ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2321/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Legal certainty with regard to possession of a Netherlands passport

1. On 2 October 1997 Amsterdam municipal executive informed the father (a naturalized Netherlands national) of the 14-year old Jolanda Bona, a girl of Surinamese origin, as follows concerning her nationality and

passport: 'I therefore intend to delete the Netherlands nationality of Jolanda Letitia Bona from our personal records database and withdraw the Netherlands passport'. Does the Presidency realize that for Amsterdam municipal executive to delete Jolanda Bona's Netherlands nationality from the personal records database and withdraw the Netherlands passport issued to her on 9 September 1996 is unlawful under both national and international law and that European citizens' confidence in the rule of law and due legal process is being seriously damaged by the conduct of Amsterdam municipal executive?

2. Does not the Presidency agree that, quite apart from the question of whether unilateral withdrawal of a passport and/or deletion of nationality from the personal records database without the consent of the person concerned may have been legally correct, the measures adopted by Amsterdam municipal executive were unworthy of a European administrative body, even if mistakes had been made and needed to be rectified?

3. Does not the Presidency agree that the conduct of Amsterdam municipal executive is not an acceptable way of treating the interests and emotions of citizens - and in this case even of a 14-year-old child - in contemporary Europe?

4. Will the Presidency, on the basis of the confidence principle which European citizens may expect in a European state governed by the rule of law, consult with the parties concerned with the aim of reviewing the decision of the Amsterdam authority which, curiously enough, was taken on the instructions of the Netherlands State Secretary for Justice, and will it take into account the fact that the father and the two younger sisters of Jolanda Bona are being permitted to retain their Netherlands nationality and the passports issued to them on 9 September 1996, so that Jolanda Bona is the only member of the family who would be deported from the Netherlands?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2321/97 and E-2672/97 (20 January 1998)

Matters relating to the acquisition or loss of the nationality of a Member State of the European Union by any individual fall exclusively within the competence of the Member State in question. There are no legal instruments of the Community or of the European Union concerning such matters.

The Council cannot therefore comment on the questions put by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3236/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Commission and European Environment Agency (EEA)

The Commission is in fact involved in the administration of the EEA although in her Reply of 18 September 1997 to my question (E-2575/97) ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 109.)), Mrs BJERREGAARD, indicated that the Commission simply makes proposals regarding the overall budget and the agency staff complement which are entered in the preliminary draft budget of the EU each year.

In view of this:

1. Can the Commission give a breakdown of EEA staff by nationality?

2. How many auxiliary and temporary contracts at each level does the EEA intend to give in 1998 once the budget already submitted on its behalf by the Commission has been approved?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1997)

The Honourable Member will know that the European environment agency is an independent body over which the Commission has no direct control, and that responsibility for all agency staff matters, including recruitment, rests with the executive director of the agency who is accountable to the agency's management board. The

Commission is represented on the management board of the agency, but is not involved in the administration, functioning or operations of the agency. The Commission, therefore, has no competence in the area of staff recruitment to the agency and is not in a position to provide the information requested.

The Honourable Member may wish to consult Mr Scoullos (University of Athens) and Mr Wynne (Lancaster University), the two representatives of the Parliament on the agency's management board. Finally, it should also be recalled that the Parliament has the opportunity to comment on budgetary and staffing matters in the framework of the annual procedures to approve the budget of the agency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3062/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Emissions of organic compounds

With regard to the proposal for a Council directive on limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities (COM(96) 538 final - 96/0276 SYN) ((OJ C 99, 26.3.1997, p. 32. )), will the Commission take account of the economic impact of the proposal, which may be extensive for certain industrial sectors, undermining competitiveness and possibly reducing employment? Will it also say what effect the proposed measures will have on costs in the various regions and whether the criteria for the harmonization of these measures are justified given the different situations as regards air quality in the various regions of the Community?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

In drawing up its proposal for a Council Directive on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities, the Commission took great care to define the VOC emission requirements for the different industrial sectors falling within its scope. Various sectoral analyses indicated the potential for reducing VOC emissions in each sector through the use of best available techniques. The fullest account was taken of these technical and economic considerations in setting the emission limits and solvent consumption thresholds above which an installation falls within the scope of the Directive.

Furthermore, the proposal contains a number of flexibility parameters and an appropriate timetable to promote innovation by encouraging industry to develop and implement alternative solutions to the use of organic solvents.

The level of harmonisation opted for by the Commission is justified by the cross-border nature of ozone pollution. Nonetheless, the legal basis of the proposal (Article 130s of the EC Treaty) allows Member States who so wish to adopt more stringent protective measures than those laid down in this Directive.

