ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Visa requirement for Slovakian citizens on entry to Belgium

A Slovakian citizen who wishes to travel to Belgium must apply for a visa. Slovakia's successful efforts to become a member of the European Union are to be welcomed and must be comprehensively supported.

It is therefore vitally important to ensuring progress with EU enlargement to the east for any adverse effects to be counteracted at an early stage or not allowed to arise at all.

To make entry by a Slovakian citizen subject to a visa requirement could be characterised as discrimination.

Does such a procedure not amount to a racist act against the Sinti (gypsy people of German origin)?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

1. As Community law stands at present, and in the absence of total harmonisation on the issue of visas, it is for Member States to determine whether nationals of Slovakia, a third country not on the common list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the Member States' external borders, are/are not subject to a visa requirement.

2. However, on 26 January 2000 the Commission submitted to the Council, on the basis of Article 62(2)(b)(i) of the TEC, a proposal for a Regulation listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. Slovakia is one of the third countries whose nationals the Commission proposes to exempt from the visa requirement. The European Parliament was consulted by letter dated 16 March 2000 and delivered its Opinion on 5 July 2000. At its meeting on 30 November and 1 December 2000, the Council reached political agreement on the content of the Regulation, advocating, inter alia, that Slovak nationals be exempt from the visa requirement. It was also agreed that the European Parliament should be re-consulted, given that the original text of the Commission proposal had been substantially amended.

3. It must be pointed out that visa policy does not distinguish between ethnic groups but is based on citizenship of the countries in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1639/00

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

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Community aid for restructuring the agricultural and cattle farming sectors

The need to improve agricultural infrastructures in various parts of Galicia (an Objective 1 region) and in particular in those mainly engaged in cattle farming has led to the development of ambitious plans for restructuring a number of cooperatives in various neighbouring municipalities. In this connection, problems arise which are specific to sectors which are of particularly importance to these regions, such as the dairy sector.

Can the Commission indicate which aid programmes would be the most suitable for such an initiative attempting to restructure human resources engaged in a given activity, thus allowing the resulting holdings to be made viable and at the same time provide an alternative to those surplus to requirements in the said sector of activity?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

The new Community support framework for Spain's Objective 1 regions is at present under discussion between the various administrations. Given the advanced state of the negotiations the overall plan of action and at regional level the programme outlines are already apparent.

It has already been decided that the regional programmes will be integrated, i.e. each will involve all Funds. The Commission has a first version of the regional programmes sent on 28 April 2000. These are accordingly still at the early vetting stage.

However, as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section a picture can already be sketched of the priorities for action foci. These will be restricted to four of the CSF priorities: Priority 1: improving competitiveness and production structures; Priority 3: environment and water resources; Priority 7: agriculture and rural development; Priority 9: technical assistance.

The strategy of the first version presented to the Commission for Galicia embraces a whole set of subpriorities. The following may be mentioned: more thoroughgoing structural improvements of the central core formed by dairy and beef cattle farming and its downstream added value chain (milk and beef industries); support for diversification in agriculture; development action for the various products associated with Galicia (veal, wines and fine spirits, potatoes, etc.); more vigorous development of complementary rural activities (unusual forms of tourism, high identity local products etc.); furtherance of an authentic forestry sector; reduction of residue levels, improvement of agricultural treatment systems and forest fire prevention.

These strategic rural development activities part-financed by EAGGF Guidance will be implemented along with others in the forthcoming regional programme for Galicia.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4143/00

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Council

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Deteriorating situation in Sierra Leone

Despite the peace agreement in Sierra Leone, there are reports of continued killing, mutilation, rape, abduction and child abuse.

1. Will the Council indicate what actions are being undertaken at EU level to help to secure the implementation of the provisions of the peace agreement?

2. Will the Council use whatever means are open to it to put pressure on the armed opposition Revolutionary Front and its leadership to end all human rights abuses against civilians and to find a just and fair solution to the current problems?

