ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Violation of the human rights of Afghan prisoners of war

A large number of prisoners of war captured in the Afghanistan war have been transported to the American Guantanamo base in Cuba, while a small number of prisoners of Algerian origin have been taken to the American base in Bosnia. There is irrefutable detailed evidence that the treatment of the captives, both during their transportation and their detention at the Guantanamo base, is akin to conditions of captivity in Taliban-type regimes, and certainly not to those in states which are supposed to defend human rights and respect the international agreements and conventions which they have signed for the protection of these rights.

In view of the direct involvement of European Union Member States in the Afghanistan war, what steps has the Council taken to ensure that the rights of prisoners of war are respected, and what does it intend to do to ensure that all the prisoners receive impartial justice? Does the Council intend to send observers to the bases where prisoners are being held, and legal experts to monitor legal procedures during the administration of justice?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0168/02, E-0236/02, E-0239/02 and E-0263/02

(27 June 2002)

The Council confirms that it considers it important that every detainee be treated humanely in accordance with general standards of international law. The Council is not in a position to ascertain whether the conditions of detention at Guantánamo meet those standards solely on the basis of media reporting. President Bush made a public statement on the subject on 31 January 2002. The Council, however, does not have at its disposal the information necessary to judge correctly whether the detainees at Guantánamo must be regarded as prisoners of war. It would point out that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War provides that, in the event of doubt, a prisoner must be granted the protection of the Convention until such time as a competent tribunal can determine his status. In the interval, detainees must be treated humanely and receive proper medical care, clothing and food. The detaining power is, however, entitled to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security of the facility and the detainees in accordance with international law.

The Council does not intend to send observers to Guantánamo. The Council welcomes the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been granted full access to the detainees and will be in a position to exercise its mandate. The delegations of the United Kingdom, French, Spanish and Belgian Governments have also had access to their respective nationals detained at Guantánamo Bay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1166/02

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Subject: Furniture directive

In the mid-1990s, an ambitious research study was carried out into fire-safety for furniture. Several European research establishments and standardisation agencies were involved in the process which resulted in a proposal for a furniture directive (EUR 16477 EN). However, since the proposals on fire-safety standards for furniture met with opposition in some Member States, the matter was shelved. There is, nevertheless, a need for common standards in this area.

Does the Commission intend to reconsider the question of furniture fire safety on the basis of the existing research?

Answer given by Mr Byrne On behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

In the absence of specific Community provisions, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) has drawn up four standards on the fire resistance of upholstered furniture. This work, conducted with the financial assistance of the Commission, concerns flammability test methods. For further details on the general situation, the Honourable Member is referred to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions P-0055/01 from Mrs Corbey(1) and E-1212/00 from Mr Whitehead(2).

The question of a new standardisation mandate which would not be limited to testing methods including provisions on safety was raised with the national representatives on the Emergencies Committee of the Directive on General Product Safety (GPSD) and with ANEC, the body representing consumers within the standardisation bodies. The reactions were generally favourable, provided that account is taken of existing national legislation on this subject (the existing level of safety must not be reduced) and the toxicological effects of flame retardants.

This is all the more important as the new Directive on General Product Safety specifies that conformity of a product with the general safety obligation may be assessed by taking into account, among other things, voluntary national standards transposing relevant European standards(Article 3.3 (a)), i.e. the standards drawn up by the CEN.

The Commission reserves the right to return to this question on the basis of a study which it has commissioned, the final report of which is expected at the beginning of 2003. This study should establish a method for determining, among other things, the dangers and risks of consumer products which may, on the one hand, be covered by Directive 2001/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 3 December 2001, on General Product Safety(3) and on the other, be the subject of a standardisation mandate. This study will in fact involve testing the method on a number of products, including upholstered furniture.

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001.

(2) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.

(3) OJ L 11, 15.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Answer to Written Question E-3031/01 concerning UNIDCP activities in Afghanistan

In its answer of 15 January 2002 to Written Question E-3031/01(1) the Commission, instead of answering the queries concerning the activities of the United Nations Drug Control Programme in Afghanistan, makes a detailed analysis of the Community's role in helping displaced persons.

What the questioner wanted and still wants to know is:

- between January and December 2001 how much European funding (in euro) was spent or allocated to the UNIDCP in Afghanistan, under what heading (budget item and project title), to what entity it was paid (if other than the UNIDCP), what funding was subjected to controls and checks by what entity and what the results were?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3031/01(1), in which it stated that it was not financing any drug control operations in Afghanistan.

This means that, in particular, it did not grant any funding to the UNIDCP (United Nations Drug Control Programme) for drug control operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Use of EU safety marks for the promotion of weapons of torture

I am told that, since 1990, electro-shock devices have been used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons, detention centres and police stations in at least 76 countries, in every region of the world. It seems that several stun weapon manufacturers are advertising that their products have been awarded the European CE standard mark and European guarantee.

1. How many stun weapon manufacturers are using the CE mark on their products?

2. Which EU Member States are effectively allowing stun weapon manufacturers to use the European Commission's CE safety marks on their stun weapons as a quality selling point?

