ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2805/01

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Projects funded under the Culture 2000 Programme

The objectives of the Culture 2000 Programme include the funding of street theatre companies and shows.

The people arrested by the Italian police during the G8 Summit in Genoa included some belonging to groups which, in the disguise of itinerant actors, were actively involved in the violent clashes.

Certain Italian newspapers have specifically reported that Community funding has gone to Black Bloc groups in the form of subsidies for street artists.

Is the Commission aware of funds being allocated to would-be artistic companies which have then turned out to be violent groups? What kind of check is kept not only on the financial regularity but also on the final product of funded projects? More specifically, have funds been allocated to the No Border No Nation and Orange companies?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

Under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission may finance projects involving at least three cultural organisations from at least three participating States.

The No Border No Nation street-theatre company, which was detained when arrests were made by the Italian police during the summit of the eight most industrialised nations (G8) in Genoa (20-22 July 2001), and the Orange company have never participated- either as principal organisers or co-organisers in any project subsidised by the Culture 2000 programme.

As far as checks on the projects selected are concerned, the Commission would emphasise that, within their sphere of competence and on the basis of information provided by the national authorities, its departments are and will remain very careful never to grant funding to non-democratic organisations.

With regard to the more specific question of financial control (ex ante and ex post) when granting subsidies, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it adheres strictly to the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1).

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3121/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 November 2001)

Subject: Tunnel safety

The latest fatal accident which occurred on 24 October in the Gotthard tunnel and killed 11 people has re-opened the issue of tunnel safety with a vengeance.

In view of this, does the Commission plan to take the necessary action by drawing up a proposal, in particular as regards:

- technical equipment (early accident detection systems, ventilation, safety recesses, evacuation tunnels etc.);

- traffic regulations (restrictions on high-risk vehicles, minimum distance between vehicles, alternating traffic flow);

- staff training and speed of emergency service response?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2001)

As already stated in the White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(1), the Commission will propose at the beginning of 2002 a directive aimed at harmonising minimum safety standards in tunnels.

The proposed directive will deal with the subjects already mentioned by the Honourable Member, as well as with better information for users, better communication between tunnel operators and drivers as well as better traffic management and prevention of accidents.

Action had already been taken at Community level following the first tragic tunnel fires. The Commission has set up a working plan, which also included safety in tunnels in its 5th framework Research and Technological Development (RTD) programme. A research project on durable and reliable tunnel structures (DARTS), as well as a thematic network on Fires in Tunnels (FIT), has been funded. Other proposals are under evaluation following the latest call in June 2001 for a thematic network on general tunnel safety.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2528/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Funding of Christian religious institutions

Are the Christian religious organisations, in particular the dioceses and monasteries of the Orthodox Church, considered to be non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Community Law owing to the wide range of charitable work they carry out (orphanages, old people's homes, homes for the terminally ill, caring for the destitute), and are they entitled to claim a share of the funding allocated to those organisations from the Union's budget?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The eligibility of organisations to apply for Community funding depends on whether or not they meet the criteria published in calls for proposals. A major criterion is that applicants must have a proper legal status and thus prove that they are properly constituted and registered under the law. As there is no definition of non-governmental organisations in Community law, the Commission has to rely on the status of applicants under national law when assessing this eligibility, usually to see whether or not they enjoy the status of not-for-profit organisations. However, it should be pointed out to the Honourable Member that, even though an orthodox diocese or monastery which has its own distinct legal status may be eligible to apply under one scheme or another, eligibility alone would not entitle them to a share of funds, as of right. Funds are awarded on the basis of a comparison of the relative merits of the various applications received. Applications from institutions acting as intermediaries on behalf of others are in general not permitted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3070/01

by Chantal Cauquil (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Death of dolphins in Community waters

Several articles have appeared in the press concerning the death of dolphins accidentally caught in the mesh of large European fishing vessels' pelagic trawls. Reportedly, several hundred dead cetaceans are found each year on the French and English coasts.

These cetaceans are, however, protected under European Directive 92/43/EEC(1).

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that its directives are complied with?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2001)

All cetacean species are strictly protected under the Habitats Directive(1), which, inter alia, forces Member States to establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of these species. In the light of the information gathered, Member States should take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned.

If the Community law is broken, then the Commission will take all the necessary steps to ensure that Community legislation is properly applied by Member States.

The Commission is aware that most of studies on the state of conservation of small cetaceans point to the risk that by-catch of some species is attaining levels that might endanger the sustainability of some cetacean populations. However, the relative contribution of different fishing methods to this problem as well as its extent is still to be fully quantified.

So far there are few hypotheses about how cetacean by-catch in pelagic trawls occurs and consequently few suggestions about how to reduce it.

