ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/01

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

(17 July 2001)

Subject: African immigrants arriving on Spain's Costa del Sol

Recently, there has been an increase in the numbers of African immigrants arriving on Spain's Costa del Sol, after crossing the Strait of Gibraltar at night in small, unsafe vessels, and dead bodies continue to be washed up on to Spanish beaches. During the nights of 26 and 27 June, over 1000 people arrived in dozens of vessels; 500 of them were arrested and of the 62 people travelling in one of the vessels, one was found to be dead and 20 to be injured. What new action is the Commission planning to take in response to this tragedy?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The arrival of vessels of all kinds and sizes with illegal immigrants at the Mediterranean coasts of the Union is an issue of major concern for the Commission. As recently also mentioned in the reply to the written question P-2079/01 by Mr. Musumeci irregular migrants face various dangers including being smuggled by ruthless criminal networks and other dangers of unsafe passage.

Consequently it is important to develop policies at Union level to deal with the prevention of and the fight against illegal immigration and in particular also against irregular maritime arrivals. The Council adopted in June 2001 a Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, movement and stay and a accompanying Framework Decision on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence, which sets a frame for the prosecution of facilitators. Moreover the Council also adopted a Directive supplementing the provisions of Art. 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement in order to further define the obligations of carriers. In December 2000, the Commission adopted a Communication on combating trafficking in human beings and combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, which includes a proposal for a Council framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings.

As already indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member's written question E-0086/01, the Commission intends to initiate an in-depth discussions in the framework of a future Communication on the common endeavour preventing and fighting against illegal immigration, which will be tabled in the course of the next weeks. This Communication will, inter alia, outline the future co-operation with countries of origin and transit, which could include measures targeted at the infrastructure of irregular migration flows, among others preventing the use of unsafe modes of transportation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2507/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: Availability of documents in the languages of the candidate countries for accession to the European Union

The success of the candidate countries' accession will also depend on public support in these countries. At present such support is declining, because more and more people are gaining an insight into the problems associated with accession.

Debate and dialogue with the population are thus very important, but there is also a need for effective communication and reports (on accession requirements), for example, must be made available in the languages of the accession countries.

An information office has been opened in Poland, for example, where all reports are distributed in all languages except Polish.

As part of an open dialogue on accession, can the Commission make available the progress reports in the languages of the future Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the need to provide as much as possible all relevant documents on Enlargement in the languages of the candidate countries. This is done, as part of the Commission's information and communication activities in the candidate countries, in close collaboration with the governments in these countries. In the case of Poland, the Office for the Committee for European Integration of the Polish government translates, as soon as possible, the Progress Report and many other documents in Polish and publishes these both on paper and electronically. At the same time, the Office publishes regularly the Integration Monitor, including Polish versions of the major documents. Any person contacting the infocentre in Poland will be fully informed about the possibility to obtain all relevant documents in Polish in this way.

Similar arrangements exist in the other candidate countries. The Commission does and will do as much as possible to assure that important documents are available in the languages of the candidate countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/01

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Agricultural questions in an international context

In New Zealand unlike the United States removal of the antlers of wild deer is allowed. The antlers are then sold for a high price to Asian countries, leaving the carcass of the deer as a waste product. When such carcasses are imported into the EU, this inevitably means a lowering of prices for the game trade in the Member States.

1. What is the Commission doing to enforce EU standards in the case of imports?

2. Can violations of EU rules be penalised in the context of international trade?

3. Can dumping prices for game imported from third countries be prohibited if they are clearly based on standards which do not conform to European legislation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

1. Although some Member States have banned the harvesting of antler velvet, this is not the case in Community law. Since Community trade policy reflects its internal rules, there is no reason why the Community should impose any restrictions on venison from animals from which antlers have been harvested for velvet.

2. In the context of the specific question answered under point 1, since there is no violation of Community rules, the question does not arise. In more general terms, where there are infringements of Community meat import legislation, the Member States are responsible for setting and applying the appropriate penalties.

3. All meat, including venison, must meet Community animal and public health standards. Countries are approved individually, on the basis of their animal and public health status, which includes conditions for humane slaughter. Any meat which meets these standards may be imported, at the best price the importer is able to obtain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: Carbon sequestration in the North Sea

According to the British Geographical Survey, some North Sea sites which may be suitable for carbon dioxide sequestration risk being lost unless decommissioning policy takes this potential change of use into account (Earth News, BGS, July 2001). What can the European Commission do to ensure that such sites are not lost, and that demonstration projects that can explore the potential for sequestration on an industrial scale in the North Sea are carried out?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2404/01 and E-2405/01given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The successful outcome of the second part of the Sixth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP 6bis) includes an agreement on carbon sinks. The Commission has started to develop Community policies on sinks including geological carbon sequestration. Whether or not the geological carbon sequestration can be a safe and cost-effective option of limiting the Carbondioxide (CO2) emissions needs further research and development in the first place. Directorates general (DG) Research and Transport and Energy (TREN) have a portfolio of projects under the Fifth Community Programme on Research and Technological Development addressing this question (DG Research is focussing on medium to long term activities and DG TREN on short term activities). A number of projects are underway and others are being considered for contract. A brief description is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2142/01

