ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0461/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Closure of Ellinikon Airport in Athens

The new Athens airport at Spata began operating recently, and in the meantime the Greek authorities have decided to close Ellinikon Airport which previously served Athens. This decision raises many questions, for example: what would happen in an emergency if Spata Airport were closed, since no alternative airport would be available? Recently, this scenario actually occurred and Spata Airport was closed due to heavy snowfall, and many flights had to be cancelled, causing hardship for hundreds of citizens.

According to Greek press reports, the closure of Ellinikon Airport will create many problems, for example Olympic Airways is unable to move to Spata Airport, the EKAV (national emergency care centre) air transport system is in disarray and private aviation schools

are facing enormous difficulties. As the President of the Federation of Pilots and Aircraft Owners has said, Closing Ellinikon Airport will not only cause problems for pilot training, it will destroy it completely .

What is the Commission's view about the closure of Ellinikon Airport? Did the Greek authorities consult it before closing this airport? Is it aware of any other instances in other EU countries in which the opening of a new airport has led to the closing of an existing one? Which EU capitals have more than one airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Decisions on the construction and development of airport infrastructure as well as the allocation of public funds among airports of a Member State, fall under the responsibility of the authorities of that Member State. Similarly, decisions on the closure of an airport are also the responsibility of the national authorities concerned. The Commission is therefore not in a position to comment on the closing down of Hellinikon airport.

The Commission was not consulted by the Greek authorities before they took the decision to close Hellinikon airport. There was no obligation or need for the Greek authorities to do so.

The old Riem airport of Munich, Germany, was closed down in 1992 when the new Erding airport was opened.

The capitals within the Union which are served by more than one airport are Berlin (Schoenefeld, Tegel, Tempelhof), Paris (Charles de Gaulle, Orly), Rome (Fiumicino, Ciampino, Urbe), Stockholm (Arlanda, Bromma, Skavsta) and London (City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2337/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Circus animals

The very nature of travelling circuses and menageries means that proper enriched enclosures and exercise facilities for animals can never be provided, and legislation cannot define suitable conditions. Does the Commission agree that it would be much easier and more easily enforceable if a complete ban on the use of performing animals in circuses was imposed? In the short term this may mean some animals will have to be given to sanctuaries or even killed. In the long term there will be no more double (or triple) standards in animal welfare laws, with one set of standards for pets, another for farm animals and yet another for performing animals.

Answer given by M. Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Protocol on the protection and the welfare of animals annexed to the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam states that the Community shall pay full regard to the welfare of animals in formulating Community policies on agriculture, transport, the internal market and research. It also stresses that religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage of Member States shall be respected.

Circuses would certainly be regarded as belonging to a long cultural tradition in some, if not the majority of Member States and the use of animals in these performances could be seen as part of this tradition.

The Commission is, moreover, of the opinion that there is currently no legal basis in Community law that would permit the introduction at Community level of a ban on all performing animals at circuses on animal welfare grounds.

Furthermore, in the absence of evidence that divergent national approaches were hindering the functioning of the internal market or other relevant Community objectives laid down in the EC Treaty, the Community's power to act on circuses is very limited. Therefore, the decision whether to ban animal performances at such events or to define under which welfare conditions they should be accepted remains a matter under the sole responsibility of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Euro: quantities of nickel and tributyl tin (TBT) used in the production of coins and banknotes, and their effects on human health

Given that the 1 and 2 euro coins contain nickel and that tributyl tin (TBT) is used as a colour stabiliser in the production of banknotes, can the Commission say whether:

- the quantity of nickel used in the 1 and 2 euro coins could constitute a health hazard? Did the Commission carry out research or seek scientific advice before the coins were minted?

- TBT has been used in the production of banknotes, and if so, of what denomination? Could the quantities used constitute a health hazard? Did the Commission carry out research or seek scientific advice before the banknotes were put into production?

- the 1 and 2 euro coins could have been produced using a less toxic material than nickel, and a less toxic colour stabiliser than TBT could have been used for the banknotes?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Before the production of the euro coins the Commission did undertake scientific research on the issue, and no conclusive scientific evidence was found against the use of nickel.

The nickel used in 1-euro and 2-euro coins is essentially contained inside the alloy, thus skin contact with nickel is limited.

The presence of nickel is necessary to implement techniques minimising the risk of counterfeiting. Since 1 and 2 euro coins demand a particularly high level of security, nickel is needed in the production of these high-quality coins. Nevertheless, the rate of coins that contain nickel is currently considerably smaller than with the previous national coins (14 % of euro coins contain nickel as opposed to 75 % of the national coins that were in circulation).

The decision on the technical specifications of the banknotes was taken by the European Monetary Institute (EMI), and the matter is presently of the competence of the European Central Bank (ECB).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1985/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Commission investigation into sugar cartel

In reply to Oral Question H-0401/02(1), by the author of the present question, Commissioner Monti stated that the Commission had conducted an investigation, finishing in 2001, following which it had concluded that there is no cartel in the sugar industry in the EU.

Can the Community provide copies of the relevant documents?

