ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0282/01

by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Beef imports from third countries

In the interest of preventive consumer protection the Council has decided that cattle over the age of 30 months should undergo an instant BSE test on slaughter or, if no test is carried out, should be removed from the food chain.

Sweden, Finland and Austria are required to test animals aged over 30 months only when they are placed on the internal market.

Can the Commission ensure that, with regard to meat imports where the level of risk in a given third country is uncertain, testing will also be made a prerequisite?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The development of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic in the Community at the end of 2000 necessitated a further reinforcement of the protection of consumers against BSE. To this end systematic testing of all bovine animals over 30 months of age entering the food chain was introduced as of 1 January 2001.

The current tests for BSE are used to detect clinical BSE cases or BSE infected animals close to the clinical phase. As the tests cannot detect the infection early in the incubation period, a negative test result is not as such a guarantee that the animal was not infected. The most important direct public health protection measure remains therefore the removal of specified BSE risk material at slaughter. The provisions on the removal of specified BSE risk material already apply to all animals slaughtered in the Community, whether of Community or third country origin. As of 1 April 2001,

imported meat, meat products and preparations and processed animal protein must be certified free from specified BSE risk materials. Derogations may be given for products from countries with a satisfactory BSE status.

A further harmonization of BSE related import conditions should take place in the framework of the proposal of a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's)(1). The Council adopted its Common Position(2) on this proposal on 12 February 2001. If Parliament accepts the Common Position of Council the Regulation could enter into force on 1 July 2001. By creating primary legislation on TSEs on the basis of Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty, this Regulation would offer a powerful legal instrument to regulate amongst others the third country import conditions.

Those import conditions will be based on a scientific assessment of the BSE risk in the country concerned and of the measures needed to manage that risk. The recommendations of the international standard in this area will also need to be taken into account. Currently, the international standard does not recommend BSE testing at slaughter as a measure to protect public health.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999.

(2) OJ C 88, 19.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0542/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Cat and dog furs

The American organisation the Humane Society and various European animal rights associations have recently denounced the fact that 2 million cats and dogs are killed every year for their fur.

The numbers are shocking, particularly since the animals are killed in a most barbarous fashion, by being skinned alive, an absolutely horrible practice.

The people who wear these furs are not aware of the fact that they are dog or cat furs. They are imported concealed as components of clothes or fluffy toys in bad taste, which are deliberately labelled in an incomprehensible manner.

This gruesome trade originates mainly in China, Thailand, Korea and the Philippines and Europe is the main market. Most traders who sell clothes made from imitation fur - which is not imitation at all - are acting in good faith. It is the case, however, that at the beginning of the 1990s a skiing equipment company used dog fur to line its ski boots.

1. Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these revolting activities;

2. What measures it intends to propose to stop this horrendous trade;

3. Whether it is possible to require checks to be carried out and labelling to correspond to the materials actually used for clothes and other products?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2001)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Question E-3981/00 from Mr Stevenson(1) and P-0359/01 from Mrs McNally(2).

Checks which are carried out at the border ensure that the products imported comply with the import conditions established in the Community.

There is no Community legislation requiring labelling for any natural fur product. However, manufacturers or importers are free to use voluntary labelling.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 232.

(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 220.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0599/01

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freedom of movement for workers

The conditions governing the repayment of student loans negotiated in Sweden vary enormously depending on the country in which the borrower subsequently takes up residence. For a person working in Sweden, the annual repayments amount to a maximum of four per cent of annual income. If, however, a person works in another Member State, completely different terms apply. Up to five per cent of the total loan must be repaid every year irrespective of income. Taken over a year, the difference may amount to several thousand Swedish crowns. Obviously, the main groups to suffer under these provisions are low and middle-income earners, and part-time workers living in another Member State.

In March 2000, I asked the Commission whether the above rules were contrary to the fundamental freedom to seek work, and to live and work in another Member State.

The answer given by Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulos dated 12 April 2000 states that the Commission had urged Sweden to provide details of the Swedish provisions and that it would notify me of the outcome of the inquiries.

