ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2721/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Views expressed by Commissioner Patten regarding Albania

On 9 September 2002 Commissioner Chris Patten replied to my question E-1937/02(1) to the effect that the Commission knew of no international commitments by Albania regarding autonomy for the south of the country.

The Commissioner's statement is both startling and totally inaccurate. In view of the internationally agreed Corfu Protocol of 17 May 1914 which was signed by International Control Committee (of which Chris Patten's compatriot the British plenipotentiary Lamb was a member) and Albania. The protocol recognises the right of the area concerned to separate administration, and guarantees the protection of Greek schools and Christian churches in Albania. In October 1921, Albania became a member of the League of Nations and the Albanian Government representative Fan Nali issued an official statement concerning respect by Albania for the human, religious and ethnic rights of the Greek community of Northern Epirus. Albania gave its agreement to the opening of Greek schools only to close them down later.

Why did the Commissioner maintain that he knew of no international commitments concerning autonomy for Southern Albania given that such arrangements were agreed to by his own country and by the Albanian authorities. Now that he and his staff (who appear to be placing him in a compromising position) have been informed of the existence of the international protocol signed by the plenipotentiaries of the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, France, Russia, Italy and Albania, what is his position? Why does the EU not bring pressure to bear on Albania to implement the protocol so as to protect the human rights of the Greek community in the south of the country?

(1) See page 34.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Commission is continuously monitoring the issue of minority protection, including the protection of the Greek minority, in Albania. It is aware of the 1914 Corfu Protocol. As indicated on previous occasions, the Commission considers that Albania's attitude to this question is generally constructive. However, the Commission is well aware that there is still room for improvement, and that Albania does not comply yet with all international requirements in this field. This is why the Commission continues to encourage the Albanian authorities to take concrete action rapidly to meet all international standards, and notably those deriving from the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to which Albania is a signatory. The next Consultative Task Force which will take place before the opening of the SAA negotiations will provide the opportunity to raise this issue again.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3694/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: St Lucia

With regard to St Lucia, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3281/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Electronic games

In reply to my question No H-0522/02 concerning the draft law on electric, electro-mechanical and electronic games(1), which was to be debated in the Greek Parliament, the Commission said that it could not comment at that particular time. The Commission also stated that it had received information concerning the probable intention of the Greek authorities to ban the use of such games except in casinos and that it had asked the Greek authorities to inform it about the current framework law governing the use of equipment for games of chance and games for amusement. The Commission also asked the Greek authorities for clarification of their intentions in relation to any new legislation on this matter. At present, the subject is covered by Law 3037/2002 which entirely prohibits the use of such games.

Did the Greek authorities notify the Commission of Law 3037/2002 in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC(2)? If so, is that law consistent with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 49, 50, 43, 45 and 28 of the EC Treaty? What does the Commission intend to do should this law prove to be contrary to the Treaties?

(1) Written answer of 2.7.2002.

(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The Greek law 3037/2002 seems to introduce a complete ban as from 1 August 2002, on the installation and operation of all electric, electronic and electromechanical games, amusement-technical games and all games used by means of computers, in all public or private places except for casinos.

The Commission has examined complaints concerning certain provisions of the legislation in question in the light of Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods.

In this respect, this law could be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports, prohibited by Article 28 of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the ban appears to be disproportionate as to the aims pursued and does not seem to be justified under the grounds provided by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or the mandatory requirements accepted by the Court of Justice. Therefore, a letter of formal notice in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty has been sent to the Greek authorities.

Following the questions of the Honourable MEPs, the Commission' services are ready to examine elements of the law falling under Article 43 of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and under Article 49 on the free provision of services, as well as with regard to the obligations of Member States under Directive 98/34/EC(1).

