ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0364/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights issues in Vietnam

People of faith in Vietnam are suffering oppression by State authorities. Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, who chairs the Administrative Committee of the Vietnamese Evangelical Mennonite denomination and runs many projects to help the poor and destitute, has been subjected to frequent intimidation and persecution. This is an attempt by the State authorities to dissuade the Pastor and his groups from conducting both religious and social activities.

In October 2001 Pastor Quang was given an ultimatum to cease his church activities out of his home/centre in Binh Khanh ward of Ho Chi Minh City.

Will the Commission agree that in light of this, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights And The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, giving citizens the right to enjoy the basic rights of human freedom of religion, expression and association are not being respected?

Will the Commission therefore agree that steps should be taken to ensure that every Vietnamese citizen can expect to enjoy these basic human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The Commission Delegation in Hanoi, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States, follows the human rights situation in Vietnam closely.

Over the last number of years, the Commission has observed considerable progress for the majority of the Vietnamese people who practice religion, including a significant proportion of the population who practise freely the Christian or Buddhist religions. There remain, however, issues on which further progress is needed, as well as a number of individual cases of concern.

In the case of Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, while the Commission has noted the information given, it has not yet received independent confirmation of the events reported. The Commission Delegation in Hanoi has therefore been requested to make enquiries and to take appropriate follow up action in conjunction with the Member State missions.

The Commission's approach towards Vietnam in the field of human rights, as it is towards all countries, is to encourage and support progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur, in the framework of the international human rights instruments.

The Commission Delegation in Hanoi and the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States raise on an ongoing basis issues of concern in relation to human rights in Vietnam on an ongoing basis. For example, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the human rights situation in Vietnam was discussed during the Community-Vietnam Joint Commission in Hanoi on 6 November 2001 and was raised again during the donors Consultative Group Meeting in Hanoi on 7-8 December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1338/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Dismantling of the CAP and agricultural negotiations in the WTO

According to a report reproduced in the Portuguese press, the Guardian newspaper has had access to documents proving that the Commission had a negotiating strategy which consisted in using the agricultural sector as a bargaining counter in negotiations within the World Trade Organisation, in exchange for greater liberalisation and access to certain sectors in third countries, such as telecommunications, financial services, the energy sector and direct investments.

According to the report, the gradual dismantling of the CAP would be the price for this. It should be borne in mind that the various bilateral agreements and successive GATT rounds led to a far-reaching liberalisation of agricultural trade worldwide, calling into question the principle of Community preference and benefiting the large multinationals in the agricultural and food industries. Farming is in an ongoing state of crisis, with a drastic reduction in the number of farmers and farms, an increase in verticalisation and concentration of production and intensification, with the well-known risks as regards food safety. The latest reforms of the CAP did not manage to solve the main problems and made some forms of injustice worse, in particular as regards the distribution of aid between products, producers and countries.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

- whether the report is true;

- if it is, how this strategy will benefit farmers, especially those with small and medium-sized and family farms, bearing in mind the proposals to dismantle the CAP's market pillar and for the co-funding of agricultural expenditure (as has already been proposed for the candidate countries);

- what the risks are as regards the EU's dependence on food and agriculture, in particular in the area of vegetable proteins, which might be caused by this kind of strategy, and what the risks for food safety are?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Community's position in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on agriculture is set out in the negotiating proposal adopted by the Council in October 1999 and the conclusions of the Agriculture Council (20-21 November 2000). The Commission is negotiating within the limits of the Council position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0451/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: ARGO action programme

The financial statement contained in the proposal for a Council decision adopting an action programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO) indicates funding of EUR 25 million for the five-year programme (2002-2006), to be drawn from budget heading B5-820.

The amount shown for 2002 in the proposal(1) is EUR 5 024 million. However, in the working document (containing a detailed analysis for each budget heading) which was drawn up by the Commission for the purposes of the preliminary draft budget, only three million euros are set aside for ARGO in 2002.

