ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1802/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Working languages in the European Patents Office

The Council has still not answered question P-0762/01(1) on language policy in the Alicante Trade Mark Office or the European Patents Office. The question was tabled 13 weeks ago, and the official deadline for answers is six weeks.

The Council did nevertheless set out a Community approach to Community patents on Thursday 31 May. But where language policy was concerned, that text was confined to stating that translation costs had to be kept down.

The European Union upholds the principle that everyone must able to apply to the Institutions in one of the eleven official languages. In that connection the debate on working languages in the European Patents Office assumes a special significance.

Can the Council now answer the following questions:

1. Does the Council recognise that it must be possible for patent applications to the European Patents Office to be submitted in any of the eleven official EU languages? If so, how does the Council guarantee that individuals and companies can apply for a patent in the eleven official EU languages? If not, how does the Council justify its departure from that principle?

2. Does the Council support the Greek government initiative in challenging the language policy of the Alicante Trademarks Office?

(1) See page 6.

Reply

(26 November 2001)

As regards the language arrangements applicable to the submission of applications for European patents to the European Patent Office, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to Question E-0534/01, which he put to the Council on the same subject.

As regards the future language arrangements to apply to the submission of applications for Community patents, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given to Question P-0762/01.

As regards the intervention of the Greek Government in case T-120/99, the Council notes the ruling delivered by the Court of First Instance in this case, in which the Court rejects the action and the pleas brought forward by the applicant against the language arrangements of the Office.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Council is not bound by the time limits laid down in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2721/01

by Jean Saint-Josse (EDD) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 Habitats Directive France rescission by court decision of the forwarding of lists of areas in France consequences for the commitment of LIFE funds

In France, the Council of State rescinded by a judgment of 27 September 1999 (case No 194648) the first notification decisions by means of which the Minister of the Environment had forwarded to the Commission lists relating to 534 areas eligible for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network (decisions of 16 October, 3 December and 9 December 1997).

The Council of State has just, for the second time, penalised the Minister of Regional Development and the Environment, by judgment of 22 June 2001 (case No 219995) because, despite his claims, he was unable to prove that he had genuinely completed the whole of the consultation procedure required by French law before information is forwarded to the European authorities.

The fresh decisions to forward information to the Commission have thus again been rescinded in the case of the 534 areas in question.

France's Minister of the Environment is now compelled to restart his local consultation procedure from the very beginning before forwarding any further information. This decision cannot fail to have legal consequences for the commitment of European funds, particularly under the LIFE programme.

Of the 534 areas in question, which constitute the main areas in France, are any currently receiving cofinancing under LIFE or could any of them be eligible for cofinancing from this European fund? What action will the Commission take in response to the aforementioned decision by the Council of State as regards the commitment of funds under LIFE for the areas which may be affected?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2001)

According to information sent to the Commission, the Council of State's judgment of 27 September 1999 rescinded the notification of 534 sites proposed to the Commission for the Natura 2000 network by the French authorities, on the grounds that the statutory consultation procedure had not been followed properly. As yet, the Commission has received no official communication from the French authorities regarding the situation.

It would therefore seem premature at this stage for the Commission to comment on the consequences the aforementioned decision of the Council of State might have on the commitment of LIFE funds for any sites affected by the rescission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2503/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria.



Official Journal 081 E , 04/04/2002 P. 0187 - 0187



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2503/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (13 September 2001) Subject: Comprehensive plan to clean up the Vigo ria In its answer to my Written Question E-0096/00(1) the Commission undertook to inform me of further developments regarding the Spanish authorities' compliance with Community legislation applicable to the comprehensive project to clean up the Vigo ria. Can the Commission provide fresh information on the above question? (1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 22. Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (18 October 2001) At the last meeting of the Cohesion Fund Monitoring Committee, in April 2001, the Spanish authorities reported that work on the project to comprehensively clean up the ría de Vigo was complete. The Commission is now awaiting from those authorities the final implementation report, which should reach it shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1964/01

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Wolf children

In rare cases wolf children, having been abandoned or run away from their parents, have been known to live in forests among animals which enable them to survive.

The most recent case involved a Chilean boy who was abandoned by his parents and found after living for ten years with a pack of stray dogs that had kept him alive on bitches' milk.

Scientific and political circles do not appear to have taken sufficient notice of such an exceptional phenomenon.

Given that, in the year 2001, such things must never ever be allowed to happen again and that Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the rights of the child, what attention is the Commission bringing to bear on the matter and what humanitarian and economic assistance is it providing to the countries where cases occur, to ensure that they accept responsibility for them and prevent any repetition in the future?

What support is being offered with a view to resocialising human beings who, when they are found, very often cannot speak any language and show severe signs of physical and mental maladjustment?

