ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3583/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Tacis newsletter

Under the new Commission framework programme, the Tacis newsletter produced by Team Europe, Carrefours and Infopoints is to appear in English and French only. This places around a quarter of EU citizens, with German as their mother tongue, at a disadvantage compared with the far smaller number of English and French-speakers. If it is to be possible to reach a broad section of the public which is the aim of Carrefours and Infopoints documents must be available in their mother tongue.

Why is the Tacis newsletter produced only in English and French?

When will the Commission translate the Tacis newsletter into other languages?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Last year a contract was signed by the Commission and an external firm with a view to providing permanent assistance to the network of European relays. For this purpose, a help desk for informing the Team Europe, Carrefours and Infopoints (TECIS) was established. The newsletter is one of many services that the Commission provides to the network of information relays.

The purpose of the newsletter is to provide swift, up-to-date information for the members of Team Europe and the people who run the Carrefours and Infopoints. It is not aimed at the general public, rather it is to ensure that citizens receive an improved service due to the fact that the people providing them with information have constant support from the help desk, including the newsletter.

To date the newsletter has been produced only in English and French (two issues December 2001 and January 2002) as the translation into other languages would put a futher burden on the already limited financial resources and it would also delay considerably the process of informing the network of relays.

This new product is, at the moment, in a pilot phase during which its impact and added value is being closely monitored. On the basis of comments and suggestions from the users, a decision will be taken about its final outline. Within this assessment the question of languages will be carefully examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3585/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Dress rules for female employees in Turkey

On 7 December 2001 female civil servants in Turkey were urged by their union to appear at work wearing trousers as a way of protesting about a regulation of 1982 which specifically bans female public sector workers from wearing trousers at the workplace. During this protest which was very widely supported by female civil servants, problems occurred at Izmir where women wearing trousers were barred from entering their offices by their superiors.

What steps does the Commission intend to take, as part of the pre-accession procedure, to prevail upon Turkey to change its antiquated legislation and outlook, to comply with the European acquis and to respect the human rights and democratic freedoms of women?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Commission attaches the utmost importance to the respect of the principle of gender equality by Turkey.

In its Regular Report published on 13 November 2001(1), the Commission noted that the principle of gender equality has been formally enshrined in the amended version of Article 41 of the Constitution.

Besides this change in the Constitution, the new Civil Code adopted by the Turkish Parliament in 2001, has also introduced changes aiming at removing discrimination and strengthening gender equality. The Commission understands that the Turkish Parliament has also specifically addressed the issue raised by the Honourable Member in an act published in the Turkish Official Gazette on 3 January 2002.

The Commission will continue to monitor closely the actual implementation of these newly adopted provisions in accordance with the Copenhagen political criteria.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3643/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Subject: Terrorism

With reference to the Council Regulation on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating international terrorism (COM(2001) 569 C5-0665/2001 2001/0228(CNS)) and the recommendation by the European Parliament that the Annex listing the actual groups or persons should be drawn up on the basis of a proposal by the Commission or a Member State, what steps are being taken by the Commission to ensure that the terrorist groups which are actively engaged against EU Member States and candidate countries for EU membership (such as IRA, UFF, PKK; DHKP-C, N17 and ETA, for example) are included on the list of proscribed organisations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The list of persons, groups and entities against whom specific measures aimed at combating terrorism will be taken is established by a CFSP Commun position of the Council. The decision to include names on that list will be based on precise information or material from the Member States which indicates that a decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of the persons, groups and entities concerned, irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, an attempt to perpetrate such an act, participation in such an act or facilitation of such an act, based on serious and credible evidence or clues, or condemnation for such deeds (Article 1(4) of the Common Position).

On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP containing the first such list of persons, groups and entities against whom the measures should be applied, including in particular the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the Real IRA, UFF, Revolutionary Organisation 17 November and ETA. The Member States will provide each other with the widest possible assistance, through police and judicial co-operation, to prevent and combat terrorist acts.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001(1) implements the Common Position by imposing specific restrictive measures of a financial nature, on persons, groups and entities with a view to combating terrorism. Council Decision 2001/927/EC(2) lists the persons, groups and entities against whom the measures should be applied, but the groups and entities referred to above are not included therein.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3367/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Tearing-up of passports and robbery and assault on travellers from third countries at the external borders of the EU

1. Can the Commission confirm that, in addition to residents of Albania, residents of regions where industrial enterprises have closed down in Romania (an applicant country) are also increasingly seeking employment in Greece (a Member State), where they work legally or illegally in agriculture, industry, the hotel and catering trade or prostitution?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that, if caught crossing the border illegally or if they have been dismissed by an employer, the persons concerned are not only deported from Greece but also assaulted, and that their passports are torn up and their money taken from them?

3. Does the Commission agree that taking their money and destroying their passports makes it extremely difficult for Romanians, who need to pass through Bulgaria or Macedonia and Serbia in order to return home from Greece, to continue their journeys and that this treatment therefore does nothing to facilitate the victims' intended return to their country of origin?

4. Is it not a fact that passports belong to the State of the holder and may not be destroyed, and that all citizens who are at any time within the territory of an EU Member State have a right to protection by the responsible authorities against assault and robbery?