3. Will the Council issue a statement condemning the rapes and sexual violence against girls and women committed either by rebel forces or police forces?

4. Will the Council address the issue of impunity of human rights abusers as a matter of priority?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3839/00 and P-4143/00

(12 March 2001)

The Council, which is following developments in Sierra Leone very closely, approved at its meeting of 18 September 2000 the elements of the European Union strategy for that country. This strategy document sets out the AEU's general approach to the situation in the country, including the issues and concerns raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/00

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Peace process in the Middle East

On 5 September 2000 the Speaker of the Knesset, Mr Avram Burg, and Mr Ahmed Qurie, his counterpart in the Palestinian Legislative Council, spoke at Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg on the situation in the Middle East, the future status of Jerusalem and the hopes for definitive peace in this troubled region of the planet. The speeches by the two Speakers were models of constructive attitudes, they were full of suggestions and ideas and revealed that at any rate majorities in the legislative bodies of both Israel and the Palestinian administration wished to advance along the road to reconciliation. A highly significant element in these speeches was the suggestion that Jerusalem should become a global capital, a centre for monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), so that instead of being a city of hatred it would become known as a city of love. Paradoxically, the suggestion by the Speakers of the two legislative bodies of Israel and Palestine did not appear to attract the interest of the Council or the Commission, who could adopt and promote it in order to eliminate the stalemate on the status of Jerusalem, thus increasing the European Union's prestige in the area and making a real contribution to consolidating peace.

Since the future of Jerusalem is at the heart of the Palestine issue and is a question that prompts fanatical acts, and even death, on both sides, is the Council looking at the possibility of the European Union promoting the suggestion that Jerusalem should be made into an international city and turned into a global capital for the three monotheistic religions, along the lines of a suggestion made by the parties involved in the region which could put a stop to the constant bloodshed which we are unfortunately witnessing once again in this region? If so, does the EU intend to use a military presence to guarantee smooth implementation of the proposal?

Reply

(24 April 2001)

The question of Jerusalem and that of the Holy Places will probably remain one of the most difficult issues to resolve in the context of the Middle East peace process. Many ideas have been put forward on all sides to break the deadlock concerning Jerusalem, including the idea of internationalisation of the city. The Council is in principle prepared to encourage any solution that takes into account the legitimate expectations of each Party and of the rest of the world. The Council is prepared to make its contribution to working out such a solution if the Parties so wish.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3501/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) and Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Killing of protected bird species in Cyprus

The Times newspaper (UK) reported in October 2000 that Peter Cosgrove, a British birdwatcher on holiday in Cyprus, was accused of spying after he took photographs of local people trapping and killing brutally (by tearing their legs off) thousands of migrating birds, including nightingales and red-backed shrikes, protected by EU law.

Has the Commission raised with the Cypriot Government as part of its accession negotiations the issue of compliance with the Habitats Directive, and, if so, what assurances has it been given regarding measures to curb abuses of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2000)

The preparations by the candidate countries for implementing Community nature protection legislation (the Habitats(1) and Birds(2) directives) are followed closely by the Community in the framework of the accession negotiations as part of the environment chapter.

In preparing Community positions in this chapter and monitoring the progress towards accession, the Commission is in continuous contact with the candidate countries on all questions relating to the environmental acquis. As for the above-mentioned directives, the Commission has held consultations with the candidates with a view to making the necessary technical adaptations of the lists of habitats and species annexed to the directives.

Cyprus is therefore well aware of the obligations of a Member State in respect of the environmental acquis, including the Birds and Habitats directives. It is also party to the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. Cyprus, together with the other candidates, is strongly encouraged to respect the spirit of the environmental acquis before accession. In particular, the Commission has pointed out that there are bird-trapping methods, such as those mentioned by the Honourable Members, which are incompatible with the provisions of the Birds Directive. The Commission will continue to monitor Cyprus' progress in completing the harmonisation process and in establishing the administrative capacity necessary to implement the acquis.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/00

by Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) and Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: ASEM summit and support for NGOs

1. Is it true that groups representing civil society are participating in events on the margins of the ASEM summit in Seoul with the help of funds from the EU budget, and/or are organising such events partly on the strength of such funding?

