ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Free movement of persons

Can the Commission indicate how the ban on women visiting Mount Athos fits in with European Union treaties? What steps does it intend to take to remove this anomaly?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos, annexed to the final act of the act of accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Communities(1), recognises that the special status granted to Mount Athos is justified exclusively on spiritual and religious grounds which the Community will take into account in the application and subsequent preparation of provisions of Community law, in particular in relation to customs franchise privileges, tax exemptions and the right of establishment.

This Declaration was reaffirmed by both the Amsterdam Treaty (Declarations of which the Conference took note Declaration by Greece on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations(2)) and the final act of the Accession Agreement of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement(3).

In view of these provisions, and since the total ban on women entering Mount Athos is a religion-based tradition dating back over a thousand years, the Commission is not planning measures to lift the ban.

Incidentally, men, even if they have Greek nationality, must obtain authorisation from the authorities to enter Mount Athos, which is an autonomous region of Greece.

(1) OJ L 291, 19.11.1979.

(2) OJ C 340, 10.11.1997.

(3) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0577/01

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 February 2001)

Subject: Freedom of association in Bulgaria

On 29 February 2000, the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria declared a Macedonian-based political party, OMO llinden - PIRIN, unconstitutional. That party was registered in 1999 and took part in the municipal elections in October 1999. It has always declared that it would respect the constitutional and legal system of Bulgaria and carry out its political activities peacefully. The party has lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.

In answer to a previous Parliamentary Question (H-0290/00(1)), the Council declared that the official translation of the unconstitutional act was not yet available.

Has the Council now received the official translation? Does it take the view that such decisions may violate the right of freedom of association and constitutes discrimination against a national minority? Has the Council asked for any explanation from the Bulgarian authorities?

Does the Council consider that such a decision is compatible with respect for the democratic criteria established in Copenhagen?

(1) Written reply dated 12 April 2000.

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. With regard to Bulgaria, the Council notes that the Commission's 2000 Regular Report on Bulgaria's progress towards accession concluded that, in general, Bulgaria continued to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. The report stated, however, that Concerning political representation of minorities, the Constitution forbids organisation of political parties on ethnic, racial or religious grounds. It could be desirable to clarify these Constitutional provisions with reference to the restrictions on the establishment of political parties, as it is important to ensure compatibility with international obligations.

As regards the specific case of the declaration of the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria of 29 February 2000 that the Macedonian-based political party OMO llinden - PIRIN was unconstitutional, as the Honourable Parliamentarian recalls, an appeal has been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights. The Court's decision on the case will assist the European Union in its analysis of the decision of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court in the light of the political criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council.

If it turns out that there has been a violation of the fundamental principles mentioned above then the European Union will make the appropriate representations to Bulgaria, particularly within the framework of the bodies established by the Europe Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/01

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Take-overs of American companies

ASML, a European manufacturer of microchip machines, has for months been seeking authorisation from the competent US authorities and the US administration to take over the American company SVG. It is thought that ASML's American competitor Ultratech Stepper is trying to delay this take-over by means of political pressure on Congress.

How is Commissioner Lamy involved in talks with the US authorities about this take-over?

What pressure can Commissioner Lamy bring to bear, or has he brought to bear, on US trade envoy Bob Zoelick to ensure that this take-over, including that of Tinsley Laboratories, can be completed as quickly as possible and to prevent any further delay or imposition of conditions by Congress?

In his talks with the new US administration in the context of the new WTO trade round, to what extent will the Commissioner raise the issue of the obstacles created by Congress when European ICT firms seek to take over American businesses? Are there any other ways in which the Commissioner could expedite this take-over?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

At the request of ASM Lithography and of the Dutch authorities in Washington, the Member of the Commission responsible for trade, raised with both United States Trade Representative Zoellick and United States Secretary of Treasury O'Neill the investigation under the Exon-Florio national security legislation of the proposed acquisition of Silicon Valley Group by ASM Lithography.

In his contacts with the American authorities, the Commission has made it clear that ASM Lithography is willing to address any reasonable national security concern, but that commercial or industrial policy questions should not play a role in consideration of this case. Both Ambassador Zoellick and Secretary O'Neill promised to look into the question.

The Commission will continue to closely follow this matter with a view to ensuring that the rights of Community companies, in this case ASM Lithography, are fully respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0493/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Supplementary question concerning the illegal processing and selling of cat and dog fur

Further to my Question E-3525/00(1) on the same subject: Is the Commission aware that inspectors from the Humane Society, the biggest organisation for the protection of animals in the US, made a discovery of cat furskin, bearing a different label, during an inspection in Nantes, France in March 2000, and that a German importer reportedly told the inspectors that an estimated half a million cat furs are exported annually from Asia to Germany in order to be processed into furskin under a different name?

Is the Commission prepared to contact the Humane Society in the US in order to obtain further information, and is it prepared, if this information is confirmed, to submit a proposal for a directive providing for a ban on the importing, processing and selling of furs from cats and dogs?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 152.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Question E-3981/00 from Mr Stevenson(1) and P-0359/01 from Mrs McNally(2).

