ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: French ban on imports of British beef

In view of the European Court of Justice ruling in September 2001 that France has failed to fulfil its Community obligations by continuing its ban on imports of British beef, and given the commercial losses being sustained by British producers as a result of this unilateral action, would the Commission please inform Members:

- What action it has taken thus far to lift the ban, given the ruling of the Court of Justice was given some six months ago?

- What reparation will be made to British beef producers in order to compensate for the illegal actions of the French?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The judgement of the European Court of Justice in case C-1/00 Commission v French Republic was dated 13 December 2001.

Soon after the judgement, the Commission requested France to communicate details of the actions it would be taking to ensure compliance. In the absence of a satisfactory reply, a letter of formal notice under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty was sent to the French government on 21 March 2002.

The infringement procedure now opened by the Commission could lead, if pursued to its conclusion, to the Court of Justice awarding a lump sum or penalty payment against the French government. There is, however, no provision under Article 228(2) for compensation of individuals.

In respect of the case law of the court concerning a Member State's obligations to make good the damage caused to individuals by a breach of Community law for which it is responsible, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to written question E-3625/01 of Mr Huhne(1).

(1) JO C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 99.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0410/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Community mediation to obtain the release of prisoners in the Sahara conflict

The long-standing conflict in the Western Sahara has, among other consequences, led to the taking of large numbers of prisoners on both sides. Prisoners who have been incarcerated for years are forced to wonder why they should have to waste away their lives for decades on end, in severely overcrowded conditions which are in breach of the applicable international conventions.

A political solution will eventually determine the future of this former Spanish colony. History will decide on this, but meanwhile it is essential not to overlook the predicament of the prisoners who still see no prospect of release, especially as no end to the conflict is as yet on the horizon.

Independently of the political considerations and excluding any pretension to mediate in any of the proposed political solutions, does the Council believe that, in the context of the common foreign and defence policy, it should propose a lasting humanitarian solution for all of the prisoners on both sides who are incarcerated by reason of a conflict whose end is not yet in sight?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0208/02 and P-0410/02

(21 May 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member, Mr Carlos Carnero González, that it has no knowledge of the events in the El Aaiún prison to which he refers.

More generally, the Council remains most concerned by the fate of more than 1350 prisoners of war who are still in captivity, and have been, in most cases, for 20 years, requiring an early solution which complies with the obligations under the Geneva Convention. It has steadfastly emphasised that one must not wait for the end of the political process

to begin seeking a solution to urgent humanitarian issues such as exchanges of family visits or the release of prisoners of war. In spite of limited progress, the Council still deplores the very worrying situation of the Saharan refugees in the Tindouf camps, while emphasising that the tense situation in the Western Sahara makes it yet more difficult to solve humanitarian issues. That is also why the Council, which is in regular contact with the UN Secretary-General's personal envoy, Mr James Baker, and all parties to the conflict, is willing to contribute to establishing a climate of confidence between the parties concerned in order to facilitate an acceptable solution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: One-net rule

I have received information from several sources that, instead of moving to other fishing grounds, Danish and Dutch fishing vessels are compensating for low catches by fishing with two or even four nets at once. Such action would totally contradict efforts towards sustainable fisheries and the preservation of the biomass, since the areas concerned are virtually ransacked by this method. This is also directly related to the issue of the use of by-catches.

1. Is the Commission aware of this practice?

2. Is this fishing method compatible with the one-net rule?

3. If this method is not compatible with European rules, what steps will the Commission take to deal with it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

In several fisheries more than one net is used at the same time by the fishing vessel. One example is fishing with beam trawls (double-rigged beam trawl), where the vessels typically use two nets simultaneously, one on each side of the vessel. Another example is fishing for nephrops or flatfish with twin (or triple or more) otter trawl, where the vessels use a gear consisting of two or more trawls linked together.

The so-called one net rule (Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(1), Chapter 1 Article 4) does not prevent the use of more than one net at the time as long as the mesh sizes of the gears are in compliance with the conditions specified in the Regulation. This typically means that the gears must have the same mesh size to be used at the same time. To the Commission's knowledge this is the case in the fisheries where more than one gear is used at the same time.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1114/02

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Legislative measures planned by the Commission in response to the European Court of Justice ruling of 15 January 2002 (Case C-55/2000)

Articles 12 and 39 of the EC Treaty prohibit all forms of discrimination on grounds of nationality between citizens of the Member States. On 15 January 2002 the Court of Justice issued its judgment in Case No 55/2000 (Gottardo v INPS). The question referred to the Court under Article 234 of the EC Treaty concerned the refusal by authorities in a Member State to allow a European citizen who was a national of another Member State to benefit from pension provisions contained in a bilateral agreement concluded with a third country, these provisions being applicable solely to nationals of the two contracting parties. The Court drew attention to the implications of Article 39 and pointed out that a Member State must, for the purposes of determining pension rights, take account of periods of insurance completed in a Member State by nationals of another Member State in all instances where they would take account of such periods in respect of their own nationals.