3. Can the Council clarify the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded to stun weapon manufacturers?

4. Does the Council consider that CE safety marks on stun weapons are a quality selling point?

5. Does the Council consider that action should be taken to prevent stun weapon manufacturers from using the CE mark to promote the sale of their products?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to put her question directly to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0296/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva

The fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights, which is to be held in Geneva from 18 March to 26 April 2002, is the most important event in the field of human rights during the Spanish Presidency in the first six months of this year.

What role will the Spanish Presidency play, and what will its approach be in this extremely important international forum under the United Nations umbrella?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The EU, represented by the Presidency, will be a key player at the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The EU has traditionally been behind nearly a third of all the Resolutions adopted. It takes the floor frequently and participates actively in the numerous negotiations conducted on third-country initiatives.

The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs will address the CHR on behalf of the EU at the opening of the session and will set out the EU's policy and priorities on human rights.

The Presidency, on behalf of the EU, will present initiatives for resolutions on certain countries or territories where the human rights situation gives cause for concern. The list of those countries and territories is not yet complete but is very likely to resemble that for CHR 57.

The EU will also present two important thematic resolutions, which met with remarkable success at the 57th CHR: a resolution on the rights of the child (prepared with Grulac) and a resolution against the death penalty.

As it has done in the past, the Presidency, on behalf of the EU, will also take the initiative in drawing up consensus declarations by the Chairwoman of the CHR on given countries.

The Presidency favours dialogue with all delegations and all regional groups, while at the same time urging EU Member States to remain united in their positions. The Presidency is also committed to overcoming the difficulties arising from the fact that the United States is not a member of the CHR.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Design criteria employed for Euro notes

With specific reference to the outermost regions, what criteria did the European monetary authority employ when designing the map of the European Union featured on the Euro notes? Why are certain islands, e.g. La Gomera and El Hierro, which form part of the Canaries, missing?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

The decision on the design of the euro banknotes, including using a specific map of Europe has been taken by the European Monetary Institute, the predecessor of the European Central Bank. The Commission was not involved in this process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0996/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Live animal transportation from South America

Can the Commission confirm whether new EU regulations governing the transportation of live animals will cover live imports from third countries? It has been brought to my attention that many thousands of animals being shipped from South America are still enduring much cruelty and deprivation despite new EU regulations.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Firstly, it should be mentioned that, in relation to biungulates (bovines, pigs, sheep and goats) Community animal health rules only authorize the importation into the Community of live breeding pigs from Chile. Registered horses intended for competitions are also allowed from certain South American countries. Statistical data indicate that no pigs were imported in 2001.

In relation to welfare conditions, Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995(2), provides a set of rules on the protection of animals during transport. The Commission has undertaken to present in the near future a legislative proposal to improve the welfare conditions of the transported animals.

The present rules foresee that if during an import check at the entrance of the territory of the Community it is discovered that animals are not fit to continue their planned journey, that Community journey times are being exceeded or that the means of transport is unsuitable, action can be taken under existing Community provisions.

However, imposing Community welfare requirements generally on the pre-import leg of the journey may not be compatible with regards to the Community's international obligations in general and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations in particular.

Nevertheless, to raise the level of protection of the animals internationally, the Commission is committed to several initiatives, such as the negotiation on behalf of the Community of the revised European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport, the support of the activity of the OIE(3) in the field of animal welfare and the position expressed in WTO in animal welfare and agriculture. The possibilities for WTO compatible bilateral agreements concerning animal welfare with certain third countries will also be explored.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3) Office international des Epizooties, the world organisation for animal health.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1005/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Financial assistance by the Commission to Acharavi, Corfu, for the setting-up of an animal home and construction of a laboratory

Can the Commission confirm that it has provided funds to the village of Acharavi on Corfu for the construction of an animal home?

Can the Commission also confirm that European funds have been used to build a laboratory for animals near Kommeno on Corfu?

How much European funding will Corfu receive between 2000 and 2006, and which projects are to be financed by means of it?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

We are informed by the Greek authorities (Environment Ministry) that no aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was given for the animal pound construction project at Acharavi on Corfu. The Kommeno veterinary laboratory was part-financed (approx. 180 000) under the 1994-1999 Regional Operational Programme for the Ionian Islands.

For 2000-2006 Corfu is eligible under the Ionian Islands ROP, to which the Community contribution (all islands) is 244 684 921. It is also eligible for projects part-financed under other operational programmes of the Greek Community support framework that cover the whole country. Community Initiatives and the Cohesion Fund are other potential sources of assistance for projects.

