ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/00

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Distribution of printed matter by the Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy

The Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy distributes posters documenting the development of projects jointly financed by the European Regional Development Fund from 1989 to 1999.

1. How many of these posters are printed for Germany and for the other Member States?

2. What is the total cost of producing the posters for Germany and the EU as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

1. The posters mentioned by the Honourable Member have been produced using images from the Commission's stock of photographs on regional development projects. Germany is the third country to be covered after Spain and Portugal. For Germany, 6000 posters were produced of which some 4360 were sent to local authorities, Commission offices and administrations responsible for managing structural funds. For Portugal 4000 posters were printed and for Spain 5000. Most have now been distributed in the Member States concerned.

The Commission considers this a cost-effective means of informing citizens of the range of activities co-financed by the Community. Many administrations have requested further copies for use for example in schools.

2. The cost of design, artwork and printing for the posters distributed in Germany was 8 043 i.e. 1,3 per unit. The cost per unit of producing the Spanish and Portuguese posters was very similar. It is intended to produce posters coinciding with the Presidencies of France and Sweden at a comparable cost.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy

Because the school milk programme contributes to the objectives in respect of food and health policy, the Commission and the Ministers of Agriculture have decided to reduce subsidies under the

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to 75 %. Yet it is more sensible to offer schoolchildren free milk instead of leading them astray with Fanta or Cola machines supplied by the soft drinks industry. It therefore seems appropriate to transfer the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the healthy food policy programme.

Will the Council encourage transferring the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the healthy food policy programme, given the particular interest in this subject expressed by the Commission and the Member States? If not, why is the Council of the opinion that the remaining 25 % should not be charged to the healthy food policy budget? How does the Council reconcile this position with the statement by Commissioner Fischler that distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and social objectives (answer to Written Question E-1320/00(1))?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 126.

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The decision taken by the Council to reduce Community funding for the school milk programme to 75 % is in keeping with the Opinion of the European Parliament.

The Council would point out that its decision allows Member States to increase aid for the school milk programme to cover the remaining 25 % with a view to steering this measure towards a healthy food policy.

At this stage, the Council has not received any proposal to allocate the 25 % reduction in Community funding to a budgetary heading reserved for such a policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Accession negotiations

1. Are there, or in the history of the European Union have there ever been, any peoples which it was claimed were part of the EU but which in practice had no democratic representation within the institutions?

2. If the Republic of Cyprus were to be allowed to join the European Union while claiming a constitutional mandate over the entire island, while in fact the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus continued to proclaim its independence, would this be a precedent?

3. Is there any reference within the treaties of the European Union which would require individuals to be directly consulted, or otherwise represented by their directly elected representatives, to identify their views before any claims are made that they are part of the EU?

4. What is the status of Gibraltar in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission would stress that there is no precedent in the Union's history of a people in the Union being without democratic representation. However, this statement does not make any judgement on whether the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus provides democratic representation or not.

3. and 4. The EC Treaty does not contain any express requirement to identify the views of individuals or their elected representatives. This subject remains a constitutional matter for the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3415/00

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: EU Member States and the international Convention for the protection of the European Community's financial interests

This Convention has been in existence for five years. By January 2000 it had been adopted by only 5 of the 15 Member States: Sweden, Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Have any more countries now signed the convention and what is the Commission doing to persuade more countries to adopt it?

Would it not be appropriate to decide that countries that have not signed the Convention cannot take responsibility for the proper administration of EU payments and that payments to those countries should therefore be suspended until they have adopted the Convention?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission would first point out that the process of ratifying not only the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests(1) but also its protocols(2) and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union(3) is under way in the Member States.

At this stage, in addition to the Member States referred to by the Honourable Member (Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom), Greece, Spain, and France have notified the Council that they have ratified the Convention on the protection of the Communities' financial interests.

The Commission has constantly reminded the Member States of the need to ratify the various instruments and to transpose them into national law. However, the Member States' commitment to fighting fraud, money laundering, corruption and other illegal activities harmful to the Communities' financial interests must also be seen in the light of the other national measures taken, in particular to monitor such activities.

In any case, given that the Member States have not all ratified the above instruments, the Commission has included in its work programme an initiative for legislative proposals to strengthen the legal and judicial framework for the protection of the Communities' financial interests which they will replace.

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995.

(2) OJ C 313, 23.10.1996; OJ C 151, 20.5.1997; OJ C 221, 19.7.1997.

(3) OJ C 195, 25.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/00

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Strategy to combat legionella bacteria

In March 1999, the Netherlands was struck by an epidemic of legionnaire's disease. In Kapellen, Belgium, too, people died from legionnaire's disease.

1. What preventive measures have now been taken in the Member States of the EU in order to prevent legionnaire's disease?

2. Can the Commission indicate the extent to which, in its opinion, those measures provide protection for public health?

3. What is the Commission's view of a harmonised European policy to prevent and combat legionnaire's disease? What role does the Commission see in such a policy for itself and for the current Dutch policy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

1. and 2. Following the outbreaks referred to by the Honourable Member, most Member States have reviewed or applied new or updated measures for the prevention and control of legionellosis on their territories. These range from guidance to direct legislation depending on the groups being addressed and the nature of the controls required. The policies of the Member States and the Commission attempt to adapt to information gleaned from new outbreaks to ensure the high level of protection of public health.