(1) Oral reply of 11.6.2002.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

In reply to Oral Question H-0401/02 by the Honourable Member during question time at Parliament's June 2002 part-session, the Commission stated that it had received a complaint at the end of 2000 and had investigated the matter in the course of 2001.

The complainant claimed to have been the victim of a refusal to supply on the part of sugar producers from a certain Member State. As such, the allegation did not concern a price agreement and/or market sharing at European level.

The complainant subsequently withdrew his complaint and, given that the circumstances of the case did not justify continuing the investigation on an ipso jure basis, the Commission decided to regard the matter as closed. In these circumstances, the Commission is unable to provide the documents requested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1898/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Request for a report on the amount of EU aid supplied to the countries in which most illegal immigrants originate

EU development cooperation plays a strategic role in the prevention of immigration from outside the Community.

Unfortunately, not all the countries which receive EU aid cooperate actively with the EU Member States in combating illegal immigration and in clamping down on trafficking in human beings.

Should research not be carried out into the methods and the extent of those countries' cooperation in the fight against illegal immigration?

How much aid is supplied by the EU to the countries in which most illegal immigrants originate?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

The Commission regards its development cooperation policy as playing an essential part in bringing major migratory flows under control in the longer term. With this in view, it shortly plans to present a communication on Development and Migration which should shed light on ways of tackling the underlying causes of this phenomenon.

As part of preparations for the Seville European Council of June 2002, certain Member States raised the issue of how to deal with third countries regarded as not cooperating actively enough with the Union to combat illegal immigration. The Commission endorses the balanced approach reflected in the conclusions adopted at Seville.

Those conclusions highlight the importance of an integrated, comprehensive approach which tackles the root causes of illegal immigration, and of the role played by economic cooperation, trade expansion, development assistance and conflict prevention. However, it should be remembered that migration is inextricably linked to differences in living standards and increasing inequality between countries and regions of the world.

The European Council also calls for a systematic assessment to be made of relations with third countries which do not cooperate in combating illegal immigration; that assessment will be taken into account in respect of relations in all relevant areas between the European Union and the countries concerned. The Commission will contribute to this exercise.

As for the importance of aid paid to countries of origin, more detailed information on immigration and asylum will be provided in the report on the effectiveness of financial resources available at Community level which the European Council has requested the Commission to submit by end-October.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Violation of the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information

In Italy, where the number of telephone calls tapped by the judicial authorities has now reached Orwellian proportions, there is a huge furore over the eavesdropping on Il Giornale journalist Marco Chiocci.

Mr Chiocci had in fact been the subject of a three-year campaign ordered by the Rome Public Prosecutors Office during which all his private and professional calls were tapped.

Other, no less serious, cases have also been reported by representative bodies of the press and of the body of journalists.

Does the Council consider that this widespread behaviour on the part of Italian magistrates constitutes serious and repeated violation of the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information, as specifically provided for in Recommendation No R (2000) 7 of 8 March 2000 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to member states on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information, and in particular Principle 6 thereof, which aims at ensuring that a mere interception order, surveillance order or search and seizure order does not circumvent the protection of journalists sources [of information] or be applied in a way which lowers this protection'?

Reply

(8 October 2002)

Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the exercise of responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security is a matter for the Member States. It is not for the Council to take a position on the measures taken in that context by a Member State in an individual case.

The recommendation mentioned by the Honourable Member has been adopted in the framework of the Council of Europe. The Council of the European Union is not in a position to determine whether it has been violated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1004/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Council

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Honouring the commitments made to women in connection with the Afghanistan reconstruction process

On 13 December 2001, Parliament called for the granting of international aid for the reconstruction of Afghanistan to be made conditional on the participation of women in the decision-making process and in determining the use of such aid, and also called on the donor countries (and, in particular, the EU) to ensure that Afghan women were the direct beneficiaries of between 25 % and 30 % of the financial aid provided for reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Is the Council intending to monitor these commitments relating to women and the granting of financial aid by the European Union?

Is the Council intending to support Parliament's suggestion that the UN should appoint a woman rapporteur for sex equality, whose task would be to supervise compliance with the commitments made in respect of women during the transition and reconstruction process in Afghanistan?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1. The Council fully supports the objective to promote the role of Afghan women in society in general, and in particular their participation in the political decision making process. The Council has also repeatedly underlined that the EU's reconstruction aid is conditional on all Afghan parties contributing positively to the process and the goals agreed in the Bonn peace agreement. The Council will therefore continue to encourage the successive Afghan administrations to implement the generally accepted principles enshrined in international instruments to which Afghanistan is a party, including the respect of human rights without any discrimination based on gender, religion or ethnicity.

2. In its latest conclusions on Afghanistan adopted on 15 April 2002, the Council stated explicitly that:

(13) The EU considers that Afghan women must enjoy all human rights as well as equal access to health care, education and employment, have the opportunity to participate on equal terms in the political and

social life of their country, and be able to play a central role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The EU will therefore ensure a gender-sensitive approach in its activities, including in development assistance.

