ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: France's illegal ban on the import of British beef

The French government is reported to be considering lifting its illegal ban on British beef. This ban has been in place for over two years. Does the Commission plan to impose a fine on France even if the ban is lifted, and, if so, will it be retrospective?

Can the Commission confirm that if the Commission fails to impose a penalty on France the British government is entitled under the European Treaties to petition the Court of Justice for redress?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State fails to take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the Commission may again bring the case before the Court. In the second case the Commission specifies the amount of lump sum or penalty payment which it considers should be imposed on the Member State in default. If the Court in its judgment in the Article 228 proceedings finds that the Member State has not complied with its ruling in the original case it may impose a lump sum or penalty. This may not necessarily correspond with the proposal of the Commission.

The Commission duly opened the procedure provided for in the Article 228 against France in the beef case mentioned by the Honourable Members and specified to the Court what it considered to be an appropriate penalty payment. However, before the proceedings reached the judgment stage France adopted legislation to comply with its Community law obligations in the case. After careful scrutiny of the French legislation the Commission took the view that compliance with the relevant requirements of Community law had been achieved. In consequence, the Commission has withdrawn its proceedings against France asking for the costs of the whole procedure to be paid by the Member State.

The Commission has recently decided, taking into account experience gained in recent cases (including the one mentioned by the Honourable Member), to re-examine its approach to the application of Article 228 in order to examine the way and means to improve the effectiveness of the Court judgments using all the possibilities offered by the application of lump sums or penalty payments.

Article 227 of the EC Treaty allows a Member State which considers another Member State to have failed to fulfil a EC Treaty obligation to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. However, proceedings under this Article even if concluded by a favourable judgment of the Court, would not result in the provision of financial redress to the Member State initiating the procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/02

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Indirect funding for the Burmese government

British American Tobacco, an international company operating in the tobacco sector and based in London, is one of the largest British investors in Burma (Myanmar). It controls Rothmans, which in turn is a 40/60 % joint venture with Economic Holding Myanmar, a company belonging to the military government, which is unfortunately notorious for persistent violations of human rights. Since 1962 there has been a military dictatorship in Burma responsible for torture, ill-treatment, imprisonment, forced labour and the deaths of a shockingly large number of men, women and children.

Burma is also the country with the largest number of child soldiers in the world.

British American Tobacco, via its investments, is aiding and abetting the dictatorship by strengthening it and helping to keep it in power.

What steps will the Council take in response to this financial support for a regime which is universally considered as guilty of crimes against humanity, involving one of the Member States and hence the Union as a whole?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

1. Since 1996, the Council has adopted a series of Common Positions on Burma. Essentially, this means Common Position 96/635/CFSP of 28 October 1996(1) as extended and amended by Common Position 2000/346/CFSP of 26 April 2000(2) and by Common Position 2002/831/CFSP of 21 October 2002(3).

The current Common Position 2002/831/CFSP, adopted by the Council on 21 October 2002, provides for a number of targeted sanctions against the Burmese regime, including a visa ban against and the freezing of the assets of present and former members of the Burmese government, members of the State Peace and Development Councils (SPDC), former members of SLORC, and leading members of the military.

2. The Council has not, however, taken a position on possible investments by European enterprises in Burma, nor has it discussed the specific issue of the BAT/Rothmans joint venture with Economic Holding Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996, pp. 1-2.

(2) OJ L 122, 24.5.2000, pp. 1-5.

(3) OJ L 285, 23.10.2002, pp. 7-11.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3584/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. The ERIKA legislative packages and the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990.



Official Journal 222 E , 18/09/2003 P. 0086 - 0086



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3584/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council (13 December 2002) Subject: The ERIKA legislative packages and the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 On what grounds did the Council, in the aftermath of the wreck of the ERIKA tanker and even prior to the successive disasters which have affected the Galician coast, in the shape of the wrecks of the Polycommander, Aegean Sea, Urquiola and Casón, fail to include within the ERIKA legislative packages the type of strict financial guarantee and safety requirements which are placed on shipowners and vessels by the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (passed following the Exxon Valdez disaster)? 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-2162/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: EU Special Representative in Bosnia

Can the Commission say how much Lord Ashdown is paid in his capacity as EU Special Representative in Bosnia? What financing is provided by the EU for his office?

With reference to the sacking and barring from future public office by Lord Ashdown of the democratically-elected Deputy Prime Minister of the Muslim-Croat Federation, Nikola Grabovac, can it say whether democratic standards will really be fostered in the new country when an unelected foreigner wields such arbitrary power in this manner? To quote the office of the Special Representative: This is about political responsibility. If Bosnia is to become part of Europe, then it needs to adopt these sorts of European standards. Is Lord Ashdown teaching Bosnians a European standard of public behaviour? If so, why has the Commission never publicly condemned any of the instances of massive fraud revealed in political parties in the EU? If not, will the Commission be reprimanding Lord Ashdown for his dictatorial behaviour, which is unacceptable from a representative of democratic European countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Lord Ashdown was appointed Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (double-hatted) under a Council Joint Action (2002/211/CFSP) of 11 March 2002. He receives no Union remuneration in his capacity as Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). However, financing is provided for the operating costs of the Office of the High Representative under Council Regulation (EC) No 1080/2000 of 22 May 2000. In 2002 this financing is set at EUR 13 307 million.

