ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2936/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject: Commission report of May 2002 on the investment climate in Poland, drawn up at the request of the government of the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware of the Commission information note on Poland and free movement of capital, number MD 189/02, published on 31 May 2002, as referred to in the Netherlands government document Staat van Europese Unie (State of the European Union) (Kamerstuk 28 604, No 1, page 9)?

2. Can the Commission explain why the department in the Enlargement DG with responsibility for Poland stated in reply to my request for this report to be forwarded that this report is not in the public domain since it is closely linked to the accession negotiations?

3. Can the Commission say how this statement relates to the transparency that is required in order to make an accurate and honest assessment of the candidate countries?

4. Does the Commission take the view that this document's links to the accession negotiations constitute a valid and credible reason to refuse access to it?

5. Does the Commission realise that by exercising this policy it is riding roughshod over one of the European Parliament's most essential powers, that of exercising parliamentary control over the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

The Commission has prepared an Information Note reporting on Poland's obligations and commitments towards the Union as regards foreign direct investment and on the treatment of foreign investors in privatisation transactions and privatised firms. Based on this Note, the Commission recommended to the Polish authorities to give reassurance, notably vis-à-vis foreign economic operators, that the remaining substantial agenda for privatisation will be soundly implemented on a non-discriminatory basis and to push ahead with reforms and initiatives in the area of corporate governance.

The Honourable Member's request to receive a copy of this information note is being handled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1).

The Commission is keeping the Parliament fully informed on the progress of each of the candidate countries towards accession, for instance by the participation of its President and or its Members in Plenary sessions or Committee meetings of the Parliament. Moreover, the Director-General of Directorate-General for Enlargement submits regular notes to the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on the state of play on negotiations. The Commission will continue to inform the Parliament, in full respect for the provisions of the framework agreement.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2625/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: VAT on postal services

The Commission has announced on several occasions that it will be presenting a proposal on the introduction of VAT on postal services.

Now that the Postal Services Directive has been adopted, when may we expect to see a Commission proposal to this effect?

What stage have discussions reached? What is the Commission's current thinking on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Commission remains concerned that the current VAT exemption for postal services gives rise to significant distortion of competition and is therefore no longer appropriate. In line with its objective to modernise the VAT system, it is considering making a proposal to rectify this situation. It is hoped that such a proposal will be made early 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Swaziland

With regard to Swaziland, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3724/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Chad

With reference to Chad, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1812/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL),Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) and Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Further persecution of author in Turkey

The book by the Turkish writer Omar Asan with the title Pontos Kulturu on the culture of the region of Pontus, that was published for the first time in 1996 and was freely distributed, was suddenly banned and seized in January 2002 after a TV broadcast. The writer, who is honoured with the Abbdi Ipektsi prize, has been accused of agitating for Turkish partition orally and in writing. This accusation can lead to imprisonment for 14 months to 4 years.

Given that these anti-democratic restrictions and trials contradict the obligations that Turkey has undertaken towards the European Union, does the Commission intend to make representations to the Turkish authorities with a view to having the accusations against the writer dropped and permission being granted for the free distribution of the book?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply it gave to Written Question E-0538/02 by Mr Xacharkos(1) on the same issue.

It confirms that it is aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning the book of Mr Asan on the Pontus Culture. According to the information available to the Commission, Mr Asan has been prosecuted by an Istanbul State Security Court on charges of separatist propaganda. In light of the Copenhagen political criteria and more specifically freedom of expression, this case is of serious concern.

Further details on the Commission's assessment of freedom of expression in Turkey is given in the regular reports on Turkey's progress towards accession. The Commission has raised the exercise of freedom of expression in Turkey on various occasions including the Community-Turkey Association Council and Association Committee meetings and during high-level meetings including the visit of the Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement to Turkey on 14/15 February 2002.

