ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3747/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: HPV test: a privilege?

In June 2002 the European Parliament granted approval for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by its staff in having the human papilloma virus (HPV) test carried out. The virus is a recognised cause of tumours in the cervix and Parliament's decision followed on from a similar one taken by the Commission, pursuant to which its staff are entitled to 85 % reimbursement of the cost of an HPV test.

Such tumours are the only ones which are treatable in 100 % of cases, provided that they are diagnosed early enough. It is apparent from recent data that infections from the papilloma virus are on the increase and that cervical cancer is the most widespread viral sexually transmitted disease. In Europe, that disease is the second most common form of cancer in women.

Will the Commission state the reasons which prompted it to delay publication of its recommendations on cancer screening? If it is true that Europe is the home of protected rights, why does the Commission not think that the test should be made available to all women in the EU instead of being guarded as a privilege solely for the female staff of the EU institutions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

The Commission, as indicated in its Work Programme, is in the process of preparing a proposal for a Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening which is based on Article 152 of the EC Treaty. It is based on the work of the expert committee on cancer prevention and the European cancer screening networks, and they are expected to be ready in March 2003. The Presidency has put this Recommendation on the agenda of the Health Council 2/3 June 2003.

Although Treaty Article 152 defines in paragraphs 1 to 4 the legal competence of the Community in the area of health, it also enshrines in paragraph 5 the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care, which leaves the provision of HPV-testing for their citizens to their sole discretion. The draft proposal of a Council Recommendation on cancer screening will fully respect Article 152 (5).

The drafting has taken somewhat more time than expected. This is due to the need to carefully evaluate the scientific evidence that has been accumulated in this area. The proposal for a Council Recommendation will in particular focus on the principles and standards which should be applied when providing cancer screening tests for European citizens.

The clinical value of organised screening for the early detection of cervical cancer by testing for certain genotypes of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which are associated with a high risk to develop a malignancy, is presently under study. Besides the organised clinical studies the test is commercially offered and prescribed for individual screening on demand, usually in addition to the well established pap test.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3058/02

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Council

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Bank guarantees for non-governmental organisations supporting Russian media as part of the TACIS programme

TACIS service contracts provide for bank guarantees for Commission funding in terms of the scale of the contract. This means that non-governmental organisations, working without profit, are in practice excluded from these invitations to tender. Is this in line with the Commission and Parliament's efforts to promote civil society and make use of the expertise of NGOs in relevant projects?

The case in question concerns projects for promoting democracy and human rights in Russia, carried out in accordance with the general Tacis rules. NGOs are generally speaking not able to obtain loans or bank guarantees in the EUR 700 000 to EUR 2 million bracket. This would automatically exclude NGOs from such projects. Can the Council remedy this situation?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

TACIS assistance will be totally effective only if progress is made towards the establishment of free and open democratic societies in which human rights are respected. The development of civil society is one of the cooperation priorities financed by the TACIS Programme.

Non-governmental organisations certainly have their place in projects for the development of democracy and human rights in Russia. The management of actions financed under the TACIS Programme is a matter for the Commission, which must abide by the TACIS Regulation but also by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, and in particular the principles of found financial management, economy and profitability.

It is for the Commission to provide explanations concerning the rules governing such invitations to tender, and in particular on the bank guarantees required.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Presentation of a gift to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, David Byrne

Is it true that the Commissioner David Byrne has received a silver bust of Goethe weighing 20 kilos?

If so, did he receive it as a prize for his decisive action against smoking?

If this is the case, by whom and on what occasion was the silver bust presented?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The Member of the Commission in charge of health and consumer protection received on 26 September 2002 the Goethe Challenge Trophy for Smoke-Free Environment at the 5th European Health Forum in the Austrian resort of Bad Hofgastein. The Goethe Endowment for Non-Smoking presents the award every year to institutions, university departments and individuals who have made outstanding contributions to ensuring a smoke-free environment.

The Goethe Challenge Trophy is a bust in silver weighing approximately 20 kilograms in the likeness of Goethe. The trophy was donated by the internationally famous physician and chemist, Professor Friedrich Portheine, who founded the trophy and the Endowment for Non-Smoking that bears his name in 1990.

As it is an annual award, the recipient can hold the trophy one year. The previous recipient was the International Olympic Committee. The Member of the Commission accepted the award in Bad Hofgastein but instead of bringing it to Commission premises, it was then returned immediately to the Olympic Museum in Lausanne, where it will be kept until it will be handed to the next recipient. This was primarily due to security and practical reasons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Utilisation of Save II and Altener II funds by the Municipality of Fiumicino

In September 2002 the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry of Finance published a statement showing expenditure of funds provided by the EU.

The outcome of the survey gave particular cause for concern regarding the slowness and inefficiency of local authorities in selecting projects, with funds earmarked for the year 2000 amounting to only 2 % of total CSF appropriations.

