ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India)

Fifteen Spanish families (and others from the USA, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium) are involved in the process of adopting children from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, in which connection Unicef has drawn up reports condemning the precarious physical and psychological conditions in which children available for adoption find themselves.

Cooperation on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Department (which is responsible for adoptions) is not yet forthcoming, even though Spanish and Indian law relating to international adoptions has been complied with. In the meantime, India and its neighbour Pakistan have placed themselves on a war footing. In these circumstances, could the EU make representations to the Indian Prime Minister (and, where appropriate, to the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh) with a view to speeding up the adoption process?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerning current delays in adoption of children in Andhra Pradesh.

In 2001, India faced a major adoption scandal in several states, namely Orissa, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The scandal was most intense in Andhra Pradesh, and the State Government conducted an uncompromising policy to stop adoption centres to continue the alleged children traffic in India and internationally. The Centre Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), withdrew the licenses from all the alleged centres transferring them to government centres. In order to conduct a thorough investigation, and to be able to control the situation, the Andra Pradesh Government has, since 2001, put obstacles and hindrance into adoption procedures. Since CARA, which is the body which gives

the final No Objection Certificate (NOC) in international adoptions, had given several NOC to couples, even though apparent irregularities are found in the adoption procedures, CARA has now intervened as a party in the judicial trial in the High Court of Hyderabad, where non governmental organisations (NGOs) and parents have filed their cases.

A Union representation at this stage would be counterproductive since it could be viewed as an interference in the independence of judiciary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3693/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: St Vincent and the Grenadines

With regard to St Vincent and the Grenadines, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: Cooperation with Iranian authorities in fight against drug trafficking

Iran is one of the countries that drug traffickers use to transport hard drugs from countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan to the European Union. The Iranian Drug Control Headquarters

is central to the fight against drug-running. This fight is being hindered by the refusal of the EU to provide the latest night-sight technology to help in the interception of those illicitly crossing the border with drugs. Does the European Commission consider that access to such technology poses a serious threat to EU security?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology(1) a licence is required for the exportation of civil items that can also be used for military purposes. Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation allow Member States to impose a prior-authorisation requirement for the exportation of dual-use items not listed in the Annexes to the Regulation as it stands or subsequent amended versions. Under Article 6, export authorisations must be granted by the Member State in which the exporter is established.

Hi-tech night-sight glasses can indeed be classified as items incorporating technology that could be used for military purposes. Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 and subsequent amendments may be applied to exports of these glasses. Under the Regulation, the Member States may forbid the glasses referred to in the written question from being exported. Article 9 of the Regulation provides for consultation among the Member States in cases where one Member State has withheld authorisation to export to a non-member country in a particular case. The Community does not issue licences itself and has no power to decide whether any export bans imposed by the Member States are appropriate or not.

(1) OJ L 159, 30.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2561/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 September 2002)

Subject: Financial services harmonisation

Does the Commission see any reason why the maximum harmonisation approach which restricts the ability of Member States to add requirements relating to corporate governance or disclosure should be applied to listing rules for companies, or is the minimum standards approach more appropriate in this case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2002)

At present, Community legislation does not prevent Member States from imposing stricter or additional rules for the official listing of publicly traded companies. Neither Directive 2001/34/EC(1) on the listing particulars nor the Community Company Law Directives provide for the maximum harmonisation approach referred to by the Honourable Member.

Neither will this be changed by the completion of the Financial Services Action Plan, which the European Council called for by 2005.

The Action Plan certainly provides for new directives in the area of securities markets. One of the Commission proposals(2) in this context aims at a maximum harmonisation of rules for publishing a prospectus. The reason for this approach is that such harmonisation would ensure that the approval of a prospectus in the home Member State of a security issuer would automatically be recognised in all the other Member States where a security issuer may wish to raise capital on regulated markets (principle of a single passport for prospectus). This objective was fully supported by the Parliament during the first reading of this proposal.

Publication of a prospectus, however, is only one amongst several conditions for admission of securities to trading on regulated markets in Member States. There are many other requirements under national law or under stock exchange rules, such as company's minimum capital, company track record, corporate governance issues, or further information which is not contained in a prospectus and therefore not affected by the Commission proposal.

(1) Directive 2001/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities OJ L 184, 6.7.2001.

(2) Amended proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC COM(2002) 460 final (not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Communities).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Specific measures by the Commission to prevent or tackle the consequences of maritime disasters in the major sea corridor bordering the Galician coast

What specific measures have been taken by the Commission to prevent or tackle the consequences of maritime disasters in the major sea corridor that borders the Galician coast, in the wake of the successive tragic disasters which have affected Galicia over recent years?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

On 3 December 2002(1), the Commission presented a communication on action to be taken to improve maritime safety and protect the coasts of the European Union.

