ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2841/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Irregularities in the tender procedure regarding computerization of the Italian Ministry for Education

Article 85 of the Treaty stipulates that: 'The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market'.

In Written Question P-1972/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 132.)), the Commission's attention was drawn to a situation which might constitute a breach of Article 85, namely the award by the Italian Ministry for Eduction of a contract for the computerization of its services worth 640 billion lire to a temporary consortium consisting of EDS Electronic Data Systems Italia SpA and Ferrovie dello Stato SpA (Italian State Railways).

By selling off the company Telesistemi Ferroviari in August 1996 while the tender procedure was in progress, Ferrovie dello Stato SpA would seem to have lost its operational capacity in the IT sector, thus casting doubt on its ability to meet the tender requirements. This matter was raised in the opinion delivered by the State Legal Advisory Office in December 1996, which ruled that the consortium was unfit to take part in the tender procedure.

The award of the contract to a consortium deemed unfit to take part in the tender procedure would suggest that the rules of competition have been breached.

In the light of the above considerations, will the Commission say:

1. Whether the sole purpose of the temporary consortium comprising EDS and FS was to bid for the contract in question and whether this fact might have a bearing on the Commission's decision regarding a possible breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty?

2. Whether it considers the temporary consortium fit to take part in the tender procedure?

3. What response it has received from the Italian authorities regarding compliance with the rules on public contracts and what its views are on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1997)

The agreement in question was not notified to the Commission, which is therefore unable to form an opinion as to its compatibility with Article 85 of the EC Treaty. However, the fact of forming a partnership with another company to help in obtaining a public contract would not in itself constitute a breach of the prohibition laid down in that article.

Shortly after answering written question P-1972/97 from the Honourable Member, the Commission received a complaint about the public service contract for the computerisation of the Italian Ministry for Education. On the basis of information supplied by the complainant, the Commission is in the process of drafting a letter to the Italian authorities asking specific questions about the award procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (28 July 1997)

Subject: Acts of brutality committed in Somalia by soldiers from EU Member States

According to international press reports, soldiers from EU Member States taking part in the multinational force of twenty-one states under the aegis of the UN committed unprecedented and inhuman acts of violence and torture against the civilian population of Somalia.

The purpose of this force was supposed to be to protect and help the people of this African country ravaged by civil war, but the charges levelled against it - torture, executions of women and children and brutal beatings - strongly suggest that the behaviour of soldiers from certain Member States was far removed from the image European states should be projecting in today's world.

Will the Council say how it intends to react to these reports of unprecedented acts of brutality by soldiers from Member States (and notably, founding members) of the Union, acts which have dealt a devastating blow to its prestige as a whole and which give its declarations about 'protecting of human rights' a hollow ring?

Answer (13 November 1997)

The question put by the Honourable Member does not fall within the purview of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Opening of part of Syria's border with Iraq

1. Has Syria - which is an important player in the peace process in the Middle East and a partner in the EU's Mediterranean policy - given the UN and the EU guarantees that it will not transport, or supply in any other way, via the recently opened section of its border with Iraq militarily strategic equipment or components, including those which can be used to make bacteriological weapons?

2. Did the Commission stipulate, during the talks on the financial agreements worth ECU 31 million for telecommunications, promoting tourism and protecting the cultural heritage, that Syria's involvement in the production of drugs in the Beqa-a valley (estimated at a street value of two billion guilders) should cease forthwith?

3. If not, how do the Council and Commission think they can explain to the people of Europe the grant of ECU 31 million, given that such drugs are sent via Syria and Turkey to undermine the health of the young peopled of the EU?

4. Why has the Council still not forwarded to Parliament the report evaluating human rights in Syria? Is there something in it that needs to be concealed?

Answer (17 November 1997)

1. The Council expects Syria to respect all UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq.

2. and 3. The distinguished Member of the European Parliament should refer her question to the Commission which is responsible for implementing the financial assistance to Syria. Projects on telecommunications and the development of tourism were presented to the MED Committee in September and May 1996. However the Commission is still carrying out negotiations with the Syrian authorities on the framework Agreement defining the overall arrangements for the implementations of the MEDA programme in Syria. Pending the conclusion of these negotiations, the implementation of projects has not taken place.