2. Is the Commission aware that groups representing civil society have applied to the South Korean government for funds for that purpose, and is it true that they have claimed that the Commission knew of, and supported, their action?

3. Has the Commission received any indication that funds such as those referred to in my first question (above) were also provided in connection with the Seattle and Prague conferences?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

1. The People's Forum in the margins of the Asia Europe meeting (ASEM) Summit in Seoul was the third of its kind, following similar events at the previous summits in Bangkok and London. The Commission supports civil society dialogue

between Europe and Asia, and feels that events in Bangkok and particularly in London gave rise to useful, well-prepared and constructive discussions. The Korean summit hosts together with the host of ASEM IV (Denmark) plus other interested partners had a useful meeting with meet People's Forum representatives in Seoul in the margins of the summit.

2. Non governmental organisations (NGOs) organising the People's Forum in Seoul had asked the Commission for financial support for this event. However, the request was received too late for the Commission to process it in time for the summit. When requesting financial support from the Commission, NGOs indicated that they would ask the Korean government for support. The Commission has no further details as to what support the organisers may ultimately have received.

3. Concerning the NGO presence at Seattle (WTO) and Prague (IMF) the Commission did not contribute financially to NGOs. The Community delegation to Seattle included a number of NGO participants but their costs were borne by these people or their organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3407/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 November 2000)

Subject: Deportation of Italian citizens by Germany

Last spring an Italian family living in Baden-Württemberg was deported by Germany because the head of household had lost his job.

The couple had moved with their four children to the German Land just over a year earlier, with a standard employment contract, but after an accident the head of household had had to leave his new job and together with his pregnant wife found temporary employment in a cleaning firm.

Despite this, one morning the police took the whole family, searched the two spouses as if they were major criminals and loaded the family onto the first plane for Italy without even allowing them to collect their personal belongings or bottles for the small children.

1. Does the Council not consider that it is necessary to condemn and penalise such reprehensible conduct, which has clearly racist anti-Italian overtones, and which has been going on for far too long in Germany, where Italian citizens have also been physically attacked by gangs of neo-Nazis?

2. Does the Council not also believe that the violation of Community laws on the free movement of persons and workers should be condemned?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

1. The Council has no knowledge of the events described by the Honourable Member. In any case, the questions raised concern compliance with Community rules on free movement. They are a matter for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties.

2. With regard to the question of racism, the Council would draw attention to the Joint Action of 15 July 1996 adopted by the Council concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia(1).

(1) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996, p. 5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3661/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Coastal fishing in ACP countries

Would the Commission outline what measures it is taking to ensure that Community fishing vessels, operating under EU-ACP fishing agreements, respect the needs and rights of small-scale, coastal fishing communities in ACP countries and do not damage the local ACP fisheries sector?

What action is the Commission taking to improve the capacity of ACP countries to patrol the waters under their jurisdiction, so as to control the activities of both Community and ACP fishing fleets and thereby prevent overfishing?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for her question and informs her that, in order to avoid clashes with small-scale traditional fishermen, protocols to fisheries agreements specify fishing zones for the Community which differ from those for local vessels.

As for improving the capacity of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to control fishing activities, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, since 1997 the majority of fisheries agreements concluded between the Community and third countries (namely ACP countries) stipulate that an important part of the financial compensation paid in exchange for fishing possibilities be devoted to targeted actions, amongst which are monitoring, control and surveillance activities, including the setting up of satellite based vessel monitoring systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4108/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Follow-up questions on the requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands

On 18 January 2000 I put questions to the Commission on the requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands. Commissioner Vitorino replied on 7 February that the Commission would contact the Dutch authorities to obtain full details of the circumstances.

