ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/440

(2004/C 88 E/0446)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Status of the Turkish language

What will be the status of the Turkish language following the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004? Will the Commission make a comparison with the status of Gaelic and Luxembourgish?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

In the absence of a settlement before 1 May 2004, the Turkish language will not have the status of an official or working language of the Institutions of the Union, as no such provision has been included in the Accession Treaty. Instead, Protocol No 10 annexed to the Accession Treaty, foresees in this case that the ‘acquis’ is suspended in those areas of Cyprus in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

The Commission continues to encourage all parties to reach a solution to the Cyprus problem before 1 May 2004. The mentioned Protocol No 10 therefore contains an enabling clause allowing for adaptations to the terms concerning the accession of Cyprus to the Union with regard to the Turkish Cypriot Community. Such adaptations can also relate to the status of the Turkish language.

The Commission has decided to dedicate EUR 3 million for the translation of relevant pieces of the ‘acquis’ into the Turkish language to prepare and facilitate the process bringing the northern part of Cyprus closer to the Union. This project is currently implemented.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/349

(2004/C 88 E/0356)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1316/03

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

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Autonomy of the Indonesian province of Papua

Is the Commission aware that in late January 2003 the Indonesian Government issued a decree stipulating that the process of dividing the province of Papua into three would be speeded up?

Can the Commission state how this self-explanatory decree can be reconciled with the earlier decision by the Indonesian Government to grant Papua special autonomy?

Can the Commission state what precise form this autonomy takes at present and what effect it has?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission follows closely the developments in Eastern Indonesia, in particular the situation in Papua, and is very much aware of the Presidential Decree mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Government of Indonesia at the provincial and national levels have started discussions on how to reconcile this decision to divide the province into three distinct provinces with the provisions of the Special Autonomy Law (SAL) passed by the Parliament in 2001. No final decision has however been made public so far.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the Council conclusions on Indonesia of 14 April 2003 stressing ‘the importance of full implementation of the letter and spirit of the SAL in Aceh and Papua’ and ‘the need for clarification of the relation between the SAL for Papua and the recent Presidential Decree’, and expressing ‘its concern on the delays on the Indonesian side in accepting international support for the implementation of the SAL’.

Since the SAL is awaiting implementation, it is not yet possible to give details on its precise form and effect.

The Community Delegation in Jakarta is monitoring the situation in co-ordination with the representatives of the Member States and will recommend possible actions when appropriate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/481

(2004/C 78 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: The air transport company SATA's failure to comply with Community legislation

Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) of 4 February lays down the immediate minimum compensation to be paid by air transport companies if they refuse to embark passengers.

The contents of this Regulation are dealt with in Decree-Law 321/89 of 25 September, Portaria No 223/97 of 2 April and Law No 24/96 of 31 July but there are no provisions reflected in Portuguese law corresponding to these particular provisions of the Community Regulation.

Neither does any Portuguese airline apply this Regulation.

On 12 September, the airline SATA Internacional, without providing any explanation or information, and after several hours of waiting, cancelled flight S4 125 from Lisbon to Ponta Delgada, and re-routed the passengers on another flight, S4 221 from Lisbon to Ponta Delgada.

The airline refused to comply with the Community Regulation provisions referred to above.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that Community legislation on passengers' rights is transposed into Portuguese law and is respected in Portugal?

When does the Commission believe that Community legislation protecting passengers' rights will be applied in Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Community legislation on compensation for denied boarding is in the form of a regulation, not a directive. As such, it directly imposes obligations on air carriers and does not have to be transposed into national law in order to apply. There is no need for provisions on denied boarding in national law for the regulation to be binding.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2) only covers denied boarding and not cancellations. It therefore does not oblige air carriers to pay compensation in cases such as that mentioned in the question.

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that passengers should also enjoy rights if they suffer cancellation or long delay of their flights and, in December 2001, presented a proposal for a new regulation covering compensation and assistance in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (3). This is presently going through the process of conciliation between the European Parliament and the Council, as provided in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. On 14 October 2003 the Conciliation Committee adopted a compromise text, on which the European Parliament will vote on 17 December 2003. The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will approve the proposal.

(1) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

(3) OJ C 103, 30.4.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/256

(2004/C 78 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Monitoring racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls

Could the Commission please tell me whether there has been any discussion on border controls and the monitoring of racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls? If not, could the Commission initiate such a study?

Can the Commission tell me if the European Union Monitoring Centre has any remit to examine this issue?