4. Within the framework of the EC-Syria Cooperation Agreement, the Council raises questions related to reinforcement of democracy and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. At the latest meeting of the Cooperation Council in 1996 the EU noted with satisfaction the improvements recorded in Syria concerning respect for human rights, expressing however the belief that further progress was necessary.

It is the Commission, not the Council, which has been asked to report to the Parliament on the human rights situation in Syria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (16 September 1997)

Subject: Death of Rev. Yusefi in Iran, September 1996

Can the Council provide information on what action it has taken following the murder of Rev. Yusefi, a pastor of the Iranian Assemblies of God, in Iran in September 1996?

Is the Council aware that Rev. Yusefi was possibly murdered simply because of his Christian beliefs? Does this not constitute an abuse of human rights?

Answer (26 November 1997)

Mohammad Yusefi, who converted to Christianity at the age of 24 and who pastored Christian congregations in Iran, was found dead on 28 September 1996 near his home city of Sari, in Mazandaran province. Reports about the circumstances surrounding his death suggested that he might have been murdered and several persons were detained for questioning. The Iranian authorities however maintain that Mr Yusefi had committed suicide and that neither the church to which he belonged nor Mr Yusefi himself had any problem with the Iranian authorities.

The European Union raised the case of Mr Yusefi with the Iranian authorities in the framework of the EU-Iran Critical Dialogue, which until April 1997 served as a framework for raising inter alia human rights issues with Iran.

The Union and its Member States furthermore play an active part in the work of the UN Human Rights Commission and of the Third Committee at the UN General Assembly, the principal fora for addressign the human rights situation in Iran.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2971/97 by Michael Hindley (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Gulf Cooperation Council Delegation

Given the enormous importance of our trade with the GCC states, does the Commission have any intention to set up a delegation in the GCC states?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (27 ctober 1997)

The Commission keeps its network of delegations under constant review. The Commission is fully aware of the growing importance of the relations between the Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States. In this context, the opening of a delegation in Riyadh remains one of the Commission's objectives. However, no new delegation can be opened without the necessary resources being made available, either by redeployment of existing resources or by budgetary reinforcement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2925/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (16 September 1997)

Subject: US training for Rwandan army

The French newspaper Le Monde (August 28th 1997) has reported that the US army is providing combat and guerilla warfare training to the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan army. Le Monde has claimed to have seen a Pentagon report confirming this matter.

The military training programme appears to have begun in 1994. Nine US military instructors are currently training 60 Rwandan officers, according to the report.

The Rwandan army has been accused of massacring hundreds of thousands of Hutus in eastern Zaire.

Has the Council made any representations to the US authorities about this report? Does it believe this military cooperation may have breached the UN-imposed arms embargo on Rwanda in any way? What action does the Council plan to take on this matter?

Answer (21 November 1997)

The Council is following the situation in the Great Lakes Region closely and has expressed its concern following allegations of massacres in Zaire, the present Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Union has urged the Congolese authorities to hold a United Nations enquiry which is allowed to carry out its task without hindrance in order to determine the facts and those responsible.

The Council has not received any reports concerning the facts alleged in the press and referred to by the Honourable member. It has not therefore approached the US Authorities on this matter.

Regarding a possible breach of the UN-imposed arms embargo on Rwanda, the Council would draw attention to Resolutions 918 (1994), 1011 (1995) and 1053 (1996) of the United Nations Security Council. Resolution 918 of 16 May 1994 provided that all States were to prevent the sale or supply to Rwanda of arms and related matériel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary police equipment and spare parts. It referred only to equipment and not to military training. Resolution 1011 of 16 August 1995 lifted the sanctions in Resolution 918 in the case of sales or supplies to the Government of Rwanda. In Resolution 1053 of 23 April 1996, the Security Council declared its resolve to ensure full application, in accordance with its Resolution 1011 (1995), of the ban on the sale or supply to non-governmental forces of arms or related matériel intended for use in Rwanda.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2477/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Natura 2000

1. Are the lists and information about the Natura 2000 sites to be made public? If they are (as we hope), how is the Commission going to protect endangered species from being threatened by illegal commercial interests and souvenir hunters?