Does the Commission not believe that it should promote exhaustive studies on specific cases and the characteristics of the phenomenon and the best ways to reclaim the children affected?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission considers that it is not qualified to act in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/01

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

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Growing numbers of stray dogs in southern and central European towns

Is the Commission aware that numbers of stray dogs and cats in southern and central European towns continue to increase?

Does the Commission know that, given the extent of the problem, it has become almost impossible for animal protection organisations to catch these animals?

Is the Commission aware that these stray dogs and cats are not only suffering from neglect, but can also represent a growing public health problem?

Is the Commission aware that in Bucharest, Romania, alone there are about 100 000 stray dogs running in packs, and that in Athens and Corfu, Greece, and Naples and Pompeii, Italy, for example, there are also large numbers of stray animals?

What can the Commission do to help solve this problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

The Commission is aware that the problem of stray dogs and cats is a serious one in certain European cities.

However, the responsibility for finding a solution to this particular problem is one for the authorities within the Member States and third countries concerned. The Community has no competence in relation to this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2053/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Programmes for the integration of immigrants

Various different programmes have been introduced in the Member States to promote the integration of immigrants into society in their new homeland. However, all too often immigrants find that the programmes only benefit those members of the country's own population who organise them; as a rule, not even the implementation of the programmes has been entrusted to immigrants.

Has the success of programmes for the integration of immigrants been assessed?

In which countries have the best results been achieved in terms of immigrants putting down new roots, and what factors have been conducive to such success?

Has the commercial value of the programmes and of education etc. associated with them been assessed, and has consideration been given to the possibility of making immigrants responsible for such business activity?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2051/01 and E-2053/01

(27 November 2001)

The Council does not have information on programmes introduced in the Member States to promote the integration of immigrants into society. The adoption and implementation of national programmes aimed at the integration of immigrants falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(21 August 2001)

Subject: Italian fishing vessels seized in Guinea-Bissau

In early June, two Italian fishing vessels (the Excalibur and the Barracuda) which belong to the Martinsicuro-based company Italfish and which at the time were outside Guinea-Bissau's territorial waters, were seized purely on a pretext. In the intervening period, no action has been taken in order to resolve the issue.

Although at the time of the seizure the two vessels were fishing (according to the testimony of the shipping inspector from Guinea-Conakry) seven miles outside Guinea-Bissau's territorial waters, the local tribunal has imposed a huge fine so as to have a pretext for seizing them.

Can the Commission intervene with a view to establishing:

- what the situation of the Italian vessels is;

- what guarantees have been sought on behalf of the crews;

- what guarantees have been negotiated for the purpose of safeguarding the owners' rights?

Can the Commission also:

- take urgent action with a view to having the vessels returned;

- suspend all agreements with Guinea-Bissau;

- review, in the light of the instability prevailing in the country and the lack of institutional guarantees, the eligibility of the country (which has already had $790 million of its debt waived) for the poor countries' debt-reduction programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Barracuda is not a Community vessel, but rather a trawler flying the Senegalese flag.

The Excalibur, which flies the Italian flag, is currently awaiting the completion of legal procedures in the port of Bissau, following its seizure on 29 June 2001.

As regards the nature of the alleged offence (fishing without a permit in the waters of Guinea-Bissau), it is impossible to reach an unbiased conclusion on whether or not the ship was in the waters of Guinea-Bissau at the time of inspection. Contrary to the obligations imposed by Community legislation (Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993, establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1)), the Excalibur was not equipped with a satellite Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). This system, which has been compulsory since 1 January 2000, would have allowed verification of the ship's position at the time of inspection.

Safeguarding the interests of the shipowner and crew is a matter solely for the owner or the flag State.

Through its delegation to Bissau, the Commission has nevertheless closely monitored the events following the seizure of the ship, and has been in contact with the Italian consular and diplomatic authorities in Guinea-Bissau.

The Commission is aware that the problems arising from this situation pose severe difficulties to the owner and crew of the Excalibur, but would stress that no legal basis exists to link between the current legal proceedings in Guinea-Bissau and the implementation of its fisheries agreement.

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2841/01

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: CE mark on electro-shock stun-weapons and restraint equipment

Given concerns over the use of such weapons and the use of the CE mark to promote sales will the Commission:

1. clarify the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded and indicate the Commissioner responsible;

2. explain to the European Parliament how many stun-weapon manufacturers are using the CE mark on their products,

3. take action to prevent stun-weapons manufacturers from using CE marks to promote sales of their products?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2812/01 and E-2841/01given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to written question P-2783/01 by Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: The use of the CE safety marking in the manufacture of stun weapons

Is the Commission aware of the growing concern that EU Member States are effectively allowing stun weapon manufacturers to use the European Commission CE safety markings on their stun batons as a quality selling point?

