ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2528/02

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

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Use of Palestinian human shields killed by Israel

As denounced by the Israeli human rights organisation Betselem on 14 August, when a young Palestinian was unlawfully used as a human shield in an action which caused his death, the Israeli Army is using human shields in its repressive colonial war against the Palestinian population. Why is the EU looking on passively whilst such acts are carried out by a State which is deploying all its might against a defenceless population? What will the Council do to stop this criminal behaviour on the part of the State of Israel?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is pointing at one of the most tragic aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is the suffering of the civil population. Although both sides have to respect their obligations both to refrain from targeting civilians and to avoid actions which put them in harm's way, Israeli and Palestinian men, women and children continue to pay a high price. The Council has, therefore, in its statements time and again unreservedly condemned violence and terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Council has regularly raised the issue of civilian casualties in its contacts with Israel.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3482/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Nepotism in the Commission's Agriculture Directorate-General

The Commission has nominated Mr Fabrizio Barbaso as Deputy Director-General in the Agriculture Directorate-General. He is to be responsible for, among other matters, markets.

Mr Barbaso was appointed Deputy Director-General for markets in October 2000, but was suspended in July 2002 after the European Court of First Instance ruled that he did not possess the necessary experience on agricultural market issues.

How can the Commission justify re-nominating the same person to Deputy Director-General when he is not competent in his area of responsibility according to the Court of Justice's ruling?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Honourable Member should note that the decision of the Court of First Instance annulled the appointment of the official named in the question on the basis of the job specification which was then relevant. The Court did not, however, suspend the official as suggested and the official was not suspended in any other way.

The recent appointment in the Agriculture Directorate General (DG AGRI) was undertaken in full accordance with the procedures adopted by the Commission in December 2000 and set out in the Communication on the The Appraisal, Selection and Appointment of Senior Commission Officials(1). That communication is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The vacancy notice relating to that appointment was drawn up on the basis of the policy introduced by the Commission in December 2000 of recruiting individuals who have the capacity to carry out multiple senior management functions within the Institution. The Commission also took account of changes in the organisational structure of DG AGRI which had come into operation in the intervening period.

After the initial screening of applicants for the post and following interviews by the Consultative Committee on Appointments, the Committee then followed the usual practice of putting forward a shortlist of suggested candidates for further consideration and there were five such candidates. The shortlisted candidates were then interviewed by the Member of the Commission with portfolio responsibility for Agriculture and by me as Commissioner responsible for Personnel and Administration and the Commission decided that Mr Barbaso had the best combination of desired skills and attributes set out in the vacancy notice for this post. He was then duly appointed.

(1) SEC(2000) 2305/5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Television station providing information to farmers

Funds were made available under the Second Community Support Framework and on the initiative of the Greek Minister for Agriculture to set up a television station designed to provide Greek farmers with information relating to their work.

Since, to my knowledge, no such station is operating as yet, will the Commission say:

1. What amount of funding was provided, and when, for the operation of the station?

2. Why the station is not in operation and what developments there have been in this respect?

3. Whether it is satisfied with the management of the funds concerned and, if not, what steps it will take to ensure transparency in the administration of those funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

1. A pilot action was planned within the context of the National Operational Programme Development of the Agricultural Sector under the 2nd Community Support Framework (1994-2000) for Greece, concerning the digitalisation of the Ministry of Agriculture's existent data on rural development and the purchase of a limited number of decoders. This action was implemented by the Ministry of agriculture after great delays only in the summer of 2001.

2. The creation of a station and the establishment of a rural television development programme, including the purchase of 20 000 decoders and satellite antennas (10 000 for collective entities and 10 000 for a selected group of individuals) was proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture during the 3rd Community Support Framework within the context of the National Operational Programme Rural Development (2000-2006). Already at an early stage, this action faced major programming and implementing difficulties and was withdrawn from the programme upon the Commission's request in spring 2002. No expenditure has been made for this action during the 3rd CSF. The corresponding measure will be eliminated from the National Operational Programme Rural Development (2000-2006) while the initial amount foreseen for this action will be reallocated in other actions within the context of the modification of the programme that is already underway.

3. The Commission will consider the outcome and management by the Ministry of agriculture of the first pilot action on digitalisation and will decide on the financial follow-up within the context of the final report of the National Operational Programme Development of the Agricultural Sector, which has not yet been submitted by the Greek authorities and the closure of the 2nd Community Support Framework (1994-1999) for Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3550/02

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2002)

Subject: Monosodium glutamate E621

Could the Commission confirm that the flavouring monosodium glutamate E621 is not a natural flavouring under the classification system established for flavourings under EU law? In that case, is it not misleading for consumers and contrary to Article 2(i) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC(1) for products containing E621 to be labelled as containing no artificial flavourings?

