ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Erasmus/Socrates grants

It has come to my attention that the level of financial assistance for students taking part in an Erasmus/Socrates programme varies considerably in respect of students of different origin. For example, a student from Italy receives a grant of EUR 720 for a six-month period of study in Würzburg, whereas a Czech or Finnish student receives EUR 2 100 for a period of study of the same duration at the same university.

Therefore the following questions:

- What factors are taken into account when the amount of an Erasmus/Socrates grant is being calculated?

- How can such striking financial disparities be explained, when both the place of study and the students' place of origin (Finland, in this instance) are in EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The Commission's grant contribution toward Erasmus student mobility in the 18 countries (Member States + 3 European Economic Area (EEA) countries) is allocated on the basis of an agreed standard calculation which includes factors such as: number of students, cost of living and travel distance. The contribution to the candidate countries is derived by the application of a mathematical formula to the 18 contributions.

The amount of grant offered to students in any particular instance is a decision that is made entirely by the participating country which has to find a balance between offering as large a grant as possible from very restricted budgets and achieving the participation of the maximum possible number of students. The Commission specifies a maximum amount which may be awarded to students from the Commission contribution.

However, countries may continue financial support to which a student is already deemed entitled, and in quite a few countries a national top-up grant is paid by the government to students going abroad on mobility programmes. In many cases, higher education institutions award co-funding to their Erasmus students. This would explain the differences in the mobility grants paid to students from different countries at the same host university.

The average Erasmus grants from Community funds are given in a table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1028/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Tragic death of 14 girls in Saudi Arabia

The newspaper, Arab News; and Amnesty International report that 14 girls lost their lives and dozens of others were injured in a fire at their school

in Mecca on 11 March 2002 when the religious police (Muttawah) prevented them from fleeing the fire because they were not wearing headscarves and no male relatives were present to collect them. Furthermore, the religious police prevented rescue teams from entering the school as men are not allowed to mix with women. This tragic event is a stark illustration of the appalling effects of gender discrimination on human life. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Will the Council exert pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia to launch an investigation as a matter of urgency into these tragic deaths and bring those responsible to justice to prevent similar occurrences in the future? Will the Council make representations to the Saudi Government to put an end to the policies and practices which devalue the lives of women and perpetuate discrimination against women?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

As already indicated in answer to question No 0185/02 of Carlos Carnero González, as regards Saudi Arabia, human rights issues, including the status of women and their discrimination, are repeatedly addressed in bilateral contacts and in the context of the political dialogue with the Gulf Cooperation Council, of which Saudi Arabia is a member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0899/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Alleged persecution in Laos

Has the Commission received evidence through its representation or directly which indicates that religious minority groups in Laos have been and are still being targeted for abuse?

What representations has the Commission made on this matter to the Laotian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission is well aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in Laos, including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained on grounds of their religious affiliation.

While the Laotian Constitution stipulates the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion, the authorities apparently restrict this right in practice, especially to non-Buddhist communities.

The level of tolerance of religious practice varies between regions. There have been reports of arrest and detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. Some Christians have also been sentenced for gathering to create social turmoil. Some reports also mention difficulties for religious groups seeking to establish new places of worship.

The Catholic Church, while having three dioceses in the South where Catholics are able to worship openly, reportedly have difficulties operating in the highlands and the North. Protestant congregations, with two officially recognised groups, are reported to conduct services throughout the country.

The need to strengthen respect for civil and political rights, including freedom of religion, in Laos was raised in the Union statement before the 57th United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 29 March 2001. The Commission also raised these concerns during the Community-Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) Joint Committee which met on 15 May 2001.

The Commission, the Commission Delegation in Bangkok, which covers relations with Lao PDR, together with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, follow this and other matters relating to human rights in Laos very closely. The Commission also participates fully in all Union actions to convey its concerns to the Laotian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1976/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Permissible noise levels in dance clubs

Under current Greek legislation, the maximum level of noise from music permitted in an establishment licensed as a night club is 100 dB at source (loudspeakers) and in other establishments, such as cafeterias, bars etc., 80 dB.

1. Is there any Community legislation regulating the maximum permissible level of noise at source (loudspeakers) in respect of large dance clubs with live music or a DJ?

2. What are the applicable rules in each Member State of the Union in this respect? What are the consequences for anyone infringing the national legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

The Commission has noted with interest the written question submitted by the Honourable Member regarding the noise levels permitted in places of entertainment where music is played.

There is no Community legislation governing maximum noise levels for the playing of music in public. Directive 2002/49/EC of 29 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise(1) concerns only various modes of transport (road, rail and air) and industrial activities.

Issuing such regulations lies within the exclusive competence of the Member States and the Commission has no information on any local measures taken to prevent music being played at excessive volumes.