(1) Directive 98/34 as modified by Directive 98/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Mass repatriation of Afghan refugees

The prevailing insecurity in Afghanistan, which is related to the climate of violence in the country ongoing conflict, crime, banditry, the violation of women's rights, the presence of mines and the American forces' bombing campaign together with the incapacity to absorb repatriated Afghans, are a direct threat to the safe return of Afghan refugees who are displaced internally in the country and abroad.

In its report entitled Continuing need for protection and standards for return of Afghan refugees, Amnesty International expresses concern at the policy of mass repatriation promoted by the UNHCR in cooperation with the countries sheltering Afghan refugees, stressing that, in such circumstances, international standards should apply, as they are of vital importance to ensure that Afghan refugees can return in safety and dignity. Otherwise, the organisation warns that the situation may result in renewed cycles of displacement.

Will the Commission intervene to prevent the use of compulsory and coercive measures to return to Afghanistan refugees who may suffer serious human rights abuses, and to ensure that international standards of protection for refugees are applied?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to Oral Question H-0666/02 from Mr Lund(1) at Parliament's October 2002 Part-Session II.

(1) Written Answer of 22.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Total value of past spending under the 2002 Portuguese budget

All that the Commission's reply to my question E-3042/02(1) does is to add some factual data which helps one to grasp the scale of the issue. In fact, with the amending budget assigning 1,6 % of GDP to correcting past situations, how is one to understand that this amount is now estimated at 3 % and adds spending not balanced in 2002?

This is the question I put. Could I please have it answered?

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The written question of the Honourable Member explicitly refers to the answer given by the Commission to his previous written question E-3042/02. In its task of budgetary surveillance, official documents (e.g. budget reports), and the information transmitted regularly on the basis of the relevant legislation (e.g. the semi-annual deficit and debt notification(1)) play a predominant role as sources of information. In written question E-3042/02, the Honourable Member refers to some press reports, according to which expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002 would amount to 3 % of gross domestic production (GDP). This value differs from the official estimate in the 2002 rectifying budget report, which puts the amount of expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002 at 1,6 % of GDP(2). The Commission is not aware of any other official projection for the amount of expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002.

Moreover, according to the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA 95), expenditure is recorded on an accrual basis and not on a cash basis. This means that the amount of expenditure arrears to be regularised in 2002 has no impact on the general government deficit for that year, as this spending is registered in the years the respective liabilities were incurred, and not when the actual payments are made. The only impact would be on the debt level for 2002.

(1) Council regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deificit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the Community OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.

(2) Relatório da Proposta de Alteração à Lei do Orçamento para 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1761/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(1) of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) provides for compensatory allowances for farmers in less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions. Numerous Greek farmers, who live in areas of Greece subject to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance, fall into the latter category.

In the case of Greece, such compensatory allowances may total up to EUR 100 per hectare.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does Greece apply Regulation 1257/1999?

2. Has it submitted, from the outset, programmes to support farmers who are subject to the provisions of Chapter V of the above Regulation, in the context of co-funding?

3. What appropriations are earmarked in the Community budget for the above measures?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

1. Yes, Greece is applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations.

2. Yes, Greece has submitted its rural development plan under the EAGGF Guarantee Section; it was approved by the Commission on 27 September 2000. The plan includes the payment of compensatory allowances in mountain and less-favoured areas under Chapter V of this Regulation. However, Greece is not applying Article 16 of the Regulation on areas subject to environmental restrictions.

3. The amounts for the various rural development measures are set out in the programming documents of the Member States. In the case of Greece, the amount forecast for the payment of compensatory allowances from the EAGGF Guarantee Section in 2000-2006 is EUR 286 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3533/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Ignorance regarding the Portuguese budget

According to its answer to Written Question E-3044/02(1) the Commission does not know about the budget deficit in the public administration sector forecast in the Portuguese budget for 2003. How can the Commission explain its extraordinary ignorance on the subject?

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

An official source for the Portuguese state budget is the government's budget report(1). Therein, the general government deficit target for 2003, on a national accounts basis, is set at 2,4 % of the gross domestic product (GDP)(2).

