ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3468/01

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 December 2001)

Subject: Nuclear power plant safety standards

Is the Council prepared:

1. to take steps to review the safety standards of all Europe's nuclear power plants?

2. to grant the International Atomic Energy Agency more safety inspection powers?

3. to give the public comprehensive information about the outcome of such inspections?

4. to agree to an amendment to the Euratom Treaty which would result in greater democratisation and greater involvement of the European Parliament?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

The Council would firstly like to stress that a clear distinction needs to be made between the rules governing the safety of nuclear power plants and those governing their security.

In general, the Laeken European Council undertook to maintain a high level of nuclear safety in the Union. It stressed the need to monitor the security and safety of nuclear power stations. It called for regular reports from Member States' atomic energy experts, who would maintain close contact with the Commission.

Chapter 7 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community includes provisions relating to security checks (safeguards).

On the other hand, the Council would like to point out that the safety of nuclear power plants is not of Community but of national competence, as the EAEC Treaty does not contain specific provisions giving powers to the Community in this respect.

As a consequence, no specific legislation setting common safety standards for nuclear installation safety has been developed at EU level. The safety of a nuclear installation is the responsibility of the operator under the control of its authorities in the framework of national legislation.

However, in the context of the IAEA, which issues safety recommendations, and the Convention on Nuclear Safety, to which all Member States as well as Euratom are Parties, safety arrangements in the Member States are already subject to an in-depth peer review.

An amendment of the EAEC Treaty is not a matter for the Council, but for the Intergovernmental Conference; the EU Treaty stipulates in Article 48 that the government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded; the Council has, for the time being, not received such proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/01

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Motor vehicle tax

A German who works in Munich and lives in Hungary regularly commutes by car between the two countries.

Each country, not to mention Austria as the country of transit, imposes different, sometimes contradictory, motor vehicle registration requirements in terms of administrating tax and customs rules, generating severe organisational problems and additional costs for the person concerned.

Does the Council intend, in the foreseeable future, to conclude agreements within the EU and vis-à-vis the applicant countries which provide for recognition of the respective national rules?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as Community law stands at present, Directives 83/182/EEC and 83/183/EEC regulate the question of the taxation of passenger motor vehicles when there is a permanent or temporary transfer to a Member State other than that in which the vehicle is registered.

Negotiations currently under way with the candidate countries envisage that those countries will apply the acquis communautaire, of which the two Directives mentioned above form part, once they have acceded to the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3550/01

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

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Conflict between Israel and Palestine

In view of the worsening conflict between Israel and Palestine, will the Council launch any political action, together with the US, which could be a decisive factor in securing peace and safeguarding the future existence of the two states?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The European Council of Laeken (14 and 15 December 2001) issued a comprehensive declaration setting out the principles underlying the course of action which the EU resolutely continues to pursue, with a view to finding a political solution to the situation in the Middle East. In the light of the recent escalation of violence, the validity of that declaration was reaffirmed on 28 January 2002 by the Council, which has since been keeping a very close eye on developments in that region at all times.

The European Council meeting in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March 2002 adopted a declaration on the Middle East clearly setting out the Union position. Following the hastening of events since then, the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the Union held a special meeting in Luxembourg on 3 April 2002 which ended with the reaffirmation of the principles outlined at Barcelona and the decision to send a high-level mission composed of Mr Picque and Mr Solana to carry the Union's message containing, in particular, an appeal for the full and immediate implementation of UN/Security Council Resolution 1402.

The EU is, of course, aware that its action cannot be effective if undertaken in isolation and avails itself of every opportunity to push for progress through dialogue and cooperation with the other main players. The EU is convinced that resolute and concerted action by the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, the Russian Federation and the Arab countries most concerned is essential and urgent to help reopen the way to political negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 December 2001)

Subject: Conditions for asylum seekers in EU countries

In view of the criticisms by the Belgian Government among others of the new Danish Government's planned changes to aliens policy, will the Commission provide a summary showing how each individual Member State deals with asylum seekers and immigrants, covering the following aspects:

1. Financial aid per asylum seeker;

2. Housing allowance per asylum seeker;

3. Financial aid to recognised refugees;

4. Housing allowance per recognised refugee;

5. Financial aid per child of asylum seekers;

6. Percentage of refugees in open asylum centres;

7. Percentage of refugees in closed asylum centres;

8. Financial aid to adults in reunited families;

9. Financial aid to children of reunited families;

10. Terms of access to education/training for refugees and immigrants from non-EU countries;

11. Terms of access to health care for refugees and immigrants from non-EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission, in 1999, commissioned a study(1), which was delivered at the beginning of November 2000, on the legal framework and administrative practices in the Member States of the European Union regarding reception conditions for asylum seekers, displaced persons and other persons seeking international protection.

The purpose of the study has been to gather information regarding the legal framework and the administrative practices in the Member States with regard to reception conditions for persons seeking international protection, and to analyse and compare the information gathered.