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

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Shipbuilding aid

Is it the case that the EU has come to an amicable agreement with South Korea in the shipbuilding sector, pursuant to which the EU will not report that country to the WTO provided that it bans dumping practices in the shipbuilding industry? If such an agreement has not been concluded, will the Commission continue to provide aid for shipbuilding in the EU and extend it to oil tankers, merchant ships, container ships and vessels used to transport chemicals?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

Despite a series of intensive negotiations, it has not been possible to reach an amicable settlement of the shipbuilding dispute with South Korea. The Commission therefore intends to implement the strategy it agreed on 8 May 2001. This involves a package with two components: the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement procedure and a proposal for a temporary support mechanism.

This mechanism would allow aid to be granted to those market segments where the Commission has concluded that the Community industry has been considerably injured by unfair Korean trade practices namely container ships and product and chemical tankers. The Commission will review the eligibility of market segments in the light of new evidence clearly proving that a specific market segment within the Community has been directly injured by unfair Korean trade practices.

The Commission will initiate the dispute settlement proceedings against Korea as soon as the Council expresses its favourable opinion on the temporary defensive mechanism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: EU relations with Colombia/EU assistance programme to support the peace process

The Commission has been asked in the past to guarantee that EU assistance remains wholly separate from Plan Colombia. Yet we are concerned that European funds could be channelled through the Fondo de Inversiones para la Paz, which is the Plan Colombia fund. Could the Commission explain how the European funds are channelled and what criteria were established to guarantee transparency and participation of local people and non-governmental sectors in the design, implementation and monitoring of the projects?

Further, when will the EU present the first public report to the European Parliament on its six- monthly appraisal of the peace process, will that report include an independent evaluation of the Colombian Government's human rights performance, with particular regard to the measures taken to combat paramilitarism and its financial supporters?

Several reports show that aerial fumigation through US military aid causes severe human rights violations such as forced displacement and damage to the health and environment of the people affected. Given its responsibility to help protect human rights worldwide, how is the EU going to orientate its political dialogue with the United States on the issue that the Colombian Government does not meet the human rights conditions required if it is to receive military aid?

With regard to the strengthening of civil society participation, one of the priorities in the EU assistance package, what mechanisms will be set up to guarantee a fluent dialogue between the Commission and Council and the Colombian and European non-governmental sector? What will be done to improve the exchange of information with the non-governmental sector?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

The Commission reiterates its intention to provide assistance to the Colombian peace process, which should not be confused with so-called Plan Colombia.

The Commission is currently finalising a financial proposal concerning the first programme of the Community aid package to Colombia. This proposal will be submitted shortly to Member States for approval. The Commission intends to designate the Agencia Colombiana de Cooperación internacional (ACCI) as its counterpart, as foreseen in the framework financial agreement signed in December 2000 between the Community and the Colombian Government. The Commission confirms therefore, that it does not intend to channel the funds through the Fondo de Inversiones para la Paz.

The Commission has identified, following the suggestion of Member States, the Corporación de Desarrollo y Paz del Magdalena Medio, a well respected local non-governmental organisation, as the main executing body of the project. This organisation has been involved in the design of the project.

For the monitoring of the projects, the Commission will apply the regular monitoring system employed in the external co-operation of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2481/01

by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Dr Yunis Shaikh sentenced to death in Pakistan

On 18 August 2001 Dr Yunis Shaikh was imprisoned in Adiala jail and sentenced to death for blasphemy by a Pakistani court. He is convicted of blasphemy for expressing the view that Mohammed and his family could not have been Muslims before the Prophet was inspired and other similar opinions, deemed offensive by the Pakistani clergy.

The trial was attended by a screaming crowd, whose feelings were whipped up by members of the clergy, while witnesses were called to court despite having stated that they had not been present when Dr Shaikh had made the alleged statements. He was given only one week to appeal to the Supreme Court instead of the usual thirty days. Even if nobody has hitherto been hanged for blasphemy in Pakistan, hundreds of people, charged with or convicted of blasphemy languish in prisons, inside the death cells, where they can barely stand up.

Did the Commission follow Dr Yunis Shaikh's trial through the presence of its own representative? Has the Commission reacted officially to the death sentence passed on Dr Yunis Shaikh? Which initiatives has it taken or does it intend to take vis-à-vis the increase in convictions for blasphemy in Pakistan and, more generally, violations of fundamental human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Commission is very concerned about the application of the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Blasphemy related to the Prophet Mohammed is subject to the death penalty, whereas blasphemy of the Koran is punishable by life imprisonment. To date a disproportionate number of cases have been brought up against religious minorities and the press.

