ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2233/02

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Political crisis in Madagascar

Following the general election of 16 December 2001 and the final ruling of the High Constitutional Court on 29 April 2002, Marc Ravalomanana has been elected President of Madagascar.

However, in spite of the Dakar Agreement, signed on 18 April 2002 by the new president, Mr Ravalomanana, and the outgoing president, Didier Ratsiraka, which provided for the formation of a transitional government of reconciliation until the recount of the votes cast on 16 December 2001, Mr Ratsiraka is refusing to recognise the court ruling.

The outgoing president has taken refuge in the north of the country, his traditional stronghold, and is ready to put up armed resistance to a likely attack by the government forces of President Ravalomanana, which have decided to put an end to Mr Ratsiraka's occupation of the northern part of the island.

In the event of a war, the chief victims would inevitably be defenceless civilians.

Can the Commission therefore say whether and how the European Union could take action to help peacefully resolve the political and military crisis in Madagascar, thereby preventing a civil war of unimaginable consequences?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

The Commission wishes to remind the recent positive outcome of the crisis in Madagascar, which ended with Mr Marc Ravalomanana launching a reconciliation process in the country and announcing early legislative elections, and the international community recognising him as President of Madagascar.

The Commission welcomes the solution of the crisis and hopes that the reconciliation process will lead to peace and stability for the people of Madagascar.

The Commission deplores the dramatic impact of the past political crisis on the population. The Commission has, during the seven months long crisis, been committed to a solution that is respectful of civilian peace and of the interests of the people of Madagascar. To this end, the Commission has supported all the mediation efforts to encourage national conciliation.

Furthermore, during this period, the Commission has taken several measures to alleviate the effects of the protracted crisis on the population, such as the rehabilitation of roads and the re-establishment of free movement of goods and persons, ensuring the supply of food and medicine.

The Commission is prepared to offer political and technical support for national reconciliation and for a lasting solution to the crisis, and is ready, in co-ordination with other donors, to contribute to Madagascar's efforts to restore the economic and social situation of the country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1091/02

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE)and Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Arms embargo against Israel

The Council has imposed arms embargoes against a number of countries including Afghanistan, Burma, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Libya, Sierra Leone, Sudan and, most recently, Zimbabwe (18 February 2002).

The EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports was adopted 8 June 1998 with the aim of setting high common standards for arms exports. Criteria include respect for human rights in the country of final destination. In particular, Member States will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression, including, inter alia, summary or arbitrary executions, (criterion 2b). Other criteria include the existence of tensions or armed conflicts, and whether there is a clear risk that the arms would be used to assert by force a territorial claim (criterion 4) and compliance with international commitments, including humanitarian law (criterion 6).

In its conclusions at the Barcelona European Council, the EU repeated its condemnation of Israel by stating that Israel must immediately withdraw its military forces from areas placed under control of the PA, stop-extra-judicial killings, lift the closures and restrictions, freeze settlements and respect international law.

In the light of the above, does the Council intend to impose an arms embargo on Israel?

If not, does the Council find this consistent with the intention of the EU Code of Conduct and Title V of the Treaty?

Will the Council ask the Commission (in accordance with Article 14(4) of the TEU) to assess the consistency of its arms embargo policy?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council does not intend to impose an arms embargo on Israel. It sees no inconsistency between this position and the Code of Conduct or Title V of the Treaty. As the Honourable Member will be aware, the Code of Conduct, which is an appropriate instrument for governing the rules on arms exports, does not carry any obligation to impose arms embargoes on specific countries. Nor does the Council see grounds for asking the Commission to assess the consistency of its arms embargo policy. The Code of Conduct is not a binding EU joint action and therefore Article 14(4) TEU is not applicable; moreover, the Commission is not competent to assess the policies of the Council as a whole or of individual Member States in so far as their arms exports are concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Eritrea

With respect to Eritrea, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: CITES Ivory trade

Since CITES downlisted a number of elephant populations in 1997, thus re-opening some ivory trade from Africa, it is estimated that thousands of elephants are still being poached within Africa. Would the Commission confirm what position it and the EU Member States will take at the forthcoming Santiago meeting of CITES in relation to the proposal by India and Kenya to reinstate a full ban on the trade in ivory?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The position to be taken regarding proposals for the next Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will be decided by the Environment Council on 17 October 2002.