The Commission also has reportedly expressed serious concern regarding the inadequate take-up of European funds by local authorities.

Given that it is particularly important for certain local authorities, for example, the Municipality of Fiumicino, to utilise Community funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission provide the following information:

1. Has the Municipality of Fiumicino submitted projects under the Save II and Altener II programmes?

2. Was the Municipality of Fiumicino awarded funding for these projects?

3. Were the funds in question utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3430/02 and E-3431/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Fiumicino and Frosinone have not submitted any projects under the Save II and Altener II programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/02

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Framework decisions and freedom of choice

In the light of current proposals for framework decisions in particular the proposal for a framework decision on the European arrest warrant(1), and the proposal for a framework decision on combatting racism and xenophobia(2), I would be glad if the Council could explain how it understands the detailed conditions for the use of framework decisions.

This question relates in particular to the freedom of choice as regards methods, which is accorded to Member States by Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union for Member States. On the one hand the Treaty on European Union states that the Member States have freedom of choice; on the other hand the two cases in point seem in the broad sense to rule out such freedom. What is the minimum level of freedom of choice which the Council considers to be necessary in order for legislation to be issued in the form of a framework decision pursuant to Article 34(2)(b) (as opposed to a directive or regulation)? Has the Council's Legal Service given an opinion on this matter? Please attach any such opinions to your answer.

(1) COM(2001) 522 OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001, p. 305.

(2) COM(2001) 664 OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 269.

Reply

(4 March 2003)

Article 34(2) of the Treaty of European Union does provide no other criteria for the choice between decisions or framework decisions than the requirement that framework decisions should serve the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States and that decisions cannot be used for that purpose. The two instruments referred to by the Honourable Member of European parliament aim at an approximation of the legislation of the Member States, in particular with respect to procedures to be applied for the execution of European arrest warrants, and with regard to the definition of certain conduct to be dealt with as criminal offences in all Member States.

Since these instruments do not serve any objective set out in the EC Treaty, the choice for the instrument of a framework decisions based on Article 34(2) TEU is justified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Electoral rolls and illegal acquisition of Greek citizenship

Following a change in the electoral roll system, local and regional elections will be held in Greece using voting cards instead of voting booklets. According to reports in the Greek press and complaints by the opposition, a significant number of individuals who are not entitled to Greek citizenship are registered on the electoral rolls. The Ministry for Internal Affairs claims that these individuals have been removed from the rolls but gives no details of the exact numbers involved or any data concerning the granting of citizenship.

In the light of this situation, will the Council say:

1. whether the Greek Administration has provided the Council with full information concerning the verified illegal granting of citizenship and the exact number and details of the cases in which citizenship was withdrawn; and

2. if the Council has been notified of such withdrawals of citizenship, what measures it will take to trace these unlawfully naturalised persons who may be living in another Member State of the EU?

3. In the event that the Greek Government has not provided the Council with such data as yet, will the Council request it so that it can check whether these unlawfully naturalised persons are travelling within the Union on illegal passports?

Reply

(4 March 2003)

The Council is not qualified to comment on the matters raised in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2519/02

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Exclusion of public expenditure from the budget deficit

On 28 August Agence Europe published a report entitled Commission does not intend to modify Stability Pact rules and takes note of Italy's suggestions, which states that:

- Commissioner Pedro Solbes was receptive to the Italian Government's arguments, according to which investments should not be included in calculation of the budget if the resulting financial advantages are greater than the investment costs;

- Germany and Austria already pursue this policy and the Italian Minister proposed that Italy should do likewise.

Can the Commission say what steps Germany and Austria are taking in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the suggestions according to which investment should not be included in the calculation of the budget balance. Some Member States have, for internal purposes, national rules concerning the role of investment or of capital expenditure with respect to the balance: for instance in Germany and in the United Kingdom, while this is not the case in Austria.

However, it is important to stress that the rules applied by the Commission in the context of the fiscal surveillance at Community level are those foreseen by the EC Treaty and the Stability Pact. These rules foresee that the ratios of the government deficit and of the government debt to gross domestic product will be used as criteria for the examination of Member States' compliance with budgetary discipline. In the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the EC Treaty the deficit is defined as the net borrowing of the general government, in accordance with the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA 95). This embraces all items of public expenditure, including public investment. In this context, all Member States strictly follow the rules of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 August 2002)

Subject: Preventing European involvement in US plans for war in Iraq

1. Is the Council aware of the increasing number of media reports dealing with (preparations for) a possible US attack on Iraq?

2. Will be the Council be consulted in advance by the US Administration if an attack is being planned and, if so, how and under the terms of what agreements?

3. Can the Council confirm that, as reported by the Netherlands newspaper Trouw this week(1), following their meeting in Schwerin President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder adopted the standpoint that an attack on Iraq would be justified only on the basis of a mandate issued by the UN Security Council?

4. Is that standpoint consistent with the Council's position on this issue? In other words, does the Council also take the view that an attack on Iraq would be justified only on the basis of a mandate issued by the UN Security Council?

