ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0122/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Schengen Agreement: Member States' obligations

Article 6 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement lays down that checks at external borders fall within the scope of national powers and national law and are to be carried out taking account of the interests of all Contracting Parties. In Article 6(4) the Contracting Parties further undertake to deploy enough suitably qualified officers to carry out checks and surveillance along external borders.

What conditions must be met so that the undertaking that there will be enough suitably qualified officers for checks and surveillance along external borders can be considered fulfilled?

Is the Commission aware of cases in which Member States have failed to meet the obligations referred to in Article 6? If so, which Member States are concerned?

What steps can the European Union take if individual Member States fail to comply with this Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

Under the Schengen acquis, each Member State is required to deploy enough suitably qualified officers to carry out checks and surveillance along external borders, in accordance with the standards laid down in the acquis.

It is impossible to give a general definition of enough suitably qualified officers. The formulation needs to be spelled out according to the nature of the border in question land, air or sea and other factors such as its geographical position, the type and volume of cross-border flows of people, and the time of year.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Schengen Evaluation Group, of which it is a member, checks both whether Member States wishing to join the borderless Schengen area meet the necessary conditions for the abolition of checks at internal borders, including those relating to effective checks and surveillance at external borders, and whether those Member States already implementing the Schengen acquis are meeting the resultant obligations satisfactorily.

In the past, the Schengen Evaluation Group has sometimes made recommendations with a view to optimising the use of the available resources or adjusting staff numbers.

However, none of the checks carried out by the Group so far has identified any Member States implementing the Schengen acquis which are failing to meet the obligation to deploy enough suitably qualified officers to carry out checks and surveillance along external borders.

In this context, the Commission would also point out that on 13 June 2002 the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a plan for the management of external borders, comprising a series of measures and actions to improve checks and surveillance. Implementation of the plan will be evaluated by the Thessaloniki European Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU participation in the enlargement of the La Concepción dam, Marbella

The enlargement of the La Concepción dam in Marbella (Spain) is running dangerously behind schedule, which gives cause for concern as it is an essential source of water for the whole of the Costa del Sol at a point in time when a further 30 000 hotel rooms are under construction in the area, pointing to a significant increase in tourism in this part of the developing region of Andalusia.

The enlargement of the dam will consist of the laying of a new section of dam, which will add 16 metres to the dam's current height and will almost double the capacity of the reservoir from 56 cubic hectometres today to over one hundred cubic hectometres.

How much is the Community contributing to this very important project to supply water to the Costa del Sol? To what extent would the Commission be prepared to consider giving the project a firm helping hand?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

On 11 December 2002 the Spanish authorities sent the Commission an application for assistance from the Cohesion Fund for a study entitled El estudio y redacción del proyecto y estudio de impacto ambiental del recrecimiento de la presa de la Concepción (The study and drafting of the project and environmental impact assessment for increasing the height of the La Concepción dam). This is a technical study in support of an eligible project, the total eligible cost of which is EUR 575 980. The rate of Community part-financing requested by the Spanish authorities is 85 %. The Commission is currently considering the application.

The Commission will consider any application for aid made by the Spanish State for the enlargement of this dam, whether from the Cohesion Fund or the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), in strict compliance with the rules in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Hunger strike by Zouhair Yahyaoui

Mr Zouhair Yahyaoui, webmaster of the TuneZine website, who is being detained at Borj el Amri prison for his opinions and who was sentenced in July 2002 to two years' imprisonment for the spreading of false information and fraudulent use of the media, began a hunger strike on 17 January 2003 to protest against the lack of proper treatment and inhuman conditions of detention and to demand his release. His family visited him on 23 January 2003. Mr Zouhair Yahyaoui, looking clearly weakened, repeated that he was determined to continue his hunger strike until he was released. He confirmed that he had not been given appropriate treatment, in particular antibiotics, for the infection from which he was suffering and that he had refused to take the pills provided by the prison service. Since he began his hunger strike, Mr Zouhair Yahyaoui has remained in his cell and has refused to leave it even to go for a daily walk.