The extent of ivory trade resulting from the downlisting of certain elephant populations under CITES in 1997 is extremely limited. A one-off commercial sale of ivory stocks to Japan took place and limited trade in ivory products for non-commercial purposes is allowed. Following a subsequent Conference of the Parties, African elephant populations in four southern African countries are now listed on Appendix II of CITES, with a zero quota for ivory (i.e. no exports for commercial purposes are allowed). A programme entitled Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) is ongoing to establish a basis for assessing the impact of ivory trade on illegal killing. The Commission has contributed funds to this programme. However, as yet the programme has not gathered sufficient data to draw firm conclusions.

Regarding the proposal by India and Kenya to list all African elephant populations on Appendix I, this is not supported by the relevant scientific criteria. Elephant populations in the southern African range States are generally in a healthy condition and they are also judged to meet the criteria for split-listing (i.e. for listing separate populations of a species on different Appendices of CITES). Furthermore, it has not been proven that the proposal will result in real improvement in the protection currently afforded to elephants.

That said, in the absence of sufficient data from MIKE, the Commission remains to be convinced that further commercial trade in ivory as proposed by some southern African countries will not have a negative impact on the level of illegal killing in other regions.

The Commission is anxious that the final outcome of the conference with regard to this issue should command the support of as many range States as possible and will endeavour to assist in every possible way to this effect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1534/02

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Corporate taxation in Estonia

Estonia is a country which is protective of its corporate culture. A feature of this policy is that their rules on corporate taxation do not provide for the taxation of money within companies, a system which differs from other corporate taxation systems within the EU.

Does the Commission consider that it has the right to query Estonia's rules despite the fact that corporate taxation is not covered by Community legislation (the acquis)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The Commission has the duty, in the context of the enlargement discussions, to examine if Estonian tax law is compatible with the EC Treaty freedoms and the specific provisions of Community legislation relating to corporate tax in particular Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States(1), and Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation(2).

(1) OJ L 225, 20.8.1990.

(2) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2028/02

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

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Shameful violation of civil and political rights and physical aggression against Portuguese citizens prompted by a Spanish Government decision

Policemen belonging to the Guardia Civil prevented a number of buses carrying Portuguese passengers from crossing the Spanish border at Rosal de Frontera in Huelva on 22 June. The latter were travelling to Seville to take part in a demonstration to be held during the European Council meeting. The policemen went so far as to assault two members of the Left Bloc political party, one of them a Portuguese Member of Parliament. The violation of civil and political rights suffered by the Portuguese citizens was aggravated by the fact that they were trying to take part in a legitimate political event being held in the territory of the Union of which they are citizens and the fact that the policemen were acting in response to an order issued by the Spanish Government itself, which at that moment was chairing the EU in the person of the Prime Minister José Maria Aznar.

This Galician MEP shares the shame of the Galicians and citizens of Spain at this action on the part of central government and the indignation of the Portuguese population, the Members of the Portuguese Parliament and the Portuguese Government, and condemns such aggressive and anti-democratic behaviour.

What explanation can the Council give for such shameful acts on the part of the Spanish presidency? What reparation will it offer those who were assaulted and Portugal's institutions?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2021/02, E-2028/02 and E-2029/02

(11 November 2002)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Schengen Implementing Convention of 1990(1) allows the Member States to reintroduce for a limited period at internal borders.

It will be for each of the Member States to ascertain whether and to what extent this possibility should be invoked in case they host a European Council. Decision SCH/Com-Ex (95) 20 Rev. 2(2) lays down rules on the procedure for applying article 2(2) of the Schengen Implementing Convention. Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 64 of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulate that the taking of concrete measures with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security in a matter for which the Member State are responsible. It is therefore not for the Council to judge whether such measures have been taken appropriately.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(2) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 133.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1262/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Excise duty on wine

Organisations representing wine-producers consider the introduction of a minimum excise duty on wine of EUR 0,14 per litre (270) from 2003 and 0,15 from 2007, proposed by the technical services of the Commission, to be a misguided and dangerous idea, because it would obstruct the development of one of the most advanced sectors of farming. In Italy alone it would be levied on 53 million hectolitres. In 1997 wine-producers saw VAT increase to 20 % and the proposed excise duty would be a further levy, with an additional impact on consumption. Furthermore, since 1998 Italian agriculture has had the additional burden of IRAP (regional tax on business activities), which in the wine-growing provinces has a substantial impact on the local economies which depend on wine.

