WRITTEN QUESTION P-0577/00 by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission. Spring and MCI WorldCom merger.
C 330 E/188 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 (2000/C 330 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council (2 March 2000) Subject: Council staff Will the Council please indicate the number of its staff in post, including all services such as interpretation and translation, in each of the last five years? Reply (2 May 2000) The Honourable Member will find attached a table showing the number of staff in post in the Council General Secretariat over the last five years. Number of staff in post in the council general secretariat (Officials and temporary staff 1995-1999) Category/Service 1995 1996 A L/A (1) B C D 246 509 190 1 205 127 Total 2 277 261 554 192 1 246 128 2 381 Year 1997 280 588 188 1 246 131 2 433 1998 1999 283 581 196 1 253 134 2 447 290 616 202 1 260 132 2 500 (1) There are no interpreters employed as permanent officials in the Council General Secretariat. These tasks are carried out by JICS (Commission). (2000/C 330 E/216) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0577/00 by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Spring and MCI WorldCom merger In 1998, the Commission reviewed the proposed merger between MCI and WorldCom and estimated that this the combined company would control 50 % or more of concentration would have an adverse anti-competitive impact on European carriers, ISPs and Internet users. As a result, the Commission forced the divestiture of the MCI Internet backbone business. the US backbone. It concluded that Is the Commission now aware of the proposed merger between Sprint and MCI WorldCom and that 1. it would result in the largest market capitalisation in the world and domination of the global Internet and would have a consequent anti-competitive impact throughout Europe? Is it further aware that such a merger between the number one and number two US backbone 2. providers would lead to an 80 % US market share with significant European and transatlantic capacity? 3. European IP-networks are configured in such a way that intra-European traffic is frequently routed via the United States. MCI WorldCom, with its major Internet switching facility in Washington DC handles 85 % of all intra-European Internet traffic. Sprint owns the only other switching facility on the east coast. 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/189 Together they will be in a dominant position. This will enable them to charge higher prices for carrying and switching global Internet traffic. Will the Commission carry out an urgent review of the proposed new merger between Sprint and MCI WorldCom and ensure that such a merger does not go ahead as it would have serious consequences for European wholesale (ISP) and retail customers (Internet users)? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (27 March 2000) The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Commission is carefully assessing the merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint. The Commission decided on 21 February 2000 to enter into a four months full investigation of the impact the merger may have on competition in the common market. The Commission already in 1998 examined the effects of the merger between MCI and WorldCom on the market for the provision of Internet connectivity. The Commissionís investigation in the current transac- tion is also this time first and foremost focusing on the market for the provision of top level connectivity services in the Internet (i. e. those networks to which anybody must directly or indirectly have access in order to get universal reach on the Internet). In addition, the Commission is investigating the market for the provision of global telecommunications services to multinational corporations and the market for termination into the United States of international calls originated in the Community. If the Commissionís investigation concludes that the merger will lead to a creation or a strengthening of a dominant position in any of these markets, the parties have the possibility to propose remedies to eliminate these concerns. The final decision on this transaction is expected by early July 2000. (2000/C 330 E/217) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: Turkish ministersí disagreements and concerns about Akkuyu ü European strategy for nuclear safety The Turkish Environment Minister, Ms Aykut, stated at the conference in Mersin on 2 February 2000 that she was not fully informed about the dangers arising from the construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu, that comprehensive information on the power plant had not been provided and that she was personally opposed to the construction of a nuclear power station. The Turkish Minister for Tourism, Mr Mumcu, expressed similar opposition in the newspaper Cumhuriyet, emphasising that Akkuyu is only 120 kilometres from the tourist beaches of Mersin. In addition, Mr Ulug, professor at Izmir University, has said that áthe stance adopted by those who favour the construction of a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area is an outrageí. Finally, Greenpeace spokesperson Ms Keskin has stated that áin the event of an accident radiation would contaminate not only Turkey, but also Cyprus, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa and even the Caucasusí. 1. Could the Commission say what its position is with regard to the above statements, which very clearly demonstrate opposition to and pronounced unease over the planned construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu and also over the consequences that this will have for the environment, tourism and the health of millions of citizens living in southern Turkey and neighbouring countries, including EU citizens, since the region where the plant will be established is one of considerable seismic activity?