ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0665/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: EU border controls

Consignments of fish which had not been declared or cleared properly have apparently been found in Germany recently. This suggests that controls in certain Member States are not being carried out carefully enough.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Who is responsible for the enforcement and monitoring of border controls?

2. How can the circulation of goods which have been incorrectly declared or cleared be prevented?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Customs controls are carried out by the national customs authorities.

Pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000(2), national customs authorities may carry out all the controls they deem necessary to ensure that customs legislation is applied correctly. These measures include examining goods, verifying the existence and authenticity of documents, inspecting means of transport or carrying out official inquiries with a view to ensuring that customs rules are observed.

When goods are imported into the Community, the customs authorities may therefore subject them to physical inspections, check the related customs declarations (which contain numerous items of information, e.g. the customs value, origin and tariff classification of the goods) and examine all the documents accompanying the goods (e.g. origin certificates). The goods can also be checked post-clearance.

If the customs authorities uncover cases of fraud or irregularities during their checks, they must take the appropriate action both as regards the recovery of import duties and the applicable penalties. The Commission ensures that the action taken is appropriate.

If there is a specific problem relating to imports of fish, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to send any information she may have so that it can take appropriate steps.

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

(2) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: The full cost of Strasbourg sessions

Have any independent studies been commissioned into the full cost of having a separate Parliament in Strasbourg, including the capital and maintenance costs of the Strasbourg Parliament itself, the cost of special trains, the transport of documents and the travel and accommodation costs of the Members' personal staff as well as those working for the secretariats of the European institutions?

Does the Commission believe that the French government has done enough to improve direct air links with other European countries at the time of the sessions in order to reduce the considerable difficulties faced by many Members in travelling to and from Strasbourg?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The Commission has not commissioned independent studies such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member and is not aware that anyone else has.

On the issue of transport and accommodation costs, including the transport of documents, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the detailed information provided in its answers to Written Questions E-1733/99 by Mr Costa(1), E-2467/99 by Mrs Raschhofer(2) and oral question H-0747/00 by Mr Corbett during question time at Parliament's October 2000 session(3). It is understood that there have been no changes other than those attributable to normal movements in the cost of travel and accommodation since that time.

On the second part of the Honourable Member's question, it is the understanding of the Commission that the French government does not have responsibility for deciding civil aviation passenger routes and frequencies within France or between France and other airports of origin and destination.

Naturally, the Commission is aware that several people, in Parliament and from other Institutions, who have official duties that require their presence at plenary Sessions of the Parliament in Strasbourg experience difficulties in gaining convenient aviation connections

to and from the city. Whilst the Commission has no authority in such matters, it nevertheless continues to hope that airline operators will recognise the significance and the necessity of travel to and from Strasbourg as one of the seats of the European Parliament and will consequently seek to ensure increased convenience of travel to and from the city at reasonable prices.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.

(2) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.

(3) Written reply, 4.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1483/02

by Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Availability of comparative data on education systems throughout the EU

The Commission stated in its written answer to E-1390/01(1) regarding comparative assessment of education systems that the objective of quality assessments is to identify areas within which comparisons between countries could be made in order to identify good practice, exchange experience and define main policy challenges.

The Commission's Report on the Quality of School Education is the most recent document containing comparative figures across EU Member States on education systems. Would the Commission agree that, as the figures contained in this report are mostly from 1997, in order to identify good practice and define the main policy challenges further indicators are needed?

Also, would the Commission agree that figures comparing youth crime rates and school drop-out rates comparatively across the EU would be highly beneficial to policy-makers? Is the Commission able to supply these figures?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 98.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

The Commission agrees that further indicators are needed in order to define the main policy challenges in the education and training areas. In effect, the work that was started through the Report on Quality of School Education has been continued, on the request of the European Ministers of Education, in order to identify Quality Indicators of Lifelong Learning. The report will be presented to the Conference of European Ministers of Education which will take place in Bratislava in June 2002.

Indicators, together with the exchange of good practice and peer reviews, play a central role in the open method of co-ordination and in particular in the detailed work programme on the follow-up of the report on the concrete future objectives of education and training systems in Europe, adopted by the Council in February 2002(1) and presented to the Spring 2002 European Council. Indicators will be developed for all the objectives areas for which they are deemed to be the most viable method of comparison.

A standing group on indicators and benchmarking, including representatives from Member States and from candidate countries is being set up by the Commission to monitor this process.

The Commission is aware of the fact that at the same time it will be necessary to expand the quantity and quality of internationally comparable statistics in education and training. The development of the open method of co-ordination will rely on such improvements.

