ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Refusal to restore confiscated property to Assyrian Syrians from Tur Abdin

In 1984, the Kurds launched their armed struggle against the Turkish State. This civil war in south-eastern Turkey gradually developed into a ruthless war which severely affected civilians throughout the south-east region. Despite much provocation by the Turkish State, the Assyrian Syrians refused to take part in the hostilities on either side. This did not prevent the Turkish State from deporting Assyrian Syrians from a large number of their villages. The Turkish State reacted to their neutrality as if they were enemies of the state. The method used by the Turkish State was often to gather the villagers together violently at gunpoint and order them to leave the village within 24 hours. In a large number of Assyrian Syrian villages, the population was driven out and replaced with the State's own supporters.

The following are only two examples of 32 villages which received the same treatment. The villages of Sare (Turkish Sari) and Gaznag (Turkish Gevizagaci) were both emptied of their Assyrian Syrian population in 1996. Since then, the villagers have appealed to every conceivable authority in an attempt to recover their property and the village but to no avail. Recently, the villagers appealed to the Turkish President, to the same effect.

What steps will the Commission take to enable the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syrians to recover their confiscated villages?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

In its Regular Report published in November 2001(1), the Commission noted that in several instances village guards, armed and paid by the state to defend the evacuated or abandoned villages, have occupied the houses of departed villagers and refuse to return them to the legitimate owners. There are between 45 000 and 90 000 village guards in the region.

The Accession partnership for Turkey includes a short term priority concerning the development of a comprehensive approach to reduce regional disparities, and in particular to improve the situation in the Southeast, with a view to enhancing economic, social and cultural opportunities for all citizens.

The Commission will monitor the full implementation of this priority with a view to guaranteeing full respect of basic rights including cultural rights and diversity of all Turkish citizens, irrespective of their origin.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: EU Community rules governing the activities of beauty clinics

The Spanish Society of Cosmetic Medicine and Surgery has written to the Andalusian Regional Government's Ministry of Health calling for the adoption of specific rules applicable to beauty clinics in that part of Spain.

The above Ministry has replied that its Legal Office is gathering information with a view to determining whether or not any specific legal framework exists, even though specialists have established that there are no particular rules applicable to beauty clinics.

Will the Commission say whether or not there are any EU-wide rules which regulate beauty clinics in a more specific fashion than the rules which apply to clinics practising general medicine and which, in the opinion of the above-mentioned Spanish Society of Cosmetic Medicine and Surgery, are inadequate in the case of beauty clinics?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

In answer to the question by the Honourable Member, there is no specific Community legislation applicable to beauty clinics.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0963/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Perrylux case investigation of former OLAF employees

In its press release of 28 February 2002 (MEMO/02/38) the Commission announced that the anti-fraud office OLAF would be launching an investigation into possible irregularities in the former anti-fraud service UCLAF.

1. Has this investigation now begun?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the investigation concerns officials who not only worked for UCLAF, but were taken over by OLAF, where they were responsible for internal (anti-corruption) investigations until well into 2001?

3. Can the Commission confirm that the officials in question were also responsible for investigating the Perrylux case?

4. Will the Commission ensure that investigations are carried out into the accusations by an interested party to the effect that the aforementioned officials did not assess and follow up in the prescribed fashion information and documents handed over by him on 10 December 1998 and 22 February 1999?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the investigation referred to by the Honourable Member has been opened by the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF(1) and Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999(2) provide in Article 12, paragraph 3 that the Director of OLAF shall report regularly to the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the findings of investigations carried out by the Office, whilst respecting the confidentiality of those investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons involved and, where appropriate, national provisions applicable to judicial proceedings.

Pursuant to the above legislation, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that OLAF is unable to provide information regarding points 2, 3 and 4 of this written question.

The Director General of OLAF has decided to set up a dedicated team of investigators directed by a senior magistrate from one of the Member States, to assess whether in the course of the most important cases that were started under the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), any more investigative steps are required. The allegations made by the Honourable Member will be part of this review. The team will also liase with all national and Community authorities involved in those cases. It is expected that this team will start working in July 2002, as soon as the senior magistrate has been recruited.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Regional policy

In connection with the acquisition of railway equipment by the Greek public body Attiko Metro A.E., financed with ERDF and EIB funding (50 % and 40 % respectively), there are serious doubts about the procedure for awarding the contract to the Korean firm Koros, which may seriously affect the EU's financial interests.

The award was called into question by two rulings by the Greek Court of Auditors. Indeed it does not seem sensible to award the contract for the basic option only, i.e. without air conditioning or the equipment for ATO systems. It is even more difficult to understand why, in addition to the basic option, the seven dual-voltage trains for the new underground link to the airport are not being included. The link is justified in particular as infrastructure for the 2004 Olympic Games, which is why it is receiving European funding to cofinance the operation. Surprisingly, there are reports that work on this contract has already begun.

What steps will the European Commission take to ensure proper use of its resources, in view of this situation?

