ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 October 2001)

Subject: G8 meeting in Genoa

The European Community, as created by De Gasperi, Adenauer and Schuman, was intended as a means of overcoming the selfishness of states and of encouraging solidarity with the world's poorer regions.

At the G8 meeting, the democratically elected leaders of some of the most advanced countries of the world held their periodic discussions on a few of the innumerable serious problems affecting the life of the planet. For the first time, representatives of the European Union, the UN and a number of poor countries were invited to the meeting. A number of measures were adopted with respect to the poorer countries which, without resolving the problems, at least represent a small step towards cancellation of the debt and a possible improvement in health conditions.

In the light of the above, how does the Council intend to follow up the conclusions of the Genoa Summit over the coming months?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council attaches the utmost importance to the conclusions of G8 meetings, which are attended not only by the Member States represented in G8 but also, at the invitation of the G8 Presidency, by the Presidency of the EU Council and the Presidency of the Commission.

While it is not bound by the conclusions of G8 meetings, the Council will certainly take the results of the July meeting of the G8 in Genoa into account. It welcomes the fact that this meeting was essentially devoted to development problems and provided an opportunity to discuss certain questions at the centre of the Union's development cooperation policy, notably the fight against poverty, market access, indebtedness and public health issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Development DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Development Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Reply given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

In 2000 and 2001, no projects were financed under the budget headings administered by DG Development for the Italian regions mentioned in the honourable member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/01

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Osteoporosis

In 1998 the Commission submitted a report on osteoporosis containing a number of recommendations to improve diagnosis, prevention and treatment. On several occasions the Commission has stated that it is drawing up a proposal to the Council containing a number of new recommendations. At one point it was said that the proposal would be submitted towards the end of 2000. This has not yet happened. What timetable is the Commission now working on, and when can the proposal be expected?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2001)

The Commission has published a scientific report on osteoporosis in the Community(1) in 1998. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the underlying pathology of osteoporosis, it also covers clinical aspects of managing osteoporosis and has an emphasis on the prevention of osteoporosis in its conclusions.

As there have been no changes in the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis since the report, the Commission believes that the focus should be on encouraging next steps in meeting the recommendations of the report itself and using the report as an indicator to Member States in developing their best practices.

The new Community Public Health Programme(2), which is presently being examined by the Parliament and the Council follows a three strand approach: Improving health information, Responding rapidly to health threats and Addressing health determinants, and is a move away from disease specific activity as in the past. The new programme aims to achieve a better focused approach and synergy between actions, with a view to setting up comprehensive coping and prevention strategies based on best practice.

Further activity following on from the scientific conclusions of the 1998 report could be accommodated under the existing Health Promotion Programme, but health promotion activities will fall under the new Public Health Programme in the future.

The Commission envisages to analyse the follow-up given by the Member States to the recommendations in the report. This analysis would enable the Commission Services to bring forward in due course a report on progress achieved.

(1) Report on osteoporosis in the European Community Action for prevention. European Commission, Directorate General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, 1998.

(2) (COM(2000) 285 final 2000/0119(COD)(.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: The arrest of Mohamed Nasheed, MP, in the Maldives on 8 October 2001

Is the Commission aware of reports that Mohamed Nasheed, a Member of Parliament in Malé, Republic of Maldives, and a human rights activist, was arrested on 8 October 2001 without any clear reason being given.

Would the Commission consider asking the Maldives Government to indicate the exact reason for Mohamed Nasheed's arrest and the charges, if any, that have been brought against him?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the circumstances of the arrest of Mr Nasheed and has requested its Head of Delegation in Colombo, who is accredited to the Republic of the Maldives, to make enquiries and to report back.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the results of these enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3693/01

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Presence of asbestos in vehicles

As of 1 January 2002 vehicles in France in which certain sub-assemblies such as engines, brakes and clutche mechanisms comprise elements containing asbestos can no longer be sold or transferred in any other way, in accordance with Decree 96-1133 of 24 December 1996.

This measure, which means the disappearance of historic military vehicles, is particularly unjust. It also threatens to cause substantial financial losses to individuals and the disappearance of a whole category of workers, those involved in the sale and repair of second-hand cars.

Germany has already granted an additional period of five years for old vehicles.

Should not the Commission, and the Directorate-General for the Environment in particular, intervene and draw up legislation providing for derogations from this measure? In view of what is at stake, the matter should be regulated in a harmonised way at European level.

If so, should not an additional period be granted in order to allow the necessary modifications to be carried out and, above all, to allow the owners of such vehicles, in particular vintage cars, to be properly informed?

Finally, would it not be appropriate to refer the matter to the Scientific Steering Committee for an assessment?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

Commission Directive 91/659/EEC of 3 December 1991 adapting to technical progress Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos)(1) restricts the use of asbestos in all its forms. Thus, asbestos in the form of amphibole is prohibited and asbestos in the form of chrysotile is limited to certain specific applications.

