ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Respect for the cultural identity of Pomaks and Roma

Approximately 120 000 Greek Muslims live in Greek Thrace. 50 % of those are ethnic Turks and the other 50 % consists of Pomaks and Roma. They exercise their religious rights unimpeded,

there are numerous mosques and a large body of clergymen, and the Greek State completely fulfills its obligations in that area, in total contrast to Turkey, which has wiped out the Christians of Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos, and constantly obstructs religious worship in the few remaining churches in that country.

The Greek State, however, for some totally inexplicable reason, refuses to allow the Pomaks and Roma to be taught at school the languages which they themselves have spoken for hundreds of years. While it is compulsory for Pomak and Roma children to be taught Turkish in schools in Greek Thrace, they attempt by every possible means to assert their own identity and their wish to be taught their own languages. In the case of the Pomak language, in particular, it is in widespread everyday use, has an alphabet and grammatical rules but, although reading material has been compiled for pupils by Pomak teachers, it remains unused because the Greek State insists on teaching only Turkish to young Pomaks.

In the Council's view, to what extent is the Greek authorities' policy of eradicating the Pomak and Roma languages in Greek Thrace and replacing them with Turkish consistent with the principles and objectives of the EU concerning respect for the linguistic and cultural diversity of minorities living on its territory? What practical measures could the Council take to persuade the Greek authorities to respect the linguistic identity of the Pomaks and Roma of Greek Thrace?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

Concerning the educational provision for minority languages within Greece or any other Member State the Honourable Member is reminded that Article 149 of the Treaty states that the Community shall fully respect the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. Similarly, as far as the field of culture is concerned, Community actions are limited to encouraging cooperation between the Member states and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action (Article 151 of the Treaty).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2132/01

by Renate Sommer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Conservation of ancient European trees

The EU has for several years been providing substantial funds to protect woodlands from destruction by fire or atmospheric pollution.

According to reports from a number of Member States, however, large stands - some hundreds of years old - are being legally and illegally cleared to make room for new industry or housing estates. This situation cannot be reconciled with the desire to halt the further depletion of wooded areas.

1. How might the Commission bring its influence to bear on the countries concerned to prevent other valuable growing trees being grubbed up?

2. What medium- and long-term plans does it have in place to promote reafforestation in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The United Nations report on forestry resources in the temperate and boreal countries [sic] (Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, ECE/FAO TBFRA 2000) shows that, in contrast to the situation in the United States and Canada, woodland has increased in all the Community's Member States over the past fifty years.

In the Community, regional planning and forestry policy fall within the competence of the Member States. The Commission is not able to object to the use of woodland for infrastructure or development activities unless the land is specifically protected under Community rules such as Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The Community not only encourages forest protection measures, it also supports Member States' investment measures under rural development policy aimed at preserving or improving the economic, ecological and social functions of forests and the afforestation of agricultural land.

The budget of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section, for 2002 earmarks 288 million of rural development money for supporting Member States' programmes to develop such forestry measures.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1744/01

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Public holidays

According to the German magazine Focus (21/2001), a European Commission table shows that EU officials do not work on 20 days in the year because of public holidays. This would mean they were at the top of the European table. Greece comes next, with 16 holidays, followed by Austria, with 15. The United Kingdom is at the bottom of the list, with 9 public holidays.

1. Is this true?

2. If so, how is it justified?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

According to Article 61 of the Staff Regulations, a list of public holidays is drawn up annually by agreement between the Institutions, after consulting the Interinstitutional Staff Regulations Committee and in accordance with the Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities (Article 1 thereof, see below) the text of which is annexed to the Staff Regulations.

The total number of public holidays for staff of the Institutions is generally 17 days, although this may occasionally be 18 or 19, as in 2001. These variations arise from the fact that the Institutions employing EU civil servants generally adopt the official public holidays of their host countries, but when such public holidays fall on a weekend, the days lost are not compensated for by an additional day of leave.

Article 1

1. The following shall be public holidays:

- New Year's Day: 1 January,

- Easter Monday,

- Labour Day: 1 May,

- The anniversary of the declaration made by President Robert Schuman in 1950: 9 May,

- Ascension,

- Whit Monday (Pentecost),

- Assumption: 15 August,

- All Saints' Day: 1 November,

- All Souls' Day: 2 November,

- Christmas Day: 25 December,

- and the national holidays of the countries in which officials are employed.

2. The following may be public holidays:

- Good Friday,

- Easter Saturday,

- Christmas Eve: 24 December,

- Boxing Day: 26 December,

- The afternoon of New Year's Eve: 31 December.

3. By special decision the institution may derogate from the rules laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/01

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(12 June 2001)

Subject: East Timor: lack of justice as regards sentences for murder

According to the international press, an Indonesian court has handed down prison sentences of between 10 and 20 months to six members of the militias which spread terror and murdered hundreds of civilians in Timor following the referendum of August 1999, and who have been shown to have been involved in the murders of three members of the United Nations staff, the American Carlos Casaeres, the Ethiopian Samson Aregahegn and the Croatian Peril Simundze.

