ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0523/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Private radio and television media in the European Union

According to statistics of the European observatory for television and radio broadcasting, there are currently 843 television and 1 424 radio broadcasting companies in the European Union, and many of these are private.

Will the Commission say what is the status of the private radio and television media in Greece and in particular whether frequency owners are required to pay for occupying frequencies?

Will it also say whether Directive 89/552/EEC(1), as amended in 1997, and particularly the provisions of Chapter II, Article 2(1) and Article 3(2) and Chapter VII, Article 25(2) on controls on compliance with the rules governing the activities of radio and television broadcasting channels are being implemented?

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The Television without frontiers Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 199(1) 1, (hereafter the TVWF Directive)) provides that Member States shall ensure freedom of reception on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States (Article 2a(1)). The TVWF Directive is based on Internal Market principles, notably, the application of the rules of the country of origin.

The granting of licences for television broadcasting falls within the competence of the Member States, subject to compliance with the general principles of the EC Treaty relating in particular to the freedom to provide services. Also the access to networks and the allocation of frequencies insofar as they are not covered by other Community Directives concerning networks and access (the Electronic Communications package) are within the competence of the Member State. According to Article 25(2) of the TVWF Directive, Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law that they adopt in the fields governed by the Directive. Member States therefore had no duty to inform the Commission on their licensing procedures.

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0442/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Study of regional policy in Arctic regions

The Commission's recent progress report on economic and social cohesion(1) highlights the fact that the Commission is undertaking studies of regions suffering from permanent natural handicaps. It is also organising a number of seminars to consider the problems of these regions.

The Commission is planning to carry out two studies, one on island regions and one on mountain areas. The aim is to collect information about the factors that hamper regional development. At the same time, the intention is to discuss the development needs of the regions and methods whereby new development can be initiated in those areas.

Will the Commission also carry out a study of the needs of the sparsely settled region in the North and methods of developing it? How will it address the problems of these regions when arranging the various seminars to prepare future EU regional policy?

(1) COM(2002) 46.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

As it stated in its First progress report on economic and social cohesion(1), the Commission has requested two studies, one on island regions and the other on mountain areas, in order to carry out an objective diagnosis of their situation. The study on mountain areas includes the Arctic areas, in this case those located north of the 62nd parallel. The study is intended to quantify and assess the handicaps affecting these areas, describe their specific needs and look at the actions and policies developed by the Member States and the Union and the impact they have had.

Moreover, the question of the northern areas with a low population density will be on the agenda for the seminar on territorial priorities to be held on 27 and 28 May 2002 in Brussels to which Parliament will be invited and will also be covered in the workshop on the European integration of the regions. These seminars will seek to assess whether there is, for each priority, a field of Community assistance to be defined which would in future constitute an area of eligibility under the Structural Funds.

(1) COM(2002) 46 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0142/02

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Creation of anti-globalisation units and a database for demonstrators

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.

Is the Council aware of these measures taken by the Spanish Government and can it confirm them?

In relation to the database in particular, how does the Council envisage protecting the demonstrators' right of 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 E-0169/02

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Executions in China

China holds the unenviable world record in executions, of which there were more than 2 000 in 2001 alone. Chinese law provides for the death sentence for a wide range of offences, including, in some cases, embezzlement, the establishment of illegal sects, which are subject to widespread political manipulation, thereby depriving citizens of their right to freedom.

Would the Council, which stands as guarantor of human rights as upheld by the European Union, not agree that the participation of European countries in the 2008 Olympics in China should be reconsidered?

Would it not agree that European countries should withdraw their support from the 2008 Olympics in China unless appropriate institutional reforms are immediately introduced?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's concern at the apparent scope and scale of the use of the death penalty in China. It is a concern that the European Union has frequently expressed to the Chinese authorities. The Council has also sought to obtain clear statistics from the Chinese government on the number of people condemned to death and those executed, so far, sadly, without success.

The Council has not considered urging Member States not to participate in the 2008 Olympics as a useful means of pursuing its objective of ending capital punishment in China.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Congo

With reference to Congo, can the Commission say which projects were funded from the EU budget in the 2000 financial year?

Can it also provide details of the total aid provided to the country under all the relevant budget headings in 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0732/02, E-0733/02, E-0734/02, E-0735/02, E-0736/02,E-0737/02, E-0738/02, E-0739/02, E-0740/02 and E-0741/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/02

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

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Internal constitutional political entities and the Laeken Declaration

The Spanish Head of Government and the Foreign Minister, when taking over the presidency of the Council, repeatedly denied the right of the autonomous regions of the Spanish State to be present at Council meetings when issues under their political competence are being discussed.