There is much prima facie evidence that people of non-white racial or ethnic origin are stopped more often at border controls. I have been contacted by a constituent who has been stopped and treated unfairly at the airport in Tallinn. Does the Commission agree that this issue is particularly important with the enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Until now, specific monitoring of racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls has not taken place. The Commission deals with individual complaints concerning such alleged discrimination on a case by case basis.

Should it prove necessary, for instance due to an increase in the number of complaints, the Commission would certainly consider initiating a study to analyse the incidence of racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls in the Union.

Studying this issue would clearly fall under the remit of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (1) establishing this centre, expressly provides that free movement of persons is one of the fields in which the Centre shall collect information and data and conduct surveys and studies on phenomena of racism and xenophobia.

The Commission has received a number of complaints on incidents of alleged racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls and has each time taken contact with the Member State involved to remind it that such discrimination is contrary to fundamental rights and that it is the Member States' responsibility to ensure that their officials do not behave in a racist way in the exercise of their functions and that they respect fundamental rights as protected by the Treaty on European Union as general principles of Community law, and as reaffirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Commission believes that the respect of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin in the exercise of border controls is a very important issue for all Member States. It does not believe that enlargement will be cause for particular concern in this regard. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in all Member States.

(1) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/435

(2004/C 78 E/0457)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject: Isolation units in hospitals

Europe escaped the SARS virus. According to virologists, however, there is a significant risk of a renewed outbreak of the SARS virus before the end of the year. Biological terrorism can also never be ruled out. In order to prevent the spread of viruses such as SARS, work needs to be done on isolation units in hospitals. Now that the threat of the SARS virus appears to have subsided, however, no such work is being carried out in Member States.

Does the Commission agree that European hospitals need to have isolation units?

Does the Commission intend to take action in this area?

How many isolation chambers does the Commision believe hospitals in the EU should have available?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The application of health protection measures, including those undertaken to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in hospitals, is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States.

The Commission has taken, in its areas of competence, a proactive role in responding to SARS and other viral diseases.

This concerns, in particular, co-ordination of surveillance and technical guidance for responding to SARS and other communicable diseases in a coherent way throughout the Union. Details of this work can be found on (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index_en.html).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/390

(2004/C 78 E/0413)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1854/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Landslides in Greece and infrastructural damage

In my Written Question E-1141/03 (1) I asked the Commission whether landslides in Greece (causing unprecedented damage in many cases to infrastructures which had been completed only a few months previously) were linked to geological upheavals which could be caused by intense seismic activity affecting Greece as a whole.

The reply by Commissioner Barnier was not entirely satisfactory since he referred me to replies from his colleagues, omitting any mention of my query regarding the connection between landslides and seismic activity in Greece. Can the Commission reply to this question and say whether it has carried out surveys of seismic activity in the south-east Mediterranean containing forecasts or conclusions regarding the possible future intensification of this phenomenon?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

It is well known that certain landslides in Greece like the Malakassa slide in 1995 provoked the disruption of road and railway links between Athens and Northern Greece for about four days. The risk of landslides as a research issue was recognised in the 4th and 5th Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programmes and led to the funding of research projects under the theme ‘natural hazards’. The Sixth framework Programme foresees the continuation of funding research on landslides under the priority ‘Global Change and Ecosystems’. Landslide research focuses on risk assessment and mitigation with the aim of evaluating strategies for disaster reduction, while integrating the social and economic impacts of disasters. One of the main aims of the Community funded research projects is the study of the mechanisms provoking landslides; another objective is the monitoring of landslides using remote sensing techniques and comparing them with infield information; there are also ongoing geotechnical investigations which study the subsidence problems.

In this context, the Community funded project ‘Segrodi’, which studied displacements of slopes caused by earthquakes, is worth mentioning. It seems that important earthquakes can also cause slope slides. However, for the time being, there is no clear evidence of any forecast capability regarding the intensification of the links between landslides and earthquakes in Greece.

At present, there are some relevant studies being supported under the Environment Programme of the 5th RTD Framework Programme, the results of which are foreseen to be presented at the next Euro Mediterranean Disaster Information Network (EURO-MEDIN) Forum which is expected to be held around the end of 2004.

(1) See page 360.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/713

(2004/C 78 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject: ‘Prestige’: Community aid

The sinking of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast in 19 November 2002, caused one of the largest-ever ecological disasters, with appalling economic and social consequences for a massively fisheries-dependent, and hence fragile, Objective 1 region.