Decree No 96-1133 issued by France on 24 December 1996, which was notified in due time to the Commission and which transposes this Directive, postpones its application to 31 December 2001 with respect to motor vehicles and agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment which entered into service prior to 1 January 1997.

As regards motor vehicle brake linings, Member States have been required to prohibit the use of asbestos from October 1999 onwards. In the case of other applications, there are substitute materials on the market, and for a number of years automobile-industry suppliers had been developing asbestos-free clutch plates and cylinder head gaskets.

The Commission does not wish to draw up a list of derogations to these measures as they were the subject of lengthy assessments in the relevant working parties and have been in force at Community level since July 1993.

(1) OJ L 363, 31.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3474/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: The application of Competition Policy with regard to collective sale of broadcasting rights to football matches

Does the Commission believe that the collective sale of broadcasting rights to football matches or any other sport is in principle or potentially anti-competitive, and what conclusions has it reached following its decision to launch a preliminary investigation into last year's sale of £1,65 billion sale of the television rights to England's top-division football matches?

Does the Commission believe that FIFA's collective sale of broadcasting rights to the football World Cup Competition in Japan and Korea in 2002 to the Kirch Media Group is consistent with European Union Competition Policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

Joint selling of media rights by sports associations may restrict competition in the sense of Article 81 of the EC Treaty when trade between Member State is appreciably affected. In analysing the restrictive effect of joint selling of media rights, the Commission will examine whether the conditions for an exemption are possible. The Commission, which is very conscious about the potential benefits of economic solidarity in sport, wishes to ensure that the very important media rights to football tournaments are not sold in a way that harms competition on media markets and which, as a consequence, harms viewers. In this regard, Premier League matches are of particular importance on the United Kingdom (UK) media markets: if there are any anti-competitive aspects to the way in which the media rights are sold, their effects would be especially harmful. The Commission is proceeding with an in-depth factual examination of the media arrangements of the Football Associations Premier League (FAPL) and has been in contact with the FAPL and third parties to this end.

The FAPL has not yet notified its media arrangements to the Commission. This does not prevent the Commission from examining the case on its own initiative and such an examination is underway. The duration is likely to depend on the degree of co-operation the Commission receives and the extent of third party interest and comment.

The Commission is mindful that if action needs to be taken, it should be taken as quickly as possible.

The Commission has discussed the sale of the TV broadcasting rights of the World Cup Competition in Japan and Korea in 2002 to the Kirch Media Group with the International Federation of Football Association (FIFA).

The transaction has not been notified to the Commission and no complaints have been received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3262/01

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Freedom of the media in Georgia

A year ago, the Republic of Georgia's television channel, Rustavi 2, broadcast a '60 Minutes' programme, which exposed widespread corruption in the country and pointed an accusing finger at President Shevardnadze. Since then, the television station claims that it has been subjected to a concerted campaign of intimidation by state officials, including a string of lawsuits and investigations into alleged financial irregularities.

Despite this pressure, Rustavi 2 has continued to broadcast and still enjoys a large viewing audience. Moreover, it has reiterated its determination to maintain its current broadcasting policy of total independence from the state.

Is the Commission aware of the current difficulties faced by the Rustavi 2 television channel? Has the Commission made any representations to the Georgian Government about the importance of free and independent media in a democratic society?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the situation regarding the Georgian television channel Rustavi 2, including the links between recent developments at Rustavi 2 and street demonstrations in Tbilisi that culminated in a major political crisis in Georgia on 1 November 2001.

The Commission has already expressed to the President of Georgia the need for the new Government to conduct reforms and to fight effectively against corruption.

Freedom of the press in Georgia was addressed at Ministerial level on the occasion of the Union-Georgia Cooperation Council that took place in Luxembourg on 30 October 2001.

The Commission will continue to support Georgia in its commitment to consolidate democratic institutions, the rule of law, the respect of human rights and the market economy. Freedom of the press remains at the very heart of such commitment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3348/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Copyright in the information society

The directive on copyright in the information society is in the process of being introduced. In this connection, it is being argued that copyright protection levies should be introduced on products, such as PCs and video players, that can be used to store music, for example. Is the Commission aware of such plans? If so, how many Member States are considering them, and are they compatible with the objectives of the e-Europe action plan?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Directive 2001/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, on copyright and related rights in the information society(1) is required to be implemented by Member States by 22 December 2002.