Spanish government leaders consider that because, according to the Spanish Constitution, sovereignty in international relations belongs to the State, it is impossible for a minister of an autonomous region to represent the State in the Council, even if accompanying a central government minister.

Since the Laeken Declaration recognises that internal constitutional entities and their political competences (in States where they exist) must be considered in the reform and constitutionalisation of the Treaties it being moreover evident that in countries such as Germany, Belgium, Austria or the United Kingdom internal constitutional entities (Länder, constitutional regions, federal states, regions, etc.) are, where relevant, present at Council meetings what difference can there be between the constitutions of these countries and the Spanish Constitution to justify the discrimination against the Spanish autonomous regions advocated by the Spanish Head of Government?

Why does the Spanish Head of Government take this attitude at the very time when Spain is taking over the presidency of the Council and work is beginning on the Convention which is to implement the Laeken Declaration?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

Article 203 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. Subject to this provision it is for each Member State to decide how it is represented.

The Council does not therefore have a view on this issue, nor would it be appropriate for it to do so. Equally, it would not be appropriate for the Presidency to comment on matters which fall within the competence of the Spanish government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Food products containing toys

Suffocation is one of the most common accidents amongst children in the EU. Death by suffocation occurs when children are still at the oral development stage and instinctively place things in their mouth.

In recent years there has been increasing concern over new food products which contain toys. Such concern has arisen because of statistics which reveal that children are dying as a result of suffocation caused by toys contained in food products, such as cereals and chocolate eggs.

Does the Commission not think that specific action should be taken in order to protect children from the risks inherent in toys contained in food products?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1008/02 and E-1218/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission has already answered several previous parliamentary questions on the issue raised by the Honourable Member. He is therefore asked to refer to the joint answers given to Written Questions E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos(1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(2).

(1) See page 153.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0678/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2002)

Subject: Secondment of Commission officials to other Community institutions

Under Article 37 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Commission officials can be temporarily seconded in the interests of the service to other Community institutions or to persons holding an office in these institutions.

Can the Commission state how many of its officials, listed according to the individual institutions, are currently on secondment in the interests of the service?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, as of 21 March 2002 27 Commission officials are on secondment in the interests of the service to other Community Institutions (Economic and Social Committee: 1; Council of Ministers: 5; European Court of Justice: 12; Court of Auditors: 2; European Parliament: 7).

A further 20 officials are seconded in the interests of the service to other organisations, in particular Agencies and other European and non-European bodies.

The Commission also has an exchange programme between its officials and staff from Member States' national and regional administrations, international organisations etc. 30 Commission officials are at present seconded in that context.

A detailed list according to the individual institutions and organisations will be transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/02

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

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Opening of Chilean ports to unloading by EU fishing vessels

Despite the EU-Chile agreement reached in January 2001, following a complaint to the WTO by the Commission (at the urging of EU shipowners), the Chilean authorities are still maintaining obstructive practices, enforcing a set of rules and controls over catch unloading in international waters which have given rise to repeated complaints from the EU fisheries sector.

1. Is the Commission aware of these Chilean rules, which may be in breach of international law?

2. Is the Commission aware of the Chilean authorities' obstructive practices vis-à-vis the EU fleet?

3. Can the Commission state what action it has taken or intends to take with regard to Chile in this context?

4. What measures has the Commission taken with a view to establishing a Regional Fisheries Organisation for the southern Pacific, which would manage fish stocks in international waters which are of major interest for the EU fleet?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

In January 2001 the Community and Chile came to an arrangement that allowed temporary suspension of the proceedings initiated by the Community in the World Trade Organisation and by Chile at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

The Community's complaint to the WTO was over the Chilean rules held to obstruct access to Chilean ports for landings and transhipments by Community vessels operating in international waters.

The Commission is closely monitoring implementation of the arrangements of 25 January 2001. It has held several meetings with the Chilean authorities in order to settle all practical points of detail with particular reference to launching of the joint fishing programme. Given the particular allocation of responsibilities the Spanish authorities have also been directly involved in these meetings. Most of the technical points having now been settled, the Commission awaits, for transmission to Chile and launching of the programme, the list of Spanish vessels that are to participate.