Lastly, while one of the structural indicators on social cohesion covers early school leavers, no European data are yet available on youth crime. The Commission considers that it would certainly be worth exploring the links suggested by the Honourable Member in the future, as soon as comparable data on youth crime are available.

(1) OJ C 58, 5.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Burma

Has the Commission made representations to the Burmese Government about the detention and possible torture of Dr Salai Tun Than at Insein prison in Rangoon? If it has not, does it intend to do so?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission will participate in a European Union Troika mission to Burma/Myanmar which is currently under preparation.

On this occasion the Troika will have the opportunity to raise questions of concern, including human rights issues and individual cases, with the Burmese Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1382/02

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Checks on ionising radiation facilities and the foodstuffs and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation

Article 7(3) of Directive 1999/2/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation states that:

[] the Member States shall forward to the Commission every year:

- the results of checks carried out in the ionising irradiation facilities, in particular regarding the categories and quantities of products treated and the doses administered,

- the results of checks carried out at the product marketing stage. [].

Can the Commission say:

1. What quantities of each type of foodstuff and food ingredient allowed to be treated with ionising radiation were irradiated in 2001 in the 6 Member States which have facilities licensed to carry out this type of treatment. What quantities of these foodstuffs and food ingredients were destined respectively for the European Union's internal market and for export outside the EU;

2. Which Member States carried out, in 2001, checks at the product marketing stage in order to detect: (a) the possible presence on their territory of foodstuffs and food ingredients whose treatment with ionising radiation they do not allow; (b) whether the foodstuffs and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation were labelled in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 1999/2;

3. How many checks were carried out and what their results were?

(1) OJ L 66, 13.3.1999, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

According to Article 7 (3) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation, the Member States shall forward to the Commission each year:

- the results of checks carried out in the irradiation facilities, in particular regarding the categories and quantities of products treated and the dose administered, and

- the results of checks carried out at the product marketing stage and information on the methods used to detect irradiated foods.

The Directive does not require the submission of information on the quantities of irradiated foods which are put on the internal market or which are exported to third countries.

For the first report, the Commission requested the Member States to submit the information for the period of 20 September 2000 (date of applicability of the provisions of the Directive) to 31 December 2001. The Commission will compile the report and publish it in the Official Journal of the Communities.

Information about food irradiation is available on the following web site of Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection of the Commission: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/sfp_index_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1049/02

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Free movement of persons and death grants in the EU

My constituent, the mother of a British national who died while working and residing in Holland, has had her request for a funeral payment legally rejected by a British benefits agency after her son's body was returned to the UK for burial, which she organised. This rejection was in spite of the fact that she receives income support, and is valid on the grounds that the deceased had not been resident in the UK at the time of his death.

Does the Commission concede that this represents a serious anomaly with regards to the values and working necessities of a European Union of free movement of persons?

Will the Commission consider that Regulation 1408/71(1) must be amended in order to prevent this situation from being allowed to recur? Citizens financially unable to cover the costs of a funeral can not be left with such a burden resulting directly from the union of Europe.

At this time, is there any compensation that Europe can provide for those affected by this shortcoming?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to a British national who was responsible for the funeral of her son who was working and residing in the Netherlands where he died. The mother's request for a funeral grant was refused because the dead person had not been resident in the United Kingdom when he died, although she was receiving income support (a qualifying benefit).

Under British law in order to qualify for a funeral grant two conditions must be fulfilled:

- the person organising the funeral must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit such as income support;

- the dead person must have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1) which applies to the present situation does contain provisions on death grants, which are defined as any once-for-all payment in the event of death (Article 1(v)), which would in principle cover the British funeral payment. Since the deceised son was working in the Netherlands, however, in principle only the Dutch legislation was applicable on the basis of this Regulation and it should be noted that the Dutch social security legislation does not provide for death grants.

It should be recalled in this respect that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the co-ordination of social security systems for people who move within the Community co-ordinates the social security systems of the Member States, rather than harmonising them. As a result the Member States remain free to organise and finance their social security systems as they see fit, as long as basic principles of Community law, such as non-discrimination, are respected.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1113/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Situation of local Ministry of Defence staff working for the United States armed forces in Spain

With reference to Petition No 299/2001, to which no reply had yet been received, the plight of these workers remains grave, since on average they have lost between 13 % and 35 % of their income.