(1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3701/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Swaziland

With regard to Swaziland, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3834/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Human rights in India

Does the Commission agree that the jailing of the ailing and elderly Syed Ali Geelani in Ranchi jail in India, thousands of kilometres away from his home in Kashmir, is an abuse of his human rights? What will the Commission do to motivate the Indian Authorities to move him to Srinagar?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

In response to the Honourable Member's question concerning the legality of the imprisonment of Hurriyat leader Syed Shah Ali Geelani, the Commission has noted the Kashmir High Court's decision of 5 September 2002 in which it declared that it was illegal for Mr Geelani to be held outside Kashmir. The Commission has also noted the 12 November 2002 statement by Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed in which he committed himself to freeing political prisoners, and in particular to releasing Mr Geelani in the near future. These elements should be assessed in relation to the positive context which has emerged from the regional elections of September-October 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Recognition of motor racing licences within the EU

The Fédération International de l'Automobile (FIA) World Motor Sport Council has recently amended its International Sporting Code. At present a full competition licence issued by any EU country allows competitors to compete in motor racing events in EU countries other than their own. From 1 January 2003 the FIA is proposing to restrict this rule to professional competitors. For 2003 only the FIA is allowing national events to register to allow amateur foreign nationals to compete, however there will be a charge of EUR 150 for each event.

Could the Commission comment on this restriction on the freedom of movement of European citizens?

Could the Commission confirm whether this is contrary to the spirit of the European Union?

Will the Commission be taking any action to prevent this restriction, given that European citizens have enjoyed competing in motor racing competitions across Europe in the past?

Reply by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply to Written Question E-3066/02(1), which also concerned the rules on participation in motor racing recently introduced by the FIA.

In this reply, the Commission particularly stressed that the Community provisions on freedom of movement and the freedom to provide services did not prohibit rules or practices in the world of sport that were justified on non-economic grounds and took account of the specific context of certain competitions, provided they had no discriminatory, unjustified or disproportionate aspects.

(1) See page 94.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Samoa

With regard to Samoa, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3718/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Tuvalu

With reference to Tuvalu, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Situation regarding unsafe nuclear reactors in the applicant countries

The Council's working group on nuclear safety is in the process of assessing the safety of nuclear plants in the applicant countries. As late as the summer of 2001, this working group published a list of several safety problems at the nuclear plants at Temelin in the Czech Republic and Paks in Hungary, for example.

According to critics of nuclear plants in the applicant countries, nothing much has been done to improve safety other than numerous documents being delivered from the capitals of the applicant countries to Brussels. No specific upgrading of safety seems to have taken place and no evidence has been produced to show that the nuclear plants are safe.

Can the Council say what measures will be taken in regard to upgrading nuclear safety at Temelin and Paks and in the applicant countries in general?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would like to point out that in May 2001 the Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) produced an initial report with a number of safety recommendations addressed to the candidate countries; it drew up a second report in June 2002, on the basis of the replies received from those countries and their commitments to take the appropriate measures. The Honourable Member will note that the number of recommendations in the second report has been reduced considerably, both for the candidate countries in general as well as for the two countries he mentioned in his question, i.e. the Czech Republic and Hungary. All these countries have accepted and addressed all the WPNS recommendations contained in the initial report and have promised action to deal with the problems outstanding and the questions which are still unsolved. The review which gave rise to these reports was conducted without prejudice to the responsibilities of the national authorities in the candidate countries. This was not a check for the purposes of a normal approval procedure, but an assessment such as usually carried out by experts.

For further information, the Council invites the Honourable Member to consult the regular evaluation reports the Commission is producing, in which the reports already mentioned and the candidate countries' implementation of safety recommendations are taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/02

by María Sornosa Martínez(PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy in Spain

As part of the Plan de Fomento de Energías Renovables (Plan for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology recently published two decisions laying down the rules governing the granting of support aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy and inviting applications for such aid (Spanish Official Journal No 74).

