ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2460/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Use of force against Italian journalists

On Sunday, 2 July 2000 final in Rotterdam, Holland, a disturbing incident occurred involving an Italian television crew. The crew, consisting of three journalists and four technicians, were filming the antiquated barriers at the stadium, which had to be negotiated by a group of 140 Italian disabled persons who were attending the match in Rotterdam. Suddenly, the crew were prevented from filming the scene and were forcibly removed by stewards. The police then intervened, using violence against the journalists, injuring one of them (the whole scene was filmed by television cameras) and eventually arresting the whole crew.

1. Does the Council not agree that this was a violent reaction on the part of the Dutch authorities in seeking to cover up the shortcomings of the stadium as regards facilities for the disabled?

2. Does the Council not consider that this was a scandalous act of intimidation and censorship against the press?

3. Does the Council not believe that, in the light of these incidents, freedom of the press is far from being achieved in all countries of the Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2460/00 and E-2487/00

(7 November 2000)

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not fall within the sphere of competence of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(3 August 2000)

Subject: Asylum seekers

Will the Council please indicate the number of people claiming asylum in each Member State in each of the last five years and the proportion that have so far been granted asylum in each case?

Will the Council please state what proportion of asylum seekers in each year over the last five years come from countries with actual or recent histories of civil conflict?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

With regard to statistics relating to asylum matters, the Council would refer the Honorable Member to the regular bulletins published by Eurostat and also to the excellent statistics published by UNHCR and available on its Internet site at www.unhcr.ch.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2892/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Infringement of freedom of opinion and human rights in Italy

Dr. Giuseppe Segato, born in Borgoricco (PD) on 17 June 1954, has been sentenced to three years and seven months' imprisonment for subversion because he aided and abetted the group which, on 9 May 1997, peacefully occupied the bell-tower in St. Mark's Square in Venice with a view to demanding self-government for the Veneto.

In Italy, provisions such as Article 241 of the criminal code, dating back to Mussolini's Fascist dictatorship, are still in force. These provisions stipulate that those who peacefully pursue by political means the independence of part of the present-day Italian Republic shall be punished by imprisonment.

Can the Commission ascertain whether the behaviour of the Italian judges, in this as in other cases, is not in open breach of the right to freedom of opinion which is the cornerstone of all democracies, as well as of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union?

Does the Commission not believe that the articles of the Italian criminal code, known as Rocco, and in particular those dealing with so-called crimes of opinion and perpetrators of attacks on the unity of the State, dating back to the Fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini and still in force today, violate the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law enshrined in the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

It is not for the Commission to scrutinise judges' decisions, which are assessed by the competent bodies in the legislative and judicial systems of the Member States. In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, these are the competent appeal judge and the Court of Cassation.

Nor is it for the Commission to rule on whether the articles of the Italian criminal code are compatible with the EC Treaty. Criminal law is a matter for the Member States, and it falls to the Court of Justice to judge whether Community law has been breached.

If the individual referred to by the Honourable Member considers himself to have been the victim of an infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights, he should take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However, all domestic legal remedies must first have been exhausted, and the appeal must be lodged within six months of the final decision being handed down in the Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE), Elena Paciotti (PSE) and Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Trade in human organs removed from persons sentenced to death in the People's Republic of China

In a report from Malaysia published on 15 June 2000 in the International Herald Tribune, the respected journalist Thomas Fuller describes how in the People's Republic of China trade in organs removed from young persons sentenced to death and summarily executed is continuing under the most inhuman conditions and in Malaysia alone more than a thousand patients have travelled to Chinese state clinics and obtained kidney transplants at prices ranging from USD 10 000 to 12 000. According to Fuller, the methods used for the executions a pistol shot to the back of the neck makes these transplants particularly desirable as the organs removed are not damaged. These barbaric practices, which apparently include choosing the victim and date of an execution to meet the

demand for organs, have previously been documented and condemned by Human Rights Watch, humanitarian organisations and international bodies. These appalling practices, of which rich European patients have apparently also taken advantage, were condemned in a European Parliament resolution of 14 May 1998 (Resolution B4-0496/98)(1), which called on the Commission and Council to make representations to the People's Republic of China with a view to ending the trade in human organs.

1. As a supporter of China's entry into the World Trade Organisation, albeit subject to the human rights clause, does the Council not think that the sense of horror generated throughout the world by these inhuman practices is a serious obstacle to any further normalisation of relations with the People's Republic of China?

2. Will the Council specify what measures it has taken or intends to take vis-à-vis the authorities of the People's Republic of China, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation to end the trade in human organs removed from persons sentenced to death?

3. Will the Council inform the European Parliament what has been done to implement the measures called for in its resolution of 14 May 1998 and with what results?

(1) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 224.