The Commission cannot determine what share of Structural Fund financing Corfu or any other island will receive or list the projects to be aided in this way. Under the subsidiarity principle assessment and selection of projects proposed for Structural Fund part-financing is a responsibility of the regional and national managing authorities. The final amount that will be invested for each island will depend on the quality and maturity of the projects presented by the managing authorities and local entrepreneurs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1147/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Subject: International food standards

The Danish Consumer Council has warned that the 15 Member States are to have only one single EU vote on the Codex Alimentarius. Does the Commission share this view?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The Commission does not share the view of the Danish Consumer Council. The number of votes which the Community requests in the Codex Alimentarius Commission will be equal to the number of its Member States that are entitled to vote. As is already the case in the FAO framework, when the Community exercises its right to vote in areas of Community competence, its Member States do not exercise theirs, and conversely. The Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the draft amendment of the rules of procedure of Codex Alimentarius (CX/GP 02/7) and the information note of the Community to Codex (CX/GP 02/INF.1). While the Community's accession is still under consideration these documents give full explanations about the future status in Codex Alimentarius of a regional economic integration organisation such as the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Application of Community Directive 1999/70/EC

The Greek Social Security Institution (IKA) has occasionally engaged the services of doctors on indefinite contracts of employment, pursuant to Legislative Decree 1204/1972 concerning the provision of medical care by the Social Security Institution, in order to meet its requirements as set out in that Decree.

Will the Commission say whether the abovementioned category of workers is subject to the provisions of Directive 1999/70/EC(1) in respect of their professional development?

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC(1), UNICE(2) and CEEP(3) is applicable to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State.

The Directive does not exclude the public sector from the scope. If doctors are considered as employees according to the legislation in a Member State, the Directive is therefore applicable.

(1) European Trade Union Confederation.

(2) Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe.

(3) European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Rodeos in Europe

Rodeos involve cruelty to animals for purposes of entertainment and are often described as American bullfighting. The cattle and horses involved are not wild animals, but European domestic animals. For full entertainment value to be achieved, the animals have to buck. This is brought about by inflicting severe pain on them. The girth is pulled very tight as the animal leaves the starting box, with the effect of constricting the lower abdomen or genitals of male and female animals. Electric shocks may also be used. Falls suffered by the animals cause broken necks, fractured bones, grazes and severe internal injuries. Furthermore, frequent transportation and changes of location place the animals under stress.

There is no rodeo tradition in Europe; rodeo forms no part of its cultural, religious or regional heritage. Rodeos were brought to Europe by American soldiers who organised them as a leisure activity, and were initially confined to US barracks. Now rodeos are also taking place in civilian locations at fairs and in so-called Western towns. Rodeos are held in Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic. Like cock fighting and dog fighting, rodeos are mainly confined to the same small circle of enthusiasts and do not attract a large public. As in the case of the bullfighting industry, private rodeo organisers are trying to extend their business operations to the former Eastern bloc countries.

What does the Commission envisage doing to prevent the cruel practice of rodeo in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that unnecessary suffering of animals is not acceptable.

The Commission places great importance on animal welfare. The Community has adopted general rules on the rearing of animals with the view to protecting their welfare. More detailed conditions have been laid down on the rearing of calves, pigs and laying hens. The Community has also passed legislation on animal transport and the conditions for the slaughter of animals. Community rules also exist on the use of animals for scientific research.

Regulation of competitions and similar events is however largely a matter for Member States, and at least in the absence of evidence that divergent national approaches were hindering the functioning of the internal market, the Community's power to act is rather limited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Reporting of public finance data

1. In the light of the failure of some Member States to report their public finance data in line with ESA 95, will the Commission reconsider its proposal to exempt all Member States from the requirement of producing a prospectus for any securities issue?

2. Does the Commission agree that market discipline to enforce transparency would be beneficial?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behlalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

1. The Commission fully shares the view of the Honourable Member that Member States should report their public finance data in line with the European System of National Accounts ESA 95.

Sovereign issuers have been exempted by Community legislation from the obligation to publish a prospectus for more than twenty years.

When adopting its new proposal(1) on prospectuses, the Commission decided to maintain this policy for the following reasons:

- prospectuses are generally ill adapted to describe the financial situation of a Member State;

- the more appropriate way to improve the financial reporting system of Member States is through upgraded national accounting standards and more timely disclosure of this financial information;

- obliging Community sovereign issuers to publish a prospectus would cause them a competitive disadvantage compared to their main global competitors, i.e. sovereign issuers from third countries, who do not have to comply with such an obligation.

The Commission is still of the opinion that it is not necessary to impose this obligation on Member States. The possibility that Member States might not be able to meet their obligations in future seems remote, notably for countries who are bound by the Maastricht criteria, which impose very strict requirements as regards public debt.

2. The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that market discipline is beneficial to enforce transparency requirements. Such market discipline exists at present in the field of securities issued by sovereign issuers. For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission thinks that imposing on sovereign issuers the obligation to publish a prospectus is not the appropriate instrument for increasing transparency on the financial situation of sovereign issuers.

(1) OJ C 272, 1.9.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Review of the common fisheries policy

Could the Commission please indicate how fisheries policy would be regulated within European Union waters in the event of a failure to agree on the review of the common fisheries policy by 31 December 2002?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1332/02, E-1346/02, E-1364/02 and P-1387/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

If the review of the Common Fisheries Policy is not agreed by 31 December 2002, with the sole exception of the rules relating to access to the 12 mile zones of Member States, the existing rules will remain in force unless the Commission proposes and the Council adopts other amending Regulations prior to or following that date.