ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Restrictions on freedom of expression in Turkey

According to reports in the international press, the Turkish parliament has decided to amend Article 312 of the Penal Code to make it more stringent. It will now be sufficient for there to be a suspicion of a possible disturbance of public order to instigate the procedure to punish those responsible. According to the reports, the entire issue was sparked off by requests from Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin for tuition in the Kurdish language in schools and universities, which Turkey had undertaken to promote three years ago.

The Turkish National Security Council interprets the requests from Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin as separatist activities since they concern education in a language other than the official language. This unprecedented development comes on top of the incredible story of Mr Fatih Tas, an editor under threat of a one-year prison sentence for making the mistake of publishing in Turkish a book by the eminent American intellectual and Harvard professor, Noam Chomsky, entitled American Interventionism. Professor Chomsky (who is sharply critical in the book of Turkey and the methods it uses to further the ethnic cleansing of the Kurdish minority) intends to travel to Turkey on 13 February 2002 to appear before the court in which the Turkish editor is to stand trial and then go on to Diyarbakir where a large number of Kurds live.

Is the Commission aware of the above measures by the Turkish regime? What is its opinion? Is banning books and the use of the Kurdish language consistent with bringing Turkey into line with the standards of conduct befitting a European state?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of the measures taken by the Turkish government to which the Honourable Member refers.

It noted that the editor Mr Fatih Tas has been acquitted by an Istanbul Court. It is concerned by the reaction of the Turkish authorities with respect to the exercise of the right of petition by students, especially as the right of petition has been broadened by a recent amendment of the Turkish Constitution.

The Union expects Turkey to remove any legal provisions forbidding the use by Turkish citizens of their mother tongue. These are short-term priorities of the Accession Partnership with Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2544/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Violations of people's freedom of movement committed by the French authorities at the Franco-Italian border on the occasion of the Technival of 15 August in Italy

On the occasion of the Technival techno festival, held in Italy on the long weekend of 15 August, the French authorities stopped lorries carrying musicians and their sound systems at the Col de Larche La Maddalena Franco-Italian border point and prevented them from reaching the event in Italy. The Alpes de Haute Provence prefecture even denied pedestrians access to Italy for several hours between 14 and 15 August.

What action does the Council intend to take vis-à-vis the violations of people's freedom of movement committed on this occasion?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2544/02 and E-2546/02

(19 December 2002)

The Council would point out that measures taken by or in Member States to maintain public order do not come within its purview.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1741/02

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

(19 June 2002)

Subject: The views of the UK Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, concerning the decisions to be taken about the enlargement of the Union to include new countries

The British Foreign Minister not only hopes that the Council under the Danish presidency next December will decide on the accession of ten new States but considers that it will be possible to give a new impetus to the negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania, examine Turkey's application and consider to the same end the reforms needed in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, claiming that all these matters are priorities for the Danish presidency. Do these views accurately reflect the stage reached on this issue in the European Council?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council never comments on declarations released by national authorities. The European Council in Seville on 21 and 22 June 2002 reaffirmed that, if progress in negotiations and reforms is maintained, the European Union is determined to conclude the negotiations with Cyprus, Malta, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovenia by the end of 2002, if those countries are ready, the objective remaining that these countries should participate in the elections of the European Parliament in 2004 as full members.

The European Council reiterated its commitment to give Bulgaria and Romania full support in their preparation for accession. To this end, an updated road map and a revised and enhanced pre/accession strategy should be adopted in Copenhagen for the candidate countries still engaged in negotiations. An increase in pre-accession financial aid could also be contemplated. Furthermore, if the current pace is maintained, a more precise timetable could be set for these countries' accession process by the end of the year.

Furthermore, the European Council concluded that new decisions could be taken in Copenhagen on the next stage of Turkey's candidature in the light of developments in the situation between the Seville and Copenhagen European Councils, on the basis of the regular report to be submitted by the Commission in October 2002 and in accordance with the Helsinki and Laeken conclusions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3048/02

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: Regional policy

Enlargement is inevitable in political terms; its historical justification lies in the original purpose of European integration, namely the establishment of lasting peace throughout Europe. The accession of ten new countries, however, will raise certain problems in terms of the resulting marked disparities between Member States. There is a real danger that the funds available for Objective 1 regions will be diluted as a result of the statistical effect of enlargement. It would be appropriate, therefore, to give thought to devising additional criteria for eligibility to supplement the GDP criterion. Accessibility quotients could provide a promising approach. Such quotients could take into account, for example, the distance between a given region and the capital of the country to which it belongs, and would reflect more accurately the problems certain regions have to overcome.

Would the Commission inform Parliament of the stage reached in its consideration of this question?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2002)

It should be noted that the eligibility of the regions for the Structural Funds and the financial allocations involved will remain unchanged until the end of 2006.

In the period after 2006, the regional disparities in an enlarged Union of 25 Member States will be greater than in the current Union of Fifteen, as the Commission stated in the second Cohesion report and the first interim report on economic and social cohesion.