Is the Commission aware of Mr Zouhair Yahyaoui's hunger strike to denounce, in particular, the inhuman conditions of detention in Tunisian prisons? If so, what action has the Commission taken to persuade the Tunisian authorities to adopt appropriate measures as a matter of urgency to ensure that all Tunisian prisoners, including Mr Zouhair Yahyaoui, enjoy decent conditions of detention? What is the Commission's position on the general amnesty demanded by all the Tunisian opposition movements?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0250/03 and E-0263/03given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the hunger strikes undertaken by Hamadi Yahiaoui and Zouhaier Jebali and, through its sources, is following their state of health.

As already indicated in the answer to written questions E-2526/02, E-2597/02, E-2629/02 and E-3031/02, the Commission is concerned at the conditions of Mr Yahiaoui and his fellow detainees being held, particularly in the Bordj el-Amri prison.

Since it replied to those questions, the EU has again drawn the attention of the Tunisian authorities to the case of Mr Yahiaoui and his conditions of detention.

The Honourable Member should know that at the recent EU-Tunisia Association Committee meeting, the EU called on the authorities to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on detention conditions in Tunisia.

At a different level, the Commission is helping to modernise the Tunisian justice system through a MEDA programme which is currently in the pipeline. Under this programme measures are planned to support the prisons administration.

The Union has also reminded Tunisia that the fight against Islamic extremism cannot be conducted to the detriment of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The matter of a general amnesty for certain categories of prisoner has not yet been raised with the Tunisian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Safety of domestic stoves and fireplaces

I am currently receiving an increasing number of questions from concerned citizens, relating to the safety of domestic stoves and fireplaces. In order to provide a sound assessment, some clarification is needed.

1. How many fires occurring in the Member States are caused by heating systems, connecting pieces (e.g. stovepipes) or chimneys (exhausts):

(a) in total?

(b) by those burning solid fuels (wood and coal),

(c) by those burning oil,

(d) by those burning gas?

2. How many people suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning from stoves and fireplaces (exhaust emissions):

(a) with fatal consequences?

(b) with damage to their health?

3. What measures (e.g. inspections) are being taken to prevent the dangers posed by stoves and fireplaces after installation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

The Commission does not have the statistics requested concerning how many fires in the Member States are caused by heating systems, connecting pieces or chimneys. Neither does the Commission hold statistics concerning how many people suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning from stoves and fireplaces (exhaust emissions).

The Commission does not have information regarding inspections of heating appliances by the Member States after their installation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0350/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Cost to the budget of applying the weighting factor to Community officials' pensions

At present a variable weighting factor is applied to the pensions paid to former Community officials on the basis of their place of residence, with the base weighting being 100 for Belgium. In its proposal for a regulation amending the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities, the Commission has suggested that this weighting be adjusted.

Could the Commission indicate:

1. what the budgetary savings would have been for the financial year 2002 had these weighting factors not been applied;

2. what the costs to the 2004 budget would be if:

(a) no weightings are applied;

(b) the Commission's proposal is implemented;

(c) the current system continues to be applied?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

As the Honourable Member will know, the variable weighting factor (the correction co-efficient) is provided for in the Staff Regulations of the EU Civil Service.

In answer to his specific questions:

1. If correction coefficients had not applied in 2002, the net budget savings would have been EUR 39,4 million (EUR 44,7 million deriving from a reduction in expenditure and EUR 5,3 million from a reduction in revenue).

2. In the three scenarios suggested in the question, the costs (expenditure minus revenues) of correction coefficients in 2004 would be:

(a) Zero if no weightings were applied. However, since Pensioners' legitimate expectations would seem to require the protection of acquired rights,(1) there could be a cost of up to EUR 36 million to the budget.

(b) If the Commission's proposal, including the proposed transitional measures(2), is implemented, the cost will be EUR 38 million.

