ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/02

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Oppression of North Korean refugees

Some 150 000 refugees are believed to be in hiding on the Chinese side of the border between China and North Vietnam. These people have been denied refugee status by China and are liable to brutal and inhumane treatment if captured and repatriated to North Vietnam. If it is suspected that there has been any contact with Christians they are subjected to the most brutal of punishments.

If it is discovered that a prisoner has converted to Christianity then severe torture, detention in horrific work camps or summary execution may follow.

Would the Council indicate the nature of representations made to the authorities in China and North Vietnam regarding the plight of these refugees and advise what undertakings have been received to indicate that such abuses will cease.

Reply

(6 February 2003)

1. The Council is aware of the serious situation of North Korean refugees and shares the preoccupations raised by the Honourable Member in his question. The EU has repeatedly raised its grave concerns in high-level contacts with Beijing and Pyongyang. The EU will continue to urge both parties concerned to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, including refugee law, to which they are party, irrespective of whether the motives for border crossings are humanitarian or political in nature.

2. The EU brought up the issue with the North Korean side during the last Human Rights briefing for EU Heads of Mission in mid-May, and during the last EU Troika visit to Pyongyang in mid-June 2002. On these occasions, the EU urged in particular the DPRK to respect the human rights of persons who are detained at the border or forcibly repatriated by China. The EU also urged the DPRK Government to make further efforts to raise living standards for its population in isolated areas bordering China.

3. The EU has also held several frank and detailed discussions with the Chinese authorities, both in the context of the EU's regular political dialogue and of the human rights dialogue; the last session was held in Madrid in early March. The EU invited the Chinese side to pursue its pragmatic approach concerning asylum seekers who have sought refuge in EU embassies, and to address the root causes of the problems while fulfilling its obligations under the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees. The EU invited Beijing to encourage the DPRK not to punish those who return, and expressed the hope that forced repatriations would not continue while punishments occurred. Finally, the EU declared its readiness to work with the Chinese authorities, NGOs and UN Agencies to improve the situation of North Koreans in China.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2254/02

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Western Sahara

When the European Parliament's Ad Hoc Delegation for Western Sahara was in Western Sahara in February, we had the opportunity to meet representatives of various interest groups. Subsequently, three of them lost their jobs as a direct consequence of their contact with Parliament: Moumen Mohamed Mahmoud of National Promotion and Moutik Elhoussine and Noumria Brahim, both of the Sahara Section of the Forum of Truth and Justice. Is the Council aware of this, and what measures will it take?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

In general, the Council fully supports the UN's efforts, whether undertaken at its New York headquarters or in the field through Minurso. It notes that the United Nations Security Council has decided to extend the mandate of Minurso until 31 January 2003. In this connection, it encourages any confidence-building contacts between the Parties, including at the human level, aimed at reaching a lasting solution that fully respects human rights. It encourages Morocco to continue the efforts it has made to comply with human rights, including civil rights, in Western Sahara and to go on cooperating with the ICRC to try to determine the whereabouts of disappeared Sahrawis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3249/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Evaluation of the ECHO Global Plan 2000 Angola

The summary report on the evaluation of the ECHO Global Plan 2000 Angola contains ten recommendations.

1. How has the Commission responded to each of the points?

2. Has the Commission made any improvements?

3. If so, what?

4. If not, why have no improvements been made?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The independent evaluation confirmed the appropriateness of Humanitarian Aid office (ECHO)'s decision to refocus its programme in Angola on its core emergency response mandate, withdrawing from providing support to secondary health facilities: The exit strategy has been highly relevant to clean ECHO's portfolio and concentrate itself on its core mandate.

ECHO's 2002 Global Plan drew on the evaluation, and ECHO's continued focus on its core mandate became particularly relevant as the true extent of the humanitarian crisis in Angola was revealed, after the April 2002 cease fire. ECHO's strategy for 2003 will continue along the same lines, focusing on life-saving health, nutrition, emergency relief and logistics operations in the newly-accessible areas whilst aiming to link interventions, as soon as the emergency stabilises, to the appropriate instruments to take over from humanitarian assistance.

ECHO is in constant contact with its partners both at headquarters and field level, bilaterally and in the framework of strategic programming dialogues. ECHO publishes on the internet its annual strategy, the humanitarian strategy for individual countries, and executive summaries of Global Plans, decisions and evaluations.

The table of the operational follow-up is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2714/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(26 September 2002)

Subject: The forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees by the People's Republic of China

In recent years, tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled famine and persecution in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), clandestinely crossing the border into the north-eastern provinces of China.

Since 1999, the Chinese Government has been forcibly repatriating thousands of these North Korean refugees and asylum-seekers, whom it regards as economic migrants and thereby illegal immigrants. Over the last year there has been a notable crackdown on these refugees, and an intensification of forcible repatriations.