The cost impact of the proposed measures will depend on the industrial structure of each region. The possibility for a Member State to implement the Directive by means of a national plan will enable any regional disparities to be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins

After having formally transmitted the above proposal (COM(97) 0247) ((OJ C 208, 9.7.1997, p. 5.)) to both the Parliament and the Council, it appears that the Commission have decided to consult the Scientific Committee for Toxicity and Eco-toxicity of Chemical Compounds regarding the health implications of the proposal to use a nickel allow in the 1 and 2 euro coins. It also appears that the Commission is financing further research in this area.

Given this:

1. Can the Commission give details of the additional research being carried out?

2. When does the Commission expect the results of the research to become available?

3. Will the Scientific Committee on Toxicity and Eco-toxicity of Chemical Compounds await the results of this research before reaching an agreement?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2896/97 and E-2897/97 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

When adopting the proposal, the Commission announced it would be revised in the light of the work of the scientific committee for the toxicity and ecotoxicity of chemical compounds on the risk arising from manipulating coins containing nickel.

The committee has now released its preliminary report which states that there is no evidence to suggest that current coinage is associated with the onset of sensitivity to nickel. On the basis of the very limited information available, the committee has concluded that a very few cases of allergies to nickel affecting either the general public or workers handling coins in a professional capacity, may have been caused by the release of nickel from coins in circulation. In the committee's opinion, it is unlikely that the new coins, even with a similar nickel release rate, would cause a greater risk.

The committee is now carrying out scientific tests to assess the nickel release rate of the new coins. The results of these tests should be available in the next few weeks.

However, regardless the results of these investigations, the Commission, decided, in its proposal, to minimise the nickel content of the new coins by using, when available, nickel-free alloys satisfying technical and security requirements, thereby reducing the overall nickel content in coins from the current 75% to 8%.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3149/97 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Misappropriated development aid

Which African countries have received development aid monies and other financial support and under which headings?

Will the Commission give a report evaluating development aid to Africa hitherto?

What proportion of this development aid money has been misappropriated or was not used for its destignated purpose?

What action did the Commission take in such cases?

Has the Commission taken action to reclaim misappropriated funds and funds not used for their designated purpose?

Is the Commission aware of the identity of those responsible for such misappropriation and/or or who have benefited from it?

If so, will the Commission communicate their names to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

As regards the development aid appropriations allocated by the Commission to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, the Honourable Member is referred to the information provided in the Commission's communication to the Court of Auditors, Parliament and the Council on the balance sheets and accounts of the sixth and seventh European Development Funds for the financial year 1996 ((SEC(97) 938 final. )).

A major evaluation is currently being made of all the development aid going to ACP countries and managed by the Community. The final summary report is expected towards mid-1998.

The Commission keeps a close watch on how appropriations are used to ensure that they are used for the agreed development objectives. A strategy which governs the aid to be provided is agreed with each country and agreement is followed by the signing of an indicative programme. Part of this programme involves identifying specific projects and approving their financing. Technical assistance may also be granted to recipient countries to help them manage the funds. Payments for projects are authorised by the Commission after the requisite documentation has been presented and checked. One of the points checked is whether the allocation and use of funds is in line with the project objectives and financing rules and this enables the Commission to act where fraud is suspected. Some cases of suspected fraud have been reported to the Commission's Unit for Coordination of Fraud Prevention and are now being examined.

The procedures governing the award of tenders (particularly in risk areas) are regularly reviewed and adjusted to the situation on the ground. To make this approach even more watertight, anti-corruption clauses are now included in the general terms and conditions and will also be included gradually in the financing agreements and cooperation contracts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Paedophilia incidents in Brussels

In view of the allegations of serious paedophilia incidents arising from the investigations being conducted at Clovis Nursery School, which is run by an Italian company and attended by children of EU officials, will the Commission seek to uncover the whole truth, bearing in mind that the grave offences in question, if they were proven to have occurred, would discredit the image and good name of all the Community institutions?

- Will it call upon the company running (or mismanaging) the Clovis school immediately to suspend the persons implicated?

- Will it expedite the inquiries under way and investigate whether there is an established international traffic in paedophile material?

- Will it break off all dealings with the company running the Clovis school until such time as the facts have been brought to light, the blame ascertained, and the inquiries concluded?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

In recent weeks certain newspapers have made much of alleged acts of pedophilia committed at a crèche attended by the children of European officials.

From the outset the Commission has endeavoured to act in the best interests of the children and parents directly concerned. The investigation of such incidents is a matter for the Belgian authorities rather than for the Commission itself and the case has in fact been in the hands of the Brussels Public Prosecutor's Office since June 1997. The Commission has made every effort to assist the judicial authorities with their enquiries, granting them access to the crèche premises as soon as this was requested. It has also asked the examining magistrate for any information he may be willing to release.

At a press conference held on 14 November 1997 the Public Prosecutor's Office confirmed that the Commission was fully cooperating and drew attention to the need for confidentiality, to ensure that the investigations in progress were not jeopardized and to meet the parents' legitimate concern for the protection of their children.