Would the Commission please advise by what process European standard marks are awarded and how many stun weapon manufacturers are using the CE markings on their products?

In the light of this, does the Commission have any plans to take action to prevent such manufacturers from using the safety marking to promote the sale of their products?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2934/01, E-2965/01, P-3012/01, E-3108/01 and E-3191/01given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Honourable Members are referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2783/01 from Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Cross-border tourist guides

In some Community regions with few resources and very small populations because of the lack of opportunities to earn a living, jobs have been created for cross-border environmental tourist guides, who provide professional services for tourists visiting natural sites which straddle the territory of various Member States.

At present, various residents associations and local authorities are seeking to promote the creation of a vocational training course for outdoor sports instructors and environmental tourist guides.

Given that the local people concerned are unwilling to drop their demands for a training course to be made available and the government remains blind to the problem, will the Commission say whether there is a Community programme that could contribute to the development of a training course for cross-border tourist guides in Community regions which straddle the territory of various Member States?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

The Community Initiative Interreg III co-finances cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation actions across the Community. Programmes setting out the strategic priorities are proposed by the partnerships in the border area concerned in the light of the needs identified and in conformity with the Commission's guidelines for Interreg III. Once the programme has been adopted by the Commission, and in accordance with its strategic priorities, it is then for the partnership to select the individual projects for support. These can include training courses of the type to which the Honourable Member refers.

Outside the context of the Interreg programme, the development of training courses for tourist guides may be a possible project under the Community programme Leonardo da Vinci programme. This programme is aimed at supporting transnational partnerships in the development of innovative training tools in the field of vocational training.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/01

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Aid for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards in Greece

Under the new Council Regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine (Regulation (EC) 1493/1999(1) of 17 May 1999) the Member States are entitled to annual financial subsidies to restructure and convert vineyards. However, Greece has not received any financial aid for the 2000/2001 period.

1. Why has Greece not received any aid for the 2000/2001 period? Can it confirm that the reason is the delay in the drawing-up of a scheme and the inventory of the production potential? Are the Commission services acquainted with the reasons for this delay?

2. Does the Commission consider that the scheme put forward by Greece and the declared inventory will ensure an effective restructuring of vineyards in Greece and allow an improvement in the competitiveness of Greek viticulture?

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Commission Decision 2000/503/EC of 25 July 2000 fixing an indicative financial allocation, in respect of a number of hectares, by Member State for restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 for the 2000/01 marketing year(1), allotted Greece8 280 000 for a minimum of 1 162 ha. This was in line with Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on common organisation of the market in wine(2).

The inventory of viticultural production potential, presentation of which is a prerequisite for access to Community funds, was sent by the Greek Government to the Commission by a letter of 25 June 2001. The Commission took the appropriate decision on 18 July 2001.

It is this situation that was the reason for non-utilisation by 30 June 2001 of the Community funds made available to Greece by the Commission. Nor did she make use of the provision in the detailed rules (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down

detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards production potential(3)) for allowing Member States to use by 15 October 2001 part (maximum 75 %) of the Community funds not used by 30 June. For the 2002 budget year she has received an allocation of 7 323 000 for 3 028 ha.

Under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 responsibility for restructuring plans falls to the Member State. The Commission has no data allowing it to forecast the impact of the restructuring and conversion plans on the competitive position of each Member State's viticulture industry.

(1) OJ L 201, 9.8.2000.

(2) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(3) OJ L 143, 6.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2831/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 October 2001)

Subject: Racist statements by the Italian Government

According to various diplomatic sources and numerous reports in leading European newspapers, at the European Council meeting, Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, stated among other things that the United States symbolised Western civilisation in contrast to the Islamic way of life; that our civilisation was superior to others, some of which were still in the middle ages and pointing out,

finally, the need to defend our civilisation and its advantages. These statements were followed by equally serious declarations by Roberto Castelli, the Italian Justice Minister, with a racist tone inconsistent with today's European spirit (diplomatic sources quoted in the French daily Le Monde) at the recent meeting of the JHA Council, raising questions as to the nature of the Italian Government.

How is it that not one of the other 14 Heads of States present felt the need to condemn or distance themselves from Mr Berlusconi's statements?

In the light of these positions adopted by the Italian Government, does the European Council not feel that it should place Italy under observation pursuant to Article 7 of the EU Treaty?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

It is not for the Council to comment on the statements made by Mr Berlusconi.

The Council recalls that the European Council, at its extraordinary meeting in Brussels on 21 September 2001, issued an appeal to the international community to pursue, in all multilateral fora, dialogue and negotiation with a view to building, in Europe and elsewhere, a world of peace, the rule of law and tolerance. The European Council also emphasised the need to combat any nationalist, racist and xenophobic drift, and to reject any equation of terrorism with the Arab and Muslim world.