This is despite the fact that having fled from a country with such a deplorable human rights record as the DPRK, many of the refugees will undoubtedly have genuine asylum claims. Once extradited by the PRC, the North Koreans meet an uncertain fate back in their home country, which might include imprisonment, torture and in some cases summary execution or death in detention from starvation and disease (source: Amnesty International).

In forcibly repatriating the refugees, the Chinese Government is denying them access to any refugee determination procedure. This violates the fundamental principle of non-refoulement embodied in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which China is a state party.

What action is the Council taking to ensure that the rights of North Korean refugees and asylum-seekers are respected, and that they have access to a fair and independent asylum procedure, as embodied in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees? Will the Council agree to raise the issue of the unjust forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees at the next round of the biannual EU-China Human Rights Dialogue?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

1. The Council would like to refer the Honourable MEP to its reply to the Parliamentary Question No 2242/02, which remains valid.

2. The Council has raised the issue again with the Chinese authorities at the next round of the EU-China human rights dialogue in Beijing in November 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Economic integration

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of each Member State's GDP accounted for by corporations in foreign (including other Member State) ownership?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

An appropriate indicator is the share of value added generated by foreign-controlled enterprises on the value added of the whole business economy (including enterprises controlled by the compiling economy).

Enclosed herein there are results obtained in the Structural Business Statistics-Framework with data for reference year 1999 for seven participating Member States. For more detailed information, the publication Foreign-owned enterprises with data for reference year 1997 and the Statistics in Focus Foreign-owned enterprises with data for reference year 1998 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat(1)

>TABLE>

For France and Luxembourg the number of employees is used as a proxy

Business economy: NACE Sections C to I, and K

However, this measure is not available for all Member States and not for the Union aggregate. A draft Regulation on the structure and activity on foreign affiliates is presently under discussion following Eurostat initiative. This legal framework would enable to provide the requested information for all Member States and for the Union as a whole.

(1) See also answer given by the Commission to written question E-3453/02 by the Honourable Member, See p. 210.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Safety hazards relating to the regasification plant planned for the Ferrol estuary

A number of citizens' organisations submitted a complaint (2001/5221 SG (2001) a/13049) to the Commission on 5 November 2001 alleging several instances of failure on the part of the Kingdom of Spain to comply with Community legislation in its handling and granting of the necessary permits for constructing a natural liquid gas regasification plant in the Ferrol estuary (La Coruña district).

The Spanish government's authorisation for the project was published in the Official State Bulletin on 24 July 2002, with the condition that authorisation was dependent on all security requirements being met subsequently. The Ferrol town council has recently reassessed authorisation for the plant as being of potential danger to the population in its planned location.

The project has understandably caused alarm in the area, given the inherently dangerous nature of the plant's projected activities, and in view of the fact that the development company has not fulfilled the requirements of the Seveso Directive, in particular as regards maintaining minimum distances from residential centres and observing safety rules relating to the handling and docking of the plant's methane carriers. Another cause for concern has been the lack of any environmental impact study in accordance with Directives 85/337/EEC(1) and 97/11/EC(2).

Is the Commission aware that the Reganosa development company's proposed plant does not comply with European and international safety rules for regasification plants and related ports?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2541/02 and E-2555/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Member.

Following parliamentary questions E-1310/01 by Mrs McKenna, E-1359/01 by Mrs Gonzalez Alvarez and E-1379/01 by the Honourable Member(1), the Commission decided to open an own-initiative case, registered as number 2001/2141.

During its examination of the dossier, the Commission has twice contacted the Spanish authorities to check that Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2) and 96/82/EC of 16 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(3) (Seveso) are being properly applied in this instance.

The Commission is currently examining the latest reply from the Spanish authorities.

This dossier will be discussed with the Spanish authorities in October during the bilateral meeting being held to review certain complaints and infringements relating to the environment.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is observed in the case in hand.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 October 2002)

Subject: West Papuan self-determination

The Council should be aware of the fact that the people of West Papua have since 1963 been at the mercy of the Indonesian military the same military that so brutalised the people of East Timor.

Has the Council committed itself to supporting the international campaign to call on the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, to review

the UN-sponsored Act of Free Choice so that West Papuans may have a real opportunity to express their view on who should govern them, rather than the sham vote of the late 1960s?

If the Council has not so committed itself, on what basis has it failed to act, and will it do so now?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

1. The Council has repeatedly underlined the importance of a strong, democratic, united and prosperous Indonesia, and has consistently and firmly supported the territorial integrity of this country. The EU has therefore not committed itself to supporting the international campaign to review the status of Papua.

2. However, the EU has on several occasions raised its grave concerns over the political, economic, and human rights situation in Papua with the Indonesian authorities. The EU has urged the Indonesian government to address swiftly and decisively the numerous problems in this province, to improve the protection of the human rights and the indigenous culture of the Papuan population, and to promote the economic and social development of the province. The EU in particular underlined the need to implement fully the Special Autonomy Law for Papua (SALP) and to investigate human rights violations, including the assassination of the prominent Papuan leader Theys Eluay, in order to bring the perpetrators of these violations to justice.

