ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2860/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Absence of any annual report on the action programme to combat Aids

The action programme to combat Aids was adopted on 21 February 2001. In February 2002 at a consultation meeting with the DG for Trade, NGOs were promised that a separate annual report on the first year of the action programme would be presented shortly.

This annual report is still not available and there are rumours that the action programme is merely to be included in the European Commission's general annual report.

1. Will the European Commission honour its promise to report separately on this action programme?

2. If not, why did it promise to do so earlier?

3. How does the European Commission define the word shortly?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2002)

The Commission is currently finalising an extensive analysis of the Programme for Action, 18 months after its adoption. As the Programme for Action entails a series of new and important policy, programming and implementation initiatives, reporting will indeed be done this time separately from the Annual Report on the Development Policy.

The report is expected to be adopted in January 2003. The Commission will therefore keep its promise.

Reporting has been delayed mainly due to the Commission investing time and resources in the Global Fund to fight human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the follow-up to the Doha Declaration on Public Health and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), the establishment of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Platform, the discussions in Parliament and Council on the Regulation for a special budget line for the Programme for Action, all of which are actions defined in the Programme for Action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2851/02

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Fur trade

In August 2002, investigations by the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society International showed that fur from Asian domestic cats was being sold both in Vienna and other towns in Austria. This means that cat and dog fur can now be bought by consumers in seven Member States in the United Kingdom, the authorities assume that this fur is being sold there.

How can the Commission justify saying that, although this trade goes on in 50 % of Member States of the European Union, it is not an issue for the single European market?

Should the trade in cat and dog fur not also come under European Union control, since consumers are not being adequately informed about their purchases?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2851/02 and E-3088/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Since a complete ban on the production, use, trade and import of cat and dog furs as intended by certain Member States and frequently demanded in the Union would apply, regardless of the conditions under which the animals are kept and killed, it is evident that such measures are not motivated by animal welfare concerns. The motivation is rather an ethical question, whether to use products derived from animals which are mainly regarded as companion animals. A measure, which aims mainly to protect public morality, could be seen as lying within the competence of the Member States.

The Commission has no proposals at present to inform European consumers on the way fur products are obtained and is not aware of any such proposals in the Member States. The situation will be kept under review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3664/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Webjacking used by the Chinese authorities to block unwelcome sites

According to reports from Dynamic Internet Technology Inc (DIT) the technological partner of Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and Epoch Times a few months ago the authorities in the People's Republic of China adopted a new strategy for blocking sites of which they do not approve. The technical name for the method used is webjacking, in which an Internet address is hijacked so as to divert the user to another site. This is done at Chinese ISP (Internet Service Provider) level by tampering with the domain name system (DNS), the Internet registry which converts each address (which is unique throughout the world) from an alphanumeric to a numeric format (for example, the address www.bbc.co.uk corresponds to IP 212.58.240.31). What happens in practice is that, throughout China, the DNS wrongly resolves the address of the site to be blocked, sending the user (who is unaware of what is happening) to a false IP address. This system enables users wishing to access a whole range of Internet sites to be diverted to a single address which is then blocked at the main Chinese firewall.

Does the Commission intend to ask the Chinese authorities for clarifications about the use of such practices in China? If they are used, how does it intend to go about ensuring that the Chinese Government stops using them, given the economic and political damage the widespread use of such censure tools can cause? If it does not already have such means at its disposal, does it intend to acquire means of safeguarding the interests of EU citizens and associations against such interference by the People's Republic of China?

Answer given by Mr Chris Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns about Internet access and use in China. It has repeatedly made representations to the Chinese authorities on this matter, in particular through the

EU-China bilateral dialogue on human rights, focusing specifically on violations of freedom of expression. The information provided by the Honourable Member will undoubtedly be very useful in the discussion of this subject which it intends to pursue with the Chinese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: EU code of conduct on the export of arms and weapon systems to third countries

Reports in the international press claim that serious breaches of the code of conduct on arms exports to third countries have been committed by Member States of the EU.

Although the Member States adopted strict common criteria on arms exports as early as May 1998 and despite the existence of binding agreements, some Member States are manufacturing and exporting weapon systems to third countries which do not fulfil the criteria set out in the code of conduct:

- the UK which is reported to have sold weapon systems to undemocratic regimes and countries which are embroiled in civil strife (India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Morocco, Tanzania), and

- Belgium, which recently exported 5 500 weapons made by the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique National to Nepal, where civil war has been raging for many years.

In view of the foregoing, will the Commission say whether it considers that the code of conduct on arms exports has been breached in the UK's case specifically criterion 2 of paragraphs (a) and (b), and in Belgium's case criterion 3? What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the code of conduct is not circumvented and that, henceforth, there is stricter compliance with its provisions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports referred to by the Honourable Member was adopted by the Member States in 1998 within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is a politically binding document aimed at creating high common standards for arms exports by establishing eight criteria and increasing transparency. The operative provisions of the Code provide for the notification of denials and for confidential consultations among the Member States concerned, but the final decision remains at the discretion of the Member State to which an application for a transaction involving arms and weapon systems has been addressed.