Those three murders led to the evacuation of all staff involved in humanitarian and peace actions in the territory of East Timor and to widespread indignation and revulsion on the part of the international community.

Also according to reports in the international press, the above militia members showed no reaction on hearing the judgments against them and celebrated when their derisory sentences were announced, even posing for press photographers.

These sentences followed another case in which one of the main leaders of the anti-independence militias, Eurico Guterres, who has confessed to his involvement in massacres committed against civilians in the territory of East Timor, was sentenced to three months in prison.

In view of the aid granted by the European Union to the Indonesian Government to support the transition to democracy, and given that respect for and the protection of human rights in that country and the establishment of the rule of law is considered a vital ingredient for cooperation, can the Council say whether it has taken up a position vis-à-vis the Indonesian Government on the above sentences, which offend the memory of the victims and bear no relation to any universal notion of justice?

Will the Council maintain the current framework of cooperation with the Indonesian authorities?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Union made clear, in its declaration of 10 May, its deep disappointment at the judgements against the six persons involved in the killing of three international staff members of the UNHCR in Atambu, East Nura Tenggara in September 2000. The Council has not commented specifically on the other cases cited by the Honourable Member, but, in its conclusions of 14 May, it underlined the responsibility of the Indonesian Government to prosecute those who have violated human rights and international humanitarian law. It expressed concern that recent judgements did not seem to meet international standards of justice and fairness. At the same time, the Council reaffirmed its support for a strong, democratic, united and prosperous Indonesia. It encouraged the Government to strengthen further democracy and human rights. The Council remains committed to building a closer relationship with Indonesia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: The Apache people of San Carlos, Arizona, USA

For years now the San Carlos Apaches in Arizona have been waging an energetic campaign against the plans to build an astronomical observatory on the summit of a mountain sacred to them, Mount Graham.

Influential institutions in the United States, such as the Smithsonian Institute, have refused to take part in the project out of respect for the culture and religion of the indigenous population of North America.

Those taking part in building the observatory include the Vatican Observatory, the Arcetri Observatory of Florence and the Max Planck Institut in Germany.

1. Does the Commission know about any Community funding being received by the three above-mentioned institutes;

2. If so, how does it justify funding these bodies;

3. Does not the Commission consider that Community funds should not be used to finance institutions which does not respect other cultures and religions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

1. The Commission is not involved in the project to construct an astronomical observatory in Arizona (United States) and does not provide funding for this project via the three European Astronomy Research Institutes mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Out of these three institutes only the Max Planck Institute für Astronomie in Heidelberg is a partner in a thematic network on astronomy, which is funded under the specific Community Research Programme on improving the human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base.

2. It is not up to the Commission to take position on a research infrastructure project that does not meet the requirements of Community interest and is undertaken outside the Community co-operation framework.

3. The Commission provides Community Research funding to research projects which result from calls for proposals and which must not only fulfil the conditions of scientific excellence and Community-added value but which must also comply with fundamental ethical principles in conformity with Community law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Falsification of statistical data in Greece

Economic and social policy-makers in the European Union attach special importance to statistical data to acquire an accurate picture of the situation, to make comparisons between Member States, to monitor progress and to draw up guidelines.

This policy depends therefore on the consistency and reliability of the Member States' statistical services.

What action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis Greece where, in addition to the frequent delays and shortcomings in the gathering of statistical data on employment and unemployment among men and women, the National Statistics Service has recently been accused of falsifying data in this area?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The main source of statistical data on employment and unemployment in Greece is the labour force survey, which each Member State has to conduct pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community(1).

Greece supplied its most recent quarterly data to Eurostat six months later than stipulated by the Regulation (results relating to the third quarter of 2000 forwarded in June 2001). The quality checks carried out by Eurostat do not indicate any particular anomaly in these results.

If necessary, under Article 3(6) of the above-mentioned Regulation, the Commission may require Member States to provide detailed information on the criteria adopted for the design and size of the sample.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2090/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: The Sixth Framework Programme for Research in the EU

Why has research into diseases been scaled down under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, and why have certain diseases been left out of the programme altogether?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

The Commission does not envisage that disease-related research will be scaled down under the next Framework Programme compared to the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and technological development. The proposed budget should actually increase the amount of funding available for such research.

Disease-related research will be supported strongly in the Specific Programme Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area within all areas of the priority theme 1.1.1 Genomics and Biotechnology for Health.

In particular, the following will be addressed under the research priorities listed below:

(i) Fundamental knowledge and basic tools for functional genomics, tools and approaches will be developed, which will lead to a better understanding of and improved treatments for human disease.

(ii) Applications of genomics and biotechnology for health, genomics and advances in biotechnology will be exploited by supporting technological platforms for the development of new diagnostic, preventative and therapeutic tools, which will have implications for a wide range of diseases.

(iii) Applications in medicine and public health, there will be a concentration of efforts on cancer, cardiovascular disease, rare diseases and diseases of the nervous system. Furthermore, infectious diseases will be tackled by focusing on combating resistance to drugs.

(iv) Confronting the major communicable diseases linked to poverty, the three major communicable diseases, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis will be addressed in the context of poverty reduction in developing countries.