What measures will be adopted to ensure that Attiko Metro A.E. complies with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

In response to a complaint received, the Commission has questioned the Greek authorities on several issues regarding the public supply contract mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission is unable, at this stage, to prejudge the final answer given by the Greek authorities, but if it were to discover an infringement of Community law on public procurement, it would, on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, take whatever measures were required to ensure compliance with Community legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1092/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: ACP-EU Local Government Platform

How does the Commission intend to promote and support the work of the ACP-EU Local Government Platform, which includes the Commonwealth Local Government Forum?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Commission attaches great importance to the role of local governments as actors of cooperation as defined in Article 6 of the Cotonou Agreement. It is crucial both in terms of democracy and governance and in terms of sustainability.

The Commission has followed closely the organization and structuring of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States-Union's (ACP-EU) Local Government Platform and participated in a seminar organized by the Platform on 14 March 2002 in Brussels to jointly explore ways of cooperation. During the seminar the Commission encouraged the Platform to open up channels of communication on issues of institutional development and governance.

In terms of financial support, the ACP-EU Local Government Platform has possibilities to access funds from the European Development Fund under which significant support has already been provided to the decentralization of government facilities and the following two budget lines:

- the non-governmental organisation co-financing budget line B6-7000, whose operation is based on calls for proposals. The closing date for the interest call for proposals was 15 April 2002. A new call for proposals will be published with a deadline planned for November 2002.

- the 'Decentralised Cooperation budget line, B7-6002, a call for proposals for which will be published before July 2002.

Financial support has already been provided to the Commonwealth Local Government Forum:

- In 1999, a contract was signed for a project called Pacific local government building project in Papua New Guinea, Solomon islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Kiribati, with a Community contribution of EUR 300 000, for a period of 30 months. The project should end on 30 June 2002.

- In May 2000, a contract was signed for a project called Local government regional information centre phase 2 in Republic of South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique, Namibia, Lesotho, Botswana and Malawi, with a Community contribution of EUR 326 813, for a period of 27 months, ending in August 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Temporary protection mechanism for the shipbuilding industry

The conclusions of the Energy and Industry Council meeting of 4 and 5 December 2001 state that the Council held a full debate on the proposal for a regulation establishing a temporary protection mechanism for the Community shipbuilding industry, but, since a qualified majority was not secured for the Commission proposal, the Council agreed to return to the subject at a forthcoming meeting.

Can the Council state:

- what the main reasons were for the failure to adopt the Commission proposal;

- when it expects to examine the proposal again?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Honourable Member is well aware that the Member States are still divided as to the what means to deploy in order to combat unfair competition from Korea in the shipbuilding sector, some fearing that a temporary protection mechanism would risk intra-Community distortions of competition and therefore rejecting the principle of granting State aid.

At the Council meeting on 4 and 5 December 2001 a qualified majority of the Member States could not be achieved and so it was not possible to adopt the Council Regulation concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to assist the shipbuilding industry. The Council agreed in conclusion to return to this matter at a future meeting and therefore placed it on the agenda for its meeting on 6 and 7 June. At its meeting on 27 June 2002 the Council adopted, by a qualified majority, a Regulation setting up a temporary defence mechanism for the Community shipbuilding industry in order to counter the Republic of Korea's unfair commercial practices on world shipbuilding markets; the Danish, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United Kingdom delegations voted against the Regulation. The Regulation will apply as long as necessary, until the conclusion of dispute-settlement proceedings initiated against Korea at the World Trade Organisation, and will expire on 31 March 2004.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2478/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC

On what date were the first requirements of the EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC(1) due to enter into force?

What initial requirements does the Directive impose on Member States?

Which Member States had informed the Commission by the due date that the provisions of the Directive had been transposed into national legislation?

What action, if any, is the Commission taking against any Member States which have failed so to inform it or to comply with the initial requirements of the Directive?

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste entered into force on 16 July 1999 and had to be transposed into national law by 16 July 2001.

The Directive lays down technical requirements for the design, operation, closure and after-care of landfills in order to control emissions and protect the environment. New landfills must comply with these requirements since July 2001. Existing landfills must be adapted to the requirements at the latest by 2009. Shorter transition periods apply to landfills for hazardous waste.

By 16 July 2001 the Commission had received the transposition measures only from Austria. Since then Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Sweden have notified their implementing measures.

The Commission is pursuing infringement proceedings against Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom for non-communication of the national transposition measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0964/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Framework decision on the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

On 12 June 2001 the European Parliament complied with the timetable set by the Presidency of the Council and adopted Report A5-0206/2001 on Combating the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Child Pornography which I drew up on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. This report takes into account new technological developments and provides a full definition and description of punishable acts and minimum penalties so as to harmonise the criminal law of Member States in this area. However, despite all its assurances and announcements, the Council has still not finally adopted this proposal.