Now, almost a year later, I have still not been notified of the outcome of the Commission's inquiries. Neither have there been any changes to Swedish law on the rules concerning the repayment of government student loans. People living in another Member State continue to be treated unfairly compared with those living in Sweden.

In the light of the foregoing, will the Commission say:

1. Whether the Swedish Government has replied to the Commission's inquiry. If so, what was Sweden's reply and is the Commission satisfied with the reply?

2. Whether it intends to initiate formal proceedings to enforce compliance with Union rules and regulations or take other measures if it is not satisfied with the reply (or has not received a reply)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission regrets the delay in informing the Honourable Member of the outcome of its enquiries.

The Swedish authorities have informed the Commission about the reform of the Swedish system of student loans. A new Student Benefits Act (1999:1395) will enter into force on 1 July 2001. Under the new system, as of 1 July 2001, all persons who have to repay student loans will be treated in the same manner, whether they live in Sweden or abroad. Persons with outstanding loans on the basis of the old Student Benefit Act (1973:349) can ask after 1 July 2001 that the loans be repaid according to the provisions of the new Student Benefit Act (1999:1395).

The Commission has asked the Swedish authorities to provide information about the effects of the reform on those who work and live abroad and have outstanding loans on the basis of the old Student Benefits Act. On the basis of this information the Commission will assess the situation and thereafter decide if formal proceedings are needed or not.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0552/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: United States missile defence

In a recent interview published on 6 February 2001 in the International Herald Tribune, George Robertson, NATO Secretary-General, said that NATO was the most suitable institution to discuss the development of the missile defence system which George Bush, the newly-elected President of the USA, has brought back into the news with plans for its development.

In view of both the extreme importance of this issue for European countries and the creation of the CFSP within the European Union framework:

1. Does the Council not consider that limiting discussions on this subject exclusively to the NATO setting will produce conclusions without the Union's participation at a time when the EU is establishing the CFSP?

2. Is the Council examining the possibility of bringing the subject up for discussion within the European Union to determine the Member States' common positions on this issue?

3. What is the Council's position on the topic, in view of the objections to the US leadership's intentions from a number of EU Member States, NATO and other countries?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

There is so far no Council position on the National Missile Defence System. But as the Honourable Member stated, several Member States have expressed their national views on the US plans. It should be also recalled that according to Article 22 of the Treaty on European Union, any Member State may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy.

The subject of NMD has been raised on several occasions during discussions between the Secretary General/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Mr Solana, and his US counterparts. The Secretary General/High Representative has echoed the views expressed by a number of Member States on the importance of maintaining global stability through an agreed security framework. He has also underlined the need for full and transparent consultations between the US and its European allies on this issue.

Furthermore at the 2000 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the EU reaffirmed the importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 by the US and the Soviet Union as one of the pillars of strategic stability. The EU also stated that it wishes to see that Treaty preserved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1992/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Male and female clergy

Progressive ideas and the special position and value accorded women are distinctive features of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox priests, for example, have the right to marry, which no

Catholic or Muslim priest is allowed to do. On 9 January 2001 Commissioner Diamantopoulou replied to my question No E-3622/00(1) - which raised the subject of the equality of men and women in regard to conducting religious ceremonies - but did not deal with the substance of the matter.

The Commission report entitled Equal Opportunities for Women and Men in the European Union(2) contains a wide range of proposals for strengthening equality within the EU, referring to balanced participation in decision-making, and the introduction of the gender dimension into employment strategy etc.

Is the refusal to ordain women as priests consistent with the notion of equality promoted by the Commission and the other EU institutions? What is the Commission's view of the fact that the Protestant Church has women priests? What initiatives could the Commission take to make that fact more widely known and to make the other Christian denominations and other faiths (Judaism, Islam etc) realise that women should have the opportunity to be ordained into the priesthood? What is the Commission's view of the ban on marriage and the acquisition of a family by clergy of all religions and faiths with the exception of the Orthodox Church, in which marriage and the creation of a family are regarded as an achievement and a clear sign of respect for human nature?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 196.