Lord Ashdown dismissed Nikola Grabovac because, in his judgement, the latter had failed to supervise actively his ministry and to perform effectively the function of the Federation Minister of Finance. Mr Grabovac also failed to show the required leadership by taking political responsibility for the loss of 1,7 million KM from the public purse. The powers of the High Representative do not derive from democratic election; but they are not arbitrary. They are conferred on him by annex 10 of the Dayton Peace Agreement and by the December 1997 Bonn Peace Implementation Council. In exercising his Bonn powers the aim of the High Representative is to promote implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement and a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia in which international supervision is, in due course, no longer necessary. The Union's efforts in BiH are designed to help the country make progress in the Stabilisation and Association process, and to realise its aspirations as a potential candidate for Union membership to become a member of the Union one day. But like other potential candidates, BiH must show that is willing, over time, to take on the obligations that would come with eventual Union membership.

The Commission strongly supports Lord Ashdown in his work as High Representative, and his decision in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3184/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2002)

Subject: Disability Living Allowance

In response to my previous question E-1347/02(1) Commissioner Diamantopoulou stated that the Commission was examining the continued exclusion of certain benefits (including the Disability Living Allowance) from Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(2).

Could the Commission inform me of any progress it has made in this matter or when it expects to conclude its investigation?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 191.

(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

The Commission has held bilateral discussions with a number of Member States concerning the benefits they have listed in Annex IIa to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1), which are exempt from the principle of exportation. In the case of the United Kingdom this includes Disability Living Allowance (DLA). These discussions have allowed the Commission to further its detailed understanding of the benefits in question.

The Commission is now considering a legislative proposal amending Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, in particular its Annex IIa. The aim of such a proposal would be to remove from Annex IIa benefits which do not meet the criteria of being special and non-contributory as defined by the European Court of Justice. The forecasts are that the Commission will consider this proposal by the Spring 2003, and, when adopted, it will then present it to the Council and Parliament.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1997 OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2365/02

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia

Will the Commission please state how many baby seal pups were clubbed to death on the White Sea in the year 2001? Further, will the Commission please undertake to raise the matter with the Russian authorities at the earliest opportunity?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The treatment of baby seals in the White Sea has been an ongoing concern in recent years. The Commission has raised the issue with the Russian authorities on a number of occasions in the context of its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, and will continue to do so.

The Commission has no information about the numbers of seal pups which have died in the White Sea, nor about the reasons for such deaths. The Russian authorities have been approached, but have so far indicated that they themselves do not have this information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3748/02

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Council

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Population of the Member States

The protocols annexed to the Treaty of Nice refer to the total population of the Union without clarifying the meaning of the term.

As far as the Union is concerned, does the term apply only to the total number of residents who are Union citizens or does it denote the total number of residents including those who are not Union citizens, or some other body of residents?

When calculating the total population of the Union, how are Union citizens living outside the Union factored in? For the purposes of the 62 % quorum, is the population of individual Member States calculated with reference to:

(a) all residents of the Member State in question, irrespective of their nationality;

(b) all residents who are nationals of that Member State or another Member State;

(c) nationals of that Member State living on its territory and no other citizens;

(d) nationals of that Member State living on its territory or in another Member State and those citizens only;

(e) all nationals of that Member State, wherever they may live; or

(f) a body of citizens composed in some other way?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council has not yet discussed these specific aspects but will examine these questions and their implications in good time before 1 November 2004 when the said criterion will enter into force. With regard to the statistics used by the Union, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that it is customary to refer to those provided by Eurostat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Human rights and democracy in Burma

As the Commission knows, the human rights situation in Burma is still worrying and, despite the release of a number of political prisoners, more than 1 500 are still in custody for political reasons.

Is the Commission also aware that repression of religious minorities in Burma has increased considerably in recent years?

Will the Commission maintain the present EU sanctions against Burma and exert pressure on the authorities there to bring about a lasting improvement in the human rights situation and above all restore democracy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

As has been stated on several occasions, the Commission is deeply concerned about the situation in Burma/Myanmar and the damage the military regime is causing to the country and to its future.

The Commission is aware of reports of alleged persecutions of ethnic minority groups by the military in Burma/Myanmar and continuously voices its grave concern about the human rights situation in the country, particularly in ethnic minority areas.

During the Union Troika visit to Burma/Myanmar in September 2002, these concerns were once again expressed to the Burmese government. The Troika also urged the Burmese government to release all remaining political prisoners and to lift the remaining political restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly.

