ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3046/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Definition of the Portuguese public debt

It appears that, in reply to repeated requests from local authorities and the autonomous regions, the Portuguese Ministry of Finance, according to widely-circulating press reports of 10/13 October 2002, has authorised those public administrative bodies to issue guarantees instead of registering sums as public debt, on the grounds that such guarantees cannot be defined as forming part of the debt of the public administration (Diário Económico, 10 October 2002).

Can the Commission state whether these guarantees have been taken into account in the definition of the public debt, and, at all events, supply a reasoned answer based on the existing national accountancy standards?

Can the Commission also take account in its reply of the criteria of transparency, coherence and rigour in the context of the evaluation of public accounts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

According to the rules as they are laid down in the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure and regulation 3605/93(1) as amended(2), debt guaranteed by entities of the general government sector do not belong to the general government debt, as long as they are not called.

Moreover, the ESA 95, which is the manual of national accounts for the European Union, does not record debt guaranteed in the financial balance sheets as liability for the unit granting the guarantee, except in some very specific cases. This rule is applicable for all Member States, which report national accounts data to Eurostat.

(1) OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.

(2) OJ L 58, 3.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3596/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Clean-up vessels and Prestige-type disasters

When the Prestige disaster hit the Galician coast, the Spanish state was unable to supply a single clean-up vessel capable of dealing with fuel oil. The vessels which arrived later from France, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and Belgium could not start operations for several days, as they were not equipped to confront waves

over 2,5 metres high. How was this lack of facilities allowed to arise? What measures will the Commission take to make good this vital component in the fight against the disastrous consequences of accidents of this type? What measures will it introduce, specifically, for a particularly sensitive area such as Galicia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

With regard to the clean-up operation, the assistance arrangements agreed between the Commission and the national structures responsible for handling this type of disaster ensured immediate access to the resources available around the Community.

The authorities in the affected areas were able to make rapid use of the available assistance, including vessels and other special clean-up equipment.

In addition, there are plans to invest the European Maritime Safety Agency with the authority and the means to tackle pollution. A proposal to amend the Regulation which established the Agency is to be put forward for that purpose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2248/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Construction of a hydroelectric power station on indigenous land in Chile

The company Endesa Chile, which has been privatised and acquired by Endesa España, is in the process of constructing the Ralco hydroelectric power station. This will result in the flooding of 630 hectares of indigenous land and the disappearance of two Pehuenche Indian communities which have always existed in the Alto Bio Bio, and contravenes Indigenous Law No 19.253 of 5 October 1993 and the Basic Law on the Environment No 19.300 of 9 March 1994.

Furthermore, adverse opinions on this construction project have been issued by 22 relevant Chilean public bodies, and the World Bank has refused to grant it funding because it contravenes its code of ethics.

Eight of the 93 families living in the area have asserted their rights under the Indigenous Law and refused to be relocated, while the others have caved in to pressure, threats and blackmail.

The Chilean government is affecting ignorance of its own laws, and has set up a Committee of Wise Men to put a figure on the compensation payable to these eight families. This is unlawful and sets an alarming precedent for the indigenous peoples of Chile and their survival.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Does it not feel there is a need, in the light of the recently signed EU-Chile Association Agreement, to demand respect of democracy clauses and the indigenous rights they contain?

3. What measures is it considering taking with regard to this violation of indigenous rights and therefore of the EU-Chile Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

1. The Commission is aware of the construction of the Ralco hydroelectric power station. It also knows that more than 600 people, including 85 indigenous families, accepted the resettlement plans proposed by Endesa and that only eight indigenous families did not accept to be relocated.

2. The draft Association Agreement between the Community and its Member States and the Republic of Chile contains a general clause concerning the respect of democratic principles and fundamental human rights (Article 1). This Agreement has not yet been signed by the two parties, though signature is foreseen during the second semester of 2002.

3. The reallocation of these eight families is being dealt with by Chilean justice according to the Chilean Law. Furthermore, the Commission understands that the Chilean President, Ricardo Lagos, met the Pehuenches families at La Moneda on 5 July 2002 and committed himself to find an equitable solution to this issue.

4. The Commission has been informed that the Government is trying to find an equitable solution to this sensitive matter that respects the rights of the indigenous people and at same time does not jeopardise investment necessary for promoting the sustainable development of the country as a whole. Therefore, the Commission believes that there are no reasons justifying a Commission action at this point in time.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3251/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(11 November 2002)

Subject: Commission proposal for a certification scheme for the diamond trade

Does the Council share the Commission's view that if the diamonds cannot be shown to have been obtained legally, they should be impounded unconditionally(1)?

Can the regulation enter into force on 1 January 2003? If not, how can the Council justify this in view of the fight against international terrorism

Does the Council agree with the proposed measures? If not, has it a better alternative?

(1) COM(2002) 455.