(2) COM(1999) 106 final, 5 March 1999.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

As already stated in its answer to written question E-3622/00 by the Honourable Member(1), the Commission cannot become involved and comment on issues which are outside Community jurisdiction, such as the organisation, performance and conducting of religious ceremonies which are based on rules peculiar to each religion.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2095/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: EAGGF funds for Connaught, Ulster

Will the Commission provide a full list of EAGGF funding for Connaught, Ulster during the period June 1994 to date?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission cannot provide a full list of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) funding for Connaught, Ulster, during the period from June 1994 to date, due to the fact that the information on EAGGF funding is available per Member State. The Irish authorities can, certainly, provide more detailed information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1932/01

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Missing persons

Has the Commission's attention been drawn to the difficulties experienced by people who maintain a voluntary contact service following the disappearance of relatives without trace? Is it aware of the costs associated with the provision of such a service both in terms of time and expenditure and does it plan to propose funding for such services?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties facing the people who set up the contact centres referred to by the Honourable Member.

At present, however, it is focusing on the situation as regards missing children and teenagers.

For instance, in May 2001 it sponsored the setting-up of the European Federation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children, which brings together a number of organisations working in the field in various Member States.

The Commission would also inform the Honourable Member that organisations like Child Focus, Net Missing Persons Helpline and a number of others involved in searching for missing children have received Community funding through the Daphne Programme. In this context, a study designed to examine the provisions existing in this field in the Member States should be available by the beginning of next year.

Finally, the Commission would point out that Belgium has submitted a motion for a resolution calling on the Member States to set up national monitoring centres and other centres to combat the disappearance and sexual exploitation of children. The motion is currently being examined by the competent Council bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1728/01

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Cyprus

Whereas Article 50 of the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus grants the Turkish Cypriot community a veto on joining an international organisation to which Turkey does not belong, how does the Commission propose to ensure the full legal validity of Cyprus's accession to the Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1728/01 and E-1729/01 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the preface to its Opinion on the application by the Republic of Cyprus for membership of the Union(1), where on pages 7 to 10 (paragraphs 6 to 12) the issues relating to the legality of the application are reviewed in detail.

The Commission intends to take the same approach as in previous years in relation to the north of Cyprus when drawing up the Regular Report for 2001 and would draw the Honourable Member's attention to page 17 (paragraph 1.3) of the Report for 2000(2).

(1) COM(93) 313 final.

(2) COM(2000) 702 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Fisheries negotiations with a view to Lithuanian accession

The Commission and the Lithuanian Government have concluded the negotiations on fisheries with a view to Lithuania's accession to the Union. The Lithuanian Minister has expressed satisfaction because Lithuania will be able to export its fishery products without tariff restrictions.

After enlargement, will fisheries relations between Lithuania and the present Member States be close to the extent that the existing Community fleet will be able to fish in Lithuanian fishing grounds?

Is the Commission allowing for the possibility that the Community fleet will be able to fish in the fishing grounds of the countries that will join the Union and vice versa?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Conference on Lithuania's Accession to the Union decided at its meeting on 11/12 June 2001 to provisionally close the negotiation chapter on fisheries.

The negotiations on this chapter did, however, not concern trade issues. In the pre-accession framework, the Commission and Lithuania have already concluded technical discussions with a calendar for full liberalisation.

Lithuania fully accepts the acquis on the Common Fisheries Policy, including the principles of exclusive Community competence, equal access to waters and relative stability.

This means that, upon accession, fishermen from Lithuania and other Member States for which quotas have been fixed in the Baltic Sea can fish in the enlarged Community waters, with certain limitations on access within 12 nautical miles of baselines.

Towards the end of the accession negotiations with Lithuania, the relative stability that will apply for Lithuania as a Member State will be fixed on the basis of a reference period, recent and representative of Lithuanian activities in Community waters, as well as waters of third countries and in waters covered by regional fisheries organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: EU competence

In which areas of EU competence does the Commission believe that less activity in the future would be desirable?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

The Commission's activities are set out in its annual work programme drawn up on the basis of policy objectives laid down when it took office(1) and more targeted policy objectives decided each year on the basis of developments and new or existing needs for European-level activity. The areas in which there should be less activity at a given time are those in which, at that time, there are fewer priority objectives to be achieved.