In view of all this, does not the Commission consider that the proposed excise duty on wine would be an unsustainable burden on producers?

It would also hit the consumer, since excise duty ultimately becomes a production cost. Has the Commission estimated the heavy direct burden on the market?

In view of the increase in VAT, would not the introduction of excise duty be tantamount to accepting the principle of a double levy on consumption?

Since levies on manufacturing (excise duties) are characteristically imposed on industrial products, does not the Commission consider that the fruits of the earth and agricultural products in general should not be hit by such objectionable levies?

Does it not consider that, not least after enlargement, the new levy would seriously damage the economy of this sector further, precisely in those regions which will have fewer opportunities to use structural funding?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1245/02 and E-1262/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages(1). Under its provisions it is necessary for the excise duty rates laid down in that Directive to be reviewed periodically by the Council. This review shall be based upon a Commission report taking into account all relevant issues. At present, the Commission is preparing such a report that might be accompanied by a proposal, if appropriate.

Since the Commission has not yet taken a decision on the subject, it is not possible to comment on its content.

As regards the question of double taxation, it has to be stated that the supply of excisable products is, as a rule, also subject to VAT. Moreover, excise duties are part of the basis of calculation of VAT.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2009/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nigeria

With respect to Nigeria, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the Internet

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, on its Internet site (www.marcopolo.de/index), Germany's leading tourist guide, Marco Polo, makes the totally unjustified accusation that the Rome coastline with particular reference to the beach at Ostia is infested with rubbish and terrible diseases, going so far as to make defamatory statements about the presence of typhus fever and cholera among other things?

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to make the truth known and to protect Ostia's image, given that the Italian public health authorities have categorically denied any risks and given assurances that it is safe to bathe anywhere on the coast?

How does it intend to prevent the major efforts and investments being made by the public authorities and the private sector with a view to enhancing the Rome coastline's appeal to Italian and foreign tourists from being undermined by false accusations?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, actions aimed at promoting or safeguarding the image of a specific tourist destination are the sole responsibility of the national and/or regional authorities.

It is not therefore possible for the Commission to intervene or take initiatives along the lines advocated by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0865/02

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Stabilisation and association negotiations with the FRY and cooperation with the ICTY

Given that continued EU assistance as part of the ongoing stabilisation and association negotiations with the FRY Government is subject to on full and genuine cooperation by the latter with the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), what specific measures did the Commission undertake at its Consultative Task Force meeting of 21 February to urge the FRY Government to improve its record in this area?

Did the Commission note with concern that no transfers of indictees have taken place since November 2001, that an indictee continues to serve as President of the Republic of Serbia, and that the Yugoslav army continues to refuse access to its documents?

What specific commitments did the Commission secure at the meeting from the FRY Government in this area, and within what timeframe does it expect these commitments to be implemented? What measures does the Commission intend to propose if no significant change is noticeable by the deadline it has set?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The issue of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was raised by the Commission at the meeting of the Union-FRY Consultative Task Force on 21 February 2002, as at the previous meetings of the Consultative Task Force and all other bilateral meetings. The Commission's concerns in this regard in relation to access to archives and witnesses as well as the handover of indictees, as well as the general principle of compliance with obligations of United Nations membership, on all of which ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte has described cooperation as inadequate are also clearly reflected in the FRY chapter of its Annual Report on the Stabilisation and Association process, adopted on 27 March 2002.

Since relations with the Union, under the Stabilisation and Association process, depend on an assessment of the totality of political and economic reforms, precise deadlines are not usually applied to specific reforms. However, Belgrade is aware that the pace of development of FRY's relations with the Union depends on the speed with which the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia implement political and economic reforms and, in particular, comply with international obligations such as this. As the Honourable Member is aware, the federal authorities, most recently Foreign Minister Svilanovic during his visit to Brussels on 20 March 2002, have promised both the Commission and the Parliament that more handovers of indictees will occur in the near future. The Commission welcomes the recent adoption by Belgrade of the law on co-operation with the Hague Tribunal, and looks forward to it being turned into action. It is important that the FRY should co-operate fully in respect of all those indicated by the ICTY.