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2003 of 11 February 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds and to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 257/2003 of 11 February 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3660/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Black tide in Galicia: statements by the Transport Commissioner

During the debate at Parliament's plenary sitting of 21 November 2002, the Transport Commissioner called the Member State governments an illogical bunch because they said at the Nice summit two years ago that the implementation of the ERIKA I and II packages of legislation should be brought forward, and then failed to apply them. The Commissioner stated that, if the governments had not delayed bringing the measures proposed by the Commission into force, the Prestige accident would not have happened.

Can the Commission say which States opposed the adoption in the Council of Ministers of the proposals and deadlines put forward by the Commission in the ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages of legislation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3600/02 and E-3660/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The Honourable Members are reminded how the Commission deplored the fact that the initially proposed timetable for phasing out single-hull tankers was not retained. The proposal would have meant category 1 single-hull tankers such as the ERIKA or the Prestige being phased out at 23 years of age.

Under the Regulation finally adopted by the co-legislators, the Prestige would have been phased out by 15 March 2005 at the latest. If the timetable proposed by the Commission had been retained, the Prestige would have had to be decommissioned on 1 September 2002 (date of application of the final Regulation) as it was 26 years old on the date of the accident.

In this context, the Commission welcomes the unanimous support of the Member States, as expressed in the conclusions of both the Transport Council of 6 December 2002 and the European Council in Copenhagen, for the measures it presented in its Communication of 3 December 2002.

On 20 December 2002, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation(1) to Parliament and the Council on the accelerated phase-out of single-hull tankers and return to the originally proposed timetable. The Commission hopes that the proposal will be adopted during the Greek presidency.

(1) COM(2002) 780 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: EU funding to deal with the economic, social and ecological consequences of the Prestige disaster for the Galician coastline

What specific and additional EU financial resources will be allocated to dealing with the economic, social and ecological consequences of the Prestige disaster? Will recourse be had to the Solidarity Fund which was created following the natural disasters in Germany and Austria? Will an additional fund be created if necessary? Will there be full and swift compensation for the economic losses suffered, not only by the activities directly affected but also by all the other economic operators related to those activities?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3597/02 and E-3598/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to parliamentary questions H-0848/02(1), E-3362/02 and E-3404/02(2), E-3439/02(3), E-3590/02(4), E-3591/02(5), E-3593/02(6), E-3594/02(7), E-3599/02(11), E-3602/02, E-3603/02 and E-3604/02(8), E-3655/02 and E-3656/02(9) and P-0001/03(10), which cover all aspects of the Prestige disaster, including the issues of compensation and costs raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) Written answer given on 14.1.2003.

(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 85.

(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 90.

(4) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 91.

(5) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 92.

(6) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 110.

(7) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 111.

(8) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 124.

(9) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 123.

(10) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 166.

(11) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 111.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: Labelling issues for the textiles/clothing sector

Has the EC drawn any conclusions from its round table meeting on labelling issues for the textiles/clothing sector held on 30 May 2002?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

The Commission organised a Round Table on labelling issues for the textile/clothing sector on 30/31 May 2002 in Brussels, which was attended by over seventy stakeholders, including representatives of the European textile/clothing industry and trade unions, Member States, candidate countries, and the European Institutions. The debate covered the question of labels of origin, social/ethical labels, and environmental labels with a particular emphasis on the Union Eco-label.

The conclusions of the Round Table and a summary record of the proceedings have been drawn up and sent to participants. They are also available on the Europa website at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/textile/competitiveness.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/02

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

(16 October 2002)

Subject: The Galicia-Portugal and Galicia-France-central Europe high-speed rail links

Can the Commission provide information on the state of progress, in terms of both planning and construction, on the proposed high-speed rail lines which are to link the main cities of Galicia with each other and Galicia as a whole with Oporto and Lisbon in Portugal and with the European heartland via the Iberian meseta and France, given that the bulk of construction work on these links is planned for the present programming period 2000-2006?

What is the level of Community funding allocated to these projects?

What are the expected completion dates for the various stretches of the planned lines?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2848/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(4 October 2002)

Subject: State of play with regard to infringement procedure 2000/4879

The letter of formal notice (Article 226) relates to Decree 341/1999 of the Community of Madrid approving the fire prevention regulations for the Community of Madrid.

Will the Commission say what the current state of play is with regard to the aforementioned procedure?

Will it say whether it has received a reply of any kind from the Community of Madrid, as requested?

What specific measures does it intend to take to resolve this case in order to ensure compliance with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2002)

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that, in response to the letter of formal notice addressed to them under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Spanish authorities, in accordance with the notification procedure introduced by Directive 98/34/EC(1), gave notice on 26 July 2002 of a new draft providing for the repeal of Decree 341/1999 approving the fire prevention regulations for the Community of Madrid.

The three-month standstill period laid down by Directive 98/34/EC ends on 28 October 2002. The purpose of this standstill period is to give other Member States and the Commission the opportunity to examine whether the draft in question is compatible with Community law; interested parties can submit their positions on the document during this period. If the Commission or some Member States feel that the text contains aspects which may create obstacles to the free movement of goods and are incompatible with the rules of the EC Treaty or with Directive 89/106/EEC(2), they are entitled to deliver a detailed opinion asking Spain to adapt the provisions in question to Community law. Spain is obliged to respond to this detailed opinion.