3. EU Heads of Missions in Jakarta have visited Papua in March 2002, and have held extensive talks with government officials, NGOs, and religious and tribal leaders in order to assess the situation and to underline the EU's strong interest in the political and social evolution in Papua. The EU will continue to pay close attention to the future evolution in this province, and will, if necessary, raise the various problems again with the government of Indonesia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3043/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Definition of extra-budgetary public sector deficit

On 10 October 2002, the newspaper Público reported that the deficit of the Portuguese Ministry of Education was EUR 312 million in 2002, and that the Minister of Education had stated:

We shall be spending more than the amount which appeared in the supplementary budget. Despite a number of measures taken to combat the deficit, it has continued to increase at a considerable rate.

The Ministry of Education is not the only one to have spoken of an extra-budgetary deficit, but it is the first where that notion has been validated by the Minister himself.

Can the Commission explain how it takes account of this kind of sectoral deficit in its definition of the deficit of the public administrative sector, and, at all events, supply a reasoned answer based on the existing national accountancy standards?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3042/02, E-3043/02 and E-3044/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

On a national accounts basis and according to the European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA 95), expenditure is recorded on an accrual basis and not on a cash basis, which means that expenditure shall be registered in the years when the commitment was made and not when the actual payment took place. In the economic report of the Portuguese rectifying budget for 2002, it is mentioned that the regularisation of expenditure arrears in 2002 on account of commitments made and recorded as expenditure in previous years amounts to EUR 2,1 billion, which represents 1,6 % of the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) for 2002.

Concerning the extra-budgetary deficit in the Ministry of Education, it should be highlighted that the focus of the Commission budgetary surveillance is the general government sector as a whole and not any of its constituent units or sectors in particular, unless the latter display uncommon features that might risk compliance of the general government sector with overall budgetary targets. Moreover, the deficit referred to by the Honourable Member seems to be on a public accounts basis and not according to the ESA 95 national accounts rules.

According to the economic report accompanying the Portuguese 2003 budget, the general government deficit target on a national accounts basis for 2003 is 2,4 % of GDP. National accounts budgetary figures are those relevant for budgetary surveillance, in particular, the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. The Commission is not aware of any other official projection for the Portuguese government deficit in 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Use of epoxy derivatives in the wine industry

Further to the recent question E-3050/02 on the same subject:

Ecocert Italia is an organisation that carries out checks on organic labels for wine and other products. The organisation refuses to recognise as organic wine that has matured in containers treated with epoxy derivatives. However, the Italian health authorities (USL) do not allow organic wine growers to produce wine in concrete containers unless the inside of the containers is first treated with epoxy.

Is the Commission convinced that use of epoxy is safe for health? If not, what measures does it intend to take and what alternatives does it propose?

Does the Commission authorise the production of wine in untreated concrete? If not, what are its grounds for imposing a ban?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3050/02 and E-3073/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Storage containers for wine have to comply with the general requirements of Council Directive 89/109/EEC of 21 December 1988 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs(1).

Article 2 of which stipulates that under normal or foreseeable conditions of use such materials and articles must not transfer their constituents to foodstuffs in quantities that could:

- endanger human health,

- bring about an unacceptable change in the composition of the foodstuffs or a deterioration in their organoleptic characteristics.

The use of certain epoxy derivatives, notably of BADGE, BFDGE and NOGE, in materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs is regulated by Commission Directive 2002/16/EC of 20 February 2002 on the use of certain epoxy derivatives in materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs. Consumer health is protected provided that the producers of the epoxy resins comply with the provisions of Directive 2002/16/EC.

Therefore, the Commission considers that any material or article which complies with these Directives can be used for the storage of any type of food and this applies to concrete containers.

Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts(2) sets rules applying to the storage of wines and musts that do not specify any particular nature or composition for the inner surfaces of storage containers. Nor is there any more precise Community rule elsewhere.

The disagreement between the Italian authorities and the Ecocert organisation does not point to a need for further European arrangements on the use of epoxy derivatives, as their use in materials and articles intended to come into contact with food is regulated at Community level in Directive 2002/16/EC.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2) OJ L 232, 9.8.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3110/02

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

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Crimes committed by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon

During the last few days the Israeli Army has killed dozens of people, including children, in the Occupied Territories on the orders of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. When will the Council unequivocally politically condemn the Israeli leader for these crimes against humanity and impose the necessary sanctions?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The European Union is indeed gravely concerned about the continued clashes between Israelis and Palestinians and deeply saddened at the almost daily loss of lives among the civilian population. The EU will continue to ask both parties to show maximum restraint and to do their utmost to bring an immediate end to violence and terror, and will not refrain from repeating this, also to the Israeli side.

At the same time, it has to be stressed that it is up to the parties themselves to seek peace through a process of negotiations. For its part, the European Union remains ready in close co-operation with the Quartet and all parties concerned to continue to assist in the efforts at finding a final and just settlement to the Middle East conflict.