5. If so, is the Council prepared to make President Bush aware of a common EU standpoint of this kind?

6. Does the Council share the European public's increasing alarm at the possibility that the consistent pressure being exerted by the US military may result in the outbreak of a large-scale war, feelings which have been intensified by reports dealing with the axis of evil, by statements from commentators such as Daniel Ellsberg, who described Bush as undoubtedly the most dangerous President I have ever seen(2), and by criticism voiced by members of the US Congress?

7. If so, what steps does the Council plan to take to prevent the launching of fresh military operations against Iraq, given that, in my view, the danger of escalation would pose a further threat to world peace?

(1) Edition of 31 July 2002, Attack on Iraq only on the basis of a UN mandate.

(2) 'Trouw', edition of 30 July 2002, Fear of Bush.

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The situation regarding Iraq is developing very fast. The Council's view, and indeed the view of the international community as a whole, is that Iraq must fully honour its obligations under the United Nations Security Council resolutions immediately. The EU position was reiterated in the 12 September Presidency statement to UNGA 57. Iraq must grant unconditional and unimpeded access to the UN weapons inspectors, who have not been allowed to carry out their mandated work in Iraq since December 1998. The European Union fully supports the further efforts of the United Nations to that end.

On 25 September, the Presidency, as part of its regular appearances before the European Parliament, provided the Parliamant with the latest information on this very fast developing issue.

The Council furthermore invites the Honourable Member to refer to the conclusions it adopted on Iraq at its meeting on 19 November 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2586/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council

(10 September 2002)

Subject: Identity checks on air passengers

Passengers on French domestic flights have their identity checked repeatedly. Passengers who have flown from to Lyons from Paris will thus have been checked when they checked in their luggage and again when they boarded the aircraft, whereas no such identity checks are carried out, either at the time of departure or on arrival, on passengers flying from Brussels, Berlin, Madrid, etc.

Do airlines insist on these checks in order to keep track of fares or do the French authorities require them to be carried out for security reasons? In either case, does the Council consider the checks to be compatible with European rules?

If exceptions are having to be made to the Schengen provisions for security reasons, could the Council explain why the resulting security regulations are paradoxically tighter on domestic flights than on international flights?

Reply

(4 March 2003)

The Council does not comment on the compatibility with Community legislation of the internal arrangements made by the Member States in relation to checks on travellers.

The question raised by the Honourable Member should be addressed to the Commission, which is the guardian of the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3104/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Ban on Batasuna

In early September the Basque political party Batasuna was outlawed. Many Basques, irrespective of whether or not they support Batasuna, see this as a political and strategic move to suppress the aspirations of many democratic and peaceful Basques. Human rights are being restricted in an unacceptable way. So far no evidence has been produced that would justify a ban.

Does the Council share the view that the only way of finding a solution is through democratic political negotiations? If so, who does the Council see as the negotiating partner on the Basque side in this road to a peaceful settlement? If not, does the Council support the chosen path of confrontation, conflict and violence?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, although, under Article 33 of the TEU, the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security remain an area for which Member States alone are responsible, combating terrorism is in the Union's common interest. The Council would draw attention here to the anti-terrorist legislation adopted by the Union.

The Council would point out that, under Article 6(1) of the TEU, the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3146/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Advertising messages from mobile phone operators

It is becoming increasingly common for people to move backwards and forwards between different EU countries. While on the one hand we have managed to make life easier with things as advanced as the euro in other words one currency for almost all Europeans national borders have proved insuperable in an area as fundamental as cellular phone communications, even though some operators already have telecommunications companies in different EU countries.

It is hard to understand why an additional charge should nowadays be made for roaming, and harder still to have to listen to advertising messages every time one enters a new mobile phone area.

These messages, which promote an operator's own services, should only be sent to those users who wish to receive them. At present, users receive these messages on their phones every time there is an automatic switch of operator, be it on crossing a national border or on entering a new mobile phone area within the same country.

Is it not possible to limit the use of self-promotional advertising by mobile phone operators?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)(1) was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 12 July 2002. This Directive includes a provision that prohibits the sending of commercial e-mail, including SMS(2) messages, without prior consent of the recipient. The only exception to this rule will be for commercial messages in the context of an existing customer relationship. But in such cases messages may only be sent by the company who has sold a product or service to the addressee of the message. Moreover, this company has to offer the right to refuse further commercial messages with each message. Member States have until 31 October 2003 to transpose this provision in national law.

As a consequence of the new Directive, the practice of self promoting SMS messages sent to mobile users roaming from one network to another, as referred to by the Honourable Member, will have to stop as of 1 November 2003 at the latest. Only the operator with whom the mobile user has a contract may send such messages but only if he has offered his subscriber a right to object at the time of concluding the contract and provided that he continues to offer this right with each SMS message.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2001.

(2) Short message service.