5. What will the Commission do to permanently prevent a continuation or recurrence of the destruction of passports and instances of assault and robbery on citizens of third countries at the EU's external borders?

Source: The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 19 November 2001

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the acts denounced by the Honourable Member and does not normally comment on press articles. In the absence of further details, the Commission would request that the Honourable Member inform it of anything which provides confirmation of the acts denounced and supplies more precise information about them, so that it can investigate the issue, if appropriate, as far as its remit allows.

While it is unable to confirm or deny that the actions referred to actually took place, the Commission condemns any acts of which proof is provided occurring at the external borders of a Member State, such as the destruction of passports, brutality, theft and the confiscation of money belonging to third-country nationals, even if their presence on the national territory is regarded as illegal. However, it is legitimate and necessary to confiscate passports which are genuine but are being used by persons other than the legitimate owner, or which are falsified or forged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/01

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Bank charges for cheques in euros

Given that we now have a common currency for 12 Member States, what measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent excessive clearance charges by banks for cheques used within the Eurozone which emanate from Eurozone Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euros lays down the principle of equal charges for strictly domestic payments in euros and for cross-border payments in euros. The principle applies to card payments and withdrawals from automated teller machines as from 1 July 2002 and to transfers as from 1 July 2003.

The Commission had initially proposed that this provision should apply also to cross-border payments by cheque. Parliament and the Council decided not to take up its proposal.

The two main arguments put forward were:

- cheques, as a domestic means of payment, are in the process of disappearing in several Member States;

- cheques are not suited to being an automatic cross-border means of payment.

The explanation is given in recital 8 to the Regulation, which reads:

At present, it is not advisable to apply the principle of uniform charges for paper cheques as by nature they cannot be processed as efficiently as the other means of payment, in particular electronic payments. However, the principle of transparent charges should also apply to cheques.

The principle of aligning charges laid down in Article 3 does not, therefore, apply to cheques. However, Article 4, which concerns the information to be provided to customers on the cost of using different means of payment, has been applicable since 1 January 2002. A specific measure for cheques is to be found in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1):

Member States may stipulate that a statement warning consumers of the charges relating to the cross-border use of cheques must appear on cheque books.

Accordingly, under Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, banks that agree to the cross-border use of cheques(1) must inform their customers of the charges for such operations.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: The arrest and torture of Bubis in Equatorial Guinea

In response to a raid by up to forty members of the Bubi tribe on a military barracks in January 1998, approximately five hundred people were arrested by the Guinean authorities, of whom, according to Amnesty International, six died in custody, many were tortured to extract confessions and about seventy people were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from six to twenty-six years following trials which fell far short of internationally accepted standards.

Has the European Union raised these matters with the Guinean Government? If so, what pressure has been brought to bear to ensure that the prisoners are not brutalised and receive proper nourishment and medical treatment and that a political settlement is found to the problems which led to the storming of the barracks?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2002)

The European Union has carefully monitored the situation since the arrest of the Bubi prisoners accused of the attempted coup of June 1998.

The EU has made representations on several occasions, the main outcome so far being that the 15 prisoners condemned to death had their sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Some 30 prisoners serving sentences of more than six years were released under the amnesty declared in January 2001.

On the occasion of his last visit in November 2001, the special representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was allowed to visit all the places where Bubi prisoners were being held and noted an overall improvement in the conditions in which they were being held.

In the course of the political dialogue with Equatorial Guinea, the EU has always stressed the need for the country to accede at the earliest opportunity to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The EU has reiterated the importance of respecting and applying the principles of the national pact between the government and the political parties.

Hence, with a view to promoting the establishment of constitutional government and reducing racial tensions, the Commission approved a project in 2001 to provide support for the development of civil society and reinforce legal security and the functions and activities of the country's parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Lyme disease

Lyme disease is a serious bacterial infection transmitted by a tick bite (particularly by ticks of the Ixodes genus, which are the most common in mountain areas). Given that cases have been recorded in many parts of Europe, appropriate information should be provided, particularly at local level, with a view to preventing contagion and ensuring early treatment.

What action needs to be taken at European level to ensure that information on this disease is disseminated throughout the Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

At European level the website owned by the European Union Concerted Action on Lyme Borreliosis, (Eucalb)(1) provides up-to date information on lyme borreliosis for general informational purposes. Community funding that was provided for this Concerted Action ceased in 1996 and the website has been updated on a voluntary basis since then.

The current website consists of short reviews on main reservoirs, hosts and transmission, risks, diagnosis and prevention of the disease and informs on the problems of endemic areas, seasonal factors influencing the peak of human infections throughout the year and prevention, including tick control measures and personal precautions with guidelines on a number of steps which can be taken to greatly reduce the possibility of coming into contacts with ticks.

Many World Wide Web sites as well as educational leaflets for the public also address this issue.

Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 set up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(2). However, the Honourable Member should be aware that Member States did not consider surveillance of Lyme disease a priority, based on specific criteria for selection listed in Commission Decision 2000/96/EC of 22 December 1999 on communicable diseases to be progressively covered by that network(3).