(c) If the current system was to continue to be applied, the cost would be EUR 42 million.

The Honourable Member is aware that this issue is receiving in-depth consideration in the Parliament and in Council in the course of deliberations on proposals to make modernising amendments to the current Staff Regulations. The above replies reflect the established conditions as well as the implications of the Commission proposals as tabled.

(1) See Article 21, Annex XIII, Commission proposal OJ C 291, 26.11.2002.

(2) See Articles 20 and 21, Annex XIII, Commission proposal OJ C 291, 26.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0625/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Transposition of EU legislation

Could the Commission inform me as to whether the current Member States of the EU have taken the necessary measures to implement the Race Directive (2000/43/EC(1)) and the Employment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC(2))? If so, could the Commission confirm that the deadline of respectively July 2003 and December 2003 for the transposition of these two Directives will be met?

Is the Commission aware of any Member States encountering any problems or experiencing any reluctance to implement the said Directives?

Will the Commission outline what action it is prepared to take in the event of non-implementation within the respective deadlines?

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0625/03 and P-0712/03given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Member States have to transpose Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 establishing the principle of equal treatment irrespective of racial or ethnic origin into national law by 19 July 2003. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation has to be transposed by 2 December 2003 (with the possibility of an additional three years to transpose the provisions on age and disability discrimination).

Thus far, France has notified to the Commission its transposition of parts of the two Directives. The French legislation is currently being examined for conformity with the Directives. The Commission is also aware that legislation has been adopted, or is about to be adopted in some other Member States, though has not as yet received formal notification of such legislation.

The Commission is in regular contact with the authorities of the Member States to support the process of transposition. This approach has allowed questions about the interpretation of the Directives to be discussed in advance of transposition. The Commission hopes that the majority of the difficulties encountered will have been solved in this way.

The Commission has expressed its concern that the deadlines for transposition must be respected and that a failure to do so will constitute an infringement of Community law. All Member States have indicated their intention to transpose the Directives within the time allowed. In the event of a failure to transpose by the deadline, or of incorrect transposition by a Member State, the Commission will make appropriate use of the powers available to it under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0161/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Enclosure of the Filopappos Hill in Athens

The Greek Ministry of Culture, by way of the Community-funded Agency for the integration of the archaeological sites of Athens, has decided to fence off a huge area around the Filopappos Hill and the Observatory opposite the Acropolis, which is several kilometres long, with ugly metal railings.

At the same time, a number of projects are being carried out in the area, such as building facilities for an unspecified exhibition of sculpture, etc. In practice, the fence prevents Athenians from enjoying safe and free access to the hill, particularly those thousands who live in the surrounding neighbourhoods, many of whom make regular visits to take a walk (or walk their dogs), to exercise (jog, climb), to picnic, etc., pursuits which constitute low-key use of the hill for the benefit of the general public and their quality of life.

What is the Commission's view of the practical measures taken to implement a programme which it is funding? What is its position on such a (sustainable?) development project carried out in this manner and on the basis of which criteria was it approved?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Within the Community Support Framework III, the Operational Programme (OP) on Culture finances interventions in order to improve the quality of tourism services in Greece and to reinforce the overall development of the cultural sector. Special attention is given to actions that have an immediate and visible impact on the attractiveness and accessibility of archaeological sites and museums.

According to the information received by the Managing Authority of the OP on Culture, the Greek Ministry of Culture has declared the Filoppapos hill an archaeological site, which as such is protected under national law. The Filopappos project, which fulfils the project selection criteria, includes fence works, an electromechanical network and improvements for an open-air exhibition of sculpture. It totals EUR 3,4 million and is implemented by the Agency for the Integration of Archaeological Sites of Athens (EAXA). The Central Archaeological Council has approved the project design, while the authorities responsible in Athens have approved the environmental impact assessment and the environmental conditions to be met.

