ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Call for rescission of the Bush Administration's Military Order

According to Amnesty International, the operating guidelines for the special military commissions recently issued by the US Defense Secretary have highlighted the serious defects of the Military Order signed by President Bush on 13 November 2001, as a result of which any trial before these commissions would violate the USA's international obligations.

The provisions of the Military Order allow:

- discrimination against foreign nationals in violation of international law, which prohibits discrimination based on nationality,

- minimum standards of evidence, not expressly excluding the extraction of statements by torture,

- no right of appeal to an independent and impartial court established by law,

- no independence of the military commissions from the executive, etc.

Will the Commission exert pressure on the US Administration to rescind the Military Order and honour its international commitments concerning respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission will closely observe the conduct of any trials before the special military commissions established by the United States under the Military Order signed by President Bush on 13 November 2001. Where appropriate, the Commission will use the existing framework for translatlantic cooperation to register any concerns that might arise with its American counterparts.

The Union also maintains a regular dialogue with the United States in the field of human rights and will continue to draw on relevant policy instruments in this context such as the Guidelines to Union policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

On 14 May 2002 the Union expressed its disappointment and regret at the United States decision not to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Commission's view is that the International Criminal Court would be the appropriate forum in which to try these cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Aid

1. Will the Commission give the amount of Community aid disbursed in each of the last five years in the EU candidate countries including Turkey, and also in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova?

2. Will it further detail the equivalent figures for disbursements to each country on the littoral of the Mediterranean sea?

3. Will it further express the cumulative total for the five years for each country as a percentage of each country's GDP and as an amount per head of population of each country?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 August 2002)

Subject: Transportation of horses

Every year thousands of horses are transported to Member States from Central and Eastern Europe and South America. Animal welfare organisations such as the International League for the Protection of Horses and Viva have amassed a considerable amount of evidence showing that horses are being treated in a cruel manner and that EU regulations on the transportation of live animals are being ignored.

What action has the Commission taken to ensure that these regulations are being enforced? Can the Commission give assurances that the treatment of horses in transit is being treated with the same degree of seriousness as the more publicised issue of live cattle transportation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission is aware of the welfare problems raised by the import of horses for slaughter in the Union. This question was specifically mentioned in the Commission report(1) adopted in December 2000.

Day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation is the responsibility of Member States. The Commission is in charge of ensuring that the Member States are carrying out their duties in this regard.

The inspectors of the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission have implemented several inspections in this area and they continue to regularly monitor the situation.

Furthermore, the Commission report on animal transport indicated a number of deficiencies with the current Community legislation. In this framework the Commission will adopt in the current year a proposal concerning the protection of animals during transport. One of the aims of the proposal will be to introduce additional measures for the protection of horses.

In addition, since horses are travelling long distances before reaching the borders of the Union the Commission, in May 2001, proposed to candidate countries a plan for short-term improvement specifically addressed to the transport of horses. In October 2001 Slovenia implemented most of the Community rules in this regard and other candidate countries have taken initiatives in a similar direction.

The Commission has also obtained a mandate from the Council to negotiate on behalf of the Community the ongoing review of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport. The adoption of this Convention will reinforce the harmonisation of the welfare rules throughout Europe.

(1) COM(2000) 809 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1607/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Kashmir

Is the Commission aware of any claims being made formally by the Indian Government that as many as 100 Indian military personnel captured during the conflict in 1971 are still being held by the Pakistan authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

The Commission has investigated the matter raised by the Honourable Member and has the pleasure of sending official information published by the Government of India on its web-site direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Indian authorities have confirmed that the answer given by Mr Omar Abdullah, Minister of State of External Affairs is still up-to-date.

It is hoped that these documents answer the question raised by the Honourable Member. Should this not be the case, the Commission will be happy to pursue its research further.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1123/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Abolition of the requirement to display a road-toll sticker on the S 16 trunk road

In an article in the Heimat Bregenz (local news) section of the edition of the Austrian daily newspaper Vorarlberger Nachrichten dated 21 March 2002, it is reported that, as from 1 April 2002, the requirement to display a road-toll sticker on the S 16 trunk road between Bludenz and Dalaas would be abolished.

The operating company (ASFINAG) justified its action by reference to an EU Decision according to which that section of the trunk did not form part of the major highway network because it was only two-lane and had no central crash barrier.

Is there an EU Decision which lays down such a requirement?

According to EU law, what are the preconditions which must be fulfilled before a requirement to display a road-toll sticker on the S 16 trunk road may be introduced?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

The application of user charges (vignette) on heavy goods vehicles is subject to the provisions of Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures(1). Article 7(2) stipulates that unless falling under specific exceptions as a general rule user charges may be levied only on motorways or other multi-lane roads with characteristics similar to motorways.

For the purposes of this Directive motorway means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which:

(i) is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means;

(ii) does not cross at grade with any road, railway or tramway track, or footpath;

(iii) is specifically designated as a motorway.

