ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Accession of new countries to the Union

According to Facts about Turkey, a sleek publication produced by the Turkish News Agency and distributed for some time to all MEPs, 97 % of Turkish territory is in Asia and 3 % in Europe (Eastern Thrace). Russia is in a similar situation, albeit that its European part accounts for much more than 3 % of its territory and stretches as far as the Urals. Since December 1999, Turkey has been a candidate State for accession, despite the fact that a very small part of its territory is in Europe. Russia, a country with a vast market and inexhaustible natural resources, has not yet acquired that status as it has not submitted an application for membership.

Would a possible Russian application for accession in the distant future mean that the Union would extend its geographical frontiers to the shores of the Far East and border on countries such as China and Japan? Would it be possible (provided the Copenhagen criteria are met) to consider a pilot accession to the Union for regions such as European Russia or Eastern Thrace (European Turkey), which clearly are in Europe and have a significantly higher level of economic development than the other regions of the countries to which they belong?

To what extent does the Council consider it appropriate to draw up a study on such a possible development, which might result in the incorporation of some areas of those countries into the structure of Europe, and the avoidance of an adverse situation in which the EU would shoulder the burden of the economic convergence of underdeveloped, remote areas which, furthermore, belong to geographical regions which are not in Europe?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

According to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European State which respects the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law may apply to become a member of the Union. The Council shall decide unanimously on any such applications for membership on the basis of Article 49, paragraph 1 TEU, after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament.

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State and submitted for ratification by all the contacting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2344/01

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 July 2001)

Subject: Nitrate concentration in drinking water

In view of the harm caused by nitrates in water it is specified that nitrate concentration in drinking water must not exceed 50 mg/l.

Some scientists now appear to be questioning that limit.

What technical and scientific bases were used to determine the limit for nitrate concentration in drinking water?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

The threshold of 50 milligrams per litre (mg/l) for nitrate concentration in drinking water, laid down by Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption(1), is identical to the guide value proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO); it is the same as the threshold already adopted in the earlier directive on the same subject, Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980(2).

This value guarantees protection against infantile methaemoglobinaemia.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1969/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Railways in Greece

The railway is a particularly effective and viable solution to the acute problems of traffic congestion, pollution and accidents, which is why Community programmes also support the extension and modernisation of the rail networks in the Member States.

1. Does the Commission consider that the rail programme under the second Community Support Framework was carried out in a satisfactory manner (initial and revised budget, progress of projects)?

2. What projects are included in the third Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

As regards the implementation rate of rail projects programmed in the Community support framework (CSF) for 1994-1999 in Greece, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its supplementary answer to Written Question E-3657/00 by Mr Hatzidakis(1).

The main aim of the rail transport projects to be part-financed in Greece by the CSF and the Cohesion Fund in the 2000-2006 programming period is the completion of the construction of an electrified double track between Athens and Thessaloniki and links between this line and the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki. Construction of a double track between Athens, Corinth and Patras, the rail link from the centre of Athens to the new airport at Spata and the restructuring and implementation of the business plan of the Greek Railways Organisation (OSE) are also included in the projects listed in the programming referred to above.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1933/01

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Age discrimination on European national air carriers

In the light of the of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with specific reference to Article 21, which explicitly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age, can the Commission state whether a policy by national air carriers of putting upper age restrictions on student air fares is in line with EU anti-discrimination policy and, if so, what measures it intends to take regarding this issue, particularly as the EU is seeking to encourage life-long learning and increasing numbers of older students?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law (Article 51). Article 21 which deals with non-discrimination also applies within these limits.

At present, the only provisions of Community law which deal specifically with discrimination on grounds of age are contained in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1). The example cited by the Honourable Member does not therefore fall under this directive.

However, insofar as the fixing of air fares falls within the scope of application of Community law under Council Regulation No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992(2) on fares and rates for air services, the general principle of non-discrimination set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights applies. Differences of treatment on grounds of age must therefore, on a case by case basis, be objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim must be appropriate and necessary. In this context, the Commission believes that the fixing of upper age restrictions on student air fares may in certain circumstances meet this requirement.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16-22.

(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15-17.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1628/01

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Condemnation of Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights

In its judgment of 10 May 2001 the European Court of Human Rights condemned Turkey for continuing large-scale violations of human rights in Cyprus since 1974 and ruled in favour of the application by the Republic of Cyprus.

As the Turkish Government hastened to announce that it would ignore this judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, whose jurisdiction it has by the way

formally recognised since 1990, and as in the past it ignored a similar judgment by the same court condemning it in the Loizidou case of 1996, can the Council say:

1. What direct action it intends to take to ensure respect for the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights by Turkey?

