ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/02

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

(25 January 2002)

Subject: The Barcelona process and the fisheries agreements with Morocco

The Spanish presidency's priorities include the Euro-Mediterranean association, based on the Barcelona process started in 1995. At the meeting in Barcelona the fisheries agreement between Morocco and the European Union, which had just been signed, was seen as an example of the path to be followed in seeking better collaboration between the two shores of the Mediterranean. In this context, is the Spanish presidency willing to re-establish this climate of cooperation in order to facilitate the signing of a new fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member pointed out, the 1995 Barcelona Conference created a new framework for relations between the countries of the European Union and the countries of the Mediterranean through global cooperation based on political dialogue, the development of economic and financial cooperation and the inclusion of the social, cultural and human dimension.

In this spirit, the Council, aware that fisheries have always been a particularly important aspect of relations between the Kingdom of Morocco and the European Union will do all it can to ensure that this close relationship is maintained in the context of fruitful cooperation between both Parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Possible suspension of drug dependency programmes

The Greek press reports that drug dependency programmes run by Ithaki, an EU-funded therapeutic community in northern Greece, may be suspended because, it appears, the staff's contracts have expired and, owing to an oversight while drugs legislation was being amended, no new recruitment can take place.

Is the Commission aware of this matter? Is there a possibility that the programmes will be suspended? What action will the Commission take to prevent that eventuality? What funds has the EU provided, directly and indirectly, and to which therapeutic communities for drug addicts in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The Commission has not been informed on this matter. Treatment, including the therapeutic communities, falls within the competence of Member States and is not covered by the Community Action Program on Drugs and Drug Dependencies. The programme covers mainly prevention programmes, but it has covered treatment, when there has been a preventive element involved.

Many Community programmes not dealing explicitly on drugs are also relevant in this field (Equal, Urban, Integra etc.) and may finance drug related actions. The administration of these funds is handled by the Member States.

Itaca (Ithaci) is a European Association of Professionals working in the field of drugs. Its main office is in Italy, but Greece is one of the participating Member States.

Itaca has received grants from the Community Action Programme on Drugs and Drug Dependencies in recent years. Decisions on subsidies for this year have not yet been taken as not all the procedures are yet complete.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0283/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Railtrack

The UK government recently put Railtrack PLC into liquidation. It looks likely that the owners of shares in Railtrack will lose virtually all of their capital investment in the company, without any compensation. Is the Commission concerned at the way in which the UK government has handled the liquidation of Railtrack?

In particular, does the Commission believe that the effective confiscation of Railtrack shares in the UK may jeopardise plans for the liberalisation of transport infrastructures around Europe, as investors are deterred from investing in such projects for fear that the Railtrack precedent will be repeated with sudden renationalisation without compensation? Does the Commission believe that the UK government should compensate the shareholders of Railtrack?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on bhealf of the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Managing railway infrastructure is an important element of the Community's and national transport policies. The Commission has been informed about the situation of Railtrack and about the solutions envisaged to terminate the administration period. The Commission is reassured that administrators have to act in the public interest and in the interest of creditors and investors of Railtrack. It also appreciates that rail services have to be guaranteed during the administration period.

The question of property rights in the railway sector being a matter of Member States competence, under subsidiarity rules, the Commission is not in a position to comment the way in which the British government has handled the liquidation of Railtrack.

The Commission has no comment to make on the issue of a possible compensation by the Government of the shareholders of Railtrack.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0864/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Possible harmful effects of Xanthine Oxidase in Milk

Is the Commission aware of the possibly harmful effect of Xanthine Oxidase in homogenised milk?

Will it take steps to ensure that milk labelling shows whether milk has been homogenised?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, as outlined in the Commission's reply to written question E-2907/00 by Mr Clegg(1), it is not aware of any research showing that homogenised milk poses a threat to the health of the population.

Neither is the Commission aware of any scientific evidence of harmful effects of the physiological enzyme xanthine oxidase in homogenised milk. If such evidence in the future would establish that the process of homogenisation poses a threat to the health of the population, the Commission would of course then examine what course of action should be followed.

Concerning the labelling of homogenised milk, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the proper information of the consumer is already foreseen in paragraph 3 of Article 5 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(2): The name under which the product is sold shall include or be accompanied by particulars as to the physical condition of the foodstuffs or the specific treatment which it has undergone (e.g. powdered, freeze-dried, deep-frozen, concentrated, smoked) in all cases where omission of such information could create confusion in the mind of the purchaser.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0310/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Prevention of whiplash injury

Every year there are a large number of car accidents in the European Union in which the occupants suffer whiplash injury. A common result of such injury is chronic neck pain, often resulting in long-term inability to work. The social costs of neck complaints in the European Union are estimated at between 5 and 10 billion euro a year (source: Victims and society: Achmea Foundation, 2001). The findings of TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) report 96.OR.BV.050.0/EJ (1996) indicated that there was inadequate protection for both front and rear seat occupants in all the cars tested. More stringent technical requirements for the manufacture of cars could do a great deal to prevent whiplash injury.