They have still not been paid the net amounts owing to them and the local firemen from Rota have been working a 72-hour week since 1985. There has also

been discrimination over employment as regards local catering staff, despite an official United States document from 1980 saying that the matter would be resolved within two years at most. The Spanish Minister for Defence has told the Spanish press (ABC) that local staff are refusing to accept the offers made by the United States armed forces to settle the problem of the money owed to them, when in actual fact no such offers have ever been made, while a further 20 staff have been given notice. The Spanish ombudsman (twice) and the ombudsman for Andalusia (once) have drawn up reports supporting the workers' position, which have been ignored. A number of articles of the Spanish Constitution (14, 37(1)) and of the Spanish statute of workers (4(1)(c)) are being breached and the dismissal notices from the United States accounting department (AAA) are based on fictitious reasons cited by the United States armed forces (documents sent to Spanish Ministry of Defence). These workers are also asking for their salaries to be updated, as they are lower than those paid on other European bases.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it have the power to intervene?

What measures could be taken at European level to resolve the uncertainty affecting the jobs of these workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

It is not apparent from the information provided by the Honourable Member that the situation he describes falls within the scope of Community directives. Furthermore, it is up to the institutions of the Member States to ensure that national legislation is applied correctly, even where it derives from Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/02

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

(16 April 2002)

Subject: Svalbard prawn fishing

Prawn fishing in Svalbard by the Community fleet is in serious difficulties due to the obligation, unilaterally imposed by Norway, that no more than four units of the EU fishing fleet be present at any one time.

This practice was imposed some years ago, which means that there is a risk of its becoming established, to the prejudice of the Community fleet, which cannot take up the whole of the fishing effort annually assigned to it. It should be added that the limitation in question occurs precisely in the short space of time during which the region can be accessed, given the adverse weather conditions there throughout the rest of the year.

In recent years, the Commission has been holding consultations with the Norwegian authorities with a view to resolving the problem, without any positive outcome whatever.

Is the Commission aware of the problem indicated above, and of the harm it is doing to the Community fleet fishing for prawns in Svalbard?

Is the Commission continuing its consultations with the Norwegian authorities in this connection, and if so, with what result?

Has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take any other steps in this respect, which would enable a solution to the problem and the prejudice being suffered by the Community fleet affected to be resolved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

At the present time, the Community's relations with Norway concerning shrimp catches in the Svalbard area are governed by a so-called gentlemen's understanding.

This understanding, which is entirely informal in nature and is therefore not of a binding nature upon either of the Parties, allows the Community to fish for shrimp on up to 519 fishing days a year in the Svalbard area using a maximum of ten vessels, four of which can be in the area at any one time.

On a number of occasions, the Commission has consulted the Norwegians on this subject with a view to amending the current restrictions. The present position of Norway is that despite the clearly understood need to increase Community access to fishing in these waters, they are unwilling to change the fishing conditions.

The Commission is entirely aware of the difficulties that this situation presents to Member States. To this end, the Commission will continue to endeavour to engage the Norwegian authorities in a dialogue, which will lead to improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/02

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

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Chile's veto on access to its ports for the Community fleet fishing in international waters

What measures is the Commission taking in view of the Chilean Government's refusal to allow landings of catches by the Community fleet fishing in international waters in the Pacific including Galician vessels fishing for swordfish despite the agreement reached between Chile and the European Union a year ago?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

A joint fishing and research programme providing for access to three Chilean ports for four Community vessels features in the arrangement of January 2001.

Before the programme could be launched certain practical details of a technical nature had to be settled and for this purpose the Commission and the Chilean Administration held several meetings in which, given the distribution of responsibilities, the Spanish Administration was also directly involved. We can now consider that these details have been settled and the programme can finally begin.

The Commission awaits, for onward transmission to Chile and launching of the programme, the list of Spanish vessels that will be taking part and intend to land in the Chilean ports. It will closely monitor the progress of this joint fishing/research programme under the arrangements of 25 January 2001, and in particular how landing operations proceed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0015/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: EU Development Project Money

The British Government recently adopted the Issues Paper Disability, poverty and development which calls for disabled people to be included in all overseas development work.

In the light of this and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly Resolution on the rights of disabled people and older people in ACP countries (ref. ACP-EU 3313/01/fin.) what plans does the Commission have to adopt a similar approach?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Disability must be mainstreamed into all development work in order to integrate people with disabilities in developing countries. New approaches at country level such as poverty reduction strategy processes are increasing the voice and participation of civil society groups, including those that represent disabled people, in the development of national policies. The

Community will continue to fund the work of organisations that support people with disabilities with a focus on capacity building and organisational development of southern organisations. The focus will be to increase their input into development programming to raise their profile, reduce stigma and increase awareness. The involvement of disabled people in all phases of any programme designed to benefit them will be mandatory.

The Commission will circulate a guidance note on disability to all country offices on how to best incorporate the needs of people with disabilities into future programming.

Action to reduce poverty, the core objective of Community development assistance, may also prevent disability. The Community will continue to provide substantial support to the social sectors and will maximise opportunities to link the prevention of disability to the rehabilitation and empowerment of disabled people.