Discussions in the Working Group of the Council dealing with conventional arms transfers (COARM), in which the Commission participates, contribute to develop a common understanding and possibly over time a common doctrine for the implementation of the Code by the Member States. Annual reports are published both at national and Union level and they contribute to enhance transparency in this field. Proposals in COARM to develop the Code to a legally binding instrument have not met with approval by all Member States. A number of third countries have pledged to subscribe to the principles of the Code. The Union also promotes the application of these principles by the associated countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3784/02

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Infringement proceedings

On 13 November 2002, the European Commission took the decision to withdraw its application to the European Court of Justice for the imposition of a daily fine on France for failure to implement the Judgment of the Court (C-1/00) of 13 December 2001 ordering France to lift the British beef embargo.

In the light of this and other cases, the Commission stated that it will re-examine its approach to the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

Does the Commission agree that the present possibilities available to it to pursue compliance with EU legislation by a Member State are insufficient to have a deterrent effect on Member States, and therefore need to be reinforced in some way?

Is the Commission intending to bring forward proposals in this respect, bearing in mind the increasing gap in implementation shown in the recent Internal Market scoreboard report?

Does the Commission agree that lump sum or daily penalty payments (Article 228(2)) can be avoided by Member States exploiting the legal process, and that this sends the wrong message to Europe's citizens?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The fact that the Commission decided to review the conditions for implementing Article 228 of the EC Treaty in connection with the case referred to by the Honourable Member cannot be regarded as an admission of inadequate resources but rather a demonstration of the desire to seek the most appropriate ways under the EC Treaty of ensuring that Court of Justice judgments are implemented.

Recently, in connection with the White Paper on Governance as regards better monitoring of the application of Community law(1), the Commission stressed that it intended to give priority to infringement proceedings under Article 228. Likewise, in its contribution to the work of the Convention(2), it proposed reinforcing the machinery at its disposal for performing its general task of ensuring that Union law is properly implemented.

(1) COM(2002) 725 final.

(2) COM(2002) 728 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Implementation of fair trade clause in the chocolate directive

As stated in the preamble of Directive 2000/36/EC(1), cocoa, cocoa butter and a series of other vegetable fats used in the manufacture of chocolate are mainly produced in developing countries, therefore it is in the interests of people living in developing countries that agreements of as long a duration as possible should be concluded. The preamble also specifically calls on the Commission to consider the role which fair trade could play in such agreements.

In light of this, what is the Commission intending to do to establish long-term commodity agreements and promote fair trade with such developing countries?

(1) OJ L 197, 3.8.2000, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Community is a member of all major commodity agreements. The Commission plays an active role in negotiating, implementing and managing these agreements. The Community has been a member of the agreements concerning cocoa since the first such agreement was negotiated in 1972. The new agreement for cocoa, which was negotiated in 2001, is scheduled to enter into force in 2003 for a maximum period of nine years. Provisions have been made to adjust the agreement throughout its lifespan to ensure it remains relevant to changing market conditions.

The Commission is working to promote Fair Trade with developing countries in two main ways, namely by:

- Raising public awareness of Fair Trade among Union citizens, which, even if in growing numbers, continue to buy only limited amounts of Fair Trade goods. For this activity, a budget of EUR 15 million from the budget line B7-6000 has been allocated for this purpose over the past five years; and

- Organising frequent contacts with the main interested parties involved in Fair Trade.

Public confusion over the concept of Fair Trade, due to a number of different private labels, represent a major obstacle to its further development. The European Multistakeholder forum, recently launched following the Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility, will discuss way to facilitate the correct labelling of such products.

The Commission is investigating ways to strengthen its participation in commodity agreements and further develop Fair Trade as part of its efforts to reduce poverty in developing countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2657/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Plane-spotters

On 26 April 2002 two nationals of the Netherlands were sentenced by a Greek court in Kalamata to three-years' imprisonment for practising their hobby, plane-spotting. The plane-spotters were taking part, with the specific consent of the Greek aviation authorities, in an organised trip to Greece to record the numbers of the military aeroplanes they spotted on and near various military airbases. Such numbers are available from several public sources, including the Internet. Nevertheless, the Greek court regarded the plane-spotters' actions as spying, which is an offence under Greek law.

The interpretation of plane-spotting by the judicial authorities differs in the Member States concerned. What is regarded as a hobby in the Netherlands, is punishable by three years' imprisonment in Greece. It is desirable that there should be a clear statement concerning plane spotting vis-à-vis spying, not least for the purposes of European legislation, such as the harmonisation of punishments and the European arrest warrant.

Is the European Commission aware of the case described above?

