WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/99 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Council. Community action programme for youth.
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 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/47 accompanying the Common Position (1) the Council indicated that this funding áboth granted its wish to see the programme become a success and its concern for a fair division of the available resources at a time of significant financial restraint. í (1) OJ C 210, 22. 7. 1999, p. 1. (2000/C 280 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2458/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: The European stationery industry The European stationery industry, is being damaged by the mass influx on the European market of articles that are faithful copies of Italian and European designs but whose price is 50-60 % lower than their actual value. in particular the manufacture of pens, pencils, biros etc. , The key perpetrators of such unfair competition are firms from non-member states, such as China, India, Taiwan and Indonesia, which, using a myriad of importers scattered throughout Europe, now have the capacity to exhibit their products at national and international trade fairs. This widespread lawlessness has been made possible by a combination of several factors: the lack of controls by the authorities, the excessive duration (many years, especially in Italy) of civil proceedings brought with a view to protecting trademarks and patents, the lack of solvency of the aforementioned importers (they are often dummy companies with a sparsely-furnished office, fax and telephone, which can be dismantled and transferred elsewhere under another name within a few hours). Furthermore, these manufacturers systematically breach all the strict safety standards which their European competitors are obliged to comply with, thereby endangering peopleís health, especially that of children, who are often the end users of these products. If this unlawfulness and unfair competition continue, European industries, particularly those in Italy, will be forced to close down; this will have a serious impact on employment and on the market, which will be completely flooded with dangerous, low-quality products, to the total detriment of consumers. First and foremost, can the Commission say how it intends to act in the most appropriate and effective manner to curb this phenomenon swiftly and to restore legality in this area? Secondly, can it take action to limit the import of stationery products from countries with which, because they operate in an economic climate that is particularly favourable owing to local conditions (labour costs that are next to nothing compared to those in Europe, negligible or even non-existent safety standards in the workplace, absence of product quality and safety standards), European firms are unable to compete on equal terms? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) The Honourable Member has raised a number of important questions with respect to action taken within the Community to address the problems created by the production and marketing of counterfeited goods by companies in a number of third countries. It is clear that the marketing of counterfeit and pirated goods damages trademark owners, law- abiding manufacturers and traders, and misleads consumers. As the Honourable Member has rightly pointed out, counterfeited goods can also cause public health hazards