In its Autumn 2002 economic forecasts, the Commission projected a general government deficit of 2,9 % of GDP for 2003. The economic forecasts for each Member State are presented with a text that summarises both the assumptions made and the results obtained. The paragraph for Portugal referring to the deficit forecast for 2003(3) reads as follows: The [general government deficit] forecast for 2003 is based on the draft budget for that year.

Among the most significant measures included in the budget are:

(i) personal income tax brackets are indexed below inflation;

(ii) half-year minimum payments on account of final corporate taxes are raised substantially;

(iii) the average inflation rate in the EU will be used as the benchmark in all future wage negotiations in the public sector;

(iv) a vast programme of privatisation is planned to bring in EUR 1 500 million in revenue, of which 40 % is to be used to repay public debt;

(v) government transfers will continue to grow above nominal GDP, partly due to the decision to progressively raise the minimum pension towards the minimum wage.

The resulting forecast is a deficit slightly below 3 % of GDP, which however is above the budgetary target of 2,4 %. The difference mainly reflects: lower growth than assumed in the budget forecast (1 ¼ as against 1 ¾ %); and the carry-over effect from the deficit slippage estimated for 2002.

(1) The budget report can be downloaded in www.dgep.pt.

(2) Table II, p. 39.

(3) Autumn 2002, Economic Forecasts, European Economy No 5/2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Somalia

With reference to Somalia, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Senegal

With regard to Senegal, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3066/02

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Motor racing events and EU law

Is it possible for an organisation such as the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile to restrict the rights of EU citizens to compete in motor racing events in countries other than their own? In the past, a full racing licence issued in any EU country has allowed its holder to compete in any event organised in another EU country. Would such restrictive action breach EU law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

As the Court of Justice has consistently held (see, for example, the Bosman judgment of 15 December 1995, case C-415/93), sport is subject to Community law insofar as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty, which is the case with participation in motor racing events.

The Commission is unable to comment on whether restrictions on competing in this type of event are admissible, on account of the lack of other details or sufficiently clear and precise information in the question put by the Honourable Member.

On a general level, however, the Commission would point out that the provisions of Community law concerning freedom of movement of persons and of provision of services do not preclude rules or practices in the field of sport which are justified on non-economic grounds and relate to the particular nature and context of certain competitions. In addition, associations or organisations not governed by public law are also compelled to comply with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality and the prohibition of any unjustified and or disproportionate cross-border restrictions on sporting activities, even when applied without distinction.

With regard to Community competition rules, the Commission would point out that a sporting organisation could commit an offence under Article 82 of the EC Treaty if it was in a dominant position and used its regulatory power to exclude from the market, for no objective reason, economic operators who met objective criteria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/02

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Language discrimination in advertisements for vacant posts at European level

1. Is it the Commission's view that the wording English mother tongue or equivalent in advertisements for vacant posts with European organisations is discriminatory?

2. If not, how does the Commission reconcile the principle of non-discrimination with the criterion that applicants must have English mother tongue or equivalent?

3. If so, what steps will the Commission take to put an end to this discriminatory procedure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The EC Treaty and the Staff Regulations of the officials of EU Institutions prohibit any discrimination on the basis of nationality and, naturally, the Commission respects the provisions of the Treaty and the Regulations in full.

Clearly, a specific language requirement in the publication of a post may have the effect of discriminating against nationals of other Member States. However, such differenciation could be objectively justified, for instance by the nature of a specific post and the precise functions to be performed. In particular, appointments to translators and interpreters posts necessitate a depth of knowledge of specific languages, depending on the needs of the Institution.

In order to judge whether the inclusion of a language requirement in a publication of a particular post could be considered to be discriminatory it is therefore necessary to obtain more information about the post in question. If the Honourable Member would be kind enough to provide me with details of the advertisement/s to which he is referring in his question, I will ensure that the material receives thorough attention in order to establish whether unwarranted discrimination is evident in this case.