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

E 621 Monosodium glutamate is authorised for use in certain foodstuffs as a food additive by Directive 95/2/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners(1). Monosodium glutamate is a flavour enhancer. Flavour enhancers are defined as follows in Directive 95/2/EC, Article 1(l): Flavour enhancers are substances which enhance the existing taste and/or odour of a foodstuff. Flavour enhancers must be labelled on the foodstuffs by their category and specific name or E-number.

Monosodium glutamate is not listed in the register of chemically defined flavouring substances laid down by Commission Decision 1999/217/EC of 23 February 1999 adopting a register of flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs drawn up in application of Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 1996(2), as last amended by Commission Decision 2002/113/EC of 23 January 2002(3), and is therefore not a flavouring substance.

The presence of monosodium glutamate does therefore not preclude the label to indicate the absence of artificial flavourings.

All the cited legislation is available from the web site of Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection on additives and flavourings: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/addit_flavor/index_en.html.

(1) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995.

(2) OJ L 84, 27.3.1999.

(3) OJ L 49, 20.2.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Death penalty

How many current Member States of the EU have allowed their nationals to be extradited to US states (or federal authorities) which impose the death penalty?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

At this stage, there are no Union legal instruments in place that contain rules regarding extradition arrangements between current Member States and the United States. These arrangements are based on bilateral treaties concluded between Member States and the United States.

The Commission is not aware whether any of the current Member States make a distinction as to which United States state or federal authority will judge a person whose extradition the United States has requested, and whether that state or authority has the power to impose the death penalty.

However, the Commission understands that most Member States' bilateral extradition treaties with the United States contain clauses that allow the refusal of extradition unless sufficient assurances against the use of the death penalty are given, independently of whether the person concerned is a national of the Member State in question or not.

As regards the question of extradition of own nationals, it is the Commission's understanding that under current arrangements, only four Member States will extradite their own nationals to the United States, independently of whatever punishment they might face there.

The Commission would like to underline that it is not best placed to provide information on legal arrangements that Member States have legitimately made independently of Union processes. The Member States themselves would certainly be in a better position to give detailed information on this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1969/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Falun Gong

Is the Commission aware of allegations that the Chinese Government is persecuting and has persecuted practitioners of Falun Gong, and has the Commission made any representations to the Chinese Government about this issue?

Does the Commission believe that the Chinese Government has any acceptable justification for its alleged behaviour, and does it have any evidence that Falun Gong practitioners pose a threat to the stability of the state, to the Communist Party, to law and order, or to commerce in China?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

The Commission closely follows the human rights situation in China and is aware of incidents concerning Falun Gong practitioners. The Union has on several occasions undertaken formal démarches to the Chinese authorities, to express concern about reports of torture and ill treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, who have been arrested and the harshness of sentences given to those practitioners. The Commission has urged China to review such harsh sentences, and to ensure that safeguards for a fair trial, including adequate legal representation, are fully respected for all individuals. It has also called on China to comply with the United Nations (UN) human rights covenants it has signed, which include provisions concerning freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial.

A bilateral dialogue on human rights was established between the Union and China in 1996. In this framework the Union has regularly raised and will continue to raise individual cases of concern, including those of Falun Gong practitioners. The issue was also raised during the last round of the dialogue in Madrid in April 2002.

The Commission is not aware of any evidence that Falun Going practitioners pose a threat to the stability of the China, to the Communist Party, to law and order, or to commerce, in China.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1863/02

by Gerard Collins (UEN) to the Council

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Afghanistan

According to UNHCR figures, by 24 April 2002 the number of refugees returning to Afghanistan in a period of less than eight weeks was more than 353 000, with people returning from Pakistan representing by far the largest number.

Will the Council now provide an assessment of the impact of EU assistance on Afghanistan and does it consider that EU aid should now focus on additional areas and, if so, which areas and is it satisfied that enough is being done to ensure the welfare of children?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

1. The EU is firmly committed to delivering humanitarian aid and to making a substantial contribution to alleviate the plight of Afghan refugees. In general, the EU's co-operation objectives in Afghanistan are to support the implementation of the Bonn Agreement that sets out the path for long-term stabilisation and development of Afghanistan. The EC development programme and Member States' bilateral programmes all feed into this central objective.

2. In addition to the aid provided by individual Member States, the European Community (ECHO) has provided EUR 60 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and refugees in neighbouring Iran and Pakistan in 2002. This humanitarian support has been a mainstay of EU support to the country over the last ten years.

3. As for additional areas of aid that could be considered in the future, the Honourable Member might wish to request further details from the European Commission. The National Indicative Programme of EC support to Afghanistan for 2003-2004 is under discussion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

In the current round of GATS negotiations, the European Commission negotiates with the WTO on behalf of the European Union, and trade ministries from the 15 Member States inform this negotiating position. Could the European Commission clarify whether it takes a single EU position on service sectors to be covered by GATS rules or whether Member States retain discretion on which service sectors are to be covered by GATS rules in their country?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) applies in principle to all service sectors with two exceptions, namely services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority and measures affecting air traffic rights and services directly related to the exercise of such rights. Thus Members do not as such retain discretion as to which service sectors are covered by the GATS.

