ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0185/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Execution of three male Saudi Arabian citizens on grounds of homosexual relations

According to recent media reports, three male Saudi Arabian citizens (Ali bin Hatan bin Saad, Muhammad bin Suleiman bin Muhammad, and Muhammad bin Khalil bin Abdullah) were recently executed by beheading, having been sentenced to death after being found guilty of homosexual relations.

These reports once again brutally show up how fundamental human rights such as, in these cases, the right to choose one's sexual orientation are systematically violated in Saudi Arabia, in a context where the death penalty continues to be applied.

We are dealing on both counts with attitudes which run totally counter to the values affirmed by the EU in the framework of the common foreign and security policy.

What has the Council's response been to this news? What measures has it adopted or will it adopt to ensure that the Saudi Arabian government respects human rights, including the rights of homosexual citizens, and abolishes the death penalty?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The EU is actively working for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. As regards Saudi Arabia, human rights issues, including the death penalty, are addressed in bilateral contacts and in the context of the political dialogue with the Gulf Cooperation Council, of which Saudi Arabia is a member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0911/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: Marketing of noni products

The marketing of noni products is at present being treated differently in the different Member States. In Germany in particular, products produced on a 100 %-natural basis from the fruit (morinda citrifolia) and bio-certified

under EU law are being declared ineligible for marketing on the grounds that they contravene Novel Foods Regulation (EC) No 258/97(1) and have not been approved. The German health authorities in particular assert that there is an increased risk of toxic and allergic reactions. Other EU Member States permit noni products to be marketed without restriction regardless of quality level. It remains uncontested in that connection that bio-certified noni products have been produced by traditional reproduction or growing methods. At issue is their suitability as food products, although it is known that in the USA in particular large quantities of noni products have been marketed for many years with no evidence of toxic or allergic reactions hitherto.

1. How does the Commission explain the discrepancy between approval as a bio-certified food product and the withholding of approval under the Novel Foods Regulation for one and the same product?

2. What is the Commission's own information hitherto about the apparent risk of consuming noni products?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

All Member States and the Commission agree that noni products (Morinda citrifolia) are novel food within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as they have been placed on the market only after the entrance into force of the Regulation. Therefore, the marketing of noni products prior to a possible authorisation under the Regulation is illegal in all Member States. In order to ensure that noni products are treated in the same manner throughout the Community, Member States have agreed to take the appropriate steps to end any ongoing marketing of noni products in their territory (see also the Commission's answer to written question P-0325/02 by Mrs Müller(1)).

The Honourable Member might also note that currently only one application limited to noni juice has been submitted and is currently being examined under the Regulation.

1. The purpose of bio-certification is to distinguish between production methods. However, for novel products in the sense of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 it may not replace the necessary assessment and does not provide any prejudice to the outcome of the authorisation procedure under the Regulation.

2. The Commission itself did not gather any evidence that the consumption of noni products may endanger human health. This, however, has no bearing on the fact that novel foods can only be placed on the market after having received authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 258/97.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/02

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Evaluation of plant protection product safety

Is the Commission aware that the absence of an evaluation of plant protection product safety has led to uncertainty amongst both consumers and farmers?

By when does it expect to have completed the safety evaluation?

How does it assess the distortions of competition and the uncertainty amongst consumers and farmers to which this situation has given rise?

Plant protection product residues were found in various types of fruit in Baden-Württemberg. A number of farmers admitted to buying plant protection products in Italy, where, it is claimed, the active substances can be bought at a seventh or even, in some cases, a tenth of their German price and active substances no longer authorised for use in Germany can be bought without any problem. It has been pointed out, however, that fruit from trees and bushes treated with such products can be marketed in any Member State, putting German farmers at a disadvantage. On the one hand, they are not allowed to use all pesticides, which could result in lower quality crops, and, on the other hand, they have to pay substantially more for plant protection products authorised for use in Germany. The end products are in direct competition with each other on the foodstuffs market.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission is fully aware that the review of plant protection products should proceed as quickly as possible in order to ensure that only products which meet the high safety requirements of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1) can remain on the market. In its Report to Council and Parliament made in June 2001(2) the Commission has addressed the reasons for delay and has proposed measures to finalise the review in 2008.

For the aspects concerning distortions of competition, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to written question P-0567/02 by Mr Langen(3).

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2) COM(2001) 444 final.

(3) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 223.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/02

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Freedom of worship in Vietnam

On 5 July 2001, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on religious freedom in Vietnam, calling on the government to guarantee the right of all Vietnamese to practice their religion of choice, including the right of freedom of worship and freedom to meet.

On 19 October 2001, Fr. Nguyen van Ly, a Roman Catholic, was sentenced in camera and with no lawyer to 15 years' imprisonment for having practised his religion in spite of the ban enacted by the Vietnamese authorities. The Venerable Thich Huyên Quang, Supreme Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam has been under house arrest, in solitary confinement and much police surveillance since he was arrested in 1994. Although seriously ill, he is not allowed to be given treatment. On 31 May 2001, as he was about to fetch Thich Huyên Quang and bring him to Saigon for treatment, the Venerable Thich Quang Dô, Secretary General of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam was arrested and placed under house arrest.