The mapping and comparative analysis of rules and practices cover the following areas:

- arrangements immediately on arrival,

- accommodation,

- access to education,

- means of subsistence,

- medical care,

- access to the labour market,

- detention and restrictions on free movement,

- special treatment for vulnerable groups.

The study further examines the following themes:

- differences in reception conditions with reference to the stage of the asylum procedure and the type of status sought or granted;

- the respective roles of national, regional and local governmental authorities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in handling persons seeking protection;

- co-operation between Member States on asylum matters;

- Member States' proposals to change current national laws or practices.

It seems that the study, both in its comparative part and in the country profiles, will be able to fully provide the information requested.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/immigration_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Investigation into coltan cartel

Within the Belgian parliamentary committee of inquiry on the Great Lakes, a suspicion has been expressed that the professional association of coltan producers, the Tantalium-Niobium International Study Center (TIC), based in Brussels, could be a front for a cartel which controls coltan prices.

A large proportion of coltan production takes place in the Kivu region in eastern Congo, which is occupied by Ugandan and Rwandan troops and by rebels who have their support. Recent UN reports indicate that these countries, which are Congo's neighbours, are keeping the war going because they have an interest in plundering commodities there.

As it is thanks to the proceeds from environmentally damaging exploitation of raw materials that the war is able to continue, has the Commission investigated the possible formation of a cartel by the TIC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the environmental and economic losses experienced by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) because of the protracted situation of conflict within its territory. It has taken note of the findings presented in the Addendum (December 2001) to the United Nations (UN) report on illegal exploitation of natural resources in DRC and follows with interest initiatives like the recent report on coltan trade investigations presented in Brussels by the International Peace Information Service with the support of European non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Even if Coltan exploitation is a major economic interest that can magnify the real security concerns utilised by Rwanda and Burundi to justify their occupation, other countries involved in the conflict are exploiting other resources like diamonds and tropical forest.

It has been reported that a Zimbabwean company whose board comprises military figures has effectively created the world's largest logging concession by gaining rights to exploit 33 millions hectares of tropical forest in DRC, equivalent to 15 % of the whole territory. Such commercial involvement in DRC clearly provides a very strong disincentive to their withdrawal from military intervention.

The Commission, for its part, has not conducted investigations into the raw materials trade and specifically on the role of European producers/traders entertaining commercial relations with DRC. At present there are not compelling reasons to impose sanctions on any of the parties involved in DRC's resources exploitation. The United Nations (UN) Security Council decided on 19 December 2001 to postpone a decision on such an issue for another six months and gave a mandate to the six-member panel of experts to further deepen investigations. An interim report is expected by March 2002. After that, it is hoped to have definitive elements on which the international community could base its action.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/341

(2004/C 78 E/0359)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1746/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Completion of construction of hospitals at Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu

In its answer to my question No E-3160/00 (1) concerning the delay in the construction of the hospitals at Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu, the Commission states that it is ‘disappointed that projects of such importance for Greece's socio-economic development should be so far behind schedule. It will ask the Greek authorities to supply detailed information on the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects and it will not shirk from taking corrective financial measures, if necessary.’ It continues ‘as the various OPs are currently being negotiated, it is not yet possible to state whether these projects will be part-funded under the CSF for the current programming period (2000-2006)’.

1. Has the Commission been informed by the Greek authorities of the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects?

2. What funds were spent from 1994 to 1999 on each of these three projects?

3. Will these projects finally be completed by means of funding from the 3rd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2001)

In a letter dated 19 October 2000 under Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 (2), the Commission asked the Greek authorities for further information about the time lost in the construction of the three hospitals referred to by the Honourable Member and the outlook for their completion.

According to information received from them on 19 January 2001, the construction of the Pirgos hospital is behind schedule because of geological complications while the hold-ups affecting the Katerini and Corfu hospitals should be blamed on the co-contracting party of the public undertaking in charge of building them. The Commission is currently considering what action to take in this matter.

The Community contribution to the construction of the three hospitals in the 1994-99 programming period amounts to EUR 16,6 million for Corfu, EUR 13 million for Katerini and EUR 14,1 million for Pirgos.

Responsibility for selecting the three projects for part-financing under the Community Support Framework (CSF) for the 2000-06 programming period rests first of all with the management authority for each Operational Programme. According to information received from those authorities, there is provision in the CSF for 2000-06 for part-financing to complete all three hospitals.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 84.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Lomé Convention and EU cooperation aid

Can the Commission provide a list of the countries which are in receipt of aid from either the Lomé Convention or from European Development Cooperation where the standard of civil rights accorded to women is inferior to that of men?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Civil rights are defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). It states Civil rights are those rights set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which States undertake to respect. In article 3 of this Covenant the Equality of Rights between Men and Women is explicitly dealt with, which implies i. a. that all human beings should enjoy the rights provided for in the Covenant on an equal basis and in their totality. Consequently, States should ensure to men and women equally the enjoyment of all rights provided for in the Covenant.