Member States are responsible for the implementation of national measures for the protection of public health. Given the sporadic nature of outbreaks of legionellosis of this type, evaluation of the efficacy of these measures will only be possible over a long period.

3. Member States are already required by Decision 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(1) to report outbreaks, and on the basis of information available through the network to consult each other in liaison with the Commission with a view to coordinating their efforts. In this framework, the Commission has supported for many years, and continues to support the surveillance of travel associated cases and clusters/outbreaks of legionellosis in the Community to provide Member States with rapid information for control and prevention.

The Commission is also currently collaborating with experts from Member States on the prevention and control of legionellosis and the Commission will consider the need for any future action at a European level against this background.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Widespread use of torture in Turkey

According to a report in the New York Times from an Istanbul correspondent (which was reproduced in the Greek newspaper To Vyma on 6 June 2000) Turkey is one of the countries where torture is very widely used against both prison inmates and detainees in police stations. This is the conclusion reached by the Turkish MPs in theTurkish Parliament's committee on monitoring human rights in Turkey. As the New York Times points out, the report drawn up by the Turkish MPs after two years' exhaustive investigations and controls contains photographs of instruments of torture, sketches of special torture chambers and interviews with prisoners. The newspaper goes on to say that the recent report by the US State Department contained similar findings.

The reputed newspaper European Voice also carries an extensive report in its edition of 15-21 June 2000 on progress made by Turkey in meeting the commitments about respecting human rights it made last December in Helsinki. The newspaper draws attention to the discussions about this problem among senior EU officials and the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr Günter Verheugen, the Commissioner responsible for enlargement, who stated in an interview with Turkish officials last April that he viewed with some concern the lack of progress achieved since Helsinki in this field.

Can the Commission say whether it has been informed about the torture of prisoners in Turkey (a candidate country for EU accession), what its findings are from investigations carried out by its services into this matter, to what extent it considers that the human rights of Turkish citizens are being respected and what measures it intends to take to prevail upon Turkey to put an end to the use of methods which are at odds with the conduct and operating methods of a well-governed democratic European state?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission has been informed of the content of six reports on daily practice in various detention centres and prisons as compiled by the human rights investigation committee of the Turkish Parliament. Two more reports are to be published soon. The Commission considers the findings a valuable input to the work related to the preparation of the accession partnership (political part) which it will adopt in November 2000.

During this work, the Commission will also take account of the recommendations on the issue by international organisations, such as by the European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (CPT) from the Council of Europe. The recommendations cover amendments in Turkish legislation with respect to doctors, during the pre-trial retention and judicial review of the detention. Training courses for police and other authorities are also recommended.

In general the Commission supports all efforts made in Turkey in the cause of eradicating torture.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2003/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Sanctions imposed on Austria

On 15 March 2000, the President-in-office of the Council, Mr Francesco Seixas da Costa indicated to the European Parliament, during deliberations on reports concerning human rights in the EU, that he was unable to deny that to date Austria had complied with all obligations arising from its EU membership. He went on to say that, since everyone was personally affected, if EU Member States did not confine themselves to bilateral measures in response to the government formation in Austria, this could not be regarded as interference in internal affairs.

At a Dutch Socialist congress held on 25 May 2000, the Portuguese President-in-office, Mr Guterres, indicated that he was proud, of the sanctions which could be raised only with the unanimous agreement of the remaining 14 Member States.

In interview to the Italian newspaper La Republicca on 24 May 2000, Romano Prodi, President of the Commission, declared that human rights violations would not be tolerated, while pointing out that, to date, Austria had not committed any infringements.

1. In the light of the utterances of its Portuguese President-in-office, how can the Council support its assertion that the sanctions being imposed on Austria are of a bilateral nature rather than EU measures?

2. Does the Council consider the statement by Council President-in-office Mr Guterres that he is proud of the sanctions as an infringement of the EU Treaties, in particular the principle of solidarity embodied in Article 1 of the EU Treaty and the principle of loyalty to the Community embodied in Article 10 of the EC Treaty?

3. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is responsible for monitoring all Member States and has, by its own account, been closely scrutinising developments in Austria since the entry of the FPÖ into government. How can the Council justify maintaining sanctions against Austria in view of the Commission's conclusion that Austria has to date committed no infringements, a view also expressed by Mr Seixas da Costa in mid-March?

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The measures to which the Honourable Member refers were set out in a declaration made by the Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the governments of fourteen Member States. That declaration is not binding on the Council.

The Council has not taken a view on this matter, and is therefore not in a position to reply to any of the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Food labelling with regard to nut allergies

At present, symbols are used in food labelling which enable the public to choose which foods they purchase. This may assist personal choice (e.g. suitable for vegans) or for health reasons (e.g. gluten-free). These symbols are clear enough for everyone to see and guarantee that the product contains only the correct ingredients.