This disastrous accident, which did not affect Portugal solely and simply because of sea-currents, once again raised the issue of safety at sea and how to control transport of hydrocarbons. The issue is of fundamental concern to a country like Portugal, with an immense coastline and extremely vulnerable islands like Madeira and the Azores.

Following the wreck, the Commission presented a Communication on stepping-up safety at sea, providing for: earlier application of the measures in the ‘Erika I’ package (measures on port State control of vessels, closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies and bringing forward the timetable for withdrawing single-hull oil tankers from service), and the ‘Erika II’ (measures on earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency and compensation for victims of oil spillages), increased international intervention and the introduction of sanctions, for pollution crime, including penal sanctions.

In paragraphs 11 and 12 of its resolution of 19 December 2002, the European Parliament called on the Commission, ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the “Prestige” and assist the economic sectors affected’, and the immediate adoption of measures ‘to alleviate the damage occasioned to those affected, through the use of the Solidarity Fund’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Four months after the ‘Prestige’ tragedy, what financial resources have been made available, and what measures have been adopted to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences?

2. Does the Commission possess any estimate of the damage caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’?

3. What has the Commission decided with regard to the possible use of the Solidarity Fund in respect of the ‘Prestige’ disaster?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to question H-0221/03.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/441

(2004/C 78 E/0463)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature

In its answer to my Question E-0520/03 (1) of 13 February 2003 about respect for women's rights in Pakistan, the Council has told me that, so far, not one agreement with a third country in which a human rights clause has been incorporated as an ‘essential element’ has been suspended.

It is true that the EU has in a number of cases where the essential elements of the agreement have been infringed suspended some provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions of the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d'Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). What infringements of essential elements took place in these six countries?

In the case of Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995) the signature of the cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights. ‘Human rights’ is of course a broad term. What kind of infringements of human rights were involved in this case in these four countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission places great emphasis on the human rights clause in agreements of the Community with third countries as a positive instrument to promote human rights and democracy. Structured exchanges on the basis of the clause with third countries offer a more realistic way of realising the goals of the human rights' clause than the application of rigid criteria for the suspension of parts of an agreement. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees that there are circumstances when punitive measures may be required. Where such measures are eventually taken after careful assessment of the prevailing particular situation in a country, it is important that timely consideration is given not only to the impact of the measures but also as to what conditions will govern their lifting.

Since 1996, the human rights clause has been invoked on a number of occasions, including in the case of the countries mentioned by the Honourable Member, for justifying the request for formal consultations with a third country, or suspending cooperation and imposing other sanctions. In all of these cases, the political, democratic and human rights situations in the respective country were carefully assessed. In doing so, the Commission avoided employing any ‘mechanistic’ or ‘typological’ approach, which would have failed to provide the necessary comprehensive appreciation of a precarious situation in third country concerned.

The Commission pursues the same approach in deciding on whether to slow down or suspend negotiations on a bilateral agreement or the signature of such an agreement, as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/779

(2004/C 78 E/0829)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Commission's involvement in national campaigns

The Commission's administrative guide states that the Commission and its staff must be ‘courteous, objective and impartial’ in their dealings with the general public.

With particular reference to the requirement of impartiality, what is the Commission's practice with regard to the involvement of Commissioners and/or its staff in national campaigns in the run-up to referendums on EU- and EMU-related matters?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3098/03 and E-3100/03 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

As the Commission has repeatedly pointed out in answers to written or oral questions from Members of the European Parliament (1), its members are political figures who exercise a political role within the parameters of which they retain the right to express their personal opinions freely on their own responsibility.

The Code of Conduct for Commissioners states that ‘Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions provided this not compromise their availability for the service of the Commission.’

(1) See for example, the answers by President Prodi to Questions 2459/99, 2600/99 and 2628/99, OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, and answer by President Prodi to Question 2629/99, OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/306

(2004/C 78 E/0308)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3642/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Eurobarometer poll

Can the Commission explain the reasoning behind section 2.2 of the latest Eurobarometer Flash Survey (No 151) in which respondents were asked whether or not they consider certain countries to pose a threat to world peace?

What is the purpose of this section given that evaluating perceptions of future threats to world peace is not mentioned as one of the underlying objectives of the survey and also that the responses are not even mentioned in the conclusion of the Flash Survey?

Can the Commission explain how the countries featuring in this survey were selected, and what steps will be taken to ensure that the methodology of any similar future exercise is improved?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3334/03 by Mrs Muscardini (1)

(1) See page 263.