ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3736/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: The case of Mr Fang Jue

Fang Jue, former vice-chairman of the party's Planning Committee for the southern province of Fujian and government official until the mid-nineties, published a long article in the Western press in January 1998 entitled China Needs A New Transformation (democrats' proposals for a framework of reforms). This article, which bore not only Mr Fang's signature but those of around 30 high-level officials and party members, set out a moderate plan for constitutional reform, which would allow a gradual movement towards a truly democratic system.

On 23 July 1998, Fang Jue was kidnapped by the police. His family only learnt of his whereabouts on 28 September that year. Until 28 July 1999 he remained in a 36 m2 cell with some 25 ordinary prisoners and no contact with the outside world. Mr Fang was finally sentenced to four years' imprisonment for illegal business practices, under the pretext that he had set up a business enterprise without a licence, the real reason for his incarceration not being cited. Since his sentencing, the Chinese authorities have subjected him to harsh and humiliating treatment, including placing him in solitary confinement for 25 days (when the legal limit is a maximum of 15 days) in a cell measuring 2 m2 and with no mattress, chair, blanket or heating; this was during December 2000 and January 2001, with temperatures as low as 17 °C. On top of this, he was not allowed to wash, change his underwear, shave or comb his hair. These and other forms of ill-treatment were inflicted in order to force him to admit his guilt and reform his way of thinking. After his release from this hell on 22 July 2002, Fang Jue was again arrested in Beijing on 20 October, a few days before the opening of the 16th Congress and he has not been seen since 4 November.

Is the Commission aware of the strange and unexplained disappearance of Mr Fang? What steps has it taken to obtain precise information from Beijing on Mr Fang's fate?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Commission is aware that Mr Fang Jue has disappeared since 4 November 2002.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding the disappearance of Mr Fang Jue. He was therefore included on the Union's list of individual cases of concern that was handed over to the Chinese authorities in the framework of our last human rights dialogue in Beijing on 13/14 November 2002. Given that the Chinese authorities have not yet provided an answer on this particular case, the Union reiterated its concern over the case, requesting more information during a contact with the Chinese authorities in December 2002.

The Union will continue to follow the individual case of Mr Fan Jue with close attention. In general, the Commission will continue to closely monitor the Chinese government's respect for freedom of expression and belief, and will continue to express concern about violations of this fundamental right.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3274/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Vineyard register in Greece

What stage has been reached in drawing up the vineyard register in Greece, what difficulties have been observed, what sums have been made available for its completion, and is the Commission satisfied with the progress made so far?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Regulation (EEC) No 2392/86(1) set 31 December 2000 as terminal date for establishment of the Greek vineyard register. This requirement was not complied with.

On the basis of information received from the Greek authorities last month the first stage of establishing the register, comprising aerial photos, orthophotos and the isleting work, has been completed.

The two main reasons for the delay in setting up the register are late commencement of the work and the lack of a land register.

To date Community financing has amounted to EUR 710 341 paid to Greece as an advance during 1988 to 1990.

The Commission is unhappy that construction of this instrument, essential to policing of the viticulture/wine sector, has been seriously delayed.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/86 of 24 July 1986 establishing a Community vineyard register OJ L 208, 31.7.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the Municipality of Frosinone

In September 2002 the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry of Finance published a statement showing expenditure of funds provided by the EU.

The outcome of the survey gave particular cause for concern regarding the slowness and inefficiency of local authorities in selecting projects, with funds earmarked for the year 2000 amounting to only 2 % of total CSF appropriations.

The Commission also has repeatedly expressed serious concern regarding the inadequate take-up of European funds by local authorities.

Given that it is particularly important for certain local authorities, for example, the Municipality of Frosinone, to utilise Community funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission provide the following information:

1. Has the Municipality of Frosinone submitted projects under the Save II and Altener II programmes?

2. Was the Municipality of Frosinone awarded funding for these projects?

3. Were the funds in question utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3430/02 and E-3431/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Fiumicino and Frosinone have not submitted any projects under the Save II and Altener II programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3771/02

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

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Threat of terrorist attack

Given the serious concerns about possible terrorist attacks on EU Institutions:

- What is the Commission's assessment of the security risk and how does the Commission propose to improve security given the real possibility of terrorist attacks on EU Institutions?

- Could the Commission give the following details about the team in charge of security for the EU Institutions including their background and credentials: how long have these employees held their positions for and what is their former experience?

- When were the heads of security for the EU Institutions put in place?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Honourable Member will understand that the Commission cannot provide detailed information on specific measures taken to improve security without taking the risk of compromising that security. The situation created by the murderous attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001 did, however, prompt the Commission to undertake a full review of its security arrangements. That review led to tightened security rules and practices which are still in force.

The Commission is only responsible for the security of its own personnel, buildings and assets. The Honourable Member will therefore have to seek information relating to the other Institutions from the relevant administrations. Naturally, the Commission's Security Directorate has close interinstitutional relations with the security offices of other Union Institutions.