2. One of the main problems is that landowners at local level are afraid that getting on the Natura 2000 list means a dead hand over their property. How is the Commission going to explain to the local level how the directive works?

3. The budget line for LIFE was allocated only MECU 450, even though Parliament went down from its original demand for MECU 800 in the first reading to MECU 600. As a compromise, it was decided that the budget line would be revised in 1997 in order to see if more money was needed, and in that case discuss the budget again. How is the actual demand on the budget line, and is the Commission considering how more resources should be made available for LIFE?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

1. The Natura 2000 network will be set up in three phases. The Member States will propose sites; the Commission will adopt the list of sites of Community importance, in agreement with the Member States; the Member States will designate these sites as special areas of conservation. During the first phase, now under way, it falls to each biogeographical region to determine the list of selected sites together with their geographical coordinates.

In exceptional cases, where to make information public could compromise the aim of conserving a species, the Member State concerned sends that information to the Commission only in printed form. The relevant data is not entered into a computer.

2. Responsibility for dialogue with each landowner involved lies with the Member States. For its part, the Commission tries to inform the various socio-economic groups and representational bodies about the creation of the Natura 2000 network and its practical implications. In particular, it publishes an information letter, which reaches a wide audience.

3. Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (Life) ((OJ L 181, 20.7.1996. )) provided a reference amount of ECU 450 million for the period 1996-99. Annual amounts have to fit in with the limits of the financial perspective.

Article 7(3) of the Regulation stipulates that the reference amount is to be examined by the Council before 31 December 1997 on the basis of a report to be forwarded by the Commission before 30 September 1997.

At this stage, and in view of the tight nature of the current financial perspective, the Commission does not envisage asking for the reference amount laid down in the Regulation to be increased.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3241/97 by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Objective 1 regions

On 16 July 1997 the European Commission published its 'Agenda 2000', outlining the prospects for the European Union at the beginning of the next century.

These prospects included a chapter devoted to the reform of the Structural Funds, in which the Commission envisages reducing the number of priority objectives from 7 to 3.

It is proposed that after 1999 Objective 1 will apply strictly and invariably to the regions whose GDP is less than 75% the Community average.

However, for the regions which are currently under Objective 1 and after 1999 will exceed 75% of Community GDP, there will be a transitional phase of support, i.e. a mechanism for gradually withdrawing the aid provided under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds.

In view of this, can the Commission:

1. specify what exactly this gradual withdrawal mechanism will consist of;

2. if not, say when will it provide information about the mechanism?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

For the selection of the regions to eligible under Objective 1 in 2000-06, the Commission is proposing a strict application of the criterion that their per capita gross domestic product must be less than 75% of the Community average. The regions currently eligible under Objective 1 which have a per capita GDP higher than this threshold will receive gradually decreasing transitional assistance over a lengthy period. This transitional support under Objective 1 will, however, need to come to an end before the expiry of the 2000-06 programming period so that the goal of greater geographical concentration which has been recommended by the Commission can be achieved by 2006.

The Commission will be detailing the practical procedures to be followed under this transitional system in the course of 1998, as part of the discussions on the new Structural Fund regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2582/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Internet

Are you aware that the Internet provider Xs4All has decided to ban from its Internet services any material containing child pornography?

Is it technically and legally feasible to get all providers on the Internet to take such action, and is the Commission prepared to take such a measure, should it prove possible?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

There is no legal or technical difficulty for Internet service providers in following the action of the Dutch service provider in removing child pornography from its own servers.

The publication of child pornography is illegal in all Member States, whatever the means by which it is distributed, including Internet. Illegal content must be dealt with at source by law-enforcement agencies. The industry can help reduce circulation of illegal content through properly-functioning systems of self-regulation (such as codes of conduct, establishment of hot-lines) in compliance with and supported by the legal system.