On 6 December 2002, the Transport Council adopted conclusions supporting the Commission's initiatives to avoid a repetition of this type of disaster and deal with its consequences.

The Commission's action is already producing concrete results. For instance, a proposal for a regulation prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel oil in single hull tankers bound for or leaving European Union ports and speeding up the replacement of single hull tankers with double hull tankers was transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament on 20 December 2002(2). In addition, the Commission has started preparing several new legislative measures designed to impose penal sanctions on any party (i.e. not only the shipowner, but also the owner of the cargo, the classification society or any other person concerned) which causes pollution through serious negligence.

More generally, the Commission believes that the law of the sea is currently too much in favour of the right to free navigation, at the expense of coastal States' interests. These States must be able to defend themselves against the threat of manifestly sub-standard ships. In this context, and as stated in its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission will take steps to have the International Convention on the Law of the Sea re-examined.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2) COM(2002) 780 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Take-up of appropriations under the Daphne Programme by the Municipality of Frosinone

In September 2002 the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry of Finance published a statement showing expenditure of funds provided by the EU.

The outcome of the survey gave particular cause for concern regarding the slowness and inefficiency of local authorities in selecting projects, with funds earmarked for the year 2000 amounting to only 2 % of total CSF appropriations.

The Commission also has repeatedly expressed serious concern regarding the inadequate take-up of European funds by local authorities.

Given that it is particularly important for certain local authorities, for example, the Municipality of Frosinone, to utilise Community funding to combat the abuse of women and children, can the Commission provide the following information:

1. Has the Municipality of Frosinone submitted projects under the Daphne Programme?

2. Was the Municipality of Frosinone awarded funding for these projects?

3. Were the funds in question utilised?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Daphne Programme has not received any proposals from the Municipality of Frosinone since 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3587/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: EU disaster area status for the Galician coast following the wreck of the Prestige

In the wake of the wreck of the Prestige and of the six similar accidents which have occurred in recent years in Galicia which has thus become the area of the world most affected by such tragic accidents and in view of the political causes or omissions underlying those accidents, does the Council intend to declare the Galician coast a disaster area, channelling the financial and political resources required to undertake the economic, social and economic recovery of Galicia?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3563/02, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02,E-3584/02, E-3587/02, E-3589/02, E-3625/02 and E-3761/02

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Members to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the Council on all the points raised in their questions during the plenary session of the European Parliament in December 2002, and to its replies to Questions H-833/02, H-839/02, H-847/02 and H-871/02 put by Messrs Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Manuel Medina Ortega, Camilo Nogueira Román and John Cushnahan respectively at Question Time on 15 January 2003 in Strasbourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/02

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Port inspections

On 14 November it was stated on the Gibraltar Government's web page (www.gibraltar.gov.uk) that the MV Prestige, wrecked off the Galician coast on 13 November, entered Gibraltarian waters only once in the last four years, simply to refuel (bunkering), without coming into harbour.

This statement indicates that when a vessel is bunkering in those waters from a tank-ship operating as a fixed port installation, the Gibraltarian authorities do not consider themselves obliged to carry out the inspections provided for under international and Community legislation (Port State Control).

Does the Commission agree with this interpretation?

Does the Commission consider that bunkering is in fact a port activity and therefore subject to all obligations stemming from the legislation governing such activities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

It is the Commission's opinion that it would be wrong to consider that refuelling operations may not give rise to inspections pursuant to Community legislation on port State control as, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Directive 95/21/EC(1), port State control obligations apply to any ship and its crew calling at a port of a Member State or at an off-shore installation or anchored off such a port or such an installation.

With regard to oil bunkering activities in Gibraltar, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to Oral Question No H-0800/02 by Mr García Margallo y Marfil at the December 2002 plenary session of the Parliament.

(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions OJ L 175, 7.7.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: Dangers to whales posed by the use of high-power active sonar technology in naval exercises

Greenpeace recently accused NATO of causing the death of 16 whales in the Canaries during naval exercises as a result of noise pollution from high-power active sonar systems. Many environmental NGOs, such as the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), consider that the spread of this technology represents a huge threat to the survival of many marine species.

Will the Commission carry out investigations to determine where responsibility lies? What practical measures will it take to deter the use of active sonar systems? Is it one of the Commission's priorities, in the context of protecting the marine environment, to instruct a special committee to carry out a study of the impact of this technology on the survival of marine wildlife and examine possible alternatives? In which parts of the Mediterranean is the danger particularly acute?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2797/02 by Mrs Lucas(1)

(1) See page 17.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2891/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Problems with the High Flux Reactor in Petten

The Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) manages the High Flux Reactor in Petten, which belongs to the Commission's Joint Research Centre.