These respected and well known religious figures are not alone; the Vietnamese authorities have taken similar and equally regrettable action against many individuals for practising their religion. The authorities' decisions fly in the face of human rights, the European Parliament's resolution of 5 July, and numerous appeals from the European Union and the international community on behalf of Fr. Nguyen van Ly, the Venerable Thich Huyên Quang and the Venerable Thich Quang Dô

What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the European Parliament's resolution of 5 July 2001 is respected?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council is well-aware of the European Parliament's concern on this issue, as on others concerning human rights in Vietnam. It has conveyed those concerns to the Vietnamese authorities, both through the meetings of the EC-Vietnam Joint Co-operation Committee and through the contacts established by EU Missions in Hanoi with the MFA and other relevant Ministeries and bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0958/02

by Manuel dos Santos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 March 2002)

Subject: Ota airport

The Portuguese Government has designated the construction of a new national airport an essential priority. Once viability and siting studies had been carried out, it was decided that this airport should be sited at OTA, a district in Leiria, some 100 km from Lisbon.

The project is of enormous strategic importance and on a gigantic scale, requiring at least 1 775 million in funding.

The Portuguese Government can build this airport only with assistance from the European Structural Funds. The funding scheme has already been agreed with the Commission.

Recently, voices have been heard from various parts of the Portuguese political spectrum contesting the priority assigned to investing in this airport, with suggestions even being made that the Community monies could be redirected into funding social policies.

In view of the above can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What is this investment project's current situation at Commission level?

- Has the Commission been consulted as to the possibility of transferring monies from this project into social policies?

- How does the Commission assess this financial commitment within the framework of the accessibility policy funded by the Cohesion Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

No request for part-finance from the Structural Funds has been received in respect of the project to build a new airport at Ota. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the choice of projects is exclusively a matter for the Member States.

However, the planned new airport did appear on the multiannual indicative list of programmes for 2000-2006 under the trans-European transport networks (TENs) and TENs funds contributed to the first phase of the project, a feasibility study and selection of the airport's location.

The Commission also negotiated with the Portuguese authorities a reference framework for the transport sector in 2000-06. Three main goals were selected as regards airports: increasing capacity to meet rising demand, improving the quality of services and increasing security. That reference framework noted that priority assistance from the Cohesion Fund would go to structural projects contributing to practical improvements in multimodal links between Portugal and Spain and the rest of Europe (priority project No 8). The framework gave the construction of a new airport in Lisbon a place alongside other projects such as high-speed rail links and modernisation of the rail network, completion of the network of port access and the creation and modernisation of logistical and port systems in helping create a new focus for transport in Portugal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0449/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: European Women's Lobby

How much money has the European Women's Lobby (EWL) received from the DAPHNE programme in each of the past three years?

Does the EWL have favoured status over other women's organisations?

Does the European Commission provide money to other organisations, as it does to the EWL, to lobby European politicians in order to secure their already earmarked funding or to lobby for more money?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The European Women's Lobby has been awarded the following grants under the Daphne Programme (Budget line B5-802):

- 1999/DAP/050 Putting an end to violence against women: exchange of best practice Amount awarded: 78 373;

- 2000/DAP/046 Breaking the silence: campaigns to prevent violence against women Amount awarded: 110 000;

- 2001/DAP/011 Breaking the silence: setting up a European observatory on violence against women (two-year project) Amount awarded in 2001: 125 000 Amount awarded in 2002: 125 000.

Total of awards 1999-2002: 438 373.

The European Women's Lobby (EWL) is one of several organisations promoting the concept of European civil society which receive Community funding under chapter A-30 of the budget. As indicated in the comments under budget heading A-3037, the EWL, having been approved by the European Parliament, has come to play an essential part in Community action in support of women. The Commission therefore considers it entirely acceptable that an organisation of this kind can, in full compliance with the conditions and procedures set out in the call for proposals published every year, take part in the DAPHNE programme in support of preventive measures to tackle violence against children, young people and women.

In general, grants under chapter A-30 are intended to finance independent institutions with a European interest and to help to fund bodies or projects whose aim is to promote the European civil concept, in line with the principles of the EC Treaty. The organisations which receive these grants must comply with the principles of the vade mecum on grant management. Insofar as this is does not conflict with its responsibilities in terms of implementing the budget, the Commission also ensures that the comments relating to these budget headings, which reflect the wishes of the budgetary authority and therefore also those of Parliament, are complied with. These wishes are indicated by earmarking funds for certain headings in advance; the Commission is opposed to this system but tries nevertheless to comply with it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: Food safety problems

Commissioner Byrne warned recently about the dangers posed by lack of food safety in third countries.

In particular there is a threat to the European market from food originating from Turkey, Russia, Bylorussia, the Ukraine and Moldavia where health checks on food are non-existent.

In view of the above, will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to protect the health of European consumers and whether it is aware of any cases of insanitary food being imported into Greece from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

For products of animal origin import conditions and import controls are harmonised at Community level. There is a considerable body of Community veterinary legislation to ensure that acceptable animal health and public health standards are met for all imported consignments. Such products may only be imported into the Community in accordance with this legislation, which is aimed at ensuring that health standards in imported products are at least as high as those applicable to Community production.