2. What will be the consequences of Turkey's behaviour in violating its commitments to the European institutions in respect of its prospects of accession to the European Union, and what specific form will these consequences take in the European Union's political and economic relations with Turkey?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The EU has no authority to take direct action to enforce judgements by the European Court of Human Rights. But it does take every opportunity, not least in its enhanced political dialogue with Turkey, to press on it the need to respect all its international commitments, not least on human rights, including decisions by the European Court of Human Rights.

Turkey is well aware that compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of accession negotiations and that membership of the Union requires compliance with all the Copenhagen criteria. The EU has set out its priorities in this regard in the Accession Partnership for Turkey(1), which includes the guaranteeing of rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and ensuring their implementation, as an integral part of the acquis communautaire.

The Accession Partnership has also a conditionality clause on the basis of which Community assistance for financing projects through the pre-accession instruments for Turkey is conditional on respect by Turkey of its commitments under the Association Agreement, customs union and related decisions of the EC-Turkey Association Council, for example on the trade regime for agricultural products. At this stage, further steps towards satisfying the Copenhagen criteria and in particular progress in meeting the specific priorities of this Accession Partnership in 2001 need to be taken.

(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/01

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Meeting of EU Tourism Ministers in Lille

Can the Council indicate what measures it has taken following the meeting of EU Tourism Ministers held in Lille on 22 November 2000 under the French Council Presidency?

Reply

(6 December 2001)

At its meeting on 30 November 2000, the Council was informed by the French Presidency about the outcome of the seminar on Tourism and Sustainable Development held in Lille on 22 November 2000. In addition, the Council heard Commissioner Liikanen's presentation of the Commission's progress report on the follow-up to the Council conclusions on Tourism and Employment of 21 June 1999.

At the same occasion, the Presidency drew its conclusions on the state of affairs in this dossier.

On 1 and 2 July 2001, the Belgian Presidency organised the European Ministerial Conference in Bruges. Ministers present at this conference heard a presentation by the Commission of the interim results of each of the five working groups in the field of tourism (information, training, quality, sustainable development as well as information and communication technology) and discussed the follow-up on the Council conclusions of 21 June 1999 as well as the conference theme Tourism for all. The outcome of this conference has been presented to the Council on 27 September 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2767/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: The Commission's actions in the sickness insurance case before the Court of Justice

In the Vanbraekel case heard by the Court of Justice the governments of Sweden, Iceland, Norway and another nine EU countries intervened, arguing that in their opinion Dutch patients should not be entitled to reimbursement by their national sickness insurance scheme for treatment in another country.

The Commission urged the Court to take the opposite view.

Does the Commission consider it reasonable to directly oppose the majority of EU Member States on such a burning political issue? Should the Commission not lie low and adopt a more civil service attitude and refrain from pushing for a politically revolutionary social policy with a supranational thrust?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

In connection with questions submitted for a preliminary ruling, such as the Vanbraekel case (C-368/98)(1), the Commission, in its role as guardian of the provisions of the Treaty, pursuant to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, presents the Court of Justice with elements of interpretation of Community law that it considers to be relevant for settling the dispute concerned.

The observations presented by the Commission to the Court of Justice are in keeping with the objectives of the Community laid down in the EC Treaty and can only be based on the principles established in Community law, primary or secondary legislation, as interpreted by the Court of Justice through its case-law concerning, in particular, the exercising of basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

(1) Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0005/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Distribution and use of Community financial aid in the Auvergne region from 1994 to 2000

During the programming period 1994-2000 Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region benefited from Community aid and subsidies under the structural funds, and also under other Community programmes in the fields of culture, education, research, the environment, aid to SMEs and small industry, etc.

1. Can the European Commission say what programmes Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region benefited from during the 1994-2000 programming period?

2. Can the Commission say what sums were allocated to Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region and their beneficiaries each year between 1994 and 2000, if necessary making a distinction between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations?

3. Is the Commission satisfied with the implementation of appropriations under the various Community programmes in Clermont-Ferrand and the Auvergne region during the period 1994-2000?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Further to its answer of 29 January 2001(1), the Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/01

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Council

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Council statement on the Italian government deficit issued following the meetings of 2 and 3 May 1998

Several authoritative sources such as the Bologna-based Osservatorio Immobiliare Nomisma, Scenari Immobiliari, and the Milan-based Reddy's Group have revealed that the market value of fixed assets in the form of commercial and residential property in Italy has been continuing to fall substantially since 1993.

Although it does not lay down a specific method for calculating property values, as Mr Bolkestein acknowledged in his answer to Written Question P-0729/01(1), the Fourth Directive (Directive 78/660/EEC)(2) imposes an obligation to correct the initial book value of land and buildings when their value at on the date of closure of a financial year is lower than the book value first entered less depreciation.

Contrary to what happens in some Member States, for example the United Kingdom and Ireland, which each have their RICS, Italy has not adopted any official method, nor does it have an independent institute able and authorised to determine the revised value for tax purposes of land and buildings owned by individual companies. The fall in value described above cannot be recorded in the profit and loss account under the heading of other depreciation of fixed assets, because it is not recognised for tax purposes. The Fourth Directive has not, de facto, been implemented in Italy.