Enlargement will bring about a reduction in the Union's overall gross domestic product (GDP) per person. As a result, some regions currently eligible for Objective 1 are likely to be above the eligibility threshold (75 % of the Union's GDP per person) in a Union of 25 Member States.

Those regions therefore risk failing to qualify for Objective 1 on the basis of the current eligibility criteria, without having made any real progress on convergence.

The Commission will take account of this fact in its proposals for future regional policy. The proposals should also take account of the situation in areas other than the regions whose development is lagging behind and which must equally engage in social and economic restructuring.

The Commission will include concrete proposals on the priorities and eligibility criteria for its future policy among other things in the third Cohesion report, to be published in autumn 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3253/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Rising number of drug-related deaths in Greece

In 2001, 321 young people died in Greece as a result of using narcotic substances. Does the Commission have comparative data showing the situation in the other Member States and the development of the problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

In all 7 000 to 8 000 acute drug-related deaths are reported each year in the Union, and the real number of cases is probably higher. Opiates are present in most overdose deaths, although presence of additional substances is frequent. There is a relatively stable trend at Union level, although with divergent national trends. However, it is worrying that some Member States report recent new increases after a period of stabilisation or decrease. Mortality of opiate users, in particular injectors, is up to 20 times higher than the general population of the same age, due to overdoses, infectious diseases, accidents, suicides, etc. A copy of the last table presenting statistics, country per country, on drug related deaths in Member States is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. This table from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) shows data until 2000 only since there is a big delay between the collection of national data and their analysis. These data from different countries cannot be directly comparable (cfr. see the notes under the table). Drug related deaths are one of the five key indicators of the EMCDDA and a lot of effort has been put to make the figures comparable but work still needs to be done on this both by the EMCDDA and by the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Tariffs

Will the Commission provide the figures for an average tariff ideally weighted by trade flows on non-agricultural imports into the EU and into the United States before and after each trade liberalisation round in the post-war period?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2002)

The trade liberalisation rounds organised since 1947 under first the General Agreement on Tariffs (GATT) and Trade and later the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have led to substantial tariff dismantling on non-agricultural products in the industrialised countries. Average customs duties on this category of products in all industrialised countries fell from 40 % in 1947 to 4 % on average at the end of the Uruguay Round. The highpoints in this process were the Geneva negotiations in 1947, those of Torquay in 1950, the Kennedy Round of 1962-1967 and the Tokyo and Uruguay Rounds of 1973-1979 and 1986-1994.

While these trade negotiations have had undoubted impact, there are considerable methodological difficulties in retrospectively estimating the exact level of customs duties before and after each round and these difficulties restrict the scope of the data, i.e. differences between applied and bound duties, implementation periods and occasional overlaps between them, (an example being the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which was concluded before the end of the implementation period for undertakings made in the Uruguay Round), tariffication of non-tariff instruments,

changes in the make-up of the EU, changes in the nomenclature of products, problems of weighting (simple averages are sensitive to the nomenclature used, whereas averages weighted by imports are skewed when duties are high because the level of imports itself depends on the level of duties), levying of specific, mixed, compound and/or seasonal customs duties, and so on.

Consolidated post-Uruguay Round duties on industrial products stand at 3,9 % for the US and 4,1 % for the EU (source: WTO the averages used are simple averages). This is a 40 % drop in customs duties for the industrialised countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2588/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: VAT harmonisation

A UK company wishing to provide a service in France or Ireland is required to register for domestic VAT in that country, charge it to the customer and remit the proceeds to the authorities. This is before the company is even paid by its customer. This is a direct result of lack of VAT harmonisation.

However, Ireland and France benefit from UK harmonisation and therefore can trade into the UK for services and product/services without the need to hold a UK VAT registration.

One local firm in my South West constituency has estimated that adding up the costs incurred for professional advisers to research legislation and deal with their corresponding partners in those countries to effect the application and give advice amounts to start-up costs of approximately GBP 2 500 in Ireland, GBP 5 000 in France. Added to this are translation costs for the translation of forms and correspondence.

Can the Commission indicate what plans it has to bring about greater VAT harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2002)

Pursuant to the rules laid down in the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1)), companies have to charge and pay VAT in each Member State where they supply goods or services. This means that they may have to register for VAT as well as to invoice and declare this tax in Member States where they are not established, as soon as they have a cross-border activity.

In order to make it easier, this Directive lays down a series of cases where VAT has to be paid by the client when the supplier is not established in the Member State: this is a general rule for all intracommunity supplies of goods and also for the supplies of certain types of services.

In addition to this, article 21 of the Sixth VAT Directive allows Member States to extend this simplification to all cases where the client is not established within the Member State.

The Commission is well aware that such a simplification is not applied in all Member States but this option is the result of a difficult compromise in the Council in the framework of the discussions on suppressing the obligation to appoint a tax representative.

A European study is currently being carried out on the simplification and modernisation of VAT obligations in the Community. The specific problem of the need to register for VAT in Member States where companies are not established will be dealt with in that framework.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3051/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Increased cancer risk from above-ground electricity supply cables

An extensive long-term study by the California Public Utilities Commission in the San Francisco area has shown that people who have frequently been exposed to electromagnetic fields (because they live directly beneath high-voltage electricity supply cables, or owing to the proximity of electrical apparatus) run a significantly higher risk of contracting cancer. Pregnant women are at higher risk of miscarriage.