Ratification of the CCPR provides, therefore, a standard by which to answer the question. Another internationally agreed standard is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). By ratifying it, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including their civil and political rights. A list of developing countries that have not ratified the above-mentioned treaties is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

It should be recalled that one problem in this approach to answering this question is the extent to which ratification reflects actual implementation. Ratification does not necessarily mean that the signatory has implemented all the legal steps to give full effect to the aims of the Convention. The mechanism for review of this is provided through the Committees established by these treaties to demand regular reporting from the States in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance

Projects which, for various reasons, are not operative or are judged not to be viable are commonplace in Greece. Lack of data, mistakes in studies, incomplete planning and failings in checks carried out by Commission officials have been noted, all of which have had disastrous results in terms of the economy, natural resources and the environment. Typical examples are the Egnatia Highway, the sewage treatment plant at Ermioni, the hydroelectric plant at Ilariona on the River Aliakmonas, the Smokoovo dam, the tunnels at Mouzaki and Pyli Trikalon, the reservoirs on Kalymnos and Lipsi, the forest village at Xanthi and the dams in Aitolo-Akarnia and Parthenio, Leros. Reports frequently appear in the Greek press concerning these projects (e.g. To Vima of 17 February 2002).

Given that management and monitoring have not been carried out in the optimal manner, will the Commission say:

1. what penalties will be imposed on those responsible and the Community officials who carried out the relevant checks in view of the large sums invested in projects and constructions which will never come into operation even though they are finished, such as the Goura bridge and the Metsovo tunnel, and

2. what measures it has taken or proposes to take in response to the failure to complete the above projects and the lack of clarity concerning their cost and the timetable for delivery?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0023/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: Compliance with the Engelbrecht judgment in Belgium

In 2001 I tabled a number of questions about compliance with the Engelbrecht judgment in Belgium (see written questions E-2263/01(1) and P-2638/01(2)). In answer to my questions, the Commission informed me that it had asked the Belgian Government to explain the policy it was pursuing with regard to the judgment given by the Court of Justice. In reply to my questions of 21 September, the Commission informed me that no reply had yet been received from the Belgian Government. I have recently learned through bilateral contacts that the Belgian Government still has not adopted any formal position.

1. Has the Belgian Government still not formally replied to the Commission's request for information, as my informal contacts indicate?

2. As the Belgian Government is not even responding to reminders, will the Commission initiate the procedure provided for by Article 226 of the EC Treaty?

3. If the answer to question 2 is negative, does not the Commission agree that it is undesirable to leave frontier workers in the dark about their pension entitlements? Is it not extremely undesirable for Member States to ignore judgments of the Court of Justice and do everything in their power to frustrate decision-making on the subject?

4. If the answer to question 2 is affirmative, when was the procedure initiated, and has the Belgian Government already responded to it?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 230.

(2) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 198.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has received an answer from the Belgian authorities concerning the measures that they intend to take in order to comply with the judgment delivered on 26 September 2000 in the Engelbrecht case (C-262/97), as regards the treatment of cases similar to that of Mr Engelbrecht.

In fact, the Belgian authorities have sent the Commission the draft of the text containing the measures that they intend to take, with a request for an opinion.

The Commission is currently examining this draft in order to check that the measures planned are a satisfactory response to the above-mentioned case-law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0273/02

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2002)

Subject: Preparation for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked the Commission, the Council and the Member States, each in accordance with their respective powers, to conclude work in good time on the forthcoming proposals to update public procurement rules, in particular to make them accessible to SMEs, in order to allow the new rules to enter into force by 2002. Will the new rules come into force this year?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

In May 2000 the Commission adopted two proposals for Directives(1), respectively concerning works, supplies and services contracts awarded by public authorities (the Public Sector Directive) and contracts awarded in the water, energy and transport sectors (the Utilities Directive).

With reference to the 2000 Lisbon European Council (23-24 March 2000), which asked the Commission, the Council and Member States to act in a timely manner in order to allow these two proposals enter into force by 2002, the Honourable Member asks whether this goal will actually be reached this year.

As the Honourable Member might be aware, the Parliament adopted both reports concerning these proposals on 17 January 2002, together with 103 amendments for the Public Sector Directive and 82 amendments for the Utilities Directive. Among others, these included amendments whose effect would be to raise some of the relevant thresholds to unacceptably high levels furthermore not compatible with the objective of facilitating access to public procurement for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Whether it will be possible to achieve adoption of the two proposals for Directives on public procurement will depend on the time needed to conclude the legislative process within both branches of the legislature, i. e. the Parliament and Council. To meet the objective set at Lisbon would therefore require all institutions concerned to act speedily and constructively.

(1) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.