Nonetheless, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that there is Community legislation to protect employees' health and safety in the workplace: Framework Directive 89/391/EEC(2) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, and Council Directive 86/188/EEC(3) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work. The latter applies to all employees except for those in shipping and aviation, and thus is applicable to employees working in night clubs and similar places (bars, cafes, etc.).

The Commission regards promoting and ensuring proper and effective inspection and application of the national provisions implementing this Directive as the responsibility of the Member States.

Lastly, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that Directive 86/188/EEC on noise at work is currently being revised following a Commission proposal, with a view to stepping up health and safety in the workplace and, in particular, extending the scope of the directive. The Council adopted a common position on 29 October 2001(4) and the proposal is now being considered under the codecision procedure (Article 251 of the EC Treaty).

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

(2) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(3) Council Directive 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986, OJ L 137, 24.5.1986.

(4) Common position (EC) No 8/2002 of 29 October 2001, OJ C 45 E, 19.2.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1289/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Proposed motorway between Los Realejos and Icod de los Vinos (Tenerife, Spain)

Towards the end of 2001, the regional government of the Canaries published in the BOC (Official Journal of the Canaries) a special territorial plan and information study for the Northern Tenerife Island Corridor (section Los Realejos-Icod de los Vinos).

The proposed stretch of motorway would be 10,8 km long and would include 2,9 km of tunnels, 2,9 km of viaducts and four link roads occupying an area of almost 300 000 m2. This project would be an ecological and environmental catastrophe for one of the few unspoilt areas still surviving in Tenerife.

It would affect the protected landscape area including Rambla de Castro, Los Campeches, Tigaiga and Ruiz, which has been classified as an area of Community interest under the Natura 2000 European network, and is also a recognised site of scientific interest. More than 135 800 m2 of protected forest would be destroyed.

This project would have an overwhelmingly negative impact, and its sole benefit would be to cut the existing driving time to Santa Cruz de Tenerife by fifteen minutes.

Can the Commission state whether this project is to receive EU funding?

What measures can the Commission adopt to ensure compliance with Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on environmental impact assessment and Directive 92/43/EEC(2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) may indeed be applicable in this case. The Commission will be approaching the Spanish authorities at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that EU law is properly applied.

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle and pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(3), both the selection and implementation of projects are the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for information with regard to the possible co-financing of this scheme, and will inform the Honourable Member as soon as it has this information.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: European identity document for the disabled

Different provisions apply in different parts of Europe as regards the issuing of identity documents entitling the disabled to various facilities and privileges (e.g. use of parking spaces for the disabled and cheap admission to museums and events).

In Italy, no such universally valid document even exists as yet.

As a result, EU citizens who have disabilities are often unable to take advantage of the appropriate facilities and privileges in other European countries.

Is there a European identity document for the disabled which is recognised in all Member States and entitles holders to the above-mentioned facilities and privileges?

If so, what is the legal basis for it? To whom should applications for the document be submitted, and what documentary evidence has to be supplied with applications?

If not, might it not be worthwhile to introduce an identity document at EU level, for example an international European identity document for the disabled?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2002)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the decision concerning the definition of disability and thus eligibility for disability cards is taken at national level. This means that the conditions for issuing a disability card are laid down by each Member State and there is no mutual recognition of such cards entitling holders to the various concessions available in Member States other than the one that issued the card.

Under Community law the right to social assistance in another Member State depends on the personal situation of the person involved. Therefore, in order to verify whether the refusal of concessions available to holders of e.g. a German disability card to a holder of an Italian disability card constitutes an infringement of Community law, it would be necessary for the Commission to have more details on the particular case.

On a general basis, Article 12 (ex. Article 6) of the EC Treaty prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the EC Treaty. Thus, basic advantages for disabled people, such as preferential parking spots or wheelchair

facilities in airports, should be available to all disabled Community nationals regardless of nationality. The consequent refusal of the above-mentioned basic advantages to Community nationals travelling to another Member State as recipients of services could be considered as discrimination on the grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 12 of the EC Treaty read in conjunction with Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1825/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Biomedical primate research

The Commission has stated that the use of non-human primates in research is a sensitive matter and is aware of the high level of public concern about the use of these animals in laboratory research, in particular at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk, Netherlands.

The Dutch Government Minister for Education, Culture and Science has admitted that there is no longer any reason to perform experiments on chimpanzees in the Netherlands and that they are putting an end to those experiments.

In light of the above, and in view of the Commission's current review of Directive 86/609/EEC(1) concerning the use of non-human primates in research, does the Commission agree that the BPRC's decision to infect six chimpanzees at the Rijswijk Centre with the Hepatitis C virus later this year should be halted until its review of the Directive has been concluded?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Council Directive 86/609/EEC 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 states in Article 6 that: Each Member State shall designate the authority or authorities responsible for verifying that the provisions of the Directive are properly carried out. Article 12 states that Where it is planned to subject an animal to an experiment in which it will, or may, experience severe pain which is likely to be prolonged, that experiment must be specifically declared and justified to, or specifically authorised by, the authority.