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The Council is aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member. The Union systematically expresses its concerns on human rights in China, in particular at the dialogue sessions on human rights between China and the EU. Our concerns include the excessive use of the death penalty in China. The Council certainly takes account of the pertinent resolutions of the European Parliament in adopting its positions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2442/00

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

(19 July 2000)

Subject: Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou's visit to Turkey

For Turkey to move from being a candidate country to a full member of the European Union, it must meet the relevant democratic requirements, outstanding amongst which is recognition and respect for the cultural and national identity of the Kurdish people. How much discussion does this major and indeed crucial problem receive at the preparatory meetings which members of the Commission are holding with Turkey, and specifically at the recent meetings held by Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou, and earlier meetings held by Commission Günter Verheugen?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2000)

The Honourable Member rightly indicates that Turkey among others has to comply with the political criteria for membership as defined by the Copenhagen European Council, which includes the respect for and protection of minorities.

The Commission has reported its views on the development of these matters in Turkey (regular reports of 1998 and 1999) and will continue to do so in the framework of the 2000 report which will be issued in November. A first accession partnership will be published at the same time.

Exchanges of view on these issues take place on a regular basis and at different levels with the Turkish authorities. Lately, this was the case during the visits to Turkey of the Commissioner responsible for Employment (22-24 June 2000) and the Commissioner responsible for Enlargement (13/14 July 2000).

The Commission is also in dialogue with international organisations, non-governmental organizations and others to discuss developments in Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Night-vision equipment for high-speed craft

Is the Commission aware of the loophole in the IMO specification for High-Speed Craft that could lead to a situation where a high-speed passenger vessel could operate legally without night-vision equipment because of the definition of a high-speed craft that is concerned with hull design rather than with navigational safety at high speed?

Does the Commission have any proposals to address this problem?

Does it agree that the relevant Directives should be amended along the lines of the Hong Kong Maríne Department's decision to impose a blanket requirement for all craft operating at 25 knots or more at night to carry approved night-vision equipment?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The carriage of night-vision equipment is covered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) high speed craft (HSC) code, adopted by the Maritime safety committee in 1994. On 1 January 1996 this code became mandatory for HSC engaged on international voyages. Passenger high speed craft constructed on or after this date operating on domestic voyages have also to comply with this code through Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships(1).

The relevant provision in the HSC code stipulates that When operational conditions justify the provision of night vision enhancement equipment, such equipment should be fitted. This means that it is the responsibility of the Flag State to decide whether or not such equipment should be fitted in function of the prevailing nautical conditions on the route where the high speed craft is operating.

Considering the large variety of sea areas and nautical conditions in Community waters, and bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission has no intention at present to propose additional measures.

As regards the measures taken by the authorities of Hong Kong, these have to be seen in light of the conditions prevailing in those waters.

(1) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/00

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

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Peoples

What is the Council's interpretation of peoples, within the meaning of Articles 151, 189 and 190 of the EC Treaty? In the case of the Spanish State, does it correspond to that which the Spanish Constitution recognises as nationalities?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty is not within the Council's competence.

The Council recalls the principle established by the Court of Justice whereby the interpretation of Community law cannot depend on national law. The terms of any provision of Community law that makes no express reference to the law of the Member States to determine its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous interpretation, which should be sought by taking account of the context of the provision and of the objective aimed at by the regulations in question. If there is no express reference to the law of the Member States, Community law may, if applicable, entail reference to the law of the Member States only when the Community judge is unable to detect in Community law or the general principles thereof a basis enabling him to clarify the content and scope of a Community provision through autonomous interpretation (CFI, judgment of 18 December 1992, Diaz Garcia/Parliament, case T-43/90, ECR p. II-2619).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2695/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Cyprus

1. What is the Commission's estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support policies were extended to Cyprus on its accession to the EU,

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2690/00, E-2691/00, E-2695/00, E-2699/00, E-2700/00 and E-2701/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from the accession to the Community of Poland, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, the terms and conditions of the accession of these countries to the Community. These aspects will have to be defined in the accession negotiations with these countries, the agricultural chapter of which was opened for negotiation in June 2000. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of a hypothetical, speculative and uncertain nature. At the present state of the negotiating process the Commission is, therefore, not in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/00

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

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Aid to the film industry

In the era of binary coding, the developments in technology and in the services offered by digitalisation are such as to require not only a review of the legislation such as that regulating the audiovisual sector in Directive 89/552/EEC(1) (which will come under review again before the end of 2002), but also the drawing-up of a new directive on film making. Pending an exhaustive Commission study into the latter's utility and potential, what means is the Commission using at the present time to boost and better coordinate existing assistance for the film industry on the European internal market?

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission recognises the importance of European cinema, and the need to strengthen the competitiveness of the European audiovisual industry. This objective lead to the adoption of the MEDIA and the MEDIA II Programme, which entered into force in January 1996 and provides for a series of support measures dealing with the training of professionals; the development of production projects and companies; the distribution of cinematographic works and audiovisual programme.

In December 1999, the Commission adopted its proposal for a programme in support of the audiovisual industry called MEDIA PLUS (2001-2005)(1), to be introduced in 2001 as a follow-up to the MEDIA II programme which ends on 31 December 2000.

