WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/00 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission. Travelling with guide dogs.
C 374 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Why did the Commission decide not to take any further the procedure for the filling of the post of director in the Directorate for Citizenship and Youth, even though the names of two duly qualified candidates were put forward? What was the cost to the European taxpayer ü in terms of material costs, competition costs, allowances and the like and infrastructure costs ü of the selection procedure, which was abandoned half way through in the circumstances described above? Why did the selection procedure for the filling of the post of director in the Directorate for Audit and Control not result in any proposals for appointment being made? What was the cost of the procedure? Are the two unfilled posts of director still reserved for Austrian nationals? If not, why not? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (13 March 2000) The Commission notes the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the fact that two posts of Director (in the Directorate general for Education and culture and the Directorate General for Financial Control) were not filled by Austrian nationals. The Commission would confirm that, under the exceptional arrangements introduced in accordance with the Council decision reserving posts for the three new Member States (Austria, Finland and Sweden), the posts in question had been intended for Austrian nationals. The procedure for filling these posts was carried out transparently, and in compliance with the new provisions on appointments to posts in grades A1 and A2, which the Commission approved in its decision of 18 September 1999. In the case of the A2 post in the Directorate General for Education and Culture the procedure under which all applications received following the publication of a vacancy notice are examined resulted in an opinion issued by the Consultative Committee on Appointments for the attention of the Appointing Authority which meant that two candidates were shortlisted. The Consultative Committee on Appointments short- listed none of the candidates for the A2 post in the Directorate General for Financial Control having found that none of the career profiles matched the qualifications stipulated in the vacancy notice. The Commission would point out that, in its capacity as the Appointing Authority, it is responsible for the final selection of candidates to fill vacant A1 and A2 posts. It confirms that, in the cases raised by the Honourable Member, it was regrettably unable to find a satisfactory match between the candidatesí career profiles and the qualifications required for the two posts of Director. The Commission accordingly decided to relaunch the two selection procedures, which will be advertised again. The Commission can confirm that these two posts will no longer be reserved for Austrian nationals, since the exceptional arrangements relating to recruitment from the new Member States ended on 31 December 1999. The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the costs of organising these two selection procedures were € 4 117. The interviewing of 10 candidates for the post of Director in the Directorate General for Education and Culture cost € 2 482 (hire of a videoconferencing studio in Vienna for five candidates, € 1 591, and travel expenses for interviewing five candidates in Brussels € 891) while the interviewing of six candidates in Brussels for the post of Director in the Directorate General for Financial Control cost € 1 635 in travel expenses. (2000/C 374 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/00 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (4 February 2000) Subject: Travelling with guide dogs Travelling with their guide dogs is a problem for the blind as every European country has a different set of rules for the veterinary checks and vaccinations required. 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/35 In general the rules vary substantially between the countries of Europe. The United Kingdom requires import permits to be obtained in advance while Sweden requires the dog to be identified by either a tattoo or a microchip and Spain will not accept rabies vaccinations more than twelve months old. This need to prepare everything in detail and in advance prevents the blind from travelling on impulse, so what kind of freedom of movement are the blind left with? Does the Commission have comprehensive information on the varying rules for the entry of guide dogs into the countries of Europe? Has it considered harmonising these rules so that the blind are also able to use the principle of free movement between European countries? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (10 March 2000) The Commission is aware of the problems caused by the existence of differing national rules governing the movement of pets, more specifically guide dogs, between Member States. Unfortunately, previous attempts by the Commission to harmonise veterinary requirements in this area proved unsuccessful. After consulting a panel of independent scientists, the British Government recently abolished quarantine in favour of an alternative, less restrictive, system allowing owners to take their pets with them when travelling between Member States, subject to certain conditions. Visually impaired persons travelling with their dogs have been the first to benefit from these new rules. Indeed, before the implementation of the new provision, the first animal to enter the United Kingdom without having been quarantined was a guide dog. In this new context, the Commission will shortly submit to the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation to harmonise veterinary requirements for the movement of pets. In particular, the Regulation will offer a solution to the problems which are still facing visually impaired persons travelling within the Community with their dogs. (2000/C 374 E/042) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: The Erikaí disaster and the fisheries sector (4 February 2000) The recent disaster involving the Erikaí oil tanker, flying a Maltese flag off the coast of Brittany, has brought in its wake enormous and, in many cases, irreparable damage to the environment in general and to the marine ecosystem and fisheries resources in particular. One of the areas of the economy most severely affected, with major social repercussions, is the fisheries and aquaculture sector. Has the Commission evaluated the damage occasioned by the Erikaí disaster in the fisheries and aquaculture sector? Can it provide information on any such evaluation? Should this information not yet be available, will the Commission undertake to submit it to Parliamentís Committee on Fisheries as soon as it is in possession of it?