On 26 September 2002, the TV programme Reporter revealed on the basis of documents from the plant itself that a larger or smaller leak in the cooling system could deprive the reactor core of cooling water and possibly cause it to melt (the possibility cannot be absolutely excluded).

In the 1980s, the Veldman scenario (a break in the cooling-water pipes) was developed. This scenario was analysed in detail by a working party including former operator Veldman. The NRG considers it extremely unlikely that this scenario would actually arise and says that, although the possible consequences would be serious, the surrounding area would be unaffected.

The reactor should be thoroughly examined while not operating, in order to identify any possible safety problems.

State Secretary Van Geel (Environment) is allowing much uncertainty to persist regarding this issue. His letter to the Lower House of Parliament does indicate that the government has never ordered a serious and thorough investigation of the possibility that the reactor core might be deprived of cooling water (in view of the international practice then prevailing, whereby research reactors were not subjected to this type of analysis). It is not clear on what Van Geel bases the opinion of his Nuclear Energy Service that in the event of a break there would not be any risk of an explosion.

Does the Commission agree that the safety of nuclear installations should always be beyond doubt?

Does the Commission agree that, as a precaution, the High Flux Reactor in Petten should temporarily cease to operate until the reactor's serious safety problems have been solved?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission is of the opinion that effective arrangements against potential radiological hazards need to be established and maintained in nuclear installations in order to protect individuals, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation from such installations.

The safety of the high flux reactor (HFR) is ensured by operating the reactor in compliance with the relevant safety rules and regulations under the supervision and control of the competent national safety authorities. In agreement with the safety authorities, a number of postulated accidental scenarios involving major and minor coolant leaks including breaks in the cooling water pipes are currently under analysis. The Commission, in full agreement with the national safety authorities, considers that the postulated scenarios do not represent a hazard that would require the HFR to cease to operate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3390/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Chestnut growing in difficulties

Chestnut production plays a marginal role in the dried fruit sector, and unlike other crops in the sector, receives no direct CAP aid. Chestnuts undeniably play a very major economic, social and environmental role in producer regions. Chestnut trees are of great environmental value, but drought, diseases affecting the trees and the low levels of income provided by the crop, when taken in conjunction with town planning pressures and speculation involving other crops which do receive Community aid, are endangering the future of chestnut growing.

The sector is currently in crisis, with major slumps in production. In Huelva, a province of the Andalucian Autonomous Community, the 5 000 hectares of chestnut woodland have produced a mere 700 000 kilograms as against the normal ca 6 million kilograms.

Is the Commission aware of the difficult situation and the problems facing chestnut growers? If so, is it planning specific action to save this high-value product? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of problems facing the chestnut sector, which appear to pose difficulties of an economic, environmental and social nature to producers of Huelva.

The Community provides a number of tools to address this type of situation.

Although chestnuts are not covered by the specific measures for nuts foreseen in Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), financial assistance towards improving production and marketing is available through the operational fund schemes provided through Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(2).

In addition, financial assistance to support the important environmental and social role of chestnut production can be obtained through the Rural Development measures.

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972, amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1363/95, of 15 June 1995 OJ L 132, 16.6.1995.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2002, of 30 May 2002 OJ L 142, 31.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3506/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Siham Qandah and her treatment in Jordan

Is the Council aware of the plight of Siham Qandah in Jordan? I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned by reports that she has been forced to take her children into hiding. She fears that they will be taken from her after she was declared unfit to be their custodian as she was raising them as Christians.

Will the Council undertake to raise this matter with the authorities in Jordan and seek an end to this unhappy situation?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However it has always stressed, at meetings with Jordan in the framework of the Association Agreement, that relations with Jordan are based on shared respect of democratic principles and fundamental rights, which constitutes an essential element of the Agreement in accordance with Article 2 thereof. Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental freedoms that must be respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. State of implementation by the EU Member States of the ERIKA legislative package.



Official Journal 222 E , 18/09/2003 P. 0085 - 0085



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council (13 December 2002) Subject: State of implementation by the EU Member States of the ERIKA legislative package What is the state of play as regards implementation by the EU Member States of the ERIKA legislative package? Which were the Member States that blocked an agreement to bring implementation forward? On what grounds did they justify such a position? Joint answerto Written Questions E-3563/02, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02,E-3584/02, E-3587/02, E-3589/02, E-3625/02 and E-3761/02 (5 and 6 May 2003) The Council would refer the Honourable Members to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the Council on all the points raised in their questions during the plenary session of the European Parliament in December 2002, and to its replies to Questions H-833/02, H-839/02, H-847/02 and H-871/02 put by Messrs Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Manuel Medina Ortega, Camilo Nogueira Román and John Cushnahan respectively at Question Time on 15 January 2003 in Strasbourg.