The fence works are considered necessary to protect the site from vandalism, pollution and other damage. It is planned to have 25 toll free entrances, which will be closed during the night. In this way, access to the hill will be safe and free of charge while the archaeological site will be protected. The construction of the fence works aims to give the Filopappos hill a status similar to the National Park of Athens.

In accordance with the Structural Funds Regulation(1), the selection and approval of projects lie with the Managing Authority which is also responsible for the supervision and follow-up of the project.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Mauritania international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Mauritania international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Mauritania?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

1. Article 2 of the current Protocol to the fisheries agreement between the Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania(1) fixes the level of financial contribution at EUR 86 000 000 per year. Of this, EUR 4 000 000 is used for the measures in support of the Mauritanian fisheries sector specified in Article 5 of the Protocol.

2. The financial contribution of EUR 86 000 000 per year represents the amount that is paid in exchange for the fishing opportunities made available to the Community fleet.

3. The amounts paid by the vessel owners are fixed in the Fishing Datasheets (FD) included in the Protocol.

For demersal fisheries, the licence fees (as of the 1 January 2003) are:

>TABLE>

For the tuna fishery (FD No 7 and 8), the licence fees are EUR 25 per tonne (T) of tuna caught within the waters of Mauritania. The licences are delivered after advance payments of EUR 1 250 for tuna seiners and of EUR 2 500 for surface longliners and pole and line vessels. The amount of the advances are deducted from the total amount due on the basis of the catches during the preceding year, but if the amount due is less than the advance the balance is not recoverable.

For the pelagic freezer trawlers (FD No 9), the licence fees are EUR 2,5 per GT per month. In addition to the licence fee, catches over the yearly limits defined for each of three categories of vessel (< 3 000 GT, 12 500 T/vessel/year; 3 000-5 000 GT, 17 500 T/vessel/year; 5 000-9 500 GT, 22 500 T/vessel/year) shall be paid at a rate of EUR 19 per tonne.

(1) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Contracts with management consultants

Management consultants such as Andersen Consulting or Ernst & Young have hit the headlines recently for allegedly inadequate advisory services. Andersen came in for criticism over the Enron scandal and Ernst & Young is now faced with a demand for CHF 3 billion following more serious allegations of unsatisfactory work for the Cantonal Bank of Geneva.

These incidents give rise to the following questions:

- How many contracts were concluded in 2002 between the Commission and management consultants and what is their total value?

- Has the Commission ever become aware of consultancy work being carried out unsatisfactorily? What criteria does the Commission apply when assessing advisory services?

- Has a consultancy contract ever proved damaging to the Commission?

- If so, to what extent and was compensation demanded? If not, why not?

- Why are management consultants and not Commission officials called on to carry out certain tasks?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Freedom of association in Romania

Following the reply of 27 June 2002 to my question E-1377/02(1), in which the Commission states that freedom of association is covered by the Copenhagen criteria, new developments have occurred in Romania. The Bucharest Court of Appeal has just confirmed the decision to refuse registration to Romania's first regional party, the Liga Transilvania-Banat. The Court stated, inter alia, that regionalism and subsidiarity are principles that run counter to the unitary and indivisible character of the Romanian state.

Is the banning of a democratic political party compatible with the spirit of the accession criteria defined in Copenhagen? Does the Commission intend to ask the Romanian authorities for an explanation?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 100.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission's reply to question E-1377/02 noted that the Romanian constitution prohibits giving a legal status to organisations whose goals and activities are against the principles of the Romanian state. These principles include respect for the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Romania.

The Commission does not have the legal competence to assess whether or not the Romanian constitution, as interpreted by this level of the Romanian court system, places an unjustified prohibition of the

freedom of association. However, Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam) does state that The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms .

It is the Commission's understanding that the possibility exists to appeal against the ruling of the Bucharest court. Once domestic avenues of appeal have been exhausted, and since Romania is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, the appropriate body to make such an assessment is the European Court on Human Rights.

The Commission will continue to use the findings of the European Court on Human Rights as one of its main sources when assessing respect of the Copenhagen accession criteria.