For food of non-animal origin, import conditions and import controls are not harmonised at Community level. However, the general principle applies: food imported into the Community for placing on the market within the Community shall comply with the relevant requirements of food law or conditions recognised by the Community to be at least equivalent thereto. It is the aim to harmonise these import conditions by including a procedure for that purpose in the forthcoming proposal on official food and feed controls referred to in the White Paper on food safety(1).

This general principle is embedded in Community law through Regulation (EC) No 178/2002(2) which provides that the Member States notify to the Commission any findings related to a direct or indirect risk to human health through the rapid alert system for feed and food. In case of regular serious findings concerning a product from a third country, a measure may be taken to temporarily impose special import conditions or even to suspend imports of that product. For the future, the Commission proposal on feed and food controls will include procedures to ensure further harmonisation of import conditions and import controls for this type of food.

Since January 2001 there have been 27 notifications from Greece to the rapid alert system mainly for nuts and vegetable products. For 25 consignments the products were not permitted entry to the Community. Only two notifications resulted in an alert being signaled to other Member States through the rapid alert system. One alert concerned glass in a chocolate powder, and the other chloramphenicol found in frozen shrimps.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of 28 January 2002, of the Parliament and the Council laying down the general principles of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/02

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Algeria

How will the Council of the European Union ensure that the assessment of the human rights situation in Algeria and compliance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement, become a separate agenda item in all meetings held under the Agreement, and especially the Association Council meetings?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Algeria was initialled on 19 December 2001 and will be signed in the next few months. The Agreement, which will not enter into force until it has received the assent of the European Parliament, been concluded by the Council and ratified by the Member States' parliaments, makes respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights an essential element of the Agreement(1), serious breaches of which will oblige the other party to take appropriate steps. Moreover, it will institutionalise regular political dialogue at various levels on all aspects of mutual interest. Such dialogue will take place in particular within the Association Council.

These provisions will enable the Community to examine the application of international human rights standards within the bodies provided for under the Agreement, i.e. the Association Council and the Association Committee. The agenda for meetings of these bodies will be drawn up in the light of developments and of the needs arising from implementation of the Agreement.

The Council also initiated a political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level three years ago. This is the forum in which the European Union, represented by the troika, regularly raises issues relating to respect for human rights with the Algerian authorities and strongly insists that any departure from this or any abuse in the fight against terrorism be avoided. On numerous occasions the European Union has expressed its concern at reports of arbitrary detentions, extra-judicial arrests, the use of torture and the fate of missing persons. At the most recent political dialogue meeting in Brussels on 5 December 2001, the EU requested Algeria to provide it with information on the fate of a number of missing persons and asked it to cooperate with UN mechanisms and with NGOs in the area of human rights. A meeting of the same nature is planned for the end of April in Algiers, providing another opportunity to continue discussion of these matters with the Algerian authorities.

(1) Respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall inspire the domestic and external policies of the parties and shall constitute an essential element of this Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Harmful gas emissions from the Reggio Emilia incinerator between 1 January 2002 and 10 February 2002

Between 1 January and 10 February 2002 the waste incinerator situated in via dei Gonzaga in Reggio Emilia in the Italian region of Emilia Romagna, managed by the firm AGAC under the control of the local authority, repeatedly emitted harmful substances such as carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid and total organic carbon. The population and the authorities were not informed about the harmful emissions and the excessive emission levels at the appropriate time. The facts only emerged one month later, when a person living near the incinerator complained of feeling unwell.

Can the Commission say whether the silence on the part of those who run the plant, and who did not even inform the Reggio Emilia provincial authorities during the 40 days when the harmful substances were being emitted, infringes Community public health and environmental standards?

Does the incinerator in question comply with European legislation on the environment and public health?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

A number of provisions of Community law set out the requirements for the operator of an incineration plant to inform a competent authority in the event of the Community limit values for emissions from an incineration plant being exceeded.

In the case of municipal waste incineration, Article 8 of Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(1) requires that a competent authority be informed as soon as possible should the measurements taken show that the limit values laid down in the Directive have been exceeded. The operator is also required to ensure that the plant does not continue to operate while failing to comply with emission standards and shall take the necessary measures to ensure it is modified or no longer operated. Additional requirements regarding breakdown etc. are also set out in this article. In the case of the incineration of hazardous waste similar provisions are set down in Article 12 of Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994(2).

The Commission will ask the Italian authorities whether the relevant requirements were complied with in this case and whether the incinerator complies with the relevant Community emission standards and will inform the Honourable Member accordingly.

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0636/02 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. Transparency.



Official Journal 229 E , 26/09/2002 P. 0112 - 0113



WRITTEN QUESTION P-0636/02 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council (4 March 2002) Subject: Transparency Will the Council please comment on the proposal concerning transparency and openness in the EU institutions entitled: Transparency and openness in the EU institutions, as proposed by SEAP, the Society of European Affairs Professionals? Reply (25 June 2002) The Council considers that it is not for it to give an opinion on the positions of private bodies such as that referred to by the Honourable Member.