On creation of a new OFR for the South East Pacific, following the latest contacts between the Commission and the Chilean authorities an international consultation will be held in Chile in May. The Community and Chile have invited a number of parties with an interest in swordfish fishing in the South East Pacific. The main aim will be to determine terms of reference and the most appropriate form of multilateral cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0104/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Helms-Burton Act

1. Will the Commission estimate the number of EU citizens who have been refused access to the United States following action under the Helms-Burton Act and other similar extra-territorial US laws?

2. Will the Commission state its position vis-à-vis this matter, what representations have been made, and with what success?

3. Will the Commission also indicate whether any EU Member State applies similar laws concerning property in third countries that now prohibit the entry of any US citizens?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

Title IV of the United States Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, empowers the United States Secretary of State to deny entry into the United States to non-American nationals who, following the Cuban revolution in 1959, confiscated American property on Cuba or trafficked in confiscated American property on Cuba. This applies equally, irrespective of nationality, to key executives and shareholders of companies involved in such activities as well as families of such persons.

Since the adoption of the Helms-Burton Act, the European Union has continuously opposed this unilateral and extraterritorial US law. On 11 April 1997 and 18 May 1998, two understandings were reached with the United States Administration regarding the common efforts to promote democracy in Cuba and to develop agreed disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection. In particular, the United States Administration declared its willingness to continue to consult with the United States Congress with a view to obtaining a waiver authority for Title IV.

These consultations have not yet led to a suspension of Title IV. However, the Commission is not aware of any action taken against Union nationals under Title IV since the agreements were reached in 1997 and 1998. As far as the Commission knows, only one Union national is subject to Title IV sanctions which, however, predate the understandings. It should nevertheless be noted that the Commission can only be aware of cases of which it has been informed, notably in the case of Union nationals working for non Union companies.

The Commission continues systematically to raise this matter with the United States in the framework of its bilateral contacts under the Union-United States New Transatlantic Agenda expressing its opposition to any unilateral and extraterritorial sanction law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and its concerns about the lack of a waiver authority for Title IV of the Act.

Finally, the Commission is not aware of any measure applied by Member States similar to the Helms-Burton Act.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/02

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

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Internet access in rural parts of Galicia

There are 80 000 homes and businesses in Galicia which have no telephone line and which were provided, up to 1992, with telephones linked to the Rural Cellular Access Telephone Network in Galicia, a system which cannot currently be linked to the Internet.

According to some sources, neither the Galician Government nor the Spanish Government wish to bear the cost of the investment necessary to convert this system and replace it with a system allowing Internet access, and the Spanish Government has stated that it is waiting for the Commission to declare the Internet to be a universal service, which would make it possible to use ERDF funds.

What stage has been reached on this matter? When will these 80 000 households and businesses in Galicia be able to gain access to the Internet?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Commission approved the Information Society Operational Programme of the Community support framework for the Spanish Objective 1 regions for the 2000-2006 programming period on 13 December 2001. Under it the Union will contribute 446 568 000 from the European Regional Development Fund to implement nine major

information society development priorities in the least favoured parts of Spain. With Spain providing the other half of the financing, total public investment of almost EUR 1 billion will be available for that period. This OP is multi-regional in character and there is no prior regional allocation of the finance.

The programme includes a major project for telecommunications infrastructure that will provide Internet access for 250 000 people in rural areas who still have only analogue technology. This major project concerns the TRAC rural cellular access telephone network.

Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) requires a Member State which envisages the Funds contributing to a major project to inform the Commission in advance and provide all the information specified in that Article. The Commission has not yet received that information and so cannot comment on the project's impact in Galicia.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0575/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Council position on the situation in Western Sahara

In view of the opinion delivered by the UN Legal Affairs Department on 29 January 2002 concerning the legal implications of contracts signed by the Kingdom of Morocco with oil companies to explore for mineral resources on the Saharan coast, what is the Council's common position on the matter? What stance does it take regarding this assessment of the sovereignty and status of administrative power exercised by the Kingdom of Morocco?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0453/02 and P-0575/02

(26 June 2002)

The Western Sahara question is currently being debated in the UN Security Council. The Council is following the discussions closely and fully supports the efforts of the UN to find a lasting and stable solution. It is in regular contact with the UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy, Mr James Baker and with all parties to the conflict and is willing to contribute to establishing a climate of confidence between the parties concerned in order to facilitate an acceptable solution.

The Council has to date not adopted a formal position on the opinion delivered by the UN Legal Affairs Department.