ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3325/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(25 November 2002)

Subject: Official death toll in the Moscow hostage crisis

According to the figures provided by the Moscow city prosecutor on 7 November 2002, 128 people (120 Russians and eight foreigners) died in the hostage crisis which unfolded at the theatre in Melnikova Street between 23 and 26 October 2002. Five of these victims, all Russians, had died from gunshot wounds, implying that 123 people had died as a result of inhaling the gas used in the storming of the theatre. These latest figures from the Russian authorities also indicated that all the hostage-takers (19 women and 22 men) had been killed in the attack. The same authorities had previously stated that two terrorists had been taken prisoner.

How does the Council view the fact that the Russian authorities, who had originally claimed to have captured the two terrorists, now say that all the terrorists died in the attack? Has the Council already requested a list of the names of all those who died in the hostage crisis, including the names of the terrorists, and the cause of each person's death? More generally, has the Council drawn any conclusions from the latest figures provided by the Russian authorities and the way that the antiterrorist operation was conducted, and if so what conclusions has it reached?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3209/02 and E-3325/02

(20 February 2003)

The holding in Moscow of over 700 hostages, from 23 to 26 October 2002, was a source of grave concern in the EU, as it was in Russia. The European Council, on 24/25 October 2002, expressed its position on this set of events in the declaration issued on 25 October and contained in Annex III of the related Conclusions of the Presidency.

On the occasion of the EU-Russia summit held in Brussels, on 11 November 2002, the European Union and Russia made a joint statement on the fight against terrorism, in which they declared to stand united in this fight with due regard for the rule of law, for democratic principles and for the territorial integrity of States. On the basis of common commitments they drew common aims with a view to developing their strategic partnership in this respect, including the definition of EU-Russia co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Toxicity of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins

According to a report published recently by the British scientific Journal Nature, the EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins release a quantity of nickel between 240 and 320 times higher than the ceiling laid down by European Directive 94/27/EC(1).

The allergic nature of nickel, which can irritate the human skin, and its toxic metallic properties for the liver, kidneys and brain are causing concern among scientists who have carried out experiments taping the coins to the skin of volunteers, with worrying results.

As the Commission not consider that these coins should be replaced as a matter of urgency with EUR 1 and EUR 2 notes?

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The conclusions drawn in the article referred to in the question tabled by the Honourable Member are misleading, because the Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time 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 preparation, hereafter the Nickel Directive refers to objects that come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin, such as jewellery or wristwatches. This Directive does not cover coins. Secondly, the results were generated by sticking 1- and 2- euro coins to the skin of patients with a known nickel allergy for 48-72 hours. These conditions clearly do not reflect the normal conditions under which coins are used.

The recent publication does not change the Commission's view that the normal use of euro coins does not represent a risk for European citizens. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy which can be traced back to the handling or use of 1 and 2 euro coins. These conclusions were confirmed by a recent independent study, which showed that the amount of nickel released from the 1 and 2 euro coins is significantly lower than from the national coins used prior to the introduction of the euro.

Consequently, there is no need to evaluate again the denominations chosen for the euro banknotes and coins, which regarding the coins have been laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation(1).

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3745/02

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Random road safety checks

Could the Commission indicate the state of transposition and implementation of Directive 2000/30/EC(1) providing for random roadside tests of commercial vehicles to ensure their conformity with the roadworthiness of vehicles directive (96/96/EC(2)) and what action it proposes to take against offending Member States?

(1) OJ L 203, 10.8.2000, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Directive 2000/30/EC of the parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000, on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community, requires Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with the Directive no later than 10 August 2002.

By December 2002 seven Member States: Germany, Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom, had not notified the Commission of their legislation that brought the Directive into force. Therefore, the Commission has sent to each one of them a reasoned opinion for failing to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Location of the European Maritime Safety Agency

A large part of the intercontinental maritime traffic to and from Europe passes near the Galician coast. The Prestige tanker disaster has tragically confirmed that Galicia is, therefore, the area of the world with the highest relative incidence of accidents of this type. Will the Commission now propose locating the European Maritime Safety Agency in a Galician city? If not, on what grounds? Has any proposal been submitted by the government of the Spanish state, and has it proposed locating the agency in Galicia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

The Commission is not at present aware of any application from Spain to host the European Maritime Safety Agency.

At this stage, the Commission has already implemented procedures which will permit the Agency to provisionally begin its work as from the beginning of 2003, in Commission premises, pending a European Council decision concerning the Agency's headquarters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3277/02

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE)and Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Production methods for Maltese quality wines

Following the Commission's answer to the Written Question E-2267/02(1) it has come to our knowledge that the European Union is prepared to concede to Malta two major departures from fundamental labelling principles for a transitional period:

- the addition of sugar in the production of wine something unheard of in a Southern European country; and

- the granting of a quality wine Malta PSR status to a wine produced in Malta from grapes or grape must imported from overseas.

1. Can the Commission confirm this?

2. If so, can the Commission guarantee that this transitional period will not put regular Maltese winemakers at a serious disadvantage?

3. Is there no danger of this creating a precedent vis-à-vis other Mediterranean winemaking nations?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 38.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

As already mentioned in the Commission's answer to Written Question E-2267/02, in conducting the accession negotiations on agriculture with Malta, the Community has ensured that the acquis is fully implemented by Malta and, at the same time, has taken into account the exceptional small scale of Maltese agriculture and the specific natural constraints of the island. In particular, the Community has sought to put in place conditions assuring a successful restructuring of Maltese agriculture in the years following accession, during the phasing in of the Community rural development measures.

Malta has obtained a transitional period until 2008 to maintain its current minimum natural alcoholic strength of wine produced from two indigenous varieties at 8 % vol. with an allowable increase in the natural alcoholic strength not exceeding 3 % volume with regard to annex V of Council Regulation EC No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999.

The Commission believes that this measure, limited in scope and in time, while necessary to allow a successful integration of the Maltese wine industry in the internal market, will not lead to significant distortions of competition. Due to the specific situation of the wine sector in Malta as well as the local wine-growing conditions, the Commission does not believe that this measure will create a precedent vis-à-vis other Mediterranean winemaking nations. Moreover, it will allow sufficient time to adopt the viticultural techniques for the indigenous grapevine varieties in question.

Malta has not requested granting of a quality wine produced in a specified region (psr) status to a wine produced in Malta from imported grapes or grape must.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2695/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Use of languages in Eurobarometer reports

On its website (http://europar.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_166_en.htm) the Commission enables the public to see the results of opinion polls on enlargement. The Commission has the courtesy to publish the report on the Netherlands, for example, mainly in Dutch, that on Portugal in Portuguese, that on Italy in Italian, etc.

Is the Commission aware that the most widely spoken language in Belgium is Dutch?

Could the Commission state, therefore, on what grounds it decided to publish the report on Belgium exclusively in French?

Does the Commission share my view that by acting in this manner it is violating the principles of Council Directive 2000/43/EC(1) of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, and will it therefore ensure that the report is also made available in Dutch?

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2002)

In the interests of openness and transparency, the Commission has taken the decision to publish all reports relating to the analysis of public opinion.

The opinion poll referred to by the Honourable Member (Eurobarometer 56.3) is one of the National Reports (Special Eurobarometers) that are now undertaken in order to satisfy demands made in the Member States for more detailed descriptions of public opinion on specific issues.

These National Reports are essentially working documents rather than official documents and, like other working documents, they are therefore usually available in only one language, unlike the Standard Eurobarometer, which is published in the three languages most widely used by the Commission. It is, however, the Commission's intention to publish all future reports on Belgium in both Dutch and French. For the Honourable Member's information, efforts will be made to ensure that the next National Report to be released at the end of October 2002 will be published simultaneously in both languages.

Council Directive 2000/43/EC relates solely to discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin. This means that it applies to discrimination on the basis of language only where there is an indirect link to the type of discrimination covered by the Directive. This is not the case here.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: Growth forecasting record

1. Will the Commission give the forecast (or forecasts) made by each Member State for their nominal growth rate (real growth and GDP deflator) in the ensuing financial year for each year of the last ten years?

2. Will the Commission also show the subsequent outturn, and compute for each Member State an average difference between forecast and outturn?

Will the Commission provide a short commentary on the lessons if any from this exercise?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2865/02, E-2866/02, E-2867/02 and E-2868/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Commission does not systematically collect the various forecasts made during the year by Member States for growth and budget balances. It is therefore also difficult to assess their forecast accuracy.

Very much attention is paid to the growth and budgetary projections included in the Stability and Convergence Programmes which the Member States submit to the Commission in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies(1). These projections are assessed in the light of the Commission's own view on the economic situation and outlook, but also of those provided by other international and private entities.

A comprehensive study of the track record of the Commission forecasts is, however, available as an Economic Paper of the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, published in October 1999: http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/economic_papers/economicpapers137_en.htm

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Production levy in France

Further to my question No. P-2720/01(1), will the Commission provide details of the measures taken on this matter and the grounds on which they were taken?

Can the Commission also say when a solution may be expected?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 179.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The French authorities has sent the Commission elements of a reply on the levy on meat import into France to be consumed there. It is still examining the measure and hopes to adopt a position very soon. It will not fail to inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of it's examination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Official Commission delegation to Morocco: situation regarding the EU-Morocco Action Plan

Recent media reports have revealed that an official Commission delegation is visiting Morocco in order to assess the situation regarding the Action Plan which has been devised by the European Union and the Moroccan Government for the purpose of dealing with immigration from Africa.

In view of the fact that this issue is of significance in social terms to a number of EU regions (such as the Canary Islands, on account of their geographical proximity and the fact that they constitute one of the EU's external borders), what does the Commission think of the report drawn up by the official delegation?

Reply given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

One of the priorities of the 2002-2004 Indicative National Programme for Morocco, signed with the Moroccan authorities in January 2002, is the issue of migration. This section makes provision for a programme for the management of border controls, for which the indicative sum of EUR 40 million is earmarked. This special programme aims to build institutional capacity, develop the regulatory framework, modernise infrastructure and equipment, train people and develop cooperation between the services concerned in Morocco and the Member States. In this context, and with a view to assessing the situation as regards the management of border controls, experts from the Member States and the Commission made an official visit to Morocco in July 2002.

This action is part of the dialogue on migration provided for by the association agreement between the Community and Morocco.

In the course of this mission the experts visited the main border posts and the border regions most affected by illegal immigration, particularly involving people from sub-Saharan Africa (Casablanca, Tangiers, Tetouan, Kenitra, Nador, Oujda and Laayoune).

The Moroccan authorities have stressed their government's determination to combat illegal emigration effectively and to cooperate with the Union on the issue of border controls. In this context, specific information was made available in July and September 2002 on the regulatory framework, putting that framework into practice, and relevant statistics.

The experts will finalise their report over the coming weeks, on the basis of the results obtained during the visit and after examining the information provided. An activity programme will then be drawn up.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1955/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: EU-Japan relations

Does the Commission agree in principle with the idea of establishing free trade in services between the EU and Japan?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Japan is an important trading partner of the EU: in terms of services it is the third partner after the United States and Switzerland.

That is why, in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and under the Doha Development Agenda, the EU and Japan have embarked upon services negotiations where the Community will seek better market access for its service suppliers in Japan and Japan will reciprocally seek better market access for its service suppliers in the EU. The EU believes that its market access objectives in Japan are best sought in the multilateral context in the WTO. Accordingly, the EU has not proposed to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Japan on services, and nor is there any formal proposal by Japan that the two partners negotiate such an FTA.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3708/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Uganda

With reference to Uganda, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Zimbabwe

With reference to Zimbabwe, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3696/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Togo

With regard to Togo, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.