The Commission has tightened the checks which it makes on the quality of the staff employed by the company running the Clovis crèche, acting in accordance with the contract signed with this company in June 1995. It has asked the management of the crèche to take what precautions it can for the good of the children, pending the outcome of the investigations.

Suspension of the company's contract, which would mean at least a temporary cessation of activities at the Clovis crèche, would have to be given very careful thought, with due consideration for the safety of the children still attending the crèche, since the judicial authorities have not yet confirmed that any offence has been committed. The Commission has not received any suggestion or request that the contract should be suspended, neither from the parents' associations nor from the Belgian judicial authorities to whom it reported the parents' concerns.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3258/97 by Rosemarie Wemheuer (PSE) to the Council (21 October 1997)

Subject: Manufacture and export of instruments of torture

At the end of July 1997 the press indicated that Great Britain had adopted amended guidelines for worldwide trade in weapons manufactured in Britain. The export of instruments of torture is also forbidden.

1. In the individual Member States of the EU is there a definition of which goods in the broadest sense come are designated 'instruments of torture'?

2. In which Member States of the EU are instruments of torture produced and marketed?

3. Does the EU have a legal basis which can be used to prohibit the manufacture, marketing and, in particular, export of instruments of torture?

4. Were there joint European initiatives in the past in this area or are any European initiatives planned for the near future?

Answer (20 January 1998)

It is particularly difficult to define the instruments and products which be categorized as 'instruments of torture' because, depending on the circumstances, products and equipment designed for perfectly legitimate uses can be used as instruments of torture. This is no doubt the reason why no such definition appears in either the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1984 ((All the EU Member States have signed the Convention. Thirteen have ratified it. )), or the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the Council of Europe on 26 November 1987 ((All fifteen Member States of the Union are party to the Convention. )).

In the absence of a precise definition, the issue of the control of these products or instruments which, by their nature, do not appear on the reference list of dual-use goods covered by Community arrangements for export control on dual-use goods, and are not necessarily covered by Article 223 of the EC Treaty, has been examined on several occasions by the Council's Working Parties. Detailed investigations carried out in the past have confirmed that a number of Member States do, in fact, control exports of equipment the normal use of which is legitimate, but which could also be used to inflict torture, in particular electric irons and truncheons.

Active consideration of the problem is continuing in the Council's bodies, in order to determine the most appropriate way to control exports of these products in a coordinated manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

There have been reports that inquiries are currently under way at the Ispra JRC into a number of contracts concluded with outside firms on the grounds that, after advances - some of which were extremely large - had been paid, it emerged that those firms were incapable of carrying out the work or, worse still, did not even exist.

Can the Commission state whether the above is true and, if it is, say what action it intends to take against the officials who adopted such a careless approach to the award of contracts?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1997)

An official inquiry is currently under way at the Ispra Joint Research Centre to assess if rules relating to procedures on the award of contracts with external consultants have been complied with.

In the light of this, the Appointing Authority (AIPN) has decided at this stage to open disciplinary proceedings and to give the officials concerned a hearing, in accordance with Article 87 of the Staff Regulations.

The AIPN will take the necessary measures at the end of the proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Desirability of an EU ambassador to China and the ASEAN states

Can the Council confirm that it regards respect for human rights as an important instrument of foreign policy and in general as a means of promoting stability in the world?

Does the Council feel that there is a need to encourage respect for human rights simultaneously in Africa, Latin America and Asia?

Does the Council regard the enormous profits which EU countries are deriving from the rapid economic development of the markets in China and the ASEAN countries as a reason for attaching less importance to respect for human rights in that region?

Does the Council agree that neither the opinions of the Council nor Parliament's monthly resolutions concerning respect for human rights in those areas has resulted in a change in policy on the part of the governments in question?

On the basis of pragmatic considerations to promote stability in the region, will the Council give thought to whether a special EU ambassador to China and to the ASEAN countries might lead to an improvement in relations between the EU and the European Parliament and those countries and hence, indirectly, to more respect for human rights?

Answer (16 February 1998)

The Honourable Member of Parliament is correct in her analysis that the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the essential elements of the European Union's common foreign and security policy, based on article J.1 of the Treaty on European Union.

This principle is being applied by the Union worldwide. Thus, the European Union speaks out against violations of human rights wherever they may occur.

In order to further the promotion and protection of human rights in China and the ASEAN countries, the European Union is engaged in an ongoing human rights dialogue in many fora. With the Chinese authorities in particular, the European Union is engaged in a human rights dialogue at expert level since 1995. The latest such meeting took place on 1 and 2 December 1997 in Beijing. The EU tries to achieve tangible improvements in the human rights situation in China through a constructive dialogue and active cooperation in this field.

Finally, the Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the very positive initiatives being taken by a number of Member States to increase international awareness of human rights issues (seminars, congresses, exchanges of experts, etc).