order to ensure that EU representatives are involved in
future political and diplomatic negotiations on the delicate issue of nuclear disarmament in North Korea?

(1) COM(2003) 430.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/137

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The EU strongly supports the diplomatic efforts undertaken by the six parties to achieve a solution to the
North Korean proliferation issue. The EU hopes that the process will soon lead to concrete steps to lower
tension in the region, including progress towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, a matter of
fundamental interest to the whole international community.

The EU remains willing to contribute to international efforts to move matters forward, and acts in close
consultation with the main players. It is considering how it could give support to the multilateral talks in
due course and in co-ordination with the capitals of the six countries involved.

(2004/C 70 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2766/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: International building fraud

In January 2003 I put questions to the Commission about the possible involvement of construction firms
from Belgium and German in construction fraud in the Netherlands. These questions also mentioned the
possible involvement of Dutch firms in illegal pricing and labour agreements in other Member States.

The Commission states in its answer that the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMA) is investigating a
number of cases and informs the Commission about them on a regular basis. The Commission also stated
that it will take action if it is supplied with credible information on any cartel significantly influencing
trade between the Member States.

Has the Commission come to the conclusion, on the basis of information supplied by the NMA, that

1.
an illegal cartel has in fact been created?

2.

If so, has the Commission taken any measures in this connection?

Have any new cases concerning the possible creation of illegal cartels been notified by the NMA to

3.
the Commission?

4.

If so, what ruling has the Commission made on these cases?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

As mentioned in the reply to written question P-308/03 by the Honourable Member (1),
1. and 2.
the Commission is aware of cases of alleged fraud and price fixing in the construction market in the
Netherlands through the national competition authority (Nma), and the media. It also learned of the
allegations that non-Dutch enterprises were involved in these practices on the Dutch market and that
Dutch enterprises were involved in foreign markets.

The Commission does, however, not intend to interfere with these ongoing investigations of the NMa in
the Dutch construction sector. The Commission understands that the possible involvement of foreign
companies is taken on board by the NMa in these investigations. Hence, the Commission has not started
separate formal investigations on the basis of the above information.