ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3355/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Ban on concluding public contracts with media companies

A new law adopted by the Greek Parliament (No 3021, Greek Government Gazette 19/0672002) prohibits the conclusion of public contracts with natural or legal persons who are primary shareholders in media companies. The same law defines a primary shareholder as anyone holding as little as 5 % of the total share capital of a media company.

Given the difficulty of identifying primary shareholders at both Community and international level, will the Commission say:

- whether the new law is consistent with Community law and to what extent it infringes the principle of equality as a general principle of law in view of the fact that it will not be possible to scrutinise either companies with registered offices in a Member State or off-shore companies as opposed to domestic companies,

- whether the Member States are required to cooperate with the corresponding national authorities in identifying primary shareholders (provide information, carry out inquiries, etc), especially when no corresponding scrutiny is provided for in their national legislation,

- whether any delay in carrying out checks on Community companies constitutes an infringement of the principle of equality and discrimination against them in relation to domestic companies, and to what extent it is practicable and legally valid to preclude Community companies from concluding public contracts if it is impossible to scrutinise them effectively?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission has received the information it requested from the Greek authorities concerning Law No 3021/19.6.2002 on this matter.

Given the complexity of this issue, the Commission has decided to make further enquiries and add this matter to its portfolio of cases examined in the course of monitoring the application of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Racism in football

In view of the continuing appalling level of racism being exhibited at international football matches, does the Commission take the view that it would be perfectly legitimate for television companies to halt the broadcasting of such matches and consequently refuse to pay the agreed fees, particularly in countries like the United Kingdom where broadcasting material likely to incite racial hatred is illegal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Commission firmly condemns racism and xenophobia, which are a direct violation of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. These are the principles upon which the Union is founded and which are common to Member States as stated in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Accordingly, the Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Framework Decision(1), in the field of penal law, on combating racism and xenophobia. This instrument is designed to approximate the laws and regulations of Member States, providing a common definition of punishable offences

in this area, as well as minimum standards as to the applicable penalties and sanctions. The proposal also promotes closer judicial co-operation by regulating issues such as jurisdiction, extradition and prosecution of such offences.

Further to that Member States are obliged by Article 22a of the Television without Frontiers Directive(2) to ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion of nationality. It is the Member States' obligation to transpose this principle in effective national legislation.

Regarding the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no competence to take a position on the contractual relations between rights holders and broadcasters in this case. It would depend on national laws applicable in Member States whether television companies could take such a measure.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 269.

(2) Council Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 30 June 1997, on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation and administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/16

(2004/C 70 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/02

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

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Detention of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva

As the Commission is aware, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, the chairman of the Cuban Human Rights Foundation and the Brotherhood of the Independent Blind People of Cuba, has been detained in prison in Holguín, Cuba, since March 2002 (see written question E-1458/02 (1)).

Is the Commission also aware that he is being assaulted and beaten, and is in danger of dying of malnutrition?

Will the Commission take action and bring pressure to bear on the authorities there in order to secure an end to the violent treatment meted out to human rights activists in Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

The Commission is being kept informed regularly of the situation of Mr Gonzalez Leiva. According to its information the human rights activist weighed only 90 pounds at the beginning of January 2003 due to a fast he began on 4 September 2002 and which he ended on 25 December 2002 in order to protest against the accusations against him and other activists involved in the case.

The Commission has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Cuban authorities to the situation of Mr Gonzalez Leiva and the human rights situation in general. As with other partner countries, the internal human rights situation is and will remain an important aspect of our relationship with Cuba. The Commission believes that a policy of engagement and dialogue is the most likely to help bringing about a positive evolution in this respect.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 109.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/10

(2004/C 70 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3226/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Subject: Safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists

In a meeting between Mr Carlos Bautista and Commissioner Loyola de Palacio in September 2001, the Commissioner admitted that the current design of crash barriers is dangerous for motorcyclists. The Commissioner assured that immediate action would be taken to resolve this problem.

1. Could the Commission explain what steps have been taken to improve the safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists?

2. What future plans does the Commission have to improve the safety of crash barriers for motorcyclists?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The high level of unsafety of motorcyclists is of major concern to the Commission and the problem is therefore attacked from different angles. It should be reminded that Member States are responsible for equipping roads with effective safety restraint systems including crash barriers.

The Commission has mandated the Committee for European Normalisation (CEN) to elaborate a new harmonised European standard on the basis of the existing EN 1317 on road restraint systems, which will require any road restraint systems to be submitted to CE marking. Thus restraint systems that are put to the market will have to meet minimum common safety performance requirements. In its current form, this standard does however not include specific tests for motorcyclists. At this point in time, different experimental solutions exist to fulfill the needs of this group of road users.