In the light of the above and given that there are many European citizens who could benefit from this ruling, what legislative proposals has the Commission made or does it intend to make to the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that Member States comply with the Court's decision?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

In accordance with the Gottardo ruling(1), the advantages arising from a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country must be granted to workers from other Member States which are not party to the agreement; this is based on the principle of equal treatment of nationals and workers from other Member States, as provided by Article 39 of the EC Treaty.

Following this ruling, the Commission asked the Member States to inform it of any practical difficulties related to the application of this case law and of the measures they planned to take to ensure that the various agreements complied with the Court of Justice ruling. The Commission is currently examining the Member States' responses.

(1) Case C-55/00 European Court Reports 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Upgrading of institutes of technology

An intense debate is taking place in Greece over the upgrading of institutes of technology. Without any in-depth consultation with the academic community, the government decided to convert the institutes of technology into institutions of higher education, which has raised legitimate questions in the minds of university teachers and students alike.

Will the Commission say in which of the Member States institutes of technology are exactly and in all respects equal to institutions of higher education? Are students in institutions of higher education in the other Member States absolutely equal, in financial and institutional terms, to students in institutes of technology? Are the teachers at institutes of technology absolutely equal to university lecturers? Under current Community legislation, what conditions must institutes of technology fulfil to be absolutely equal to institutions of higher education? In conclusion, can they become absolutely equal to institutions of higher education simply by being upgraded?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

According to Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Community must fully respect the responsibility of the Member States for the organisation of their education systems.

The matter raised in the written question is therefore outside the Community's jurisdiction.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0781/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Concessionary pass for pensioners

Is the Commission considering the possibility of introducing a Euro Pensioners Pass, which would grant various concessions for senior citizens including concessions for public transport and museum and gallery admissions? If not, why not? If so, when does the Commission expect to come forward with proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-2326/01 by Mr Gallagher(1), E-2406/99 by Mr McCartin(2) and E-1054/99 by Mrs Billingham(3), and to the replies it gave to oral questions H-1148/98 by Mr Andrews and H-1023/98 by Mr Evans during question time at Parliament's December 1998(4) and November 1998 sessions(5).

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 109.

(2) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 126.

(3) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999.

(4) Written reply, 15.12.1998.

(5) Oral reply, 17.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Trademark rights

Following the ruling of the European Court of Justice to uphold the right of trademark owners to determine the conditions of sale of their products within the EU in the case Tesco v. Levi Strauss (cases C-414/99, C-415/99 and C-416/99), will the Commission bring forward any revision to existing legislation in order to promote the rights of consumers to buy products at equitable prices in the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

The Commission is very conscious of the need to strike the right balance between the economic interests of consumers and those of trademark holders.

However, the recent judgement of the European Court of Justice in the case Tesco v. Levi Strauss, which with regard to the principle of exhaustion confirms the earlier jurisprudence of the Court, has not given cause for the Commission to reconsider its decision not to table a proposal for a change of the exhaustion regime. Nevertheless, the Commission will continue to follow closely the issue of exhaustion, and action will certainly be taken should new and important developments take place which would justify reconsideration of the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0983/02

by Geneviève Fraisse (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Incorporation of sex-related indicators into the Commission's assessment reports relating to the implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises

At the Feira Summit in June 2000 the European Council adopted a Charter for Small Enterprises, under which the EU's public authorities are required to provide support for such enterprises. The Commission has already published two reports on the Member States' implementation of the Charter, in which progress is reported in a certain number of areas such as company creation and access to credit.

Has the Commission any sex-related satistics relating to those welcome developments and does it intend to accede to the request that its next report should illustrate the growth of small businesses in terms of the contribution made by each of the sexes and describe the methods employed to ensure that both sexes are involved to an equal extent?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The European Charter for Small Enterprises, which was endorsed at the Feira European Council in June 2000, is central to achieving the objective of making Europe the world's most competitive and dynamic economy by 2010. It recognises the crucial role that small enterprises play in the development of competitiveness, innovation and employment in Europe.

In this context, the Charter is primarily a tool for improving and coordinating Member States' policies in favour of small enterprises. The implementation reports have been drawn up on the basis of information provided by the Member States. Issues relating to equal opportunities for men and women were not one of the ten areas covered by the Charter, so it is up to the different Members States whether or not they make such information available. This is why it is difficult to present detailed data on the male/female breakdown in the business community.

The Commission is nonetheless convinced that this is an important issue for small enterprises and entrepreneurship. In this context, the Commission took the initiative in 2002 of launching the Promoting entrepreneurship amongst women project, which aims to identify best practices in this field in the Member States. The results will be presented to a European forum in March 2003.