Is the Commission prepared to make a clear statement concerning the difference between plane spotting and spying?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of this case which received considerable publicity. The Commission has no authority to verify whether proceedings in any Member State violated the right to a fair trial, there is no legal basis for an action of this sort and no mechanism exists with which to do so. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) lays down the standards required for a fair trial. These provisions are set out in Articles 5 (Right to liberty and security) and 6 (Right to a fair trial) and are developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Any complaints that proceedings violated the right to a fair trial have to be made to that court, after exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Commission understands that the plane-spotter tourists have lodged an appeal against their convictions and sentences in the Greek Court of Criminal Appeals. If the appeal is unsuccessful, an application can then be made to the European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission is not in a position to make a statement about plane-spotting since it has no competence to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 November 2002)

Subject: Possible increase of EU contribution to the Global Plan to stop tuberculosis

Will the Commission consider increasing its contribution to the Global Plan to stop tuberculosis? Is the Commission aware that despite its recent very welcome contribution to the Global Plan, there remains a serious funding shortfall over the five years of the Plan? Does the Commission agree that in the long run it would be much more expensive if the Plan were only partially fulfilled with the result of increasing spread of multi-drug resistant TB?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Stop Tuberculosis (TB) Partnership has presented the Global Plan to stop TB in which it describes the strategies and resources needed over the next five years to expand, adapt, and improve DOTS (directly observed treatment short regime), meeting the 2005 global targets and setting the world on the road to the elimination of TB. USD 9 billion is needed to fulfil the objectives of the Plan, with a present gap of nearly US$4 billion.

The Commission is aware of the pertinence and urgency of investing in TB which will have an overall development impact and also avoid the costs of a spread of multi-drug resistant TB in the future.

The Commission supports the extension of the DOTS strategy. This strategy relies on effective health systems and therefore it is through support at country level and in dialogue with the government authorities towards sector support we can best support TB control. The Commission is also co-financing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which have focused on TB control in some regions. The Commission also supports the Global Fund to fight acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis aiming at TB control in the context of the Millennium Development Goals. These funds will target tuberculosis control programmes, including scaling up DOTS.

New and better drugs, diagnostics and vaccines are also needed for Tuberculosis, in order to increase detection rates, cure rates and reduce transmission, incidence and mortality. The Commission has increased its commitment towards health research on poverty related diseases through the 6th Research Framework, including the European Development Clinical Trials Platform.

The Commission is also looking into priority areas of TB intervention through the poverty-related diseases' budget line. Its regulation is being discussed at present in Parliament and Council. It will allow the Commission inter alia to fund innovative initiatives towards the control of TB, which can later be scaled up through other financial tools of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3109/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Risks arising from assisted fertilisation

On 18 July 2002 the Italian weekly Panorama reported the case of a pair of test-tube twins who were black, born to a white English couple. This incident gives rise to a number of questions and concerns. One wonders what lies in store for those babies, and who the law will view as being their parents. It also seems reasonable to question the reliability of the clinics that perform this type of operation, the conditions in which these are performed and the professional abilities of the medical and paramedical staff.

In this connection, does the Commission:

1. know whether the regulatory frameworks of the Member States comprise laws on assisted fertilisation which provide not only for penalties, but also for redress in the event of mistakes such as these occurring?

2. not consider that this area should be governed by European-level rules which establish minimum requirements for skills and equipment in respect of the opening of specialist assisted fertilisation centres?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

1. No. The Commission does not have data on Member State legislation on assisted fertilisation nor on provisions concerning penalties or errors taking place during such procedures.

2. No. The Commission does not consider that a relevant legal basis exists in the EC Treaty for setting minimum requirements for skills and equipment in respect of the opening of specialist assisted fertilisation centres. This matter is one falling within the competence of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/02

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

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Imprisonment of Leyla Zana and Turkey's accession to the EU

According to Amnesty International, Mrs Leyla Zana is currently in a Turkish prison for having dared to speak in Kurdish at her inauguration as a member of the Turkish parliament.

Has the Council been informed of this situation?

Should these reports prove accurate, does it believe that a State practising repression of this kind can accede to the European Union?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

1. The Council is fully aware of the situation of the former member of the Turkish parliament Mrs Leyla Zana as well as of three other former members of parliament who are currently serving prison sentences following their conviction, by the Ankara State Security Court in 1994, on the grounds of membership of the PKK, under Article 168 of the Penal Code.

2. In a judgment of 17 July 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Leyla Zana's and the other defendants' right to a fair trial has been violated. In an interim resolution of 30 April 2002, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe urged Turkey in particular to ensure the reopening of the proceedings, while recognising that Turkey had already taken measures in order to prevent new similar violations, inter alia by abolishing the role of military judge in the state security courts.

3. On 23 January last, the Turkish parliament adopted legislative amendments concerning retrial further to judgments of the ECHR. Following the entry into force of these amendments, the case of Leyla Zana and the others was indeed reopened (Ankara first state security court). Several court hearings have already taken place since then (notably on 28 March, 25 April, 23 May, 20 June, 18 July and 15 August 2003).

4. The EU is following the Zana case very closely. It expects the proceedings to be conducted in a way such as to ensure fully the defendants' right to a fair trial and to comply with the relevant priority of the revised EU-Turkey Accession Partnership which requires Turkey to: Remedy the situation of those persons prosecuted or sentenced for non-violent expression of opinion. Implement legal provisions on the right to re-trial following the relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.