Does the Commission intend to obtain the missing amount (EUR 2 024 million) from some other activity financed under budget heading B5-820, or does it intend to recover the amount by increasing the funding for ARGO in subsequent financial years? Could the Commission provide the budgetary authority with up-to-date information concerning the financial programming of budget heading B5-820?

(1) OJ C 25 E, 29.1.2002, p. 526.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The Commission would like to confirm that the operational budget foreseen for the ARGO(1) Action Programme in 2002 is EUR 3 million leaving technical and administrative assistance support expenditure apart. The fact that the year of the adoption of the legal basis, expected in May 2002, corresponds also to the first year of implementation and execution of the assigned budget has actually an impact on the capacity of the Commission to commit appropriations. It was therefore decided to decrease the initial amount of EUR 5 million given in the financial statement of the Commission proposal. The remaining amount of the global envelope, i.e. EUR 22 million, will be consumed over the years 2003-2006.

The Commission will provide the Budgetary Authority with updated information on the financial planning of the budget line B5-820 when submitting the financial statement of the preliminary draft budget (PDB) for 2003 and the budget implementation plan for 2002.

(1) ARCO: New Action Program for External Frontiers Control.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1647/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Assessment of foot-and-mouth disease compensation funds

According to reports in the press, various provincial authorities in the Netherlands, including that of Friesland, set up funds in response to the foot-and-mouth crisis in 2001 to provide compensation for the industries affected by it. In order to ensure that these practices did not violate Article 87 of the EC Treaty concerning unlawful State aid, in which case they would have to be prohibited, these regional authorities submitted the arrangements to the Commission for assessment pursuant to Article 88 of the EC Treaty. An early decision by the Commission is called for, inter alia in the light of the precarious emotional and financial state of those directly concerned.

In view of the above, will the Commission accelerate the relevant decision-making?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it is fully aware of the precarious situation of the sectors affected by the foot-and-mouth crisis in 2001.

Presently, the Commission is examining a national aid scheme related to the problems caused by the foot-and-mouth disease (Stichting Fonds MKZ). Within the context of this notification the Dutch authorities have indicated that provincial authorities may contribute to this national fund.

Thus far the Commission has received one notification of a provincial aid scheme related to the same problems (Schadevergoedingsregeling MKZ Friesland). It has received no information on other funds set up by provincial authorities in the Netherlands in response to the above-mentioned crisis.

The Commission will contact the Dutch authorities in order to collect all necessary information to check the possible existence of other provincial arrangements, referred to by the Honourable Member, and to study their compatibility with the common market within the framework of articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.

Finally, the Commission wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the provisions of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999(1) and to assure that it will take a decision as soon as it has at its disposal all the necessary information enabling it to examine the compatibility of the measure with the common market.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now Article 88] of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0274/02

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Repressive action against the Kurdish bilingualist movement in Turkey

Since the beginning of the year, a movement has emerged in Turkey, made up of students and parents calling for Kurdish to be taught in schools under the slogan bilingual education is possible.

The Turkish police have arrested hundreds of Kurdish students who signed petitions in support of the right to be taught in their mother tongue. These students have apparently been prevented from having normal contacts with lawyers. Various human rights organisations have protested about these arbitrary arrests.

Would the Commission agree that these actions by the Turkish state contravene the Copenhagen principles, including respect for human rights and the rule of law, on which accession to the European Union is dependent?

If it has not already done so, would the Commission now be prepared to make representations to the Turkish authorities, calling for an end to the repressive action taken against the Kurdish minority in response to its legitimate demand for bilingual teaching?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

In the context of the medium term priorities of the Union Accession Partnership with Turkey, it is foreseen that Turkey ensures cultural diversity and guarantees cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. Turkey is thus expected to abolish any legal provisions preventing the enjoyment of these rights including in the field of education.