(1) OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Price disparity in the holiday market

Currently some holiday companies with booking facilities in other Member States (e.g. CenterParcs) will only allow customers to book in the country they are currently in. This can result in the customer paying more for his/her holiday. Could the Commission comment as to whether this contravenes competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether the fact that some holiday companies, e.g. Centre Parcs, prevent their customers from booking their holidays from a Member State other than that in which they reside infringes the competition rules. The practice is said to result in consumers being unable to book from the Member State in which the terms are the most favourable.

In this case, the competition rules, and more specifically Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, could apply only if the prohibition in question stemmed from or was contained in an agreement for the distribution of the services concerned, such as an agreement between a holiday company and a travel agency.

The reasons why the holiday companies had introduced such a restriction would then have to be analysed, after which it would have to be determined whether the restriction was economically justified (different modes of transport, different VAT or other tax rates, etc.).

Only after such a detailed examination had been carried out would it be possible to say whether the prohibition in question was compatible or not with Article 81(3) of the Treaty.

If such companies were to distribute their services directly to the consumer without going through travel agencies or other third parties, this type of practice would not be contrary to the competition rules unless it was being engaged in by a company in a dominant position.

The Directorate-General for Competition will investigate these matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: EU-funded projects in Israel

The text below appeared in a letter to the UK's Guardian newspaper on 6 April 2002. Does the Commission agree with the points raised?

Many national and European cultural and research institutions, including especially those funded from the EU and the European Science Foundation, regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts. Would it not therefore be timely that at both national and European level a moratorium was called upon any further such support unless and until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians along the lines proposed in many peace plans, including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Israel is not among the recipients of Community bilateral aid. Its high per capita GDP makes it ineligible for Community-financed bilateral cooperation programmes (the MEDA Programme). However, a few Israeli civil society groups are involved in various regional programmes along with other partners from the region.

Israel participates as an associate partner in the Fifth Framework Programme for scientific and technical cooperation, but it makes a contribution to the programme budget proportional to its GDP.

As regards the possibility of a moratorium, while the Commission is extremely concerned at the current situation on the ground, particularly the human rights violations, it considers it important to continue relations with Israel. At this stage, suspending ties would hardly increase the Israeli authorities' awareness of the EU's concern, and it seems preferable to go on using the machinery available under the Association Agreement to make its views known to them at all levels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/02

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem

On 2 April about 230 armed Palestinians, including 30 militiamen, entered the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem to take shelter from the advancing Israeli troops. Scores of Palestinian civilians, as well as Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Armenian priests and nuns, are currently inside the complex.

The people trapped in the Church of the Nativity have repeatedly complained about the sanitary conditions now prevailing in the buildings. The bodies of two Palestinians shot dead by Israeli army snipers were left in the complex for more than a week.

How does the Council intend to tackle the extremely serious matter of the military siege of the Church of the Nativity?

Does the Council not believe that impartial international guarantees should be provided to facilitate a channel or safe conduct for delivery of the most urgent relief supplies (such as food and medicines) to those under siege?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

As the Honourable Member of the EP knows, the siege has been lifted in the meantime. The EU, in particular HR Solana, has played a key role in defusing the crisis. One of the major challenges was to find places where 13 Palestinians, who had been in the church could be brought to. A Council Common Position on the temporary reception by Member States of the EU of certain Palestinians was adopted on 21 May 2002. Twelve Palestinians of the group of thirteen Palestinians were subsequently received on a temporary basis by a number of Member States on humanitarian grounds. The thirteenth has been received by a third Country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2174/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Agri-monetary compensation

Would the Commission please indicate the amounts of agri-monetary compensation claimed by each Member State to assist arable farmers during the last round of claims made on 31 October 2001 and how this compared to the actual maximum claim each Member State would have been permitted to make?

Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

On the basis of the evolution of exchange rates applicable to the arable crops aids per hectare in 2001, the application of the provisions of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998, establishing the agrimonetary arrangements for the euro(1) gave rise to authorising the United Kingdom to pay compensatory aid to arable farmers. The maximum amount of the first tranche of the aid was in total fixed at EUR 52,99 million by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/2001 of 8 October 2001 fixing the maximum amount of compensatory aid resulting from the exchange rate for the pound sterling applicable on 1 July 2001(2). The United Kingdom has not claimed any payment on this respect within the deadline provided for in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture(3). In the case of Sweden and Denmark the development in the exchange rates did not provide the basis for any compensatory aid.

(1) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.

(2) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001.

(3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Use of the early warning procedure for excessive national deficits

The possibility of a Member State breaching the letter and spirit of the Stability Pact by exceeding the limits on national deficits means that the so-called early warning procedure needs to act efficiently to preserve stability, particularly at this sensitive time marked by the introduction of the euro.