Black spot management and information to motorcyclists at stretches of road that have shown to be prone to motorcylce accidents are reckoned to be effective on a short term basis. To this end, the Commission has announced a proposal for a directive on black spot management in its workplan for 2003 (1).

(1) COM(2002) 590 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/310

(2004/C 88 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/02

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

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Gambling on the Net

As the Commission acknowledged in its answer to Written Question E-2885/01 (1), internet gambling activities are regulated differently across the Member States giving rise to internal market barriers that deserve consideration.

Given that internet gambling activities are cross-border in nature and that national lottery operators have warned of the need for this issue to be dealt with at European level, what measures has the Commission taken in this respect? Has the Commission examined the need for harmonisation in this area, and what form it should take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

As regards internet gambling, a number of Member States are adjusting their laws on gambling activities or introducing new laws to regulate such information society services. These new laws are notifiable under Directive 98/48/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2). The Commission would, therefore, wish to reassure the Honourable Member that, on the basis of this mechanism, it is monitoring developments in this field and ensuring that such new national laws do not result in unjustified Internal Market barriers taking into account the specificity of these services as recognised by the Court of Justice's jurisprudence. However, the Commission does not consider that harmonisation is required in this area at the current time.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 211.

(2) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/299

(2004/C 88 E/0306)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3626/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Implementation by Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC

Under Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 on fixed-term work, the Member States are required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 10 July 2002. Three months after the deadline for Greece to comply with Directive 1999/70/EC, the Greek Government published a draft Presidential Decree which unlawfully exempts from the scope of the directive individuals employed on contract by the public administration, legal persons governed by public law, local government and many other sectors of economic activity.

In its opinion on the Presidential Decree, with which employees and employers fully agreed, the Economic and Social Committee of Greece rejected the above exemptions introduced by the Presidential Decree as ‘contrary to the letter of the Directive’. Given that Directive 1999/70/EC affects many thousands of workers in Greece who work under insecure and uncertain conditions, will the Commission say why it does not initiate proceedings against the Member State in question in the Court of Justice for its failure to comply with the deadlines for implementing Directive 1999/70/EC and for the Greek Government's unacceptable restriction of the scope of that Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

As Greece has not communicated to the Commission any information regarding the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, the Commission will be obliged to examine the possibility of launching infringement proceedings against Greece on these grounds.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.
1.

Can the Commission confirm that Moldova, which lies between Romania and Ukraine and has a population of more than 4 million, is now the poorest country in Europe, as evidenced ‘inter alia’ by the fact that wages there are between four and seven times lower than in Romania, every child is born with a statistical State debt of USD 600, 70 % of the State budget has to be spent on redeeming foreign debt incurred through the purchase of natural gas, many hospitals are closed and the remainder no longer have heating or medicines; gas, electricity and water supplies have virtually ceased in rural areas; roads are no longer passable for vehicles and, on account of poverty, thousands of people have sold one of their kidneys for transplantation in Turkey?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/8

(2004/C 78 E/0008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3645/02

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

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Imprisonment of Shakir

Is the Commission aware of the case of Adly Shakir, a Coptic Christian from Beni Suef Egypt, who according to human rights organisations is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being falsely convicted of the murders of most of his immediate family in a 1997 case? Is it the Commission's opinion that the way Shakir's case has been handled is in accordance with Article 2 of the Egypt-EU Association Agreement?

What representations does it intend to make on Shakir's behalf to the Egyptian authorities?
1.

Under Articles 12, 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty, migrant workers and self-employed persons have the right to equal tratment with workers of the host Member State. The ‘Eigenheimzulage’ (and its component Kinderzulage) are not granted specifically for workers, but for everybody. It is a general promotion scheme for home ownership. These benefits to encourage home ownership — currently subject to modification by the German legislator — are linked to the status of being subject to unlimited tax liability. Consequently, all workers subject to German tax without limitation are eligible. Under article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, migrant workers have the right to equal treatment in ‘tax and social advantages’ as workers of the host Member State. The European Court of Justice has defined these as: ‘all the advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract, are generally granted to national workers primarily because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory and whose extension to workers who are nationals of other Member States therefore seems likely to facilitate the mobility of such workers within the Community (3).’ In so far as the ‘Eigenheimzulage’ is to be regarded as an advantage covered by Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, persons covered by that Regulation are entitled to it so long as they fulfil the general conditions are met. However, it is far from clear that Article 7 (2) should be extended to cover all benefits related to tax status. While it is important to ensure that individuals are not deprived of entitlement to benefits when they exercise their right of free movement, it is also important to avoid overlapping benefits.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/2

(2004/C 65 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/02

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

(30 September 2002)