Nevertheless, the Commission is open to consider all the necessary measures to mitigate, and possibly eliminate, the incidental death of cetaceans in fishing activities. To this end the Directorate General for Fisheries, in cooperation with the Directorate General for the Environment, will organise a meeting of a subgroup of its Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, from 10 to 14 December 2001, to have an up-to-date review of scientific evidence and to find a solution to tackle the problem.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1826/01

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Plastics used in dentistry

On 18 October 1999 I put a written question relating to the PVC bite plane, used in orthodontic treatment for children and young people, and containing the compound DOP (di-octylphthalate) which is harmful to health.

In its answer E-2053/99(1), the Commission said it would seek further information, from amongst others the Finnish authorities, and ask the scientific committee's advice if it appeared necessary. In the light of the above, what measures has the Commission taken?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

As indicated in the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2053/99 on the subject of phthalate use in orthodontic treatment(1), additional information has been obtained from the Finnish Authorities (National Agency for Medicines) and the Medical Technology industries association (Eucomed).

The Finnish authorities confirmed that they have examined in detail the safety of phthalates used in orthodontic applications, including their migration behaviour. As the basis for the toxicological and risk analysis evaluation of phthalates in orthodontic applications the Finnish Agency for Medicines used the opinion of the Commission's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE).

The conclusion of the Finnish authorities is that the exposure of children and young adults to phthalates from orthodontic apparatus is lower than the maximum allowable exposure levels (Total Daily Intake, TDI) identified in the CSTEE opinion on phthalates in soft PVC toys. This conclusion formed the basis for the decision by the Finnish Medical Agency not to ban the use of phthalates in orthodontic applications.

Complementary information obtained from Eucomed also supports the Finnish Medical Agency's conclusions.

Given that the Finnish assessment of phthalates in orthodontic applications followed extensively the opinion of the CSTEE on phthalates in soft PVC toys, and based on Commission's own analysis of the Finnish report and in the absence of new evidence, there appears no reason at present to seek further scientific advice on this matter. The Commission will continue to follow developments concerning the use of phthalates in orthodontic and other medical applications with a view to revisiting the matter if new evidence to that effect becomes available.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2543/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Restoration of links between Greek and EU electricity networks

It is well known that, because of the fighting in former Yugoslavia, the Adriatic supply line for the electricity network was destroyed in Mostar, while the corresponding line passing through Croatia was destroyed in Ernestinovo.

Since these lines are of vital importance in connecting Greece to the rest of the European electrical power network:

- Has the Commission taken any initiatives to ensure rapid restoration of the network?

- Has it included restoration of the destroyed lines as a priority in the reconstruction programmes for Bosnia-Herzegovina?

- Has it studied the cost to the Greek economy of this long-lasting interruption to power, and what sort of compensation is planned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

We note the concern expressed by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament regarding the connection of Greece to the rest of the European electricity network.

Concerning the rapid restoration of the network, the Commission is providing 3,8 million in the 2001 national programme for Croatia funded from the CARDS programme. These funds will be for technical support for the rehabilitation of the central power station located at the village of Ernestinovo in the Croatian Danube Region, which will complement a project funded by the European Investment Bank. Restoration of electricity power lines in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a priority in the integrated reconstruction programmes such as the one in Mostar, funded by the Commission under the Obnova programme(1).

The Commission is unable to estimate the potential cost to the Greek economy of the suspended interconnection to the network of the Union pour la Coordination du Transport de l'Electricité (UCTE). No compensation is being considered.

The Commission would like to see links between Greece and the UCTE network restored.

(1) The Obnova programme (which has been superseded by CARDS) is a European programme for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2924/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Border checks and terrorism

Will the Council allow countries to re-introduce border checks if they see the need to do so in order to catch terrorists?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention if public policy or national security require immediate action a Member State may temporarily reinstate checks at its borders and at the earliest opportunity shall inform the other Member States.

The free movement of persons established by the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) may therefore be restricted when the Member States exercise their responsibilities under such circumstances

In this context, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 64(1) of the TEC, responsibility for maintaining law and order on the territory of the Member States of the European Union falls within the exclusive competence of the authorities of each Member State. The Council is not authorised to take a position on a matter which does not fall within the scope of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3067/01

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Expulsion of Mr Fava Minor from the People's Republic of China

On Monday, 8 October 2001, Alfredo Fava Minor, general manager of Shanghai Famas & Hocks Textiles Co. Ltd., a manufacturing company located in Jinshan (60 km from Shanghai) with 35 employees, was stopped at Pudong airport by the Chinese authorities, forced to immediately re-embark and expelled without explanation. The company has been left without management and facing serious financial consequences. Mr Fava is a member of the Falun Gong movement, as well as being its representative in Italy. This movement was outlawed in China in July 1999, since when its practitioners have been brutally persecuted for their peaceful opposition to the demand that they should renounce their faith.