The Commission will make sure that the notification procedure runs smoothly and that the Spanish authorities adopt the text, amended if needs be, in order to ensure compliance with Community law.

(1) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3788/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Labelling in French of consumer products sold in France

The Law of 4 August 1994 relative to the use of the French language made it obligatory for French to be used in all documents intended to inform the user or consumer: labels, leaflets, catalogues, brochures and other information documents, etc..

On 20 March 2000, a European directive consolidating the Directive of 18 December 1978 made it clear that national provisions which required a specific language to be used in the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility for another language to be used, were contrary to European law.

As a result of a ruling by the Court of Justice on 12 September 2000 on a case referred to it by the Lyons Court of Appeal, the European Commission notified France that it had two months in which to comply with this legislation.

Following this, the French Government issued Decree No 2002-1025 of 1 August 2002, which amended Article R. 112-8 of the Code de la Consommation to the effect that although foodstuffs still had to be labelled in French, they could also (new subparagraph 2) be labelled in one or more other languages.

Does the Council consider this amendment to be sufficient vis-à-vis the European legislation referred to above?

In other words, does a Member State still have a legitimate right to require that foodstuffs sold within its borders are labelled, as a minimum, in its national language?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Question put by the Honourable Member comes within the remit of the European Commission, which, in accordance with Article 211 of the Treaty, is responsible for ensuring that Community Directives, and therefore Directive 2000/13/EC referred to in this Question, are applied.

The Council therefore suggests that the Honourable Member address this Question to the European Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3914/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Europol

Heading B5-822 in the 2002 EU budget contains EUR 5 million (p.m.) to provide Europol with the necessary resources to support and coordinate Member States' activities in the fight against terrorism and to finance the creation of a crisis and communications centre. This amount was allocated under chapter B0-04 (provisional appropriations) pending adoption of a legal basis which would, for the first time, enable Europol activities to be financed directly by the European Union budget.

On the basis of the budgetary information provided by Europol, on 31 July 2002 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council decision making provision for a total of EUR 3 038 600.

The Council decided to consult Parliament two months later, on 8 October 2002. Parliament, for its part, in order to allow the Council to adopt the proposal before the end of the year and to prevent the amount allocated under the 2002 budget from being cancelled and enable appropriations to be carried over to the 2003 budget, promptly approved the Commission proposal in its legislative resolution of 5 December 2002 and forwarded it to the Council in order for it to be adopted in time.

What are the Council's reasons for not adopting the Commission proposal for a decision?

Given that it has allowed appropriations to be lost, does the Council believe that, contrary to Europol estimates, the proposed funds are not necessary?

When it took its decision, did the Council take into account the opinions of Europol, the Commission and, in particular, the Parliament on this issue? What view does the Council take of Parliament's unanimous agreement to apportion a part of the Community budget to finance some Europol activities?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that the proposal for the creation of a legal base for allowing Community subsidies to Europol has been discussed within the Council. Several delegations were of the view that this proposal constituted an attempt to depart from the principle enshrined in the Europol Convention, that Europol's budget shall be financed from Member States' contributions, as distinct from a financing at the charge of the budget of the European Communities.

They felt that any modification of this principle would require a modification of Article 35 of the Europol Convention.

Against this background, the Council has not been in a position to agree on the Commission proposal for a Council Decision on the financing of certain activities carried out by Europol in connection with co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3412/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Christian groups in Pakistan

Has the Council made representations to the Government of Pakistan in order to respond to the plight of certain Christian groups in Pakistan?

If not, does it intend to do so?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

1. The Council has repeatedly underlined the importance of freedom of religion as a fundamental human right. Human rights are an essential part of the EU's political dialogue with all countries, including Pakistan.

2. The EU has noted the incidents of violence against Christians as well as institutions belonging to the Christian community in Pakistan. These include the attack on the Murree Christian School and the Taxila Christian Hospital in August 2002, the Christian welfare organisation in Karachi in September 2002 which caused the death of six people and, most recently, an attack on a Protestant church in Daska, near Lahore, on 25 December 2002 following which four women died.

3. On several occasions the EU has raised its concerns about the situation of Christians in Pakistan with the Pakistan authorities. On 7 August 2002 and 25 September 2002, the European Union issued declarations deploring the attack on Christian institutions.

4. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that in the declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the election of the new Prime Minister of Pakistan the European Union stressed that it would carefully monitor the transfer of power to a civilian administration within the time frame laid down in the Pakistani authorities' roadmap to democracy and voiced once again the hope that all the Parties and political forces would work together to achieve good governance and functioning democratic institutions. It also looked forward to cooperation with the new Pakistani Government on all issues of mutual interest, including the fight against terrorism.

5. In line with its guiding principles of respect for fundamental rights, and in particular freedom of thought, conscience and religion as referred to in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the EU will continue to pay close attention to the situation of Christians in Pakistan, and will, if necessary, raise the various problems with the Pakistani Government.