3. The Council will seek to ensure that Afghan women will be direct beneficiaries of a significant percentage of the international reconstruction aid. The Presidency and the Commission, in their role as co-chairs of the Steering Committee for the Reconstruction of Afghanistan, will contribute to the implementation of these commitments and monitor the evolution.

4. The Council has not discussed the European Parliament's suggestion that the UN should appoint a female Rapporteur of gender equality in Afghanistan, but would consider it whenever it arises.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1377/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Freedom of association in Romania

The Romanian authorities have publicly stated on several occasions that regionally based political parties will be declared unconstitutional. In 1998, a Cluj court for the same reasons outlawed even a foundation called Transylvania Foundation.

Is the Commission of the opinion that this kind of attitudes may violate the right to freedom of association? Has the Commission asked for any explanation to the Romanian authorities? If not, is the Commission going to intervene?

Does the Commission consider that such a decision is compatible with the respect of the democratic criteria established in Copenhagen?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Romanian constitution explicitly provides for freedom of association. Under this provision, political parties, including regionally based parties, should be able to exist. However, the constitution does prohibit organisations whose goals and activities are against the principles of the state (including the sovereignty and integrity of Romania).

The Commission is aware of the specific case of the Pro-Transylvania Foundation whose articles of establishment were found, after several hearings in Romanian courts of Justice, to be unconstitutional. The legal arguments related to the case are complex and involve an assessment of whether the provisions of the Romanian constitution, as they have been interpreted in this case, constitute an unjustified prohibition on the freedom of association. Since Romania is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and considering that the domestic ways of redress have been exhausted, the appropriate body to assess such a case is the European Court of Human Rights.

The criteria for accession to the Union, as set out at the 1993 Copenhagen meeting of the European Council, make explicit reference to the need for stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The right to free association is covered by this criterion and the Commission is fully committed to ensuring that this condition for accession is respected. It will not hesitate to take up any relevant cases in its regular reports on candidate countries' progress towards accession and in its bilateral relations with them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: End-of-Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC

Will the Commission confirm that the deadline for transposition and implementation of the first requirements of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC(1) by Member States was 21 April 2002?

How many Member States had informed the Commission by 22 April 2002 that they had in fact complied with the requirements?

How many Member States had given prior indication to the Commission, or informed the Environment Council, that they would not be in a position to comply with the Directive in accordance with the legislative requirements?

In view of the fact that every Member State appears to have failed to meet the requirements of the legislation, what representations has the Commission made on the subject, and what proposals for reform of the enforcement procedures is it making?

Given the serious implications of this breakdown in EU law-making procedures, has Commissioner Wallström or the President of the Commission raised the issue directly with prime ministers or environment ministers?

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

1. The Commission confirms that the deadline for implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC(1) on end-of-life vehicles was 21 April 2002 (see Article 10 of the Directive).

2. By 22 April 2002, no Member State had communicated to the Commission the measures taken to transpose the Directive into national law.

3. No Member State had given prior indication to the Commission by 22 April 2002 that they would not be in a position to comply with the Directive in accordance with the legislative requirements.

4. In case of non-communication by the Member States of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions brought into force in order to comply with Community Directives within the time limits set out for transposition, the Commission initiates infringement proceedings against the concerned Member States, based on Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The Commission has started this procedure by sending letters of formal notice for non-communication to all Member States. Therefore, the Commission does not envisage any reform of the legislative process or enforcement procedure.

5. Given that the Commission is applying the Treaty provisions concerning non-transposition, and that the procedure is at an early stage, there has been no need for the Commission to raise this issue with Member States directly at ministerial level.

(1) Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2426/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Ending of teaching in the Uighur language in the universities of eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang)

According to the Chinese press agency Xinhua, the principal universities in the majority-Muslim region of Xinjiang will start teaching the most important subjects in Chinese instead of in local languages, notably because students have requested this and in order to keep pace with the growing demands of economic and social development.

This decision, which runs counter to the Chinese constitution, which guarantees teaching in Uighur at university level, was taken in a demographic context in which (although reliable data is not available) the total population of eastern Turkestan is estimated to be 19 million, less than 8 million of whom are Uighurs, with inward migration by Han Chinese put at about 7 000 per day (in 1949, the Han population was estimated to be about 300 000, compared with a Uighur population of 5 million).

The decision, which is in keeping with China's attempts to have Uighur separatism included on the agenda of the International Coalition against Terrorism, appears to be a means of curbing trends amongst Uighurs towards asserting their cultural identity in a region where a wide variety of university courses have been offered in local languages for more than 50 years.

Has the Commission been informed of this decision taken by the Chinese authorities? If so, has it pointed out to them that the repression of the cultural rights of minorities is not part of the war against terrorism agenda? Also, what steps does it intend to take to get the Chinese authorities to revoke their decision to end teaching in the Uighur language in eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang) and hence to abide by their own constitution?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission has taken note of the decision taken by the Chinese authorities that in the future the principal universities of Xinjiang will teach most important subjects in Chinese instead of in local languages.

As the Honourable Member is aware, in the framework of its human rights dialogue with China, the Commission regularly raises the issue of respect for the cultural and religious rights of minorities.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang.