ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3386/02

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Vietnam

According to various information sources three Montagnards, arrested by the Vietnamese security forces after the peaceful demonstrations of February 2001,

were executed by lethal injection and without any form of trial in Buon Ma Thuot prison in Vietnam on 29 October 2002. The execution of Y-Suon Mlo, from the village of Buon Kuang, Y-Het Nie Kdam, from the village of Buon Ea Tieo, and Y-Wan Ayun, from the village of Buon Gram, was confirmed by the Montagnard Foundation Inc., an organisation which promotes, at international level, protection of the rights of the indigenous Montagnard population, and by Agence France Presse. The killings follow other extra-judicial executions which, according to worrying reports, have taken place and are allegedly still taking place in other Vietnamese prisons. The Vietnamese authorities, contrary to the demands made by the UN Human Rights Committee on 27 July 2002 (UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.2031) are denying access to independent observers who are trying to verify respect for human rights in the Central Highlands. What steps will the Commission take to stop the Vietnamese authorities' serious violations of human rights designed to intimidate the whole Montagnard ethnic minority? What steps will the Commission take to back the UN Human Rights Committee's demands of 27 July 2002?

Does the Commission not consider that Vietnam's constant violations of human rights and failure to comply with the demands made by the UN Human Rights Committee on 27 July 2002 constitute a serious infringement of the Cooperation Agreement signed by the European Union and Vietnam in 1995 and that the Agreement should therefore be immediately denounced pursuant to Article 2 thereof?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2845(1).

The Commission has not been able to obtain any reliable confirmation of the extra-judicial killings referred to in the present question, but is trying to follow-up on these matters through all available channels.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 81.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(20 November 2002)

Subject: Impact of enlargement on the EU's steel industry

Would the Commission clarify how it will respond to concerns about the impact of enlargement on the EU's steel industry?

Does the Commission agree that the following points should be resolved satisfactorily:

- there must be full transparency on past subsidies;

- the competition chapter should not be closed until the Council has approved the restructuring plans for each country;

- after the competition chapter has been closed for each country, the Commission must guarantee that the applicable state aid acquis will be applied in full;

- all state aid must end on accession?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Commission is fully aware that in some candidate countries restructuring of the steal sector without delay is crucial so that their industry will be able to withstand the competitive pressures of the internal market when they enter the Union.

In the framework of the Europe Agreements as well as in the context of the Accession Negotiations, the Commission has taken, in the course of the last months, initiatives that ensure the continued smooth operation of the internal market whilst taking into account the specific circumstances in the Candidate Countries where appropriate.

Particular attention has been given to achieving full transparency regarding subsidies given in the past by the Candidate Countries.

The Commission and the Council will closely monitor the implementation of the commitments undertaken by the Candidate Countries regarding the restructuring of the steel industry before and after accession, and up until the end of the restructuring period. The monitoring will be designed to ensure that the restructuring stays on track to viability so that the steel sectors in the countries in question can survive on market conditions without State Aid.

The negotiations have been concluded with the 10 Accession Countries which are foreseen to enter the Union on 1 May 2004. Negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania continue on the competition chapter.

The Commission is closely monitoring the applicable State Aid acquis to ensure that it will be fully implemented well before accession.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3126/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Singapore Opposition leaders

Is the Commission aware of the sentences handed down in Sinagapore on Opposition leaders Chee Soon Juan and Ghandi Ambalam for civil resistance?

What will the Commission do to protest against this abuse of democracy and the increasingly intolerant one-party rule in Singapore?

Will the Commission petition the Singaporean Government for their release?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission through its Delegation in Jakarta, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States, follows the human rights situation in Singapore, and is aware of the cases of Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Ghandi Ambalam, respectively secretary-general and executive board member of the Singapore Democratic Party opposition party.

The Commission can confirm that, according to sources, the two were the main organisers of a May Day Rally that did not receive necessary permission under the Public Entertainment and Meeting Act, were subsequently prosecuted and sentenced to either a prison term or payment of a fine. While Mr Ghandi Ambalam choose to pay the fine, Dr Chee Soon Juan has been imprisoned since 8 October 2002 for a period of five weeks.

With respect to Singapore, the Commission expects that due legal process has been observed by the authorities. Nevertheless, the Commission will ask its responsible Delegation to consult with Member States Diplomatic Missions to Singapore on this particular case, and to consider its implications.

The planned opening of a Commission Delegation to Singapore towards the end of 2002, will further increase the scope for the Commission to monitor the democratic and human rights situation in the country, and if deemed necessary, widen the scope for appropriate follow up actions with the authorities in conjunction with Member States Diplomatic Missions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/26

(2004/C 70 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3856/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Retail prices of fair-trade products

Fair trade accounts for a relatively large share of consumption in Europe. In 1997 the turnover of fair-trade products was estimated at EUR 200-250 million. 11 % of European consumers buy such products, and surveys have revealed that there is very substantial demand for them.

The EU has already adopted fair-trade initiatives, and NGOs and organisations which award fair-trade status also do their bit. Projects are also funded in developing countries. In the field of legislation, the EU has implemented fair-trade principles using numerous instruments, for example measures under the EU's Generalised System of Tariff Preferences. Despite all these measures, fair-trade products still cost far more than normal products, at least in Finland.

How much support is provided for fair-trade products?

Does the Commission know how the retail prices of fair-trade products currently compare with those of normal products, and what are the biggest cost items which contribute to the formation of the retail prices of fair-trade products?

To what extent can national authorities influence these prices?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The increased attention on the part of the public towards fair trade products is the result, among other reasons, of the various awareness raising campaigns that have been organised at the national level, that the Community has co-financed on several occasions. Such co-financing of private initiatives is part of the limited financial support for activities relating to fair trade that the Commission has already provided to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) within the Union and to producer groups in developing countries. Other forms of support may exist at the national level, but the Commission does not monitor the total amount of such forms of support.

The Commission has never carried out any detailed study on the price-structure for fair trade products, as these are commercial decisions taken within the context of the relevant organisations and may, indeed, differ widely depending on the product and the source in question. It is, however, widely accepted that their retail prices are higher than those of other comparable non-fair trade products, due to the additional costs linked to their production and marketing, the commitment to pay above the market price for the commodities in question and the limited economies of scale that have been achieved so far.

As far as the possibilities that exist for the various national authorities to influence these prices, any such activity must remain coherent with the Union and international obligations of the Member States and of the Union. In the long run, however, only a sustained trend of increased demand for fair trade products by European consumers is likely to lead to large reductions in prices.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/10

(2004/C 78 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3803/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Catalan television broadcast on fraud against the ESF in Spain

On Sunday, 1 December 2002 at 9.30 p.m., the Catalan television channel TV3 (which belongs to the regional government of Catalonia) broadcast a programme (Catalan title: '30 minuts') on the subject of fraud in Spain involving public funds intended for such areas as professional training and retraining programmes.

This broadcast used hidden cameras to film conversations involving business persons, trade unionists, teachers, workers and fictitious ‘trainees’, discussing various types of fraud. The images were located mostly, but not exclusively, in the Madrid and Catalonia regions of Spain.

The conversations made express mention of European Social Fund programmes, and some of the speakers suggested means of submitting proposals with a view to obtaining irregular benefits, stating that the controls in place could be easily circumvented. Reference was even made to OLAF's vulnerability in this area.

Is the Commission aware of this television broadcast?

Has it verified the allegations made?

Has it taken, or does it intend to take, any action?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the programme mentioned by the Honourable Member which was broadcast by the Catalan television channel TV3 on fraud in the use of European Social Fund (ESF) assistance in Spain.

The Commission is therefore going to ask the Spanish authorities (UAFSE) for their comments and for any other information which will help to properly evaluate the content of this programme.

Once this information has been received, the Commission will examine the potential impact on the ESF operational programmes.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/298

(2004/C 88 E/0305)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3607/02

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Interchangeability of postage stamps of the euro zone

Given that postage stamps are now the same price in many countries of the euro zone, will there be a possibility of interchanging stamps within the euro zone (e.g. using an Irish stamp in Belgium)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

It appears that there are a number of preconditions for stamps to become interchangeable. The prices would have to be identical, the services the same, and the possibility of easily administered and non controversial stamp revenue allocation between postal operators assured.

As the Honourable Member is aware, there remain differences in postal tariffs across the Community. This reflects the Postal Directive 97/67 requirement that tariffs should ‘be geared to costs’, in that different postal service providers incur different levels of cost in the provision of postal services, due for example to national conditions, such as geography or cost of living, and also to different domestic quality of service standards.

Further, some operators also price differently according to the weight, size or dimensions of the postal item.

Many postal operators now offer a wide range of services to their customers, with a wide range of prices. This would make it difficult to easily compare and price identically like- for-like services.

Finally, the allocation of stamp revenues across postal operators would be extremely difficult to assess were stamps to become interchangeable. For example, if Irish stamps were used in Belgium, the postal operator in Ireland would benefit from the stamp revenue but incur no costs towards the delivery of the postal item in Belgium. Tackling this distortion would imply a complex, costly and potentially controversial system of revenue reallocation between postal operators.

In light of the above, the preconditions for the ‘interchangeability’ of stamps do not seem to be present, or look likely to be present in the near future.

However, the Honourable Member question raises an interest point about one possible future development in the postal services market and the Commission will continue to monitor the issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/351

(2004/C 78 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3769/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: GATS

Can the Commission confirm whether the EC has made any requests of least developed countries relating to environmental services and, if so, can the Commission give an indication of the target and scope of these requests?

The EC has listed a horizontal limitation relating to the provision of public services. This is essentially an ‘exemption’ from the rules that applies across all sectors. The limitation reads as follows: ‘In all EC Member States, services considered as public utilities at a national or local level may be subject to public monopolies or to exclusive rights granted to private operators.’ As potentially the most important issue facing European services in these negotiations, why did the Commission not refer to, or seek views on, this limitation in its consultation document? Does the fact that it listed this horizontal limitation indicate that it does not have confidence that Article 1.3 was sufficiently robust to defend public services; and if it does think it sufficiently robust, why was the extra horizontal limitation required?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the initial requests addressed by the Community to a number of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) did, in some cases, also cover environmental services. In those cases the LDCs were invited to ‘to consider taking commitments’ in mode 3 and mode 4 with reference to horizontal request (i.e. intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) and business visitors). In line with the Community's classification proposal the invitations covered water collection, purification and distributions services, and waste water services; waste management services, protection of ambient air and climate, remediation and cleanup of soil and water. It should however be pointed out that such requests were only addressed to 7 out of the 30 LDCs that are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and where EC believed that opening those sectors to foreign delivery would clearly be beneficial for their economic development by allowing better access to foreign capital and know-how.

The horizontal limitation addresses those areas which fall under the scope of the agreement, and thus outside the exemption provided for by Article 1.3 GATS. In particular this covers the situations where services are offered under commercial conditions, for example in the case of waste management, but where Member States, due to the specific organisation of that market, have decided to limit the provision of those services within a specific area to only one service supplier.
2.

In order to fulfil an obvious need for clear and precise rules on how to report concerns about serious wrongdoings, a strong regime was introduced in 1999, which imposes a duty on officials to report serious irregularities. This regime provides for a number of safe and effective reporting channels for officials to raise their concerns, and offers protection to officials who do so in good faith. In 2002, new whistleblowing rules were introduced which further strengthen and extend this regime. As the Honourable Member will no doubt be aware, these new rules were applied in relation to Mr Van Buitenen, with his agreement, in anticipation of their actual adoption. The Commission would point out that these provisions are concerned with disclosures of information about fraud, corruption and other comparable serious wrongdoing. They do not extend to disagreements about lawful policies. The Honourable Member will also know that Mrs Marta Andreasen has claimed that the Commissioner responsible for the Budget was promoting a Financial Regulation which would increase the risk of fraud. The new version of the Financial Regulation was not only welcomed by the European Court of Auditors but was supported by the Parliament and unanimously adopted by the Council. Therefore, the claims made by Mrs Andreasen are not only against the Commission; they are also against the European Court of Auditors, the Parliament, the Council and the 15 Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0158/03

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Conditions for children in hospital in Europe

European integration is having an ever increasing impact on health systems although health care is not a good that is traded and access to health care is a fundamental right, particularly for children who are the most vulnerable individuals in society.

- Does the European Commission intend to introduce measures to ensure that, throughout Europe, conditions in hospitals are of the highest possible standards, particularly for children, and that they meet a number

of common criteria such as those set out in the 1988 European Charter for Children in Hospital drawn up by associations in 12 European countries and which is in line with the 1989 International Convention on the Rights of the Child?

- Is the European Commission in a position to ensure that there is an end to the discrimination arising from variations in the quality of care provided by different public health services in Europe, in order to satisfy the principle of equal treatment?

- Does the Commission intend to take action to remedy the legal vacuum currently surrounding regulations on health care professionals in Europe owing to the absence of European coordination, in order to meet the health needs of Europe's population satisfactorily, particularly in terms of the hospitalisation of children?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that co-operation between health systems of Member States is growing in importance. At the same time, it draws attention to the provision in the EC Treaty that stipulates that Community action in the field of public health shall respect Member States' responsibilities for the organisation and financing of health services.

In order to address some of the issues raised around growing patient mobility and interaction between health systems, the Commission has launched a high level process of reflection with Health Ministers and key stakeholders to discuss possible perspectives for intensified co-operation and the Community's role. Moreover, the recently adopted action programme on public health(1) will provide an opportunity to launch some exploratory work in these areas.

(1) OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0149/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Madagascar international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Madagascar international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Madagascar?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

1. Article 2 of the Protocol setting for the period 21 May 2001 to 20 May 2004(1) the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Community/Madagascar fisheries agreement stipulates an amount for action to develop the Malagasy fisheries sector (targeted measures) of EUR 517 000 per year.

2. The financial contribution in return for the fishing opportunities granted to the Community is EUR 825 000 per year(2) for a catch of 11 000 tonnes of tuna in Malagasy waters. If the weight of the Community fleet's tuna catch is higher the contribution is increased in proportion.

3. Section 2 of the Annex to the Protocol reads, The fee shall be EUR 25 per tonne caught in waters under Malagasy jurisdiction. Licences shall be issued on advance payment to the Malagasy Treasury of an annual sum of EUR 2 500 per tuna seiner, EUR 1 500 per surface longliner of more than 150 GRT and EUR 1 100 per surface longliner of 150 GRT or less. These amounts correspond to the duty due for annual catches of 100 tonnes, 60 tonnes and 44 tonnes respectively in Madagascar's fishing zone.

(1) OJ L 296, 14.11.2001.

(2) See Article 2 of Protocol.