1. Is the Commission aware of the TNO report referred to above and, if so, how does it intend to use the findings in drafting legislation on road safety in the European Union?

2. Is the Commission prepared to take steps to reduce whiplash injury and, if so, what measures does it envisage taking and when?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

1. The Commission is aware of the TNO report which was established at the demand of the Foundation Achmea in the Netherlands.

At the time of the report's production, the Dutch government drew the attention of the Commission to the need to improve the Community legislation in that respect. Consequently, Council Directive 74/408/EEC of 22 July 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (strength of seats and of their anchorages)(1) was substantially amended by Commission Directive 96/37/EC of 17 June 1996(2) in the particular context of head restraints. Two of the major recommendations of the TNO report were thus taken into consideration.

2. Over time, the whiplash injuries issue has been acknowledged as a major car safety issue to all observers. Therefore, the Commission decided, as part of its 4th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development, to launch research initiatives in this area.

These researches were considered necessary in order to collect from all available publications, relevant information regarding:

- biomechanical knowledge concerning neck injury;

- achievement of suitable dummies for safety assessment in rear end collision;

- measurement criteria regarding the neck injury risks;

with a view to introducing new designs of seat backs and head restraints systems.

These research efforts are still in progress. As soon as the results are available, the Commission will adopt appropriate measures for the insertion of new requirements in the Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974.

(2) OJ L 186, 25.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/02 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. The Council.



Official Journal 205 E , 29/08/2002 P. 0102 - 0102



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/02 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (8 February 2002) Subject: The Council Can the Council reconcile Commissioner Lamy's view that The Franco-German couple is the matrix for compromise in the European Union, the forerunner for important compromises, with the statement made by the President of the Commission's spokesman that, In our view, no state is more equal than another, and if so, how? Reply (21 May 2002) The Council is not in the habit of commenting on statements made by members of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: Single Health Card

At the recent summit meeting in Barcelona the leaders of the 15 Members States agreed on the introduction of a special health card which would be valid in the 15 Member States.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to ensure the success of this initiative and when this card will be introduced?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member states, the Barcelona European Council of 15 and 16 March 2002 decided, in line with the Commission's suggestion in its action plan for mobility of 13 February 2003, that in order to encourage mobility in the EU, a European Health Insurance Card will replace the current forms needed for health treatment in a Member State other than the Member State in which a person is insured.

According to the conclusions of the Barcelona Council, the Commission will present a proposal to this effect before the European Council meeting in the spring (2003).

The drawing-up of the Commission proposal requires detailed preparatory work of a legal and technical nature involving the representatives of the Member States and health authorities at national level. This matter will be discussed shortly in the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers(1), which comprises representatives of the Member States and the Commission.

The Commission hopes that the decisions needed for the introduction of the Health Insurance Card can be taken and put into effect in the course of 2004.

This work will take account of the results of the numerous research projects in this field which have been funded over the last ten years, and the numerous applications already in place, particularly in order to ensure the interoperability of the various systems used.

(1) Article 80 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971), amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0191/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Spain: Creation of anti-globalisation units and a database of demonstrators

It is reported by a number of information networks that the Spanish Ministry of the Interior has set up anti-globalisation units that will be brought in during events that take place during the Spanish Presidency of the EU, during first half of 2002, in particular to prevent any disturbances during anti-globalisation demonstrations.

The Ministry is apparently also updating a database which contains the personal details of a large number of people who took part in demonstrations during the Göteborg, Genoa and Barcelona summits. The database is said to contain information provided by different European police forces concerning the protests that took place in these three cities.

In the same context, the Spanish intelligence services have stated that they have been monitoring the Internet sites of anti-globalisation movements since December 2001.

Has the Spanish Government informed the Council of these measures?

Does the Council consider that setting up a database as described above is consistent with European standards of protection of privacy?

Can the Council guarantee that the demonstrators who appear in the database will be able to gain access to their personal data? If so, how?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0142/02, P-0152/02, P-0157/02, P-0180/02,P-0191/02 and P-0205/02

(21 May 2002)

1. The Council draws the attention to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union, which says that:

This Title (Title VI: Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

2. As concerns data protection, the Council of Europe Convention of 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data has been ratified by all 15 Member States.

3. In the conclusions adopted by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, on 13 July 2001, concerning security at meetings of the European Council and other comparable events the objective of the European Union was recalled to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. In such an area, citizens must enjoy the right freely to express their opinions and to assemble in a peaceful manner, rights reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to do so in conditions where there is not a threat to their own security or to that of other citizens or properties.

In the same conclusions the importance was underlined of a constructive dialogue between the organisers of public demonstrations and the authorities of the host country and the importance of close international contacts, particularly among the Member States' law enforcement authorities, to ensure that legitimate demonstrations are not exploited or abused for the purpose of committing acts of collective or individual violence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/02

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Children's rights and gay couples

In Norway gay couples may adopt the children which their partners have had in previous relationships. The Swedish Government is currently preparing a bill to extend the right to adopt children to homosexual couples.