The Union has a strong Common Position on Burma/Myanmar(1). It was first adopted in 1996(2) and has been strengthened on a number of occasions since. It includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990, the suspension of defence co-operation since 1991 and the suspension of all bilateral aid, other than strictly humanitarian assistance. There is also a Union visa ban on the members of the military regime, the members of the government, senior military and security officers and their families, as well as the suspension of high-level governmental visits to Burma/Myanmar.

Separately, Union trade privileges, normally granted to Least Developed Countries, were withdrawn from Burma/Myanmar in 1997 because of forced labour. This also means that the country is not eligible to benefit from the Union's Everything but Arms initiative, launched in 2001.

The Common Position was renewed for a further six months, without easing of sanctions, on 21 October 2002. In the Council Conclusions, which are fully supported by the Commission, the Union once again urged the restoration of democracy, the pursuit of national reconciliation, and the protection of human rights in Burma/Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 285, 23.10.2002.

(2) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3470/02

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Shortfall in revenue from electricity sales in Spain possible illegal state aid?

According to the Spanish Government's proposals concerning electricity tariffs, the electricity companies' revenue shortfall will be made good (during the 2003-2010 period) by means of a new tariff component which the companies will be legally entitled to charge.

These proposals may well constitute a new attempt by the Spanish Government to allocate indirect aid to Spanish electricity companies by granting the official authorisation which it was required to withdraw in the case of power and heat supply stations, on account of the Commission's unequivocal stance on the matter.

Does the Commission not consider that such proposals may involve the provision of illegal state aid to Spain's electricity companies?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

On 25 July 2001 the Commission decided, in the light of the state aid rules, not to raise any objection to the transitional scheme for competition transition costs (CTCs) on the electricity market in Spain(1).

It has not been informed of the definitive version of the new system of electricity tariffs in Spain. However, according to the preliminary explanations provided by the Spanish authorities, the new system does not at the moment entail any substantial change in the CTC scheme, particularly as regards either total CTCs or the maximum duration of the scheme. Accordingly, fresh notification of the scheme in line with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty does not seem necessary.

In any event, the Commission is determined to ensure that the conditions laid down in its decision of 25 July 2001 are complied with by the Spanish authorities and, in this connection, it will examine the annual reports on the application of that decision that they are required to send to the Commission and any legislative or regulatory change in the way CTCs are applied.

(1) Decision of 25 July 2001 in Case NN 49/59 Spain (OJ C 268, 22.9.2001). The full text of the decision is available at the following Internet site: http:/europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state/_aids.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3860/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Minority Commission decision to draw up a draft treaty

As we are all aware, the Commission is a collegiate body which, outwardly, takes its decisions unanimously. This presupposes that the President and individual members do not act on their own initiative. If, however, they do, any proposal that may be made must be regarded as void.

Commissioner Vitorino referred to Montesquieu's principles concerning a three-way division of power, which is completely incomprehensible since the division of power into separate legislative, executive and judicial powers does not entitle civil servants to act on their own initiative.

How can a minority of the Commission's members decide to initiate the drafting of a treaty without the matter having been put before the Commission as a whole?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3860/02, E-3902/02 and E-0034/03given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

At the request of Mr Prodi, President, in agreement with Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino, a working party of Commission officials prepared a feasibility study entitled Contribution to a preliminary draft of a European Constitution. Mr Prodi informed the other members of the Commission of the existence of this working document but it was not discussed by the full Commission and it does not commit the Commission.

It is for each Member of the Commission who has responsibility for a specific area, and for the President where action by the Union is concerned, to ask Commission departments to draft preparatory documents, study papers, feasibility studies, etc. A Commission decision is not needed to launch such work, which is part of the normal activities of Commission departments, i.e. the preparation of decisions and the position to be adopted subsequently by the Commission. Mr Prodi in agreement with Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino felt that a feasibility study on the European Constitution would help the Commission to adopt its position with regard to the Convention.

The names of the officials who prepared the feasibility study are listed on the first page of the study, which did not give rise to any costs other than Commission overheads.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Territory of the Madeira archipelago

The 18 December 2002 edition of the Portuguese daily Diário de Notícias reported that the maps of the European Union produced by the Commission's cartography department represent the Ilhas Selvagens, which belong to the Portuguese autonomous region of Madeira, as being part of the Spanish territory of the Canary Islands. That report includes an official EU website reference (http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/maps/regions/spain/canarias_en.htm), a visit to which confirms this decidedly anomalous circumstance.

According to the same source, this is not the first time that the EU's official maps have contained an error of this kind concerning the exact location of the Portuguese/Spanish border.

The Commission:

1. Can it explain how such a serious error was allowed to appear on the EU's official maps, and indicate those responsible? Can it state when the error will be corrected?

2. Can it confirm that the relevant official in the cartography department in which the maps were, presumably, prepared is of Spanish nationality?

3. What action does it consider should be taken to ensure that errors of this nature will not occur in the future?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The map referred to by the Honourable Member could indeed lead to an incorrect interpretation of the position of the border between Spain and Portugal. This technical mistake was corrected as soon as the Commission became aware of it. The new map clearly shows the Ilhas Selvagens as belonging to Portugal.