The Commission assessed in its November 2001 Regular Report on Turkey(1) the progress made on cultural rights. The amendment of Articles 26 and 28 of the Turkish Constitution abolishing the provision forbidding the use of languages other than Turkish was regarded as a positive step. It was considered that it could pave the way for the use of languages other than Turkish, provided that changes in existing restrictive legislation and practices were introduced.

The Commission followed closely the recent developments and is preoccupied with the reports of widespread arrests of students in connection with their petitions for Kurdish language courses.

A joint initiative was recently taken by the Commission and the current Union Presidency, in Ankara, towards the Turkish authorities whereby concerns were expressed on a possible violation by the Turkish authorities of the Constitutional right of petition.

The Commission will further raise this matter with the Turkish authorities.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 May 2002)

Subject: Swedish ban on cultivation of low-THC hemp

In view of the importance of protecting people's lives and health by taking measures to combat drug misuse, and of the obvious difficulties of carrying out checks involved in authorising the cultivation of low-THC hemp, the Swedish Government has considered it warranted not to allow such cultivation in the country. The Swedish Government and a large majority in the Swedish Riksdag have no intention of altering the Swedish rules at the present time.

However, the Swedish ban on hemp-growing is currently under consideration in the Court of Justice and Sweden may possibly be compelled by a court judgment to review its decision. Can the Council envisage taking a decision which gives the Member States the right to make their own decisions whether to authorise or ban the cultivation of low-THC hemp?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

It is not for the Council to adopt a position on the national laws of the Member States or on cases currently before the Court of Justice.

Moreover, the Council has not received a Commission proposal along the lines of the suggestion made by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: The Return of Powers from the Commission to the Member States

At the opening of the Constitutional Convention on 28 February, Commission President Prodi said that the Commission had to be prepared to return powers to the Member States. Which specific competences does the Commission think should be returned, and will the Commission's proposals in this area be relayed through Commissioners Barnier and Vitorino at the Convention or by the Commission President or his spokesman?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The Commission President gave his address at the inaugural meeting of the Convention and it should be viewed in that political context. The members of the Convention are being asked to reflect together

on the future of the European project. The Union must review its main functions and define the scope of its activities more rigorously. In this context, all the institutions must consider the best way of performing their activities. The Commission is prepared to re-examine its own functions if this is necessary for the European project to succeed. It follows from this that in his address to the Convention the President of the Commission was not referring to any specific tasks currently performed by his institution but rather to a political state of mind. The Commission does not, of course, intend to abandon its fundamental role, which is that of an independent institution upholding the general interest. Once it has defined its position on the future of the Union's institutional structure, it will be up to its representatives in the Convention to inform the latter accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0139/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Budget heading for the activities of the Praesidium of the European Convention

The Laeken Declaration not only mentions the launching of a constituent process for the European Union, but also openly proposes the direct election of the Commission President, points the way for the establishment of a European government, outlines a common penal system and includes the regions in the debate on the distribution of powers in the EU.

The work of the Praesidium responsible for examining proposals on these matters is therefore highly important and it should be given the resources and facilities to perform its task.

Will the Commission say which budget heading will be used to ensure that the Praesidium has the material resources to perform its job in a trouble-free manner and how it will be developed in future, including the appropriate budgetary control?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0139/02, E-0337/02 and E-0419/02given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Parliament, the Council and the Commission have concluded on 28 February 2002 an inter-institutional agreement organising their contribution to the financing of the Convention on the future of Europe. This agreement is based on estimates for the Convention's budget amounting to EUR 4 million for the first budgetary year, running from March to December 2002.

This amount will be transferred from the general budget of the Union to a specific Fund outside the Community general budget, and will be shared as follows:

- EUR 1 million from section I (Parliament);

- EUR 0,4 million from section II (Council);

- EUR 2,6 million from section III (Commission) Part A.

These amounts represent 0,1 % of the administrative expenditure of each institution, excluding pensions.

