WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Road transport tachograph.
C 219 E/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Reply (31 January 2000) The Council fully shares the Honourable Memberís view on the importance of efforts to reduce illiteracy. Measures to promote education constitute an essential part of the fight against poverty, which is one of the main objectives of the Communityís development cooperation policy. When it decides on Community aid programmes the Commission takes into account, priorities set by the beneficiary countries. inter alia, the The Development Council on 11 November 1999 did not discuss support for developing countries in the field of education. Such a discussion, which has not been ruled out for a forthcoming meeting, would normally be based on a Commission communication. (2000/C 219 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Road transport tachograph On 30 March 1998, the then Commission Member, Neil Kinnock, stated before the European Parliament that the social partners had been involved in the decision to authorise the Annex 1B version of the tachograph only. How were ü and are ü the social partners specifically involved in the decision-making process? Were ü and are ü talks held with the social partners, with due account being taken of their opinions? Did the social partners advocate the 1B option in the course of the discussions? To what extent were Member State inspecting authorities involved in the decision-making process? Do the inspecting authorities consider the tachograph as specified in Annex 1B as suitable for improving the quality of inspections? To what extent did the Economic and Social Committee voice an opinion on the tachograph as specified in Annex 1B? The then Commission Member Neil Kinnock also stated on 30 March 1998 that technically faultless operation of the 1B tachograph had been determined by repeated testing in working conditions. At the time that statement was made, had the 1B trip recorder been definitively specified? Had tests been run on individual components that had been technically specified at that time (chipcards, memory, display, printer)? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (21 December 1999) Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 was adopted on 24 September 1998. It amends Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 88/599/EEC on the implementation of Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 2821/85 (1) in accordance with the cooperation procedure referred to in Article 252 (former Article 189c) of the EC Treaty (2), following receipt of the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3). Both sides of industry were consulted on several occasions during the preparatory work within the meetings of the committee on technical adaptation responsible for defining digital recording equipment (Article 1, Item 10 of Regulation No 2135/98). They received the working documents and attended the committee meeting as observers. On the fringes of the activities of the technical adaptation committee other meetings are held with both sides of industry within a sub-group on ánew technologiesí attached to the committee on dialogue with the road transport sector. 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/109 Most of the inspectorates within the Member States attend the meetings of the committee on the technical adaptation of recording equipment. The opinions of those representatives are taken into account, especially since they improve the technical specifications drawn up within the committee, on condition that those opinions are relevant to the remit conferred upon said committee. The representatives of the inspectorates feel that digital recording equipment is able to improve checking quality. However, they also feel that the transitional period during which both types of monitoring device (Annexes 1 and 1B) are to exist side by side, will inevitably cause some practical difficulties since older vehicles will not be retrofitted. The detailed technical specifications are about to be completed and will be much more stringent than those laid down for the current analog recording device. The industrialists who also help the committee to draw up technical specifications will ensure that use is made of technologies that are able to guarantee that the equipment functions properly. (1) OJ L 274, 9. 10. 1998. (2) OJ C 138, 4. 5. 1998. (3) OJ C 110, 21. 5. 1995. (2000/C 219 E/139) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2167/99 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Protection of personal privacy pursuant to Article 6 of the TEU Member State constitutions protect citizens against violations of their personal privacy by the State (interception of mail, telephone tapping, etc). Intrusions into private lives consequently may only be authorised subject to stringent safeguards enshrined in law. Does the guarantee of fundamental rights pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union protect an EU citizen against intrusion into his or her private life by a Member State other than that of which he or she is a national? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (6 January 2000) Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union requires the Union to respect fundamental rights in exercising its competences. The Community legislation addressed to the Member States with regard to the protection of privacy of the Union citizens consists of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1), and Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (2). These two directives have as their aim to ensure the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data and as such they are relevant to the matters raised by the Honourable Member. They in principle also apply to the processing of information relating to natural persons by a Member State if the natural person in question is not a citizen of that Member State. It must however be noted that the scope of these directives is limited to the processing of personal data in the course of activities which fall within the scope of Community law. Further both directives lay down exemptions and restrictions which can be applied when necessary to safeguard certain interests (see Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 14 of Directive 97/66/EC). (1) OJ L 281, 23. 11. 1995. (2) OJ L 24, 30. 1. 1998