Is the Commission aware of the above findings, are they equivalent to those of the European Union, and what policy conclusions for the Union does it draw from them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) is aware of the long-term study carried out by the California Public Utilities Commission. To date, this study has not been completely published and accordingly, the Committee has considered only the part of the study that has been published after referee's revision. These findings do not change the CSTEE conclusion's regarding the suspected relationship between exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields (ELF) and cancer. The Commission will refer the finalised study report to the Committee for assessment as soon as it becomes available.

In conclusion, in both opinions published on 30 October 2001 and 24 September 2002 the Committee has confirmed the validity of the Council Recommendation(1) limits which covers all frequencies from O Herz to 300 GigaHerz and therefore includes the emissions from high voltage power lines.

Nevertheless the Commission follows actively the health risk assessment conducted by the WHO on electromagnetic fields. Field results should be available by 2004 and the Commission would react to any scientific evidence not taken into consideration.

(1) 1999/519/EC: Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fiels (0 Hz to 300 GHz), OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0657/02

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Persecution of Vietnamese citizens

The suffering of Vietnamese citizens, in particular members of the Vietnamese Evangelical Mennonite denomination, has been brought to my attention. Members, such as Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang who help run humanitarian projects to help the poor and destitute seem to be singled out for intimidation and persecution. Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang has been severely beaten and his family and those in contact with him such teachers at the class he has organised for poor children, have also been arrested without cause and suffered intimidation from the authorities.

In view of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it seems incredible that Vietnamese citizens can be treated in this manner.

What is the Commission's policy with regard to relations with Vietnam, and what can the Commission do to ensure that Vietnamese citizens do not suffer such persecution and are able to live their lives free of repression regardless of faith or race?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2002)

The Commission Delegation in Hanoi, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States, follows closely the human rights situation in Vietnam.

The Commission's approach towards Vietnam in the field of human rights, as it is towards all countries, is to encourage and support progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur, in the framework of the international human rights instruments. This approach was reiterated in the May 2001 Commission Communication(1) on the Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries.

In the case of Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, while the Commission has noted the information given on one of the internet websites (www.hrw.org) indicating inter alia that he was reportedly detained for operating a school for children without official permission, the Commission has not yet received independent confirmation of the events reported. The Commission Delegation in Hanoi has therefore been requested to make enquiries and to take appropriate follow-up action in conjunction with the Member State missions.

The Commission Delegation in Hanoi and the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States raise issues of concern in relation to human rights in Vietnam on an ongoing basis. For example, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the human rights situation in Vietnam was discussed during the Union-Vietnam Joint Commission in Hanoi on 6 November 2001 and again raised during the donors Consultative Group Meeting in Hanoi on 7-8 December 2001.

(1) COM(2001) 252 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Treatment of stray animals (dogs and cats) in Greece

Is the Commission aware that, in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games, the Greek Government is planning to catch stray animals in special traps, shut them up in animal homes and, unless an owner or potential owner appears within seven days, kill them?

Will the Commission ask the Greek Government to solve this problem in a more humane way, preferably in cooperation with Greek animal welfare organisations such as CIDAG?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that unnecessary suffering of animals is not acceptable.

The Commission places great importance on animal welfare and the first Community regulation on this subject was established as far back as 25 years ago. The Community has adopted general rules on the rearing of animals with the view to protecting their welfare. More detailed conditions have been laid down on the rearing of calves, pigs and laying hens. The Community has also passed legislation on animal transport and the conditions for the slaughter animals.

Community rules also exist on the use of animals for scientific research. Community legislation on animal transport and on the use of animals for scientific research is applicable to cats and dogs.

However, the way stray dogs are dealt with is a matter where the Community has no general legal competence. Within the Union, this domain is under the sole responsibility of the Member States. The issue should therefore be raised with the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3321/02

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Proposed end to intervention for rye

The Commission's draft interim report proposes a complete end to market intervention in rye. Rye is used for fodder in several countries, but for others it has a much wider significance. In Finland, for example, rye with its high fibre content and positive effect on health has been a fundamental ingredient of dietary foods such as rye bread and rye porridge. Finns obtain 40 % of their total dietary fibre requirement from rye, and the situation is almost the same in the other Nordic countries.

How does the Commission propose to take account in its interim report of the fact that in some countries rye is of considerable importance to health policy, and that without continued intervention in rye used as a particularly high-quality foodstuff, it would not be possible to produce it in future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

The market in rye shows a structural imbalance between the current volume of production and outlets on the internal market.

In addition, sales on the world market require a disproportionate refund rate and demand is limited. In this situation accumulation of intervention stocks is inevitable.

The amount of rye used in the Community is estimated at 4 million tonnes, of which 1,5 million goes for human consumption.

In proposing that intervention be ended the Commission wishes to align production on the capacity of internal outlets, including human consumption.

Intervention is merely a safety net. Stopping it will affect only the surplus of production over outlets.