There have also been repeated requests from gay couples for artificial insemination. This important issue raises the question of the effective protection of children's rights, which must be given precedence over the rights of couples, as officially laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted at Nice. The Charter's provisions on the protection of family life lay special emphasis on the protection of children's rights.

The Commission:

- Would it agree that research work, statistical surveys and assessments should be carried out into the development, in psychological and mental terms as well as from the point of view of socialisation, of children who are brought up in homosexual families, as is already the case in certain countries?

- Does it not consider that surveys should be conducted to ascertain whether the role which parents should play with a view to the healthy development of their children's personality can be taken on by gay couples?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the scope of Community competence. It is a matter for the Member States.

Health studies may be funded under the Community Programme on Health Promotion, Information, Education and Training(1) which has supported a series of actions on developing measures to reach sound mental health practices. None have dealt with the issue raised by the Honourable Members.

A final call for proposals was issued in July 2001 for the funding round 2002, after which this programme, together with the other seven public health programmes, will be replaced by a new Community public health programme, currently before the Parliament and Council.

The Commission would not consider that the types of studies indicated would constitute an area for priority action in this future programme, given that not all Member States are concerned by such artificial insemination or adoption.

(1) Decision No 645/96/EC of 29 March 1996, OJ L 95, 16.4.1996 as extended by Decision 521/01/EC of 26 February 2001, OJ L 79, 17.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0798/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2002)

Subject: Export of manure

Up until December 2000 Germany did not allow Dutch livestock farmers who had a piece of land that crossed the border with Germany to spread manure from their own farm on the land in German territory. However, in December 2000 there was a supplementary European decision under which Member States had to permit this. In 2001 the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries reached an agreement on this matter with the German Länder of Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. Lower Saxony is currently implementing the decision and Dutch livestock farmers are in fact able to spread manure from their own farms on their land in German territory. North Rhine Westphalia, however, has still not implemented the decision.

1. Does the European Commission consider that North Rhine Westphalia has failed to implement the above decision?

2. If so, what action can the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Pursuant to Annex I, Chapter 14, Part I A, point 1 a) of Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A, Chapter I, to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/7/EC of 19 December 2000(2), trade in unprocessed manure of species other than poultry or equidae is prohibited, except for manure coming from an area or holding which is not subject to restrictions by virtue of a serious transmissible disease, and intended for spreading under the control of the competent authorities on land forming part of or belonging to the same holding, whether separated or not, located on both sides of the frontier between Member States and within a distance of approximately 20 kilometres.

In this case, records must be kept by the owner of the holding concerning these cross-frontier movements in order to be approved. The competent authority must keep a register of such approved holdings.

The Commission was aware of certain problems arising during the introduction into Lower Saxony of manure from Dutch holdings bordering on Lower Saxony. According to the Commission's information, these problems, as the Honourable Member confirms, no longer exist. However, the Commission is not aware of any refusal by the authorities of North Rhine Westphalia to apply the above-mentioned conditions.

The Commission will therefore contact the German authorities to check on the situation described by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Improving the coordination of the Northern Dimension with the sixth Framework Programme on Research and Development

The maintenance of the balance of the EU's regional development calls for equal investment in all EU regions. The Northern Dimension is an important political initiative for the promotion of cooperation between the EU's northern areas and the states in the Baltic Sea region. In order to obtain the greatest benefit, the EU's various programmes should work together more effectively with one another.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve coordination between the Northern Dimension initiative and existing EU programmes, particularly the 6th Framework Programme on Research and Development?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The Union Framework Programmes for Research and Development (FP) aim to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to provide the necessary scientific support to other Union policies. All the Nordic countries participate in the FP, since they are either Member States or associated states (Iceland and Norway) In addition, the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) also participate as associated states, and a scientific and technological cooperation exists with Russia.

In this context, the fifth FP foresaw a series of actions which covered scientific problems typical of the areas addressed nowadays by the Northern Dimension (e.g. the 1999 Copernicus call related to environmental problems of the Arctic region: 13 projects were retained for a global financial support of 7 million; 17 projects have been supported by the International Association for the promotion of co-operation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (INTAS) with 1,2 million; other projects have been supported by the Environment programme NICE (atmospheric composition), Tundra (ecosystems), IMSI (earth observation by satellite) and in the field of nuclear fission and radiation protection).

A similar attitude will be taken within the next FP. Important neighbouring countries like the Russian Federation will be allowed to participate in the projects under the thematic priorities of the sixth FP with the possibility of financial support. On top of that, specific international cooperation activities in favour of Russia are envisaged. Thus, an extremely wide range of Research and Technological Development (RTD) co-operation activites will be open to scientific consortia wishing to investigate problems typical of the area.