The Commission is not aware of the specific findings mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Should the Commission receive relevant information from the Humane Society, it would carefully take note of it and consider it in its further course of action.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 232.

(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 220.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1318/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 May 2001)

Subject: System of licensing radio stations in the Attica basin

After many years of ambiguity in the law governing radio stations in Greece, the Greek Government adopted a licensing system. In the Attica basin, it issued licences for 20 radio stations which, in its view, is the maximum number that can operate on the available radio frequencies.

However, it did not issue licences to many stations with high audience ratings, a high turnover and a large number of staff. Following a number of protests, therefore, and a technical recommendation which met certain requirements laid down by the government itself, it raised the number of licences provisionally to 28. Again, however, several stations of recognised quality with high audience figures were not included. Meanwhile, reports by professors at the Athens Institute of Technology maintain that the number of frequencies can be increased to 35 without difficulty.

The Greek Government uses the National Broadcasting Council as a vehicle for issuing opinions based on various government technical recommendations, a situation which even led a pro-government member of the NBC to resign in protest against interference by the minister responsible.

1. In the light of Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union concerning fundamental human rights, and Article 11 of the Charter of Human Rights concerning freedom of the media, does the Council consider that the Greek Government's actions are consistent with European law?

2. Will the Council address a recommendation to the Greek Government?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that under Article 151 (ex Article 128) TEC Community action in the audiovisual sector consists in encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and complementing their action in this area.

The issues raised do not fall within the Council's sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Used depleted uranium in the EU's rapid reaction force

The resolution (B5-0047, 0049, 0050, 0051 and 0054/2001) on the use of depleted uranium which the European Parliament adopted on 17 January 2001 called for a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons in accordance with the precautionary principle.

However, some Member States and members of NATO are determined to continue using munitions containing depleted uranium in Challenger tanks and in Sea Hawk fighter aircraft forming part of the rapid reaction force.

Can the Council provide a list of munitions currently in use which contain depleted uranium?

If not, why not?

If so, is the Council prepared to allow the precautionary principles to apply (as called for by Parliament) and to ask Member States to discontinue using such munitions?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council discussed the issue of depleted uranium in munitions on 22 January 2001 and expressed its commitment to seek full clarity on this issue. Ministers also called for full transparency and open exchange of information between the authorities of the Member States, as well as with other organisations investigating this matter.

The Council does not have at its disposal a list of munitions currently in use, which contain depleted uranium. The decisions on the use of various types of munitions are taken by the Member States on the basis of their national sovereignty.

The Council, on 9 April 2001 had an exchange of views on the issue of depleted uranium munitions in the light of scientific evidence compiled by various international organisations.

At the end of this exchange of views, the President summarised the discussion thus:

- The Council notes the work by various international organisations (UNEP, WHO, NATO, Ad hoc Group of experts set up by the Commission) on the possible health and environmental impact of exposure to depleted uranium in ammunition used in the Balkans.

- In these detailed and objective examinations, there exists no scientific evidence to link the use of depleted uranium with various illnesses suffered in the population or among those who served in conflict areas.

- However, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region the Council should remain committed to following possible further investigations closely and re-examining the issue if appropriate at a future stage.

- The Commission is already addressing some of the environmental problems in the regions through ongoing projects. The Council encourages the Commission to take into account findings from the reports on depleted uranium, as well as the overall situation concerning environment and health issues, as the Commission draws up new country strategy papers for all the countries in the Western Balkans.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and pensions sustainability

The 2000 Lisbon European Council invited the Council to mandate the High Level Working Party on Social Protection to support [social policy] cooperation and, as its first priority, to prepare, on the basis of a Commission communication, a study on the future evolution of social protection from a long-term point of view, giving particular attention to the sustainability of pensions systems in different time frameworks up to 2020 and beyond, where necessary. Was such a progress report available by December 2000 and what timetable has been established for future work by the High Level Working Party?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

A progress report from the High-Level Working Party on Social Protection on the study on sustainable pensions was indeed adopted by the Employment and Social Affairs Council on 27/28 November 2000 and transmitted to the Nice European Council.

Subsequently the High-Level Working Party (now Social Protection Committee) prepared a questionnaire to the Member States as a basis for national reports. These national reports are now being analysed and will serve as a basis for the final study to be presented to the Göteborg European Council in June.

The Commission intends to pursue and strengthen this co-operation on sustainable pensions with a view of proposing a communication to the Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1385/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Unanswered questions

One of the stated aims of the present Commission is to increase transparency and openness. A second has been to improve relations with the European Parliament through increasing its performance in its dealings with Parliamentary Questions (PQs).

In the light of this, will the Commission confirm that it is due to release the answers to the following questions which have now been awaiting response for a considerable period of time:

- E-0488/01,

- E-0490/01,

- E-0313/01,

- E-0491/01?

Will it also make a statement on its plan for improving turn-around times for PQs?