Is the Commission aware of the persecution suffered by Mr Fava Minor at the hands of the Chinese authorities and what measures has it taken or will it take to protect the rights and interests of a Union businessman who has invested considerable sums in the People's Republic of China? Does it not consider that the readiness of the Chinese authorities to flout the basis rules of law in the business sector as elsewhere is posing serious risks to many European investors in China, particularly small and medium-sized businessmen, about which the competent Union authorities should keep them fully informed? Lastly, does the Commission think that China can become a member of the World Trade Organisation at a time when further evidence is emerging of the utter inability of the country's authorities and institutions to comply with the minimum basic rules of that organisation, or respect the principles of the free market and the rule of law in general?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the individual case referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the treatment of Falun Gong members in China. This is a concern which has been raised in the Union's human rights dialogue with the Chinese authorities, as well as with Chinese interlocutors on many other occasions.

The Commission considers that China's World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession and the resulting opening and liberalisation of China's economy will set into motion a process that will reinforce China's evolution towards a society based on the rule of law. It is also the Commission's view that human rights are generally better understood and safeguarded in societies which allow for the free circulation of goods, investments, persons and ideas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Recognition of marriage and steps towards equal treatment

In a recent ruling on registered partnerships, the European Court of Justice stated that marriage is generally defined as being between two heterosexuals. As you will be aware, the Netherlands has recently opened civil marriage to homosexual citizens. At this time, the Netherlands is the only country in the world to have done so.

The ruling on registered partnerships caused some confusion on what the Council's interpretation will be. Can the Council confirm that all its married employees will be treated equally, regardless of their sexual orientation or the gender of their partner? Moreover, I would like to know what steps are being taken to ensure equal treatment of married and non-married employees, including those with a registered, but non-matrimonial, partnership.

Reply

(17 December 2001)

In its Judgment of 31 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P, D and Kingdom of Sweden v. Council, the Court of Justice decided that the term marriage as used in the Staff Regulations was to be construed according to an independent Community definition.

The Court held in paragraph 34 of its judgment that it is not in question that, according to the definition generally accepted by the Member States, the termmarriagemeans a union between two persons of the opposite sex, confirming thereby the Court of First Instance Judgment (Case T-264/97 of 28 January 1999) that the Community concepts of marriage and spouse related exclusively to a relationship based on civil marriage in the traditional meaning of the term (paragraph 26 of that Judgment).

The Council does not believe that that definition of marriage in the Staff Regulations, determined by reference to the current state of national laws as a whole, is called into question by the Netherlands' adoption of a law authorising civil marriage between persons of the same sex, since the Netherlands as the Honourable Member points out is the only Member State to have taken that decision.

The Council notes that the current Staff Regulations lay down provisions for married persons and that the possible extension of those provisions to non-married persons is also to be examined at interinstitutional level as part of the reform of the Staff Regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: ERDF project rehabilitation of the Los Filtros district of Manises (Valencia, Spain)

In the town of Manises (in the Region of Valencia) a project entitled restoration of the environment in a run-down area, with protection of a natural area the urban surroundings of Los Filtros in Manises. This project, which benefits from Community funding via the ERDF, has led to the disappearance of architectural features dating from the beginning of the last century, which were hitherto protected by the competent authorities as part of the historic and artistic heritage, in accordance with the Manises PGOU (general town-planning project).

Furthermore the project has received ERDF funding for supposed restoration of the district, whilst in fact what is happening is that a wooded area is being replaced with modern design features which improve neither the landscape nor the urban environment.

Both Regulation No 1260/99(1) on the structural funds and Regulation 1783/99(2) on the ERDF specify that the Funds will not finance projects which interfere with the protection of the natural and cultural heritage. Article 2(2)(d) of the ERDF Regulation specifically mentions the need to protect the cultural heritage.

Since one of the uses of the ERDF is to rehabilitate run-down areas, can the Commission say:

- on the basis of what criteria funding was granted for the above project, which includes the demolition of architectural features protected by the Manises PGOU;

- what supervision mechanisms were used to ensure correct allocation of ERDF funding in this particular case?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Anti-dumping duty on fax machines from the Far East

In late April/early May 1998 the Council decided that the anti-dumping duty on personal fax machines from the Far East should continue to apply. The decision affected fax machines from China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. The punitive rate of duty made the machines more expensive to consumers.

What has happened in the meantime, does the anti-dumping duty still apply, and on what grounds?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

On 1 July 2000, before the end of the original five year measures, the Commission initiated an interim review and invited interested parties to present their comments (on i. a. product definition) and to provide details of the technical specifications of all personal fax machines. A second Notice of Initiation for the above proceeding was published on 30 October 2000(1). This notice contained a proposed new product definition intended to eliminate circumvention.

This review is still ongoing and the Commission is obviously doing its utmost to bring it to a rapid conclusion, expected by the end of the year. In the meantime, the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 904/98 of 27 April 1998 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of personal fax machines originating in the People's Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand(2) stay in force.

(1) OJ C 311, 31.10.2000.

(2) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998.