The Directive allows Member States to provide an exception to the right of reproduction for private use, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation. The Directive gives Member States certain flexibility in determining the form, detailed arrangements and level of fair compensation. Account should also be taken of the particular circumstances of each case. Fair compensation is a new concept introduced by the Directive. It is not identical with equitable remuneration schemes (the levies). The Directive does not explicitly address such levy schemes. However, all Member States, with the exception of Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom currently have already in place remuneration schemes for private copying applying to blank recording media, equipment or both. Many of them are considering whether to rationalise or extend theses schemes in relation to the media or equipment to which they currently apply.

The Directive recognises that digital private copying (as opposed to analogue) is likely to be more widespread and have a greater economic impact. When applying the private copying exception, the Directive requires Member States to take account of the application or non-application of technical measures. The Directive introduces a comprehensive legal framework for the protection of technological measures which provides an incentive towards the use of such measures.

In the run up to implementation, the Commission has organised a series of informal meetings with the purpose of assisting Member States in transposing the Directive consistent with its aims. Thereafter, the Commission will examine the impact of the Directive on the functioning of the internal market on a variety of issues including private copying and the use of technological measures both in the context of the Contact Committee established by the Directive and also in accordance with the review procedure laid down by the Directive.

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3557/01

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Withholding of tax in connection with building work

Income tax law in the Federal Republic of Germany provides that tax must be withheld in connection with building work as from 1 January 2002.

Customers will be required to withhold 15 % of the invoiced amount and pay it over to the tax office responsible for the building firm concerned. All payments to building firms or construction trade businesses inside and outside the country are subject to this.

If, for instance, the owner of a large house containing several flats rented to private individuals has the bathrooms renovated, he must declare and pay over 15 % of the amount invoiced by the plumbers to his tax office. If he has his own house renovated, mandatory withholding also applies, since, as a landlord, he is operating a business.

Customers are liable in respect of the withholding of tax, i.e. they must, in addition, pay over 15 % of the invoiced amount to their tax office if they have made payments in full to builders without an exemption certificate. They may also be liable to a fine of up to 25 000.

Is this statutory provision compatible with the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2875/01 by Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel(1).

(1) See page 17.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3147/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: 'Euro Made Easy' information packs

Are British citizens allowed to receive the Euro Made Easy information packs produced to provide information on the single currency? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

There is no reason whatsoever to prevent British citizens from receiving Euro Made Easy information packs aimed at all European citizens without distinction, if they ask for it. The only reasons for which this has not happened are that the Commission has until now not been approached by the organised British civil society to offer supporting materials in the framework of a given action. Even if requests were to come in after the introduction of the Euro, the Commission will be happy to help, to the extent remaining stocks allow it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2323/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Visas for non-EU citizens

Can the Commission comment on the ease with which non-EU citizens residing legally in an EU Member State can obtain visas for travel within the EU? Can the Commission comment in particular on a case when the non-EU resident is married to an EU citizen?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

Under the Schengen Agreement the Member States have developed extensive areas of cooperation regarding the conditions under which non-EU nationals may travel within an area without internal frontiers. This acquis was integrated into the Community/European Union by the Amsterdam Treaty(1).

Under Article 21 of the Convention applying the Schengen Agreement (CSA), nationals of third countries residing legally on the territory of a Member State and in possession of a residence permit are not required to possess a visa for the Member States that have implemented the Schengen acquis (with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland) and for Norway and Iceland. They may move freely provided they have their residence permit, satisfy the conditions of Article 5(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the CSA and are not on the list of national alerts of the Member State concerned.

As regards third country nationals who are members of the family of a citizen of the Union and who accompany them or join them in another Member State not forming part of the area without internal frontiers, Community law allows the Member States to require such persons to be in possession of a visa in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 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(2).

In that case, Member States must grant such visas without undue formalities. In particular, the only documents that may be required in order to issue a visa are an identity document (identity card or passport) and proof of relationship to the EU citizen. Visas must be issued free of charge.

The Commission has transmitted a proposal for a Directive(3) to the European Parliament and the Council to establish an overall approach to the conditions in which third-country nationals have the freedom to travel in the territory of the Member States for periods not exceeding three months within a six-month period.

(1) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997.

(2) OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

(3) COM(2001) 388 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3397/01

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 2001)

Subject: Gibraltar

Under the Brussels process, the UK Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister have undertaken to reach an overall agreement on Gibraltar by next summer (2002). However, the elected representatives of the population of the territory refused to take part in these talks as they demand the prior recognition of their right to self-determination. While the joint communiqué issued after the ministerial meeting does express a wish for the voice of Gibraltar to be heard, it says nothing about the exercise of this right.

Gibraltar is now recognised as a colonial territory by the United Nations. The question was raised again on 10 October before the fourth (decolonisation) committee.

Can the European Union accept within its ranks a colonial territory in defiance of the wishes of peoples, the only legitimate holders of sovereignty?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

The Council refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Question E-3257/01 put by Nirj Deva.