Point 7 of the section Eligible Projects contains a clause stating that no applications will be considered in the case of investment in installations that harness solar power for heat or electricity when this investment is a consequence of obligations laid down in laws or regulations emanating from national or European public administrations.

However, this clause might be discriminatory in cases where, for example, a local council wants to implement its own local Agenda 21 and issues an order to encourage the setting-up of solar power facilities. In this scenario, the two decisions issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology would discriminate against potential promoters of clean energy facilities, who would not be eligible for aid. It would therefore seem that there is a contradiction between something that the European Union is promoting and has approved and what is being applied in a Member State, in this case Spain.

It should be borne in mind that:

- both the decisions of the Spanish Ministry draw on the guidelines set out in the Renewable Energy White Paper;

- in its Sixth Framework Programme, the European Union firmly emphasised the promotion of alternative energies as a means of achieving sustainable development;

- the European Union currently has a solid support framework for promoting energies of this type (Altener, SAVE, the Intelligent Energy for Europe programme, etc.);

- the Member States of the European Union have shown their willingness to meet the commitments set out in the Kyoto Protocol, starting with their ratification of the Protocol en bloc.

Does the Commission not feel that the clause contained in the two Spanish decisions on solar energy is in clear conflict with the above points, which currently define European policy in the field of renewable energies?

In what way does the Commission consider that the above-mentioned exclusion clause might hinder the granting of Community aid in the context of laws or regulations emanating from European administrations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the recently published decisions of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology laying down the rules governing the granting of support aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy.

The Commission is currently not in a position to take a formal opinion whether the recent Spanish legislation leads to discrimination relevant to European law on the basis of the information cited by the Honourable Member. The Commission will contact the Spanish authorities for a clarification of this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3438/02

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

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Prestige oil tanker accident off the coast of Galicia

On 13 November 2002 the Prestige oil tanker, carrying 77 000 tonnes of fuel oil, had a serious accident off the Galician coast, causing a disaster with incalculable ecological, economic and social consequences for Galicia, an Objective 1 region heavily dependent on fisheries where fishing accounts for more than 10 % of GDP.

1. Will the Council provide special aid to lessen as far as possible the damage caused? Will it mobilise the Solidarity Fund if the European Parliament so requests?

2. Can the Council confirm that the Prestige was sailing from Estonia and heading for Gibraltar?

3. Can the Council say whether it met all the legal requirements to sail in Community waters and enter and leave European ports?

4. Can the Council say whether the composition of the fuel oil it was carrying complied with the criteria laid down by Community rules?

5. Does the Council not believe that accidents such as this could be reduced by drawing up more stringent legislation and establishing stricter controls?

6. Does the Council not believe that these circumstances call for a change to Community legislation to bring forward the entry into force of the double-hull construction requirement?

7. Does it not believe that the transport of dangerous goods by sea needs to be kept at a distance from the coast so as to prevent damage to the marine ecosystem in highly fisheries-dependent regions such as Galicia?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3282/02, E-3403/02 and E-3438/02

(13 May 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Members that it has already taken the opportunity of the plenary part-session in Strasbourg in December 2002 and Question Time in January 2003 to give a full account of its position and intentions regarding the transport of dangerous products by sea.

The Council would therefore refer them to the conclusions adopted at its meetings on 6 and 9 December 2002 and to the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council on 12/13 December 2002.

Since then the Council has begun examining a Commission proposal for a Regulation which would bring forward the dates for phasing out single-hull oil tankers and prohibit the transport of heavy grades of oil in single-hull tankers bound for or leaving European Union ports.

The Council would mention, in addition, that the European Council welcomed the action undertaken by the Commission to confront the economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the Prestige, in the framework of the present financial perspectives, and its intention to examine the need for further specific measures. Amongst these measures it stated that questions relating to liability and the corresponding sanctions would also be examined. On the basis of a report by the Commission, the European Council undertook to address these issues at its forthcoming March meeting.