Subject: The A-9 Motorway between Spain and Portugal and infringement of Community environmental legislation

The building work on the A-9 motorway between the Rebullón (Tui, Spain) interchange and the Portuguese frontier is having an enormous environmental impact on the area, causing a whole range of damage, particularly to the existing watercourses. When designing the motorway section which affects the area's inhabitants, the environmental damage caused was not assessed: a particular glaring absence from the studies made were the underground watercourses, which are required for human consumption and the irrigation of surrounding agricultural land. The resulting defective drainage in conjunction with meteorological conditions, has irreversible consequences for the area. The public administrations responsible for the construction work (Ministry of Development, the Xunta de Galicia and the local authorities) are dodging the problem and ignoring the numerous and frequent organised protests by local people. Although there have even been two deaths: a lorry driver was killed by the fall of a girder, and a local person died during a protest. Both these incidents are sub judice.

What Community funding is going into the completion of the roadworks in question? Could the Commission investigate whether these roadworks involve infringement of environmental legislation on the dumping of waste on the part of the Spanish Government?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission learned of the situation reported by the Honourable Member through Written Question E-1924/02 by Mrs Rosa Miguélez Ramos and Mrs María Sornosa Martínez (1). It subsequently opened an own-initiative case (reference No 2002/2199).

To check that the relevant Community legislation was being properly enforced, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for information on the reported situation.

In response, the Spanish authorities sent the impact statement regarding the route of the motorway, along with the consent for the project granted on 30 August 2000.

The Spanish authorities also sent a copy of the hydrology chapter of the project impact study. This is currently being examined by the Commission.

As for Community funding of these roadworks, from the information the Spanish authorities supplied to the Commission it appears that construction of the stretch of the A-9 motorway running from the Rebullón interchange to the Portuguese border is being financed entirely by a concession-holding company and that no Community funding is involved.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/8

(2004/C 65 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Religious freedom

Act 1990/IV entitled ‘Religious Institutions and Freedom of Conscience and Religion’ is a cornerstone in the 1989 regime change in Hungary. Based upon the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights, and the separation of Church and State as guaranteed by the Hungarian constitution, law 1990/IV emphasises the equality of all Hungarians, regardless of their world-views. It sets forth equal rights and equal obligations for all religious organisations and directs that the disbursement of government funds to religious institutions must be objective.

Last year, the previous Hungarian Government introduced law 2001/LXXIV (PA 153). The law proposed a new way to disburse funds to religious organisations — one that replaced the annual voluntary declaration by taxpayers, with ambiguous statistics derived from a recent and controversial census.

This law is allegedly unconstitutional, it discriminates against 98 % of religious organisations and it contravenes the spirit of Act 1990/IV.

1. Does the Commission believe Act 1990/IV reflects the EU's concern for human rights and religious freedom?

2. Does the Commission consider law 2001/LXXIV (PA 153) to be in conformity with the EU's concern for human rights and religious freedom?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0379/03

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Greek sculptures at the British Museum

For many years, 2 500-year-old sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens have been in the care of, and on display at, the British Museum in London.

Those sculptures form an integral part of the Parthenon, which has been recognised by Unesco as a World Heritage site.

From 13 to 29 August 2004, Greece and Athens are to organise the 28th Olympic Games, which constitute a major event for the sporting and non-sporting world.

It is widely thought around the world that the Parthenon sculptures which are currently held by the British Museum should be returned to their obvious home, i.e. the Acropolis in Athens.

Will the Commission therefore make representations to the UK Government and to the appropriate bodies in that country in order to encourage the former to return the sculptures to Greece on the occasion of the Olympic Games, so that they can be restored to their birthplace?

By taking such a course of action the United Kingdom would demonstrate to the world as a whole what an eminently civilised country it is.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answers given by the Commission to oral questions H-690/99 from Mr Aparicio Sánchez(1) and H-761/99 from Mr Alyssandrakis(3) during question time at the December 1999 plenary part-session of Parliament, and to Written Question E-2847/99 from Mr Manisco(2).

(1) Written answer of 14.12.1999.

(2) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 119.

(3) Written answer of 14.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0239/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Budget overruns in construction of Attiki Odos motorway

Will the Commission say what appropriations were earmarked for the construction of the Attiki Odos motorway? What budget overruns have been noted to date (in total and by sector) and what are the reasons for those overruns?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Attiki Odos measure is included in the Operational Program Road Axes-Ports-Urban Development 2000-2006, and is a major project as defined in Articles 25 and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

The allocation under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for this project is EUR 476 million for the period 2000-2006, corresponding to a public expenditure of EUR 951 million and a total cost, including private contribution, of EUR 1 713 million. There is no possibility to increase the ERDF contribution during the period.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.