WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council. Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/175 Given that the consultantís report is confidential, the Commission does not plan to send a copy to Parliament. The Commission would emphasise that it is not in the least responsible for any views expressed in the report. The Commission is continuing to examine the matter and has not yet taken a decision. Parliament will be duly informed. (1) OJ C 303 E, 24. 10. 2000, p. 179. (2000/C 330 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Revision of the EWC Directive The German parent company of Fujitsu Siemens Computers has closed its company in Finland for reasons which are clearly not economic, in order to preserve jobs in Germany. In this connection the company was clearly in breach of its consultation and information obligations under the EWC directive, and of its obligation responsible (COM(1998) 612 fin. (1). Is it within the Commissionís power to monitor compliance with this directive and does it have plans to amend the directive to make it more binding? decision-makers the managers decision with discuss and its to (1) OJ C 2, 5. 1. 1999, p. 3. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (3 April 2000) The Commission does not have any information at its disposal which enables it to conclude that the employee information and consultation obligations under Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (1) have not been respected in the case referred to by the Honourable Member. In any event, as this Directive has been properly incorporated into German law, it is first and foremost the task of the national authorities to assess any infringements of the rules in force which may be brought to their attention by those who feel they have been wronged. The Commission is currently looking at how this Directive has been implemented. Within the next few weeks it will adopt a report to the European Parliament and Council on this subject. The Commission has on several occasions emphasised the need for the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees to be adopted by Parliament and the Council without delay. Clearly, the provisions contained in the proposal are not yet in force. (1) OJ L 254, 30. 9. 1994. (2000/C 330 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council (24 February 2000) Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community Is the Council aware that, as of this moment, more than one hundred and eighty Members of the European Parliament have signed the following motion for a resolution: Mindful of the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) as amended by Protocol No 11 árequiring that C 330 E/176 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 no one shall be expelled by means either of an individual or collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a nationalí and that áno one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a nationalí, and mindful of the incorporation of those rights under Article 6 of the Common Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the following undersigned Members of the European Parliament call upon the Governments of Austria, Greece and Italy to honour their Treaty commitments by restoring to the former royal houses of their respective countries full civil rights, including the right to enter freely without let or hindrance their countries of origin, without any further delay, and request that, where such rights have not been restored by 1 January 2000, the European Court initiate proceedings against any offending State? At all events, given that, under the terms of the Treaty, there is no basis for discrimination against individual families, having regard to the provisions of Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, dealing respectively with the free movement of persons, services and capital and the right of establishment, given that Prince Victor Emmanuel has not been permitted to visit his homeland for 53 years or his son ever to set foot on Italian soil, and given that, although the aforementioned rights are not conditional, Otto von Habsburg was required to sign away fundamental civil rights before being allowed to settle in Austria, will the Council demonstrate its commitment to upholding the European Treaties and to European law by urging its Members to refer Austria, Greece and Italy without delay to the European Court of Justice? Reply (2 May 2000) Under Article 226 of the TEC, it is for the Commission to bring matters before the Court of Justice if it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the TEC. (2000/C 330 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (25 February 2000) Subject: Reassignment of Council staff What procedures does the Council have available, and how often are they implemented, for the reassignment of staff from one directorate-general which may need fewer staff to another directorate- general which may need more staff? How effective have these measures been in terms of the number of posts transferred each year between directorates-general as a percentage of total numbers in post? Can the Council give any other information about its reassignment of staff? Reply (2 May 2000) At the start of the 1980s the General Secretariat of the Council introduced a policy on in-house mobility guided by the principle, recognised in the Staff Regulations, that any official should be able to áapply for a transfer within his institutioní (Article 7 (1)). This policy is based on the premise that it is not only in the interest of the person applying for the transfer but also in the interest of the institution to give a person who wants to be reassigned opportunities for mobility. However, in response to the question put by the Honourable Member, the General Secretariat has not yet established any particular internal procedures or rules for the reassignment or áredeploymentí of staff within its services and directorates-general. In practice, though, over the last few years there have been several isolated instances where staff have been reassigned so as to bolster existing teams or set up new ones, depending on the urgency and the importance of certain dossiers. This redeployment has been carried out in compliance with the mobility procedure. In particular, these were officials who were assigned to the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit (PPEWU) and to the co-decision legislative procedure unit