This Directorate is within the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration and is responsible for the security of all staff, property and activities of the Commission. In carrying out its functions, the Security Directorate works in co-operation with the relevant services in the Member States and has their assistance in assessing potential or possible threats to Commission personnel and premises. The Commission implements the necessary security measures on the basis of these assessments.

For legal and security reasons, the Honourable Member will understand that no personal details can be given about staff in the Security Service. However, the Commission has recruited specialists with professional experience in security matters gained in police forces, in armed forces, or in national security services. Those specialists are operationally in charge of security provisions.

According to section 11 of the Commission Security Provisions, as Member of the Commission responsible for Security I am supported in my function by the Security Policy Advisory Group, the Commission Security Board and the Commission security office (Security Directorate). The post of the Director of this Directorate became available when Security was separated from the Protocol Service on 1st March 2002. The recruitment procedure for the Director's post is ongoing and its conclusion is planned for the first quarter of 2003. In the meantime, a senior and professionally experienced staff member of the Security Directorate is in place as acting Director.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Shop for EU officials in Brussels

In his answer to Question E-1412/02(1), the Commissioner says that Belgian language laws do not apply in the shop for EU officials in Wetenschapsstraat/rue de la Science in Brussels.

He also says that this shop offers the same range of products that is typically found in a normal supermarket.

1. If Belgian legislation does not apply in this EU shop, can the Commission explain why French was chosen as the working language for this shop? Why was the bilingual option of French and English not chosen, as might have been supposed from the answer to Question E-0173/02(2)?

2. In fact the range of products is not what might be typically found in a normal supermarket, as can be seen by the goods on offer, such as mineral water from Portugal and crystallised ginger from Austria. It may be inferred from the monolingual labels in Portuguese and German respectively that neither product is intended for a normal supermarket in Belgium. Does the Commission agree that this type of labelling is in any case contrary to Article 16 of Directive 2000/13/EC(3)? What action will it take to ensure that these products are labelled in a language easily understood by the consumer?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 120.

(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 87.

(3) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2002)

As indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member's question E-1412/02(1), given that the shop is not open to the general public for rational reasons which have repeatedly been listed, information and signs in the shop are mainly in French. This was the practical option chosen by Delhaize.

The shop does stock what might be called speciality food products from Member States in order to cater for the demands of its customers who are a mix of nationals from those Member States.

Against this background, the labelling on such products is in accordance with Directive 2000/13 EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 120.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3152/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: The European Union and the multinational nature of the Spanish state

The 1978 Spanish Constitution stipulates that the Spanish state is made up of nationalities and regions. If Spanish society and the country's institutions were to take a democratic decision, in accordance with constitutional rules, to adopt a constitution whereby Spain would be deemed to be a multinational state without detracting from its statehood the recognition of its internal diversity would be enhanced. Under the Treaties, would statehood of this kind be compatible with Spain's membership of the European Union?

Would the EU have to agree to a change in the structural organisation of a Member State along the lines described above?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

It is for each Member State, in accordance with its national legal system, to organise and distribute powers within its own structures, bearing in mind the treaties. Article 203 of the EC Treaty provides that the Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. The Honourable Member's attention is also drawn to the answer by the Commission to Oral Question H-0683/02 tabled by Ms Diez Gonzalez during question time at the October 2002(1) part-session of the European Parliament.

(1) Written answer of 22.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3107/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Suicide bomber Barbie

The 13 August 2002 issue of the Italian weekly Panorama reported that the London-based artist Simon Tyszko had produced a provocative suicide bomber version of the famous Barbie doll, complete with sticks of explosive around her waist, as is tragically the case with the real-life terrorists who carry out suicide bombings in Israel. The proceeds from the sale of this morbid invention were to go, generously and without a hint of hypocrisy, to Amnesty International.

Given the recent upsurge in international terrorism and the tragic increase in suicide bombings: would the Commission not consider it appropriate to propose that the Council define as a Community offence any act or statement which aims to directly or indirectly promote even via seemingly innocuous dolls the legitimisation or glorification of terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism(1), has recently complied with the harmonisation of criminal law and the establishment of minimum rules relating to the constituent elements and penalties in the field of terrorism, as required by the Amsterdam Treaty. Article 4.1 obliges Member States to ensure that inciting or aiding or abetting an offence referred to in articles 1(1),2 and 3, is made punishable and Article 5 ensures this behaviour is heavily punished. However, these rules only apply when inciting or abetting refers to the serious acts covered by the Framework Decision which, furthermore, require an specific terrorist intent.

At present, the Commission is not envisaging the definition of new terrorist offences. It must be borne in mind that the Union's legislative action must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

In this sense, Recital 10 of the Framework Decision clarifies that nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict fundamental rights or freedoms such as the right to strike, freedom of assembly, of association or of expression. The Commission opinion is to be extremely cautious when proposing to incriminate acts on terrorist grounds, as a very extensive conception, contrary to the de minimis principle, could put fundamental rights at stake.