Given the widespread nature of the phenomenon in the EU and the inability of national governments effectively address this extremely grave issue, which is an unacceptable violation of human rights and human dignity, will the Council say why the adoption of this particular framework decision is being delayed?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

It has not yet been possible to adopt the Council framework decision on the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography because the Council has at the present time not managed to reach agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2343/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Rural development measures in Cataluña 2000-2006

Would the Commission please give me details of the commitment and payment appropriations for Rural Development measures (budgetary heading B1-4) for the Catalan Autonomous Community (Spain) between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2002?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) uses non-differentiated appropriations; commitment appropriations are therefore identical to payment appropriations. During the period referred to by the Honourable Member, three rural development programmes were in operation in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia: a regional rural development programme operating exclusively there and two so-called horizontal programmes covering several Autonomous Communities: one to improve the structures of agricultural production and the other for accompanying measures.

Spain has not broken down the amounts for the horizontal programme of accompanying measures by region so the Commission can provide only an overall figure of EUR 910,47 million for 2000-2002.

In the other two cases, the planned contributions from the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF to these programmes in 2000, 2001 and 2002 are as follows:

- horizontal programme to improve the structures of agricultural production: EUR 165,15 million of which EUR 59,94 million will go to Catalonia;

- regional rural development programme: EUR 82,03 million.

As regards expenditure declared by 30 June 2002, the following payments have been made by the Catalan paying agency (DARP) for these three programmes (budgetary heading B1-40):

- 2000 (16 October 1999 15 October 2000): EUR 28 771 million;

- 2001 (16 October 2000 15 October 2001): EUR 56 998 million;

- 2002 (16 October 2001 30 June 2002): EUR 20 002 million;

- Total to 30 June 2002: EUR 105 771 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1118/02

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 April 2002)

Subject: Reaction to a statement by the British Defence Secretary, Mr Geoff Hoon, about Britain's policy towards Iraq and the potential use of nuclear weapons

I should like to draw the Council's attention to a statement made recently by the British Defence Secretary, Mr Geoff Hoon, (see the Financial Times of 25 March 2002), where he maintained that Britain would be perfectly entitled to use force without a United Nations mandate, including the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances, if Saddam Hussein were perceived as a threat.

Does the Council take the view that this statement is in accordance with international law, especially in the light of:

- UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995), adopted at its 3514th meeting (on 11 April 1995), and particularly point 1 thereof: 'Takes notewith appreciation of the statements made by each of the nuclear-weapon States (S/1995/261, S/1995/262, S/1995/263, S/1995/264, S/1995/265), in which they give security assurances against the use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States that are Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons';

- the statement made by the United Kingdom that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United Kingdom, its dependent territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;

- the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (8 July 1996) on the request made by the United Nations General Assembly on the question of the legality of a threat or use of nuclear weapons, and particularly its judgments that a threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful, and that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; furthermore, the ICJ interpreted the UN Charter to the effect that the notion ofthreatanduseof force in Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter stand together in the sense that if use of force itself in a given case is unlawful for whatever reason the threat to use such force will be likewise unlawful?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

It is not for the Council to comment on statements by the Defence Secretary of the United Kingdom.

The Council remains convinced that Iraq must apply fully and without any conditions or preconditions the Resolutions of the UN Security Council, in particular Resolutions 687, 1284 and 1382.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1110/02

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE)and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Protection of human rights in Algeria

In the light of the flagrant violations of human rights which have occurred in Algeria and of the new framework for cooperation between the EU and the Mediterranean countries which, in accordance with the Union's decision, must be based on the principles of human rights, how will the Commission ensure that the human rights situation in Algeria is taken up as a specific topic for discussion at all meetings held in the context of the EU-Algeria Association Council, in application of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation process (Barcelona process)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Article 2 of the Association Agreement signed on 22 April in Valencia states that respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall inspire the domestic and international policies of the Parties and shall constitute an essential element of the Agreement.

The manner in which this commitment is respected by the parties will be examined as part of the political dialogue between them once the Agreement enters into force. This dialogue will take place at various levels: at ministerial level, principally within the Association Council, at the level of senior officials within the Association Committee, and through diplomatic and other channels. The Commission will make full use of these arrangements to further the objectives set out in Article 2 of the Agreement.

Pending entry into force of the Agreement, a regular political dialogue is taking place on an ad hoc basis between the EU troika and the Algerian Government. The issue of human rights is systematically discussed at these meetings and will be raised at the upcoming political dialogue meeting in Algiers.

The Commission will also be carrying out activities in Algeria to promote human rights.

In December 2001 the Commission adopted a programming paper 2002-2004 under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights which covers all third countries, including those in the Mediterranean. Algeria is among the 29 focus countries. The main beneficiaries of this initiative are NGOs and international organisations. The schemes to be funded in Algeria are currently at the programming stage.

Finally, under the MEDA programme, of which Algeria is one of the beneficiaries, cooperation is planned on the rule of law and good governance, notably the reform of the justice system.