Third-party content hosting services should not be expected to exercise prior control on content which they have no reason to believe is illegal. Where they are aware of such content, including child pornography, they should take steps to remove it.

The fight against child pornography on the Internet requires co-operation between all concerned at national, European and international level, since such content may be placed in circulation in any country which is nconnected to the Internet. The Commission is actively engaged with the other institutions and Member States in promoting effective action in this area but cannot act as a substitute for national law enforcement agencies. Links to all relevant documents can be found at http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/internet.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3354/97 by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission (15 October 1997)

Subject: Structural aid for Central and Eastern Europe under Agenda 2000

The Commission has given repeated assurances that countries other than Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia also have an opportunity to be included in the first round if they develop rapidly and move closer to the requirements laid down for EU members. This was said, for example, by Commission President Jacques Santer in answer to my question at Parliament's July part-session in Strasbourg.

This being so, it is strange that the Commission should be proposing to grant ECU 38 billion of structural aid to the above five countries, while only ECU 7 billion is to be given to the countries that must wait outside in the first round.

Such an allocation of funding serves only to confirm the suspicion that the countries are divided up into those that have and that shall be given more and those that have not and that shall be given less. This 'St Matthew' principle is both unfortunate and unreasonable and will send the wrong signals to those countries that have most need of being kept on track for democracy and the market economy.

Does the Commission consider this allocation to be appropriate, is it contemplating altering it and will it itself be forwarding amended proposals to Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

The Commission has always maintained that enlargement is a comprehensive process embracing all applicant countries and that it includes the opening of accession negotiations with those countries according to the progress made by each of them in terms of compliance with the criteria for accession laid down by the Copenhagen European Council. In the reports which it has undertaken to prepare annually, the first being due at end-1998, the Commission will recommend that the Council should open negotiations with every country which the Commission believes meets those criteria.

With regard to the amount of funding, the Commission does not share the Honourable Member's view, in that total preaccession aid under Agenda 2000 ((Doc. COM (97) 2000 final. )) is ECU 21 000 million, which on an annual-average basis is twice the level expected in 1999.

In addition, preaccession aid for those countries which must still wait outside - in the terms used by the Honourable Member - would appear to be quite substantial: as a percentage of their gross domestic product it easily bears comparison with that for the other applicant countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: World trade and protection of animals

At present the WTO provisions do not permit any differentiation on the basis of criteria which are not demonstrable in the final product. For the protection of animals such non-product related process and production methods - e.g. breeding and rearing conditions, methods of capture or use of animals in testing vaccines - are however essential.

1. To what extent can this provision be brought together with the protection concerns in Article XX? Is it even possible in animal protection to make a distinction between 'production' and 'final product'?

2. If non-product related criteria could be taken into account, could the EU animal protection standards be maintained or improved without objections even if Article XX were to be interpreted to the disadvantage of animal protection?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3414/97, E-3415/97, E-3417/97 and E-3418/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2569/94 by Mrs Oddy ((OJ C 145, 12.6.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Calves

According to the Danish magazine 'Landsbladet' more than 40 000 calves a year are exported from Denmark to Holland and then fed as factory calves. Since the weight limit under the calf slaughtering arrangements is 110 kg in Denmark but 138 kg in Holland, such exports mean that calves that are of no value in Denmark are doubly advantageous in Holland: not only do the Dutch obtain the calf slaughtering premium, they also produce factory calves whose meat can be sold. Does the Commission not think that this procedure runs counter to the intension of removing meat from the market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997)

The press report in question, which the Commission has not seen, may have misled the Honourable Member in some important respects.

The calf processing premium is paid only for the slaughter of very young calves which do not enter the food chain at all. There is another calf premium, the early marketing premium, which is paid where calves are slaughtered for veal at below the traditional weights in Member States. It is likely that some calves born in Denmark are being presented for this premium in the Netherlands.

The Commission does not agree that movements of calves from one Member State to another constitute a threat to the reduction of red meat production. On the contrary, if the 40 000 calves were kept in Denmark they would probably have been fattened for a substantially longer period than in Holland, thereby adding further quantities of beef to the Community's market surplus.