1. Have these contacts with the Dutch authorities now taken place?

2. Can the Commission now provide substantial answers to my individual questions as a result of the said contacts?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The Commission recently received the reply of the Dutch authorities in relation to the question raised by the Honourable Member informing the Commission that they are currently reviewing the legal texts to be in line with Community provisions.

The Commission will remain in contact with the Dutch authorities and will not hesitate to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex-Article 169) EC Treaty, should this prove necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3785/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Progress in the implementation of Directives 91/628/EEC, 95/29/EC and 70/156/EEC

Will the Commission please inform me of the progress that has been made in the implementation of Directives 91/628/EEC(1) and 95/29/EC(2) on the transport of live animals and of Directive 70/156/EEC(3) on the technical requirements for motor vehicles and trailers used for animal transport and how the implementation of these Directives may affect Scottish farming?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

(3) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2001)

All Member States have now transposed Council Directive 91/628/EC of 19 November 1991 as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport into their national legislation.

The Commission is planning for the near future a number of important initiatives aimed at improving the situation.

The Commission recently adopted a report to the Council and to the Parliament on the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation of the Directive on the protection of animals during transport(1) and on possible improvements in the Community's regulatory framework.

In relation to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, as last amended by Directive 2000/40/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 26 June 2000(2), a proposal was drafted and transmitted(3) in 1997 to the Parliament and Council to establish technical requirements for the construction of motor vehicles and their trailers intended for the transport of certain types of animals. Based on Article 95 (ex Article 100a) of the EC Treaty, the proposal specifies, among others, the suitable design and construction of the loading compartment and its partitions, the protection of animals with a weather proofed and insulated roof, the loading and unloading ramps, the intermediate floors, the approved access for inspection, suitable ventilation devices and the effectiveness of the light sources in the loading compartment.

Compliance with these technical specifications will ensure free circulation for the vehicles concerned within the internal market of the Community. Thus when a vehicle type obtains an approval in accordance with this directive, Member States will be neither able to prohibit manufacturers from offering it for sale, nor to refuse its registration nor entry into service for reasons relating to its construction with regard to animal transport.

After the first reading by the Parliament, where 24 amendments were tabled, the Council has still to agree a common position.

As to the effects of these measures on Scottish farming, the Commission is not aware of factors that would lead to effects that differ from those elsewhere in the Community.

(1) COM(2000) 809 final.

(2) OJ L 203, 10.8.2000.

(3) OJ C 290, 24.9.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4056/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 January 2001)

Subject: European army

Will the Council state:

(a) what funds have been allocated or budgeted for setting up a European army, and

(b) how the individual Member States are going to contribute, in terms both of resources (including manpower) and costs, and what budgets have been envisioned for the participating Member States?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

1. At the European Council the Member States set themselves an overall objective that: cooperating voluntarily, they must be able by 2003 to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50 000-60 000 persons capable of the full range of conflict prevention and crisis management tasks defined in the Treaty on European Union, the so-called Petersberg tasks. The European Council also stressed that this did not imply the creation of a European army. The Union should have the capability to decide and, where NATO as such is not involved, to launch and conduct military operations under its leadership to tackle international crises. NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members and will continue to play an important role in crisis management.

2. The troops put at the disposal of the EU to carry out EU-led operations would continue to be national troops. Therefore no funds would need to be budgeted or allocated for setting up this rapid reaction force.

3. On 20 November 2000 the Member States participated in a Capabilities Commitment Conference, where they announced their voluntary commitment to fulfilling the military capability goals set in Helsinki. The Conference also made it possible to identify a number of areas where efforts or contributions, on either a national or a multinational basis, will be made to upgrade existing military assets, investment and cooperation so as gradually to acquire or enhance the capabilities required for crisis management operations led by the Union. It is for each Member State to assess whether its contribution to the capabilities objectives implies new financial commitments and, if so, to provide for the corresponding resources.