(1) Strategic objectives 2000-2005 Shaping the New Europe (COM(2000) 154 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 June 2001)

Subject: Kosovar Albanian prisoners in Serbia

While the recent partial release of Kosovar Albanian prisoners in Serbia is very welcome, does the Council agree that this serves to deflect attention from the urgency of releasing all the remaining prisoners, some of whom are very ill? In particular does the Council have any information on Skender Ferizi, Besim Zymberi and Bedri Kukalai, in prison since the Dubrava massacre in Kosovo in May 1999?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council has always taken a close interest in Kosovar prisoners in Serbia. The amnesty law passed earlier this year was a direct result of pressure from the EU and more generally from the international community. The subsequent release of a sizeable number of political prisoners and, in April, of all 145 Kosovo Albanian detainees of the so-called Djakovica group were publicly welcomed by the Council. This was not a means to deflect attention from urgency of releasing other prisoners, but rather real progress in the consolidation of democracy and human rights in Serbia. According to the International Red Cross (which, after agreement with the Belgrade authorities, is in charge of assisting detainees in Serb prisons) some 273 people of Kosovar origin are still detained (number is decreasing day by day due to the implementation of the amnesty). About 60 of these can be considered political prisoners. The rest are charged with criminal offences.

According the ICRC, the three detainees mentioned by the Honourable Member, are regularly visited by them (and their doctors) and appear to be receiving appropriate medical treatment in prison. Only one of them (Bedri Kukalai) needs, and is receiving, specialist medical attention. Like the other prisoners, they are permitted to write regularly to their families through the Red Cross.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Common foreign and security policy and the NMD initiative

The fifteen EU Member States have not yet adopted a common position on the US proposal to build an anti-missile shield (National Missile Defense). This is stated in the reply to question E-0049/01. The anti-missile shield has been discussed a number of times between Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and his US counterparts. On those occasions Solana conveyed the views of a number of Member States concerning the importance of global stability based on an agreed security framework. At the conference to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York last year, the European Union reaffirmed the importance of the ABM Treaty concluded between the USA and the Soviet Union in 1972 as one of the pillars of strategic stability.

1. Has the Council now adopted a position on the National Missile Defense anti-missile shield? If not, when will the Council do so, bearing in mind the importance of this issue for the common foreign and security policy?

2. Does NMD accord with the ABM Treaty of 1972, which the Council again stated at the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York last year to be one of the pillars of strategic stability? If so, on what grounds does the Council conclude that NMD accords with the ABM Treaty of 1972 and will promote strategic stability?

3. Which EU Member States' views has the Secretary-General/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy conveyed to his US counterparts regarding the importance of preserving global stability by means of an agreed security framework? What were the views of these Member States regarding the anti-missile shield?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

1. The Council has not adopted a position on US plans for Missile Defence (MD) nor has any Member State raised the issue in the Council.

2. Since there has been no Council discussion, there is no Council interpretation on the implications of MD for the ABM Treaty of 1972 which is a bilateral Treaty between the US and the then Soviet Union.

3. The High Representative, in his contacts with third countries, speaks for the EU and not for one or more individual Member States. In the absence of an agreed EU position on MD, discussions between the High Representative and his US counterparts on this issue have been of a general nature, with an emphasis on the need for consultation and agreement between the US and its allies and other third countries on the way ahead.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: EU Convention on Human Health and Biomedicine

With regard to the EU Convention on Human Health and Biomedicine, concluded on 4 April 1997 in Oviedo, Spain, could the Commission please indicate which countries have not yet ratified that Convention? Could it also indicate the date on which those countries who have signed the aforementioned Convention, ratified it?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Oviedo Convention is a Council of Europe initiative, which has been signed and ratified by the following Member States:

>TABLE>

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom have neither signed nor ratified the Convention.