Thus the decision whether to authorise the experiment on non-human primates at the Rijswijk Centre with the Hepatitis C virus is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Netherlands.

As far as the Commission has been informed, the decision whether or not to continue the research activities at the BPRC on the development of an Hepatitis C vaccine which will involve the infection of six chimpanzees is still under discussion by the authorities in the Netherlands.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Imports of Argentinean beef

1. Is the Commission aware that, for some weeks now, large amounts of Argentinean beef have, once again, been appearing on the European market and, in particular, on the German market?

2. On what scientific basis have the import restrictions on Argentinean beef been relaxed?

3. What measures is the Commission taking to offset the deterioration in marketing conditions for European producers that has resulted from the increase in beef imports?

4. Should not the long-term objective be to cover demand for foodstuffs on the European market principally with products produced in the EU Member States (on grounds of better traceability, quality, a higher level of food safety, better control mechanisms and shorter transport routes)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

1. and 2. Imports of beef, sheep and goat meat were immediately prohibited from the whole of Argentina as of 14 March 2001 following notification of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) by Commission Decision 2001/276/EC of 4 April 2001 amending Decision 93/402/EEC concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from South American countries to take account of the animal health situation in Argentina(1).

Following a Food and Veterinary Office inspection and guarantees provided by the Argentinean Veterinary Authorities the import for human consumption of matured and de-boned beef meat excluding offal was authorised from certain regions of Argentina by Commission Decision 2002/45/EC of 22 January 2002 amending Decision 93/402/EEC(2). These imports were

only resumed from regions without outbreaks which fulfill the criteria to be free of FMD (with vaccination). This was agreed at the Standing Veterinary Committee held on 16 January 2002 and came into effect as of the 1 February 2002.

Argentina can export in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)-quota high quality beef on a yearly basis from 1 July to 30 June 28 000 tonnes of this product to the Community. However because of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 2001, Argentina could only start to export in the framework of the quota-year 2001/2002 from beginning of February 2002 after the prohibition concerning foot-and-mouth disease was lifted. Therefore, for obvious reasons much more beef from Argentina was imported in the spring of 2002 than during the same period the years before.

3. Current producer prices reported to the Commission do not show a particular deterioration.

4. In the management of the market the Community has to comply with the obligations taken under multilateral trade agreements, e.g. preferential import of high quality beef.

(1) OJ L 95, 5.4.2001.

(2) OJ L 20, 23.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1162/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Subject: Oversized pig farm

According to press reports and complaints from local people and environmental organisations, a huge pig farm is being built at Megala Kalyvia in the municipality of Trikala, Thessaly, bringing with it environmental and public health hazards. An area of 80 hectares is to accommodate 8 500 sows. In practice, this means that a total of some 100 000 animals will be concentrated on that area.

With such a large farm the risk of the emergence of animal diseases increases several fold, waste management is a problem, and there is a risk of contaminating the ground water in Thessaly. Moreover, as the trend throughout Europe is to move away from such vast breeding units, can the Commission answer the following:

1. Will this investment be directly or indirectly linked to Community funding?

2. What is the Commission's assessment of the specific features of this pig farm?

3. In view of the local opposition to the project and the environmental impact assessment, will the Commission ask the Greek authorities to explain how they will protect public health and the environment from the effects of this farm?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

1. The Commission's initial understanding is that no direct or indirect aid for the investment in question has been granted from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). This is the only Community fund granting aid in connection with agricultural production, including the pig sector.

2. and 3. If the project were to be submitted for part-financing the EAGGF regulatory provisions would have to be applied by the national and/or regional authorities involved: the project would have to be geared to the normal outlets, there could be no increase in capacity and the environmental constraints would have to be respected. The Community legislation covering the environmental impact of such undertakings includes Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) and Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(2). Their provisions must be respected where authorisation to establish such pig farms and disposal of their manure are concerned.

The Commission requests the Honourable Member to submit more detailed information on this project to build a pig farm at Megala Kalyvia. It will examine this to ascertain whether Greece has broken its obligations in the EAGGF framework or under European environmental law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 (amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).

(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: European citizenship awareness

Does the Commission agree that the development of a voluntary European citizenship awareness module as part of the curriculum of EU Member State schools would not only enhance the education of all Member State children, but also reinforce the idea of no future wars in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Commission certainly agrees that children should be taught the value of peace, and conflict resolution in schools, and that an awareness of European citizenship, and of the history and motivation of the Union's founders, can contribute to this.

However, Article 149 of the EC Treaty confirms the responsibilities of Member States for the content and organisation of their educational systems. This question therefore is a matter on which Member States, or competent authorities within them, must decide.