But each country determines the list of service sectors to which it is prepared to offer market access and national treatment to foreign service providers (bottom-up approach). Each country can therefore exclude from its commitments those activities that it considers politically sensitive. Even where Members decide to make commitments they are free to tailor the sector coverage and substantive content of such commitments as they see fit. Thus members may for example set limitations specifying the level of market access and the degree of national treatment they are prepared to guarantee. Furthermore, Members are able to limit commitments to one or more of the four recognised modes of supply through which services are provided. They may even withdraw and renegotiate commitments. Due to the built-in flexibility the commitments made tend to reflect national policy objectives and constraints, overall and in individual sectors. The GATS is consequently a remarkably flexible agreement that respects the diversity of economic and social situations existing among its Member countries.

The scope and content of the EC's initial requests to third countries in the services negotiations under the GATS has been discussed at length with the Member States and the negotiating objectives for all sectors are supported by all. The sectoral commitments made by the European Communities during the Uruguay round were endorsed by all Member States although some Member States have scheduled individual restrictions in certain sectors reflecting particular national policy objectives or constraints.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3210/02

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Natural disaster relief funding for recent storms across the EU

Having regard to the devastating storms across Europe over the weekend which destroyed homes, lives and infrastructure as well as causing severe social disturbance, can the Commission inform me as to whether any emergency provisions are foreseen to complement Member States' disaster funds and whether any funds will be released from unspent EU structural funds as happened in the floods earlier this year?

In addition to this, is the Commission going to accelerate procedures for the deployment of state aid and allow additional flexibility in this area?

Finally, have the disaster relief fund and EU solidarity fund been set up yet and will storm-damaged areas qualify for monies, given that one of the stated focus areas of the funds is short-term reconstruction of destroyed infrastructures and facilities in the fields of energy, water and wastewater, telecommunication, transport, health and education?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

After the floods that hit central Europe during August 2002 the Commission proposed a Council Regulation establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF)(1) making available up to EUR 1 billion per annum to grant emergency aid in the event of major disasters. The Council adopted the EUSF regulation on 11 November 2002(2).

Upon request of the country affected the fund may mainly be mobilised for natural disasters, including storms and flooding, if certain criteria are met. Damages must be higher than 0,6 % of Gross National Income (GNI) of the country concerned or EUR 3 billion. Under exceptional circumstances regional disasters not fulfilling these criteria may also benefit from the fund if the major part of the region's population is affected and if it has serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region.

The Structural Funds may only be mobilised to help relieve disaster damage within the regions assisted under the Structural Funds and must respect the conditions set out in the relevant programmes. Managing authorities of Structural Funds programmes may however propose programme changes which the Commission will examine on a case by case basis.

So far as State aid is concerned, Article 87 (2) (b) of the EC Treaty provides that aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences shall be compatible with the Treaty.

Thus the Commission can approve aid of up to 100 % of the losses caused by a natural disaster. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999(3), the Commission must reach an initial decision on notified State aid within 2 months of receipt of the notification, although in practice the Commission will aim to approve this type of aid more quickly.

(1) COM(2002) 514 final, on 18 September 2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/02

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: States party to international conventions which protect only their own nationals and not all Community citizens

In its judgment on the Gottardo v INPS case, the Court of Justice laid down clear principles on bilateral conventions (virtually all bilateral conventions currently only protect citizens of the contracting states). Other Community citizens resident in Italy who work in Monaco or San Maríno by virtue of their citizenship are denied entitlement to social security benefits. Moreover, in implementing the commitments entered into under international conventions, Member States must abide by their obligations under Community law.

What action does the Commission intend to take in the light of the above judgment vis-à-vis those states party to international conventions which protect only their own nationals and not all Community citizens?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

In its judgment of 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00 Gottardo, the Court of Justice ruled:

The competent social security authorities of one Member State are required, pursuant to their Community obligations under Article 39 EC, to take account, for purposes of acquiring the right to old-age benefits, of periods of insurance completed in a non-member country by a national of a second Member State in circumstances where, under identical conditions of contribution, those competent authorities will take into account such periods where they have been completed by nationals of the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between that Member State and the non-member country.

According to this judgment, the advantages deriving from a bilateral convention between a Member State and a non-member country must be granted to workers from other Member States which are not party to the convention; this is in line with the principle of equal treatment for a State's own nationals and those of other Member States, as provided for in Article 39 of the EC Treaty.

Following the judgment of 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00 Gottardo, the Commission asked all the Member States to notify it about any practical difficulties in implementing this ruling, and about the measures they intend to take in order to ensure that the various agreements comply with the Court of Justice's ruling.

A discussion of these questions took place on 9/10 December 2002 at the meeting of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers. The Commission is currently examining the replies from the Member States.