Disease-related research is also expected to be covered indirectly in the programme component Anticipating the Community's scientific and technological needs through actions aimed at supporting the Community public health strategy.

Disease-related research is also likely to benefit from the funding proposed for supporting the co-ordination of national research activities under the next Framework Programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1937/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Progress of Commission investigations into the outbreaks of legionella in Alcoy (Valencia region, Spain)

On 1 February 2001 the Commission informed the author of this question that, at her request, it had contacted the Spanish authorities to obtain information on the continuing outbreaks of legionella in Alcoy. In answer P-3913/00(1) the Commission recognises that Directive 80/778/EEC(2) on the quality of water intended for human consumption might have been breached.

Since then, the inhabitants of Alcoy have been hit by new outbreaks of legionella. There have been four such outbreaks since September 1999 and over 160 people have been affected. The latest was recorded on 26 May, although it has not been possible to identify the source.

According to experts such as Carlos Álvarez-Dardet, editor of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health and professor of public health at the University of Alicante, there is something wrong when a town is hit by four outbreaks of legionella in 20 months. The experts are particularly struck by the fact that most of those affected live in or frequent specific areas, and attribute the repeated outbreaks to negligence and mismanagement on the part of the relevant authorities.

Given this situation, opposition parties have called for the dismissal of the regional health minister and complained in the Spanish Parliament about the Valencian regional authorities' failure to act swiftly to put a stop to the outbreaks.

What progress has been made in the Commission's investigations into the outbreaks of legionella in Alcoy?

What urgent measures does it intend to take under Community law to impress upon the relevant authorities the need for effective action to combat the epidemic?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 34.

(2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 11.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

Following Written Question P-3913/00 by the Honourable Member, the Commission opened an own-initiative case, registered as number 2001/2048, to check that the Spanish authorities were applying Community law properly in this particular instance.

As part of its examination of the case, the Commission sent the Spanish authorities a letter asking them to comment on the situation reported by the Honourable Member and so that it might determine whether Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(1) was applicable in this instance.

A reply has just been received from the Spanish authorities, and the Commission is now examining it. Accordingly, it would be premature to draw any conclusion regarding the possibly incorrect application of Community law in this particular case. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of its examination.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1895/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Non-disbursement of appropriations under the second CSF for Greece

What is the amount of appropriations made available to Greece under the second CSF which have not yet been disbursed? Which specific programmes are concerned and what are the reasons for the delay?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Commission has paid all instalments to Greece for all operational programmes (OPs) of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework, with the exception of the final instalments for 1999, for which the Greek authorities have not yet presented their payment requests.

These final payment requests must be presented to the Commission after the OPs closure by the Member States and must be submitted with the final execution reports for each OP. In the vast majority of cases, they are submitted after the deadline for payments to the final beneficiaries, which in this case is the end of 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1409/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: China's status as a developing country

In the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of the communication Building a comprehensive partnership with China(1), the Commission describes China as unique for a developing country in that it has enjoyed unprecedented growth, which has brought prosperity to many areas. China has also become a donor of development aid donor to other countries in Asia.

Does the Commission consider that China has - and must retain - the status of a developing country, in the light (inter alia) of its accession to the WTO?

(1) COM(2000) 552.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

As explained in the Commission's September 2000 Report on the implementation of the 1998 Communication Building a Comprehensive Partnership with China(1), China is unique for a developing country: it does not have all the characteristics of a developing country, but neither does it have all the qualities of a developed country.

In the context of World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession, the Commission's approach has been to consider whether China should qualify for developing country status for each sector in which case it should enjoy the benefits foreseen by the WTO Agreement.

(1) COM(2000) 552 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1395/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Cancellation of March call for TEN telecom projects

Could the Commission explain the cancellation of the March call for TEN telecoms projects (for submission in June)? What arrangements have been made for the dispersal of the 2001 budget in light of this cancellation? What arrangements will be made for further calls for projects in 2001?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Unlike in 1999 and 2000, there was no call for proposals foreseen for TEN-Telecom for March 2001 with closing date in June. Instead an earlier call was launched in October 2000 (2001 budget) with deadline of 29 January 2001 in order to avoid the rush at the year end for the corresponding budget commitment. Two calls for proposals are still foreseen for 2001, one with closing date 7 September (partly to commit the remaining budget 2001 and part of the 2002 budget) and another one to be launched end of October 2001 with closing date at the end of January 2002 (remaining part of 2002 budget).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1696/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Possible South Pacific Whale Sanctuary

Can the Commission state whether it will be supporting the creation of a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission this July, and does the Commission have any evidence that one reason for the defeat of the proposal at the meeting of the IWC in 2000 was the promise of aid by Japan to the representatives of eastern Caribbean States, who voted, with Japan, against the creation of the sanctuary?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is the only competent organisation regarding the conservation and management of whale stocks. It has 41 members, among which there are eleven Community countries (all excepting Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal).

The Community itself is not a member to the IWC. For this reason, the Commission has so far refrained from interfering in the work of this organization.

The Commission is not in a position to judge the reasons leading sovereign states to adopt or reject proposals in international fora in which the Community does not participate.