(1) OJ L 164, 22.6.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/02 by Ralf Walter (PSE) to the Commission. EU subsidies for Rheinland-Pfalz in 2001.



Official Journal 161 E , 10/07/2003 P. 0006 - 0006



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/02 by Ralf Walter (PSE) to the Commission (14 March 2002) Subject: EU subsidies for Rheinland-Pfalz in 2001 What EU funds did Rheinland-Pfalz receive in 2001, and under what measures, from: 1. the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), 2. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guidance section, 3. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee section, 4. the European Social Fund (ESF), 5. the EC research programmes, 6. the EC programmes for environment, 7. other EC programmes? Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-0725/02 and E-1943/02given by Prodi on behalf of the Commission (22 November 2002) Because of the length and detail of the answer, the Commission is transmitting it direct to the Honourable Members and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2775/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Allergic reactions to EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins

On 12 September this year the magazine Nature published an article based on a study, carried out by the dermatology department of Zurich University, confirming that EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins can cause a rash when in contact with human sweat.

Since the euro first came into circulation there have been many reports in the media that the nickel used to make the EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins can produce allergic reactions on contact with skin and sweat.

In view of these reports the Commission, in a press report published on 11 January last, expressed doubts as to whether possible allergies were caused by the new coins, arguing that the nickel they contain was not on the surface and therefore did not come into contact with the skin. At the same time it suggested that allergies might be caused by the nickel in the coins of the national currencies which at the time were in circulation together with the euro.

These arguments were subsequently reflected in the Commission's answer to Parliament's Written Question E-0851/02(1) of 28 May.

What view does the Commission take of the Zurich University study?

Does it consider, in view of the information available to date, that specific scientific research should be carried out on the possible health consequences for those engaged in occupations entailing frequent contact with these coins?

What measures is the Commission considering taking to reassure public opinion, in particular the sections of the population most affected?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2002)

This conclusion drawn by the authors of the study in question is misleading, as the results were generated by sticking EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins to the skin of patients with a known nickel allergy for 48-72 hours. After this period, they showed an allergic reaction. As these conditions clearly do not reflect the normal use of the euro coins, the Commission does not see the need to revise its opinion concerning the use of nickel in euro coins. The Commission still holds the view that the normal use of euro coins does not represent a risk for European citizens.

The Commission will follow-up all new scientific findings and technological developments in this particular area; however it does not intend to conduct additional scientific research.

The introduction of the euro coins reduced the share of coins in circulation containing nickel from 75 % to 14 %. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy which can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence of a recent increase in nickel allergies among European citizens.

These conclusions were confirmed by a recent independent study, which showed that the amount of nickel released from the 1- and 2 euro coins is significantly lower than from the national coins used prior to the introduction of the euro.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0212/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Persistence of exchange rates within the euro Union

It is now two years since the official introduction of the euro in the form of cheques and postal orders, and one month since the introduction of euro notes and coins throughout the Union. All exchange rate charges between banks within the euro zone should have disappeared, but the fact is this is simply not so.

Cheques issued in one country of the euro zone and cashed in another are still subject to the same bank charges; withdrawal of cash or visa card payments in a country other than that of issue are charged for; even international transfers between accounts are still subject to significant bank charges, which used to be justified in the past in terms of exchange rate operations which no longer take place. These abuses are an affront to the principle of freedom of movement of capital and services provided for in the Treaty of Rome, and to the single financial market, whose establishment was so trumpeted by the Treaty of Maastricht.

They completely nullify the main advantage claimed by the backers of the single currency, namely the disappearance of exchange rate charges.

Is the Commission going to put an end to these manifest affronts to the freedom of movement of capital services and to the principle of a single financial market?

Does the fact that bank charges remain as high as ever, despite the fact that they are no longer subject to exchange rate fluctuations, not constitute an abuse?

Does the fact that this abuse is standard practice not point to illegal understandings between various of the major players within the European banking system?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2002)

The Commission's interest in the cost of cross-border transactions goes back more than ten years. Its aim is to create a single payments area within which there will be no difference between a domestic payment and a cross-border payment. It was with this in mind that in July 2001 the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation that stipulated among other things that charges for cross-border payments in euros should be identical to charges levied on euro transactions within the country of origin.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euros(1) was adopted on 19 December 2001 and some of its provisions entered into force on 31 December 2001. Where denominated in euros, charges for cash withdrawals at automated teller machines and for using payment cards must be identical in the case of domestic and cross-border transactions as of 1 July 2002. Until that date, banks and credit card companies may retain a different price structure for cross-border payments in euros.

The same principle of equality of charges between a strictly domestic payment and a cross-border payment in euros will apply to transfers as from 1 July 2003.

However, this principle will not apply to cheques (see here the Commission's reply to Written Question E-3681/01 by Mrs Banotti(2)).

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2) See page 2.