WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission. Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/45 is for the Union to have an autonomous capacity to take decisions, The objective agreed at Helsinki to launch and then to conduct Union-led military operations where the Atlantic Alliance as a whole is not engaged. The headline goal adopted at Helsinki is for the Union to be able to deploy up to 50 000-60 000 troops ü capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks ü within 60 days. Interim institutions for decision-making on crisis management, and for operational control of both military and non-military actions which may be launched in crisis situations are to be introduced. A report identifying non-military (civilian) aspects of crisis management and crisis response tools both at Union and national level was also noted at Helsinki. The intention is to bring together capabilities at national and European level (for instance police, monitors, human rights experts), and to establish a mechanism for rapid co-ordination and deployment. As a first step new decision-making and advisory bodies will be set up in Brussels on an interim basis. The structures to be set up are a political and security committee staffed by representatives at senior level. There will also be a military committee, staffed, in the interim phase, by military representatives of Member States. It will give military advice to the Council as needed. A civilian crisis management coordinating mechanism is also to be established within the Council. All decisions in the area of European security and defence policy will be taken áwithin the single institutional frameworkí, thus ensuring inter-pillar coherence. The Commission looks forward to these new forms of cooperation and will contribute actively where it has responsibility and experience, namely in the area of non-military crisis management and conflict prevention. (2000/C 280 E/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Europe Agreements with Eastern European countries Each of the Europe Agreementsí which the EU has concluded with Eastern European countries includes an áequal treatment requirementí relating to the establishment of companies and nationals of the contracting countries (subject to certain provisos for special occupations). Does the Commission consider that this equal treatment requirement includes a prohibition of 1. discrimination? 2. Does the Commission consider that an EU Member State is barred from submitting nationals of the contracting countries to áneeds testsí if their own self-employed nationals are not required to undergo such tests? 3. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its own self-employed nationals to produce evidence of prior knowledge, etc. , such evidence may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries? 4. Does the Commission agree that, where a Member State does not require its self-employed nationals to produce evidence of capital, this may not be required of the nationals of the contracting partner countries? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (24 January 2000) 1. The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that the principle of equal treatment contains the prohibition of discrimination between nationals of the associated countries and nationals of the Member States. C 280 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 The Member States may apply their laws and regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour 2. conditions, and establishment of natural persons, provided that, in doing so, they do not apply them in a such manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any party under the terms of a specific provision of the Europe agreements (see for instance Article 58 of the agreement with Poland). 3. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Europe agreements permit the Member States to verify that nationals of the associated countries have the required qualifications to establish themselves on their territory. 4. Member States may require that nationals of the associated countries have the financial means to establish themselves on their territory and to ascertain that self-employment and business undertakings by nationals shall not extend to seeking or taking employment in the labour market or confer a right of access to the labour market of another party to the Europe agreement (see for instance Article 44 paragraph 4 of the agreement with Poland). In addition to the answers given under 3 and 4, it is noted that the scope of the relevant provisions of Europe agreements is subject to the scrutiny of the Court of justice. There are currently four cases, in which national courts have requested a preliminary ruling by the Court of justice on the application of the relevant provisions in the Europe agreements (Gloszczuk/C-63/99, Kondova/C-235/99, Barkoci & Malik/ C-257/99 and Jany etc. /C-268/99). The Commission has submitted observations in all cases. The rulings by the Court of justice cannot be expected before summer 2000. (2000/C 280 E/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/99 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Council (16 December 1999) Subject: Community action programme for youth On 28 August 1998 the Commission submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action programme for youth (COM(98) 331) (1). After the European Parliamentís second reading on 28 October 1999 the decision was submitted to the Council for its second reading. 1. Why will the Council meeting and thus the discussion on the action programme for youth be held not, as planned, on 23 November 1999 but in early January? 2. How does the Council imagine the various youth programmes forming part of the action programme for youth can be implemented effectively in accordance with its objectives with only EUR 350 million (rather than the EUR 765 million proposed by the Commission and the EUR 980 million proposed by Parliament) for the period 2000-2004? (1) OJ C 311, 10. 10. 1998, p. 6. Reply (13 March 2000) At the Youth Council on 23 November, no decision was taken to initiate the conciliation procedure for the proposed Youthí programme. In view of the need to make the most effective use of the time available (six weeks with a possible extension of two weeks from the date of the first meeting of the Conciliation Committee as provided for in Article 251 of the Treaty), the Council subsequently proposed to the Parliament that conciliation should begin at a mutually convenient date in January. The first conciliation meeting was held on 27 January 2000. As far as the Common Position figure of EUR 350 million for five years is concerned, this was agreed the Councilís reasonsí unanimously by the Youth Council on 27 May 1999. In the Statement of