What is its present:

(a) average response time;

(b) target response time?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2001)

First of all, the Commission would reiterate the importance it attaches to Members of Parliament fully exercising their right, enshrined in Article 197(3) of the EC Treaty, to turn to the Commission directly for information, thereby sustaining the political scrutiny which Parliament exercises over the Commission.

The Commission aims to answer the questions put to it by MEPs within the deadlines set by Parliament. It regrets not having been able to meet these deadlines in the individual cases mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, it can assure him that, in the meantime, it has answered the questions concerned.

More specifically, it sent the Honourable Member:

- the answer to Question E-0488/01 on 8 May 2001,

- the answer to E-0490/01 on 26 April 2001,

- the answer to E-0313/01 on 11 May 2001 and

- the answer to E-0491/01 on 14 May 2001.

Written Question E-0315/01 was not addressed to the Commission.

In 2000, the average response time was five weeks for priority questions and seven weeks for other questions. The Commission will seek to improve these times in 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: 20 % penalty in respect of tobacco subsidies for 1997 in southern Serrai (Greece)

In July 1998, the Commission imposed a penalty in respect of subsidies for Basma tobacco producers in southern Serrai (Greece) because of delays in the signing and registration of contracts in respect of the 1997 harvest.

This failure to sign and register the contracts which did not apply to all producers was due to the unreliability of certain manufacturing companies and negligence and failure to act on the part of other bodies involved in the process.

Given that this penalty caused major financial losses to tobacco producers in the area concerned, most of whom are small producers who derive their sole source of income is tobacco production and are unable to cultivate other crops, will the Commission re-examine the penalty imposed on the Basma tobacco producers of southern Serrai in 1997, not only to compensate them for loss of income but also to satisfy their sense of justice, since they were in no way responsible for the failure to sign and register contracts with manufacturers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Articles 2 to 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium system for raw tobacco(1), which applied to the 1997 harvest, lay down the conditions and periods for the signature of contracts between producers and processing firms and for submission of those contracts for registration.

The cultivation contract is an essential element of the premium system under the market organisation for raw tobacco. The deadlines for conclusion and registration of these contracts early enough must be fixed early enough because of the need to ensure from the beginning of the harvest year both a stable outlet for producers for their future harvest and regular supplies to the processing undertakings.

Accordingly, Article 3(3) of the above Regulation lays down these deadlines and prescribes a 20 % reduction in the premium if they are exceeded.

The Commission regrets the financial loss suffered by the producers of Basmas tobacco in Serres in 1997. However, it considers that, if the factors resulting in the reduction of the premium exist, application of the provision in question is fully justified.

(1) OJ L 351, 2.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/01

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Compensation for predator damage in reindeer preserves

In Finland there are some 200 000 reindeer living in the reindeer preserve of Lapland and Northern Finland. Of these, some 2000 to 2500 animals fall victim to predators (bears and wolves) every year. This is a significant level of damage, because there are some 800 households dependent on full-time reindeer herding, in addition to over 500 families for whom reindeer herding is economically important.

Predator damage to reindeer is on the increase. The Finnish authorities are blaming the EU for not being able to restrict predator numbers.

In the light of the above:

- Is the Commission preventing the rational restriction of the bear and wolf population?

- What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that reindeer herding remains an attractive way of life, and that reindeer herders do not find themselves paying the price for the protection of predators?

- Does the Commission feel responsible for ensuring that this ancient way of life is preserved in Europe's northernmost regions?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The lynx, brown bear and wolf are listed in Annex IV(a) to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) (here after: the Directive). These species are therefore subject to the strict protection scheme which requires, among others, that their deliberate killing is prohibited.

Wolf populations in the reindeer herding area of Finland are exempted from Annex IV(a), but are listed in Annex V to the same Directive. Therefore, the prohibition of the use of all means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of such species applies to wolf populations in the reindeer herding area(2). It means that in this area the wolf is not a subject to total protection, but nevertheless the use of indiscriminate trapping methods is prohibited.

Finland has notified the Commission that it makes use of the derogation under Article 16 of the Directive to authorise the killing of lynx, brown bears and wolves. This Article authorises Member States to derogate from the provisions of Articles 12 to 15, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status, among others, to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property(3).

In accordance with Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, the Commission's task is to examine whether Finland stays within the limits of the rules of the Directive. Compensation for the damages caused by species is not covered by the provisions of the Directive and may be regulated by national law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. See particularly Articles 12, 15 and 16.

(2) Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

(3) Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Responsibility for the appointment of R. Berthelot

Ex-Commissioner Cresson's personal friend, R. Berthelot, was appointed in March 1997 as an expert on aids matters. Mr Berthelot did not have the necessary qualifications and the Commission has now called for repayment of the fees Mr Berthelot was paid.

But who was responsible for the erroneous appointment? Has any reprimand been issued to the deputy director-general at the Commission who signed Mr Berthelot's contract of appointment?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and are ongoing in relation to a number of officials and/or other staff in connection with the file on Mr Berthelot's contract.

The appointing authority has also decided to undertake an additional inquiry to clear up any responsibilities of other parties connected with this matter.

The Commission will inform Parliament of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings as soon as the final conclusions have been reached after due process.