Will the Commission please indicate whether there are any proposals to extend these measures to include a symbol which denotes 100 % guaranteed nut free since, for EU citizens suffering from a nut allergy, any error in reading the labels on food could be life-threatening?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

The Commission believes it is advisable to assist people who have allergies as much as possible by giving them more comprehensive information about the composition of products. This will in fact ensure better consumer information in general as to the composition of a food product, and at the same time it will ensure the necessary information for those consumers who, for health or ethical reasons, have to, or want to, avoid certain ingredients.

In the white paper on food safety(1), the Commission announced that it intends to propose a new amendment to Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(2) (previous Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(3)) which would change the current possibility of not indicating the components of compound ingredients, where they form less than 25 % of the final product. Furthermore, the Commission intends to amend the Community legislation to ensure that foodstuffs and ingredients, that are recognised scientifically as being a source of allergies, are systematically listed on labels.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(3) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: The killing of dolphins

Is the Commission concerned about the death and suffering of large numbers of dolphins caught in fishing nets and why did the Commission choose not to attend the third meeting of the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans) which took place in Bristol on 28 July at which representatives of eight northern European states agreed to send a strong message to the Commission calling on it to include action to reduce the annual death toll in its current review of the Common Fisheries Policy?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2791/00 and E-2922/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission is worried about the amount of cetacean and other by-catches in connection with fisheries. The Commission welcomes the efforts of members of the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (Ascobans) in reducing cetacean by-catches of fisheries. The Commission hopes that the Member States will continue their efforts at the Council level of the Community.

Due to a heavy workload in the field of nature protection and insufficient resources, the Commission had to decline the invitation to attend as an observer the last Ascobans conference in Bristol.

However, even if the Community is not a party to the Ascobans agreement, dolphins and porpoises are protected in the framework of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). According to Article 12, in particular, the Member States shall establish a system of strict protection for those animal species in their natural range prohibiting deliberate capture and disturbance. The Member States shall also establish a system to monitor incidental capture and killing.

The Commission reminded Member States of their duty recently in the last meeting of the committee under the habitats directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2850/00

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Situation in Turkish prisons

Is the Commission aware of the situation of prisoners in Buca prison and of the fate of Mr Ali Aslan who is in a critical condition after being tortured by the police?

In the Commission's opinion, which of the Copenhagen criteria has Turkey fulfilled hitherto?

In this respect, how does the Commission assess the situation in Turkish prisons?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Commission is aware of the events that took place recently in Turkish prisons and is deeply concerned by the gravity of the facts reported. Concerning the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has received the following information.

On 26 July 2000, security forces launched an important operation in the Bergama prison after the discovery of a tunnel. Violent clashes between security forces and inmates lasted four days. The events ended when 77 detainees and convicts (excluding those detained or convicted under the workers party Kurdistan (PKK) cases) were transferred to the Buca prison. The transferred prisoners stated that they had been maltreated and battered during the transfer and after arriving at the Buca prison. According to a report made by the Izmir Bar Association, traces of battery were indeed found on the heads and bodies of several inmates, including Mr Aslan mentioned by the Honourable Member. Three prisoners had apparently been more severely battered than the others and one of them had his jaw broken. The Human Rights Foundation of Turkey also confirmed that the health condition of seven of the prisoners (including Ali Aslan) was severe. So far, there has been no official statement made, nor any investigation launched on these incidents.

As far as the accession conditions are concerned, the Commission in its 1999 regular report confirmed that Turkey was not fulfilling the so-called political Copenhagen criteria.

As far as prison conditions are concerned, the situation remains worrying as overpopulation and lack of medical care are still major problems and violent clashes between detainees and security forces, mutinies, and hostage taking are still occurring. It is however noted that the authorities are currently embarking on a reform of the whole prison system.

A delegation of the Council of Europe committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CPT) completed a nine-day visit to Turkey in July 2000. One of the main purposes of the visit was to examine the steps being taken by the Turkish authorities to introduce smaller living units for prisoners and, more specifically, the F-type project. The CPT delegation also reviewed the treatment of those deprived of their liberty by the police.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Etna nature park

More than ten years ago the authorities of the region of Sicily set up the Etna nature park involving some 20 municipalities, a decision that was taken without prior consultation of the populations concerned. Will the Commission say whether the procedure followed is in breach of Community rules requiring the involvement of the populations concerned when environmental constraints are introduced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

There is no Community environmental legislation that provides that the public be consulted prior to the setting up of nature parks by the competent authorities. In the light of the above, no breach of Community law can be identified in the specific situation mentioned by the Honourable Member.

More generally, however, the Commission promotes the participation of the public in environmental decision-making, as is evident in recent legislative proposals such as the environmental impact assessment directive(1) and the strategic environmental assessment directive(2). Furthermore, the Community has signed the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters, which it will ratify as soon as legally possible.

(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).

(2) Proposal of the Commission for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council, on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (common position of 30 March 2000 in OJ C 137, 16.5.2000).