In parallel with this initiative, the Commission announced that it intended to adopt a communication on cinema, in which it would look at various aspects of the subject, including the definition of a European work, and other issues, which can improve the circulation of movies. The Commission will launch a public consultation once the communication has been adopted, and welcomes all written comments and suggestions. One or more hearings will also be held to allow all interested parties to make their views known.

In respect of national support systems, the Commission's role is to verify that these schemes are in line with Community law.

(1) COM(2000) 658 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: The impact of long-line fishing upon seabirds

Recent reports have highlighted the threat of long-line fishing to certain species of seabirds such as albatrosses. In the light of Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds and the July 1999 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, entitled: Fisheries Management and Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment, can the Commission outline what action it is taking, or plans to take, to counter the impact of long-line fishing upon seabird populations?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3268/00, E-3378/00 and E-3379/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

Until now most of the concerns expressed to the Commission have referred to the incidental catches of seabirds in the Southern Hemisphere oceans. The Commission is gathering information on the extent to which this issue constitutes a real problem within Community waters.

As part of this approach, Commission has requested the International council for the exploration of the sea to provide information and advice on the pressures that fishing activity exerts on marine environment and, more particularly, on non-commercial species. Finally the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-3126/00(1) by Mr Davies.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 190.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3022/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Need to standardise the colour of the lights on emergency vehicles in the Community

In Spain the colour of the lights on emergency vehicles has not so far been brought into line with the colour used in other Community countries, where such lights are blue. This means that

priority and emergency services such as the fire brigade and the ambulance service have lights of the same amber colour as, for example, the refuse collection service or slow-moving vehicles, with blue being reserved solely for the police. This state of confusion causes traffic problems for emergency vehicles and even places the general public at risk.

In October 1995 and May 1996 the Federation of European Fire Officers' Associations urged the Spanish authorities responsible for road traffic to revise its rules concerning the lights used on emergency vehicles, whilst the Spanish Firemen's Association has made repeated representations to those same authorities, calling for Spain to bring itself into line with other European countries by equipping priority vehicles with blue flashing lights instead of amber ones. The Directorate-General for Civil Defence has also agreed that there is a need for harmonisation with the other countries of the EU.

So far, the Spanish authorities responsible for road traffic have argued that not all the sectors affected wish to see amber flashing lights replaced by blue ones on priority vehicles. However, this has been denied by the leaders of the Spanish Firemen's Association and in successive statements made by the above-mentioned parties involved.

In the absence of specific EU rules governing this issue, does the Commission not think that, in the interests of greater public safety, the colours of the emergency lights on priority vehicles should be the same throughout the EU Member States?

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

It is true that at present there is no directive for the harmonisation throughout the Community of the type-approval of special light equipment on certain vehicles.

However, Regulation No 65 of the UN Economic Commission for Europe provides a response to this concern, laying down technical provisions on the type-approval of special warning equipment such as flashing and revolving lights.

The Community has not approved this regulation because of the Member States' wish to retain the option of regulating the technical specifications and use of such equipment, especially for law enforcement vehicles.

Should there be any change in this desire, however, the Community could well plan to adopt the regulation and harmonise the equipment of emergency vehicles in order to distinguish them from slow-moving vehicles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1609/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Microcredit

Following Commissioner Nielson's commitment to focus on policy in the field of microcredit, can the Commission please explain what action has been taken in this area since the new Commission started its work?

How is the Commission ensuring that the proceedings of applications for microcredit funding is swift and efficient?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1547/00 and E-1609/00 given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The Community plays an active role in financing activities in this field. A survey carried out last year estimated that 214 million were committed for projects in microfinance, including activities carried out by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) during 1995-1999. This is, however, an estimate. The figure may be significantly higher because microcredit is an integrated part of many different activities, especially in rural development projects and women targeted activities. As to the actual spending on an annual basis, the Commission is unfortunately at this stage not able to report a concise figure.

The Commission approach is going through a process of revision. Based on evaluations of interventions in the field of micro-credit, the Commission has started a process of rethinking its previous approaches. This followed the ongoing debate in the donor community on the so called microfinance revolution. It published in 1998 a communication to the Council and the Parliament on microfinance and poverty reduction(1) and methodological guidelines.

This new approach underlines the importance to address in a more integrated, sustainable way the different financial needs of the majority, and not only the credit dimension previously emphasised in micro-credit schemes. In the past this dimension often led to inefficient interventions, market distortions and the spreading of the culture of indebtedness, without significant, sustainable impact in terms of poverty reduction. In this new perspective, particular attention should be devoted to the institutional strengthening and capacity building of microfinance institutions and NGOs presently dealing with microfinance, to support their process of professionalisation and institutionalisation.

Finally, the overall reform package adopted by the Commission on 16 May for the management of external aid is expected to have a positive influence on the efficiency and speed with which financing decisions, including those concerning micro credit, can be processed.

(1) COM(98) 527 final.