An amending budget has been adopted on 28 February 2002 by the budgetary authority, creating the necessary lines and transferring the necessary appropriations to allow the implementation of these contributions.

According to the rules agreed by the three institutions, the Convention's budget should be adopted on the proposal of the Secretary-General of the Convention and with the agreement of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

In principle, the Convention's budget does not include the costs of travels and accomodation of members of the Convention (other than its Praesidium), covered by the Parliament, Member States and candidate countries where the members come from, the salaries of members of the Convention's Secretariat when they are seconded from Union institutions and some infrastructure costs (including interpretation, translation, buildings and personnel) covered by the three institutions hosting the Convention's meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1663/02

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Directive 92/14/EEC and noisy Chapter 2 aeroplanes

Under Article 2 of Directive 92/14/EEC(1) Member States must ensure that from 1 April 2002 aeroplanes which are not equipped with hushkits, as referred to in Chapter 2 of Annex 16 to the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) Convention, cannot operate at airports situated in their territory.

1. Does the Commission know whether all the Member States are applying this provision?

2. Is the Commission aware of airports which are at present still authorising such planes to operate? Which airports are they?

3. What action will the Commission take against the Member States and the airports which in practice are not applying the directive?

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission has been informed that there are some airports which are not complying fully with Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988)(1). The Commission is currently examining this information. In particular, it appears that the authorities in Greece have authorised some Boeing 737 model 200 aeroplanes to operate between Athens and the island of Rhodes as of 1 April 2002. Consequently, on 17 July 2002, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to the Greek authorities for failure to comply with Article 2 of Directive 92/14/EEC.

No airport is allowed to authorise flights with Chapter 2 aeroplanes. Exemptions may only be granted by the Member States, and then only within the highly restrictive conditions described in Article 8 of Directive 92/14/EEC. This Article provides for decisions in individual cases according to the characteristics of the specific flight, which excludes any possibility of airports benefiting from special treatment.

The Commission will continue to ask Member States to inform it of progress in the implementation of this Directive in their respective territories. As in any other sphere, any failure to fulfil the obligations of the national authorities could lead to infringement proceedings.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/02

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

(16 July 2002)

Subject: Galicia, a heavily fisheries-dependent region

In his answer to Written Question E-0650/02(1) Commissioner Fischler acknowledges that:

- Galicia is very dependent on fisheries;

- the studies the Commission was obliged to carry out (Article 14(2) of Regulation 3760/92(2)) in order to analyse the degree of dependency on fisheries of European coastal regions were characterised by defects and incomplete data and that problems had been caused when comparing data from various countries and that the Commission would continue improving the methodology (sic);

- although Galicia is very dependent on fisheries, it cannot be recognised as such for the purposes of allocating structural funding, since the concept applies only to Objective 2 and not Objective 1 regions.

Since what we seek is not more structural funding but more equity in the distribution of fishing opportunities amongst regions dependent on fishing, can the Commission say:

1. whether it will take this dependency on fishing into account, not in order to grant more structural funding, but in order to ensure a greater degree of equity and lack of discrimination in the distribution of fishing opportunities, according to the degree of dependence;

2. how it will ensure that Galicia, which has been waiting 17 years for the transitional period to end and the CFP to be reformed, obtains a fairer and more balanced share of the fishing possibilities in Community waters, bearing in mind that the current distribution was determined by the degree of dependence on fisheries of the European regions, which at the time did not include Galicia and that from 1 January 2003 it will enjoy full rights on an equal footing with other European regions or even more so, owing to its higher degree of dependence?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 114.

(2) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

As indicated in the answer given by the Commission to the Honourable Member's written questions E-2097/02 and E-2096/02(1) the concept of fisheries dependence appears in Article 4(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(2) dealing with structural aid to the fisheries sector as an eligibility criteria for Objective 2 regions. It does not appear in Council regulations dealing with the allocation of fishing opportunities at Community level and their subdivision into national quotas allocated between Member States.

(1) See page 180.

(2) Council regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.