Ever since 1993 the taxable income of property-owing Italian companies has thus continued to be calculated in a manner not in accordance with the legislation in force (Article 2426 of the Code of Civil Law), and the amount of such income is, moreover, higher than their real earned income.

As a result, the tax levied since 1993 from national companies by Italian central government, on the current terms, is to some extent unlawful, and the aggregate tax revenue that could be attained if the situation were restored to a completely legal footing would be much lower than the declared amount, and the government deficit correspondingly higher.

Could the Council confirm that the statement issued following meetings held on 2 and 3 May 1998 (Ecofin) Council and Council of the European Union), to the effect that the Italian government deficit was not excessive, was made with full knowledge of the facts set out above?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 243.

(2) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11.

Reply

(26 November 2001)

The Council adopted the Decision of 3 May 1998 in accordance with Article 109 j (4) of the Treaty (98/317/EC) where it is stated that Italy was not subject of a Council decision on the existence of an excessive government deficit. This decision was adopted having taken into account, inter alia, the report from the Commission, the report from the European Monetary Institute and the opinion of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1982/01

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Wolf children

In rare cases wolf children, having been abandoned or run away from their parents, have been known to live in forests among animals which enable them to survive.

The most recent case involved a Chilean boy who was abandoned by his parents and found after living for ten years with a pack of stray dogs that had kept him alive on bitches' milk.

Scientific and political circles do not appear to have taken sufficient notice of such an exceptional phenomenon.

Given that, in the year 2001, such things must never ever be allowed to happen again and that Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the rights of the child, what attention is the Council bringing to bear on the matter and what humanitarian and economic assistance is it providing to the countries where cases occur, to ensure that they accept responsibility for them and prevent any repetition in the future?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

1. The Council has not had the opportunity to examine the question raised by the Honourable Member.

2. In the framework of its development cooperation policy and in close cooperation with the least developed countries, the Council has for several years implemented a number of policies and instruments to aid the development of those countries so that any repetition of cases such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member will be avoided.

3. More specifically as regards Chile, under the Regulation on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America, the European Union has implemented a cooperation mechanism covering financial and technical aspects as well as economic cooperation. This aid is intended principally for the least favoured sectors of the population of Chile. It is intended in particular for development of the rural sector and improvement of the level of food security, as well as development of the private sector (SMEs), protection of the natural resource environment and tropical forests, the fight against drugs, democratisation, effective public administration, protection of human rights, protection of women and children, aid to minority ethnic groups, economic cooperation with a structural impact on the economy, the development of sectoral policies and the development of national institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2372/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(28 August 2001)

Subject: Extraordinary operation to receive Chechen refugees living in inhuman conditions in both Chechnya and Ingushetia

In the wake of a recent decision by the German authorities on Chechen refugees requesting political asylum in Germany, all refugees who have been refused asylum-seeker status are to be deported to their country of origin. That decision follows a statement by the German Minister for the Interior considering fears of reprisals by Russian military and paramilitary forces against deportees to be unfounded. Consequently, the repatriation of people seeking political asylum is no longer to be deemed an anti-humanitarian act.

Nevertheless, numerous reports from Chechnya point to an extremely worrying humanitarian situation with a growing shortage of supplies and drugs, a lack of hospitals and outbreaks of epidemics. Even more seriously, a number of reports by the media and by NGOs speak of systematic and extremely severe acts of violence committed by Russian occupation forces, both military and paramilitary, and in particular the constant harassment of civilians living in the area, a large number of summary executions, widespread use of torture and abduction of civilians, including for purposes of extortion.

Can the Council provide information on the number of Chechens granted refugee status in each of the 15 EU member countries? Does the Council not believe that, in the face of the tragic humanitarian situation in Chechnya, the Union should launch an extraordinary operation along the lines of the action taken for Bosnia to receive all Chechen refugees living in inhuman conditions in both Chechnya and Ingushetia, who would be distributed fairly among the 15 Member States?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The Council has no information concerning the number of Chechens benefiting from refugee status in the Member States. It should be said that no distinction is made between asylum applicants according to their ethnic origin. Thus, it is the Russian Federation which would have to be considered as the country of origin of the applicants.

In the case in point, an extraordinary operation to receive refugees has not been initiated as neither the Member States nor the Commission have considered it necessary. It should be noted that no international organisation has called for it.

In this connection, it should be noted that on 20 July 2001 the Council adopted Directive 2001/55/EC on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof(1). The Member States will have to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2002 at the latest. It stipulates that the existence of such a mass influx is to be established by a Council Decision adopted on a proposal from the Commission, which will also examine any request by a Member State that it submits a proposal to the Council.

(1) OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12.