The Commission is fully aware of the lawsuit against Dr. Yunis Shaikh, a Muslim, as raised by the Honourable Member. Dr. Shaikh was sentenced to death on blasphemy charges on 18 August 2001 and has since appealed the judgement, a lengthy process in Pakistan which can last years. Whereas todate, verdicts in blasphemy cases were revoked by higher benches, on 24 July 2001 a potentially dangerous precedent was set when in the case of Ayub Masih the appeal court upheld an earlier judgement.

On the occasion of a human rights conference organised by the Government of Pakistan in April 2000, a procedural reform of the blasphemy law was announced. However, following strong protests from religious groups the government withdrew the proposal.

The Commission is actively participating in joint Union efforts to address human rights issues in Pakistan as part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The blasphemy law was raised with the authorities during ad hoc political Troika talks in Islamabad on 20-21 November 2000. On 3 May 2001 the Troika carried out a demarche on the death penalty with the Minister of Law and Justice, Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs. On this, as well as other occasions since then, the Union's concerns on the blasphemy law have been communicated to the Pakistan authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Motorway concessions

What view does the Commission takes of the decision by the Italian government on the arrangements, that have existed for decades, for granting concessions to motorway companies, which are now enjoying extensions of several years without there having been any tender procedure? Is this how market rules are applied? Is this how competition is protected? Is this how users subjected to unjustified frauds are protected? Why does the European Union not intervene vigorously?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

The Commission would like to point out that the provisions of Community directives on public procurement do not apply to the granting of concessions for services such as those cited by the honourable member. Nevertheless, public administrations in such circumstances must adhere to the principles and rules of the EC Treaty, and in particular, to the general principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment, proportionality and transparency, as well as to the provisions governing the right to provide services and the right of establishment. These rules and principles were set out in detail by the Commission in its interpretative Communication on concessions under Community law, published in the Official Journal(1).

As far as the motorway sector in particular is concerned, the Commission considers that in line with the above-mentioned principles, the extension of a concession can be justified only by the need to compensate the concession holder for damages or losses suffered as a result of unilateral decisions taken by the state to deal with emergencies or situations due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the concession holder. These include, in particular, measures to freeze charges which are taken for social reasons or to combat inflation, or decisions making it obligatory to perform work to adapt the motorway to new requirements for safety, urban planning, or environmental protection which did not apply at the time the concession was granted.

The Commission wishes to examine the provisions for the granting of motorway concessions in the Member States and has asked the latter for detailed information on their procedures. The Commission is currently analysing the information thus compiled in order to obtain an overall view of this sector. If on completion of this examination it appears that the procedures followed in Italy for extending the duration of concessions are likely to be incompatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty, the Commission will not fail to take the necessary action.

(1) OJ C 121, 29.4.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/01

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: EU funding for experiments on non-human primates in the Netherlands

Given the concern expressed by many EU citizens over the use of non-human primates in experiments and in light of the Dutch government's announcement in July that it will be banning the use of great apes in biomedical research, which directly affects the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk, when was EU funding given to this centre last reviewed and when will it be reviewed again?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The last Community research contracts involving the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk (BPRC) were signed in 2000.

As the Honourable Member may be aware, the Commission ensures a scientific as well as an ethical assessment of all research proposals, before any decision is taken concerning funding of a research proposal.

Furthermore, an independent ethical review has been implemented systematically under the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) Quality of Life Programme for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The ethical review ensures that all research projects involving animals are conducted in accordance with Council Directive 86/609/CEE of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(1). It takes account of the overall benefit of the research proposed in relation to the possible costs in terms of animal suffering. All projects must be approved by local ethics committees or other authorisation bodies before funding.

The BPRC has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national, legal and ethical requirements. The BPRC has in July 2001 confirmed to the Commission that it has the permission at local level to conduct biomedical research with non-human primates.

All Community funded projects are reviewed regularly by the Commission on the basis of the individual annual project progress reports by the project coordinators.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: EU- India cooperation: joint projects with Sai Baba, alleged child molestation

Last year, Unesco pulled out of a conference it was planning with the Institute of Sathya Sai Education citing deep concern about widely-reported allegations of sexual abuse involving youths and children that have been levelled at the leader of the movement in question, Sathya Sai Baba.

Can the Commission confirm that no EU funding has gone or will go and that joint projects will not be undertaken with organisations linked to Sai Baba until the controversy has been cleared up?

Will the Commission raise the issue of the allegations at the EU-India summit scheduled for 23 November 2001 and ask assurances that the Indian Government is investigating the allegations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2001)

The Sathya Sai Trust does not receive and has never received any funding from the Community, nor is it associated with any of its projects in India.

The Commission takes these kinds of allegations very seriously and, in such cases, would immediately withdraw its financial assistance from related projects.

This question will not be included as such on the agenda of the Union-India Summit but any topic can be discussed or raised at some point in an informal way. There are also other India-Union fora where human rights related issues can be raised.