Appropriate measures at local level with regard to health care are subject to the responsibility of each Member State according to Article 152 of the EC Treaty.

(1) http://www.dis.strath.ac.uk/vie/LymeEU.

(2) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

(3) OJ L 28, 3.2.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0065/02

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

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Galicia and the European rail transport network

The Spanish presidency's priorities, presented by the Foreign Minister, include the boost to be given by the European Council in Barcelona in March to a European area of transport and telecommunications as a guarantee of an efficient use of resources and an integrated economy.

In this context, what expectations as regards timescale and budget does the Council have, during the Spanish presidency, for finalising the high-speed train link between Galicia and the centre of Europe and Portugal? Will it abide by the deadline of 2007?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3577/01 and E-0065/02

(25/26 March 2002)

The Commission proposal on the revision of the Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1) provides details about the railway network development in Spain (see maps 3,0 and 3,5 of the Annex to the Proposal). The proposal provides furthermore for the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network.

The examination of this proposal by the Council is now underway. Hence, pending a final decision by the Council and the European Parliament on this matter, the Council is not in a position to indicate in which way the eventually revised Decision will affect the situation of Galicia at the level of regional, national and trans-European railway networks. Furthermore, the Council underlines that the inclusion of a particular railway project in the trans-European transport network outline plan in no way prejudges the final decision regarding the actual implementation of a particular project; this competence lies with national authorities. In the same vein, decisions regarding the timetable for the construction work and the allocated funding also fall under the competence, in the case referred by the Honourable Parliamentarian, of the Spanish national authorities.

(1) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Brittany in France

1. Does the Commission regard the Vichy Government's decision of 30 June 1941 to cut Loire-Atlantique (Loire-inférieure as it then was), and hence Nantes, the historic capital, off from the rest of Brittany as an acceptable one? Does the European Union think this arbitrary decision, which has ever since been perpetuated by all French Governments, right-wing and left-wing alike, is compatible with the commitments made by France as a founding Member State, namely to respect subsidiarity, above all when one opinion poll after another shows that a majority of the inhabitants of the département in question and those of the Brittany administrative unit are in favour of the restoration of their historic status as a single unit?

2. Should France, as a founding Member State of the European Union, not act in the spirit of the ideal which led to the founding of the EU, and overturn the unilateral decision of the fascist Vichy Government to deprive historical Brittany of part of its territory?

3. What practical steps does Europe intend to take to push France to ratify and implement within France the European Charter of Minority or Marginalised Languages which it has signed on its own territory?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/02

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to introduce by June 2001 a European innovation scoreboard. Does the Commission believe that this target will be met, and what evidence can it advance in support of its view?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

An initial version of the European Innovation Scoreboard was published as an annex to the Communication Innovation in a knowledge-driven economy adopted by the Commission on 20 September 2000(1).

The 2001 version of the European Innovation Scoreboard was adopted on 14 September 2001(2). The Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society presented this document at a press conference on 1 October 2001(3). The scoreboard prompted considerable media interest (more than 60 press articles worldwide) and was debated by the Industry Council on 5 December 2001.

The 2002 version of the European Innovation Scoreboard is currently under preparation. It will present updated national figures, include data from the candidate countries where available, and take into account the regional dimension of innovation.

The European Innovation Scoreboard is produced under the European Trend Chart on Innovation. This project supports the open co-ordination approach launched at the European Council at Lisbon (23 and 24 March 2000). It is executed under the Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development by the Innovation and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) programme and offers yearly country reports, topical policy workshops and a database of more than 600 ongoing innovation policy measures from all Member States to enhance the exchange of experience between innovation policy makers in Europe(4).

(1) COM(2000) 567 final.

(2) Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2001) 1414.

(3) The scoreboard can be downloaded in all Community languages from http://www.cordis.lu/innovation-smes/scoreboard/. Special issues of the Innovation & Technology Transfer Newsletter and of Cordis News, dedicated to the scoreboard, as well as the press briefing of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society are also available from this website.

(4) See www.cordis.lu/trendchart.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0244/02

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Transporting works of art

On 1 June 2001, I asked the Commission about the possibly discriminatory practice of German museums with regard to transporting works of art (P-1665/01(1)). The Commission stated that they had no knowledge of this practice, but would challenge the German authorities about it, and assess its possible implications for the application of Community law on public contracts and freedom to provide services.

I have now spoken with Spanish firms which transport art works, who insist that it is impossible to gain access to the German market. The details I was given by these firms clearly indicate that German firms are given preferential treatment, thus limiting access for other firms.

Is the Commission going to investigate this question, as it said it would in its reply of 5 July 2001?

Will the Commission be approaching the relevant authorities to clarify the situation?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 242.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

A complaint dated 22 January 2002 has informed the Commission about possibly discriminatory practice of German museums with regard to transporting paintings and works of arts.

The Commission is investigating the matter. If the results of the investigation corroborates the suspicion of discriminatory practice in Germany, the Commission has the possibility to use the instruments provided in Article 226 of the EC Treaty and open an infringement procedure. If necessary for the investigation, the Commission will be approaching the German authorities to clarify the situation.