How determined is the Commission to apply this procedure scrupulously and without exception in order to preserve the letter and spirit of the Stability Pact and serve as a warning to all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The Commission decision to recommend that an early-warning be issued to Germany and Portugal was driven by the need to sustain credibility in the rules-based framework for budgetary surveillance in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The Commission gave a firm political commitment, in a Resolution agreed by Heads of State and Governments and the President of the Commission at the European Council of Amsterdam (16 and 17 June 1997), to act in a manner that facilitates the strict, timely and effective functioning of the Stability and Growth Pact. Indeed, it is not just the credibility of the Pact which was at stake. The whole process of multilateral surveillance and economic policy co-ordination would have been called into question.

At its meeting of 12 February 2002, the Council decided not to endorse the Commission Recommendation for an early warning. The reason given by the Council for not issuing an early warning is that both the German and Portuguese made commitments which effectively responded to the concerns expressed in the Commission recommendation .

For its part, the Commission stands by its decision to issue a Recommendation for an early-warning to Germany and Portugal, but nonetheless welcomes the statement of the Ecofin Council that the Commission acted in accordance with its responsibilities, and the re-affirmation that the early-warning system is an important element of the Pact(1). To show its determination to apply this procedure whenever necessary in future, the Commission asked for the following statement to be inserted into the official minutes of the Council meeting:

1. The Commission takes note of the statement of the Council, including the decision to close the early-warning procedure.

2. The Commission welcomes the commitments of Germany and Portugal, which respond to the substance of the concerns in the Commission Recommendation for an early-warning.

3. The early-warning mechanism is an essential part of the preventive elements of the Stability and Growth Pact. In order to prevent the occurrence of an excessive deficit, the Commission will use the early-warning mechanism if and when the budgetary positions of Member States diverge significantly from the medium-term budgetary objective or the adjustment path towards it.

(1) Conclusions of the 2407th meeting of the (Ecofin) Council, Brussels, 12 February 2002, Presse 6108/02, http://ue.eu.int/Newsroom.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2104/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Violations of the rule of law and democracy in Italy and Articles 6 and 7 of the TEU

Knowing that:

- according to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union the Commission may propose that the Council determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1), which states The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States';

- the text of the Italian Constitution explicitly lays down the number of members of:

(a) the Constitutional Court (Article 35, Title VI, Section I) and states that in the event of a vacancy arising, for whatever reason, it must be filled within one month (Article 5(2) of Constitutional Law No 2 of 22 November 1967),

(b) the Chamber of Deputies (Article 56, Title I, Section I), and both electoral law (Unified Text 361/1957, as amended by Law 277/1993), and the relevant implementing regulation (Presidential Decree No 14 of 5 January 1994) cover all eventualities to enable all seats to be allocated and specify the mechanisms for filling any seats which become vacant during the term of office.

- In view of the fact that the Constitutional Court operated without the constitutional plenum of 15 members between 21 November 2000 and 24 April 2002 and was convened and deliberated with 13 members, and

- In view of the fact that since 30 May 2001 the Chamber of Deputies has been operating without the constitutional plenum of 630 members and has been convened and has deliberated with 618 members;

can the Commission say:

- whether it has taken these facts into account in order to assess whether to take steps pursuant to Article 7 of the TEU and, if so, what conclusions it has reached;

- whether it already has or is considering acquiring any instruments to monitor respect for the principles referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

The Commission notes that a solution has been found to the problems referred to by the Honourable Member concerning the composition of two Italian institutions the Constitutional Court and the Chamber of Deputies. As the Honourable Member states in his question, since 24 April 2002, the Constitutional Court consists of the number of judges required by the constitution; with regard to the Chamber of Deputies an agreement was reached on 16 July 2002.

The Commission sees no reason for examining the matter in the light of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Display of the image of the crucifix in all the public offices of the European institutions

The crucifix, as a symbol of the universal value of Christian civilisation and culture, is an essential and integral element of the historical and cultural heritage of Europe's civilisation and its identity.

The secular nature of the European public institutions must not prevent the display of a symbol which for millions of European citizens represents the whole set of values and principles on which our civilisation is based, and which prompted the liberal thinker Benedetto Croce to say that we cannot but affirm that we are Christians. To respect minorities surely does not mean renouncing, delegitimising or ignoring the symbols and values which constitute an integral part of the history, culture and tradition of our peoples.

Does the Commission intend to propose that the image of the crucifix should be displayed in a prominent position and clearly visible to everybody in all the public offices of the European institutions?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

While the Commission shares the Honourable member's attachment to recalling the traditional values which are so deeply rooted in Europe, it would not go so far as to suggest to the other European Institutions which particular symbols they should use in their buildings. The Commission does not consider that it is either necessary or even desirable to promote the display of crucifixes in particular. Not necessary, because the values underpinning European integration are evident anyway; and not desirable because a selective approach to the choice of symbol would be incongruous with the principle of freedom of religion included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. For these reasons the Commission will not propose that the image of the crucifix should be displayed in a prominent position in all the public offices of the European Institutions.