As part of its Statistics in Focus series, Eurostat will shortly be publishing the results a study on the topic of The entrepreneurial gap between women and men. This will help improve knowledge about the proportion of businessmen to businesswomen. This information is collected on a regular basis in the labour force survey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Tuna steaks and Mexico

On the basis of a study of the demand for tuna steak supplies which assessed the supply of tuna steaks to the Community market in the short and medium term, the Commission decided to open an annual quota of 4 000 tonnes at a 6 % preferential rate of duty for the period 2001 to 2003, within the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products.

The EU has also agreed with Mexico to study no later than 1 September 2001 the possibility of opening a quota for tuna steak at a preferential rate of duty under the free trade agreement.

Can the Commission provide information on the state of play of these negotiations with Mexico?

Since the quota of 4 000 tonnes of tuna steak at a 6 % preferential rate of duty was not exhausted in either of the two years (2000 and 2001) of its existence so far, can the Commission state whether it believes it necessary to open a new quota for tuna steaks from other countries on the basis of a preferential rate of duty, as in the Mexican case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

In Article 10(5) of Decision No 2/2000 of the EC-Mexico Joint Council(1) the parties undertook to begin discussions to examine the possibility of opening a preferential tariff rate quota for tuna steaks before 1 January 2002.

At the EC-Mexico Joint Committee meeting on 2 October 2001 the Mexican authorities made a formal request to the Commission for the discussions to begin. In November and December the Commission and the Mexican authorities held technical level meetings to explore the possibilities of opening a quota. No further meetings are scheduled at present.

On the second part of his question the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's reply to his written question E-1156/01(2).

(1) COM(2002) 125 final.

(2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0448/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: NGOs

Which organisations make up the social platform of NGOs?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The Platform of European Social non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (often called the Social Platform) has 37 European member organisations operating in the social sector. Several applications for full membership are now pending, and associate membership is now available to social NGOs within the accession countries.

A list of the Platform members is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

More detail can be found on the Social Platform website: www.socialplatform.org
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0152/02

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Spanish Government measures concerning the anti-globalisation movement

It is reported by a number of information networks that the Spanish Ministry of the Interior has set up anti-globalisation units.

The Ministry of the Interior has apparently set up rapid intervention units that will be brought in during events that take place during the Spanish Presidency of the EU, during first half of 2002, in particular to prevent any disturbances during anti-globalisation demonstrations.

The Ministry is apparently also updating a database which contains the personal details of a large number of people who took part in demonstrations during the Göteborg, Genoa and Barcelona summits. The database is said to contain information provided by different European police forces concerning the protests that took place in these three cities.

In the same context, the Spanish intelligence services have stated that they have been monitoring the Internet sites of anti-globalisation movements since December 2001.

Has the Council been informed by the Spanish Government of these measures?

Does the Council consider that setting up a database as described above is consistent with European standards of protection of privacy and access to personal data?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0142/02, P-0152/02, P-0157/02, P-0180/02,P-0191/02 and P-0205/02

(21 May 2002)

1. The Council draws the attention to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, which says that:

This Title (Title VI: Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

2. As concerns data protection, the Council of Europe Convention of 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data has been ratified by all 15 Member States.

3. In the conclusions adopted by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, on 13 July 2001, concerning security at meetings of the European Council and other comparable events the objective of the European Union was recalled to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. In such an area, citizens must enjoy the right freely to express their opinions and to assemble in a peaceful manner, rights reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to do so in conditions where there is not a threat to their own security or to that of other citizens or properties.

In the same conclusions the importance was underlined of a constructive dialogue between the organisers of public demonstrations and the authorities of the host country and the importance of close international contacts, particularly among the Member States' law enforcement authorities, to ensure that legitimate demonstrations are not exploited or abused for the purpose of committing acts of collective or individual violence.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0743/02

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Discriminatory fees

Written Question E-0049/02(1) asked whether it was fair to charge different fees based on place of residence for the Padua marathon to be held on 28 April 2002 and mentioned the internet site where the relevant information could be found.

In reply, Commissioner Bolkestein said that the Commission had been unable to locate the information, perhaps because his services did not navigate further than the home page of the site in question.

The details concerning registration fees can be found by clicking on Welcome and then on Technical info or by going directly to the address www.maratonasant-antonio.com/eng/home/htm.

Does the Commission consider the charging of different fees to be fair and will it open infringement proceedings in this matter given that the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) and the Italian Athletics Federation (FIDAL) are involved?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

As stated in its answer to Written Question E-0049/02(1), and in the light of the further information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission will look into the possibility of initiating an infringement procedures against Italy under the terms ofunder Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission has, moreover, already brought an action before the Court of Justice against Italy for a failure to fulfil its obligations in the field of the free movement of services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) on account of discriminatory prices (charged for entry to certain museums) which are based not just on nationality but also, as in the case raised by the Honourable Member, on residence.

A future ruling by the Court of Justice in this case (C-388/01) could also therefore be of importance for situations such as that mentioned in this Written Question.

The Commission would also point out that, in accordance with Court of Justice case law, Community nationals can invoke the principle of the free movement of services before the national courts.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.