ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0406/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Kidnap of Israeli soldiers

On 7 October 2000 three Israeli soldiers, Binyamin Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Souad were captured by the Hezbollah terrorist organisation whilst patrolling the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Investigations have revealed that the Hezbollah men were disguised as United Nations soldiers, using UNIFIL uniforms and vehicles.

Since their kidnap the Israeli soldiers have been kept in isolation, without any means of communicating with the outside world. Hezbollah have not even allowed the International Red Cross to visit the soldiers and ascertain their state of health.

On 2 November 2001 the Israeli Brigadier-General Rabbi Yisrael Weiss declared the three soldiers dead.

What steps will the Commission take to obtain information concerning the fate of the three soldiers?

If it is confirmed that they are dead, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that the bodies of the men, whose place of burial is still unknown, are returned to their families?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The Commission strongly supports the upholding of the rule of law, and finds the taking of hostages by any country or organisation completely unacceptable. The taking of hostages contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Commission has raised the subject of the four Israeli citizens held by Hizbollah since 7 October 2000 with the Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian authorities, in order to make known its concerns, and to seek information on their well-being. Regrettably, no information has been forthcoming. The Israeli authorities have recently indicated that the three soldiers abducted at the Syria-Lebanon border (in the Shebaa farms area) may no longer be alive.

The Member of the Commission in change of External Relations received the families of the three Israeli soldiers on June 2001 and informed them of the Commission's view that hostage-taking was unacceptable, to withhold information about the well-being of the detained Israelis was wicked, and to deny access to them by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was indefensible. The Cabinet of the President of the Commission met on 21 January 2002 with Mr Haim Avraham, father of one of three Israel Defence forces (IDF) soldiers abducted.

The Commission insists on the right of all those arrested or detained in circumstances of conflict to have access to the ICRC, and that international law be respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2923/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Reliability of debt and deficit data for Greece

The most recent Eurostat data (30 September 2002) on EU Member States' deficits and public debts includes the observation that Eurostat cannot certify the data for Greece and that certain information on government transactions is still pending or incomplete; Eurostat says that it intends to collaborate with the Greek Government to revise the data.

1. Why has Eurostat set out this proviso?

2. For which data is certain information pending or incomplete?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

1. Eurostat publishes twice a year a press release in occasion of the two official notifications of Member States for deficit and debt data. Eurostat inserts a footnote in its press release whenever it is not in a position to certify the figures included in the notification due to the lack of information on certain transactions or disagreement about their classification. This information arrived only after the press release and is now carefully examined.

2. Eurostat is currently investigating the background of some transactions involving general government, in co-operation with the Greek authorities. It is expected that all outstanding issues will be settled before the next official notification foreseen in February 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Expulsion of a delegation of politicians and journalists from El Aaiun (Western Sahara)

On Saturday 1 June a Spanish delegation, duly accredited and consisting of politicians and journalists, arrived at the airport of El Aaiun in Western Sahara, on a flight from the Canaries. They were surprised when, no sooner had they landed, than they were expelled from the airport on the order of the Moroccan authorities, after being treated in an insulting and humiliating manner. The reason for the visit was to find out about the situation in the Sahara, via interviews arranged beforehand with Minurso representatives and with the authorities of El Aaiun and Smara, which unfortunately could not take place.

In view of the serious nature of the incident it is appropriate that the questioner, a member of the ad hoc European Parliament delegation to the Sahara, should denounce this kind of anomaly and lack of parliamentary courtesy on the part of the Moroccan Government towards a delegation consisting of elected Community citizens, such as a female member of Parliament, a female senator, two members of parliament of an autonomous region, a regional government minister, a mayor, two female councillors and seven journalists who were going to cover the meeting.

In view of this and in accordance with Article 21 of the EU Treaty, which deals with the EU's foreign and security policy, the questioner wishes to denounce this outrageous behaviour to the Council and ask what steps it intends to take vis-à-vis the Moroccan Government in connection with this serious incident?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

1. The Council takes note of the incident reported by the Honourable Member.

2. In general, the Council fully supports the UN's efforts towards resolving the Western Sahara conflict, whether undertaken at its New York headquarters or in the field through Minurso. In this connection, it encourages any confidence-building contacts between the Parties, including at the human level, aimed at reaching a lasting solution that fully respects human rights. It recently called upon Morocco to ensure full respect for civil guarantees and human rights in Western Sahara and to continue cooperating with the ICRC in order to clear up the issue of locating disappeared Sahrawis.

3. Likewise, the Council has also called upon the Polisario to release the 1 260 Moroccan prisoners still being held in the Tindouf camps and to cooperate with the ICRC in order to clear up the issue of locating Moroccan nationals who have disappeared. It has further appealed to both Parties to allow, as a humanitarian measure under the aegis of the HCR, refugees, prisoners and their families living in Western Sahara freely to exchange letters and have telephone contacts, and has invited them to encourage family visits bringing together Western Saharan residents and persons in the Tindouf refugee camps.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Greenhouse gas emissions alternative fuels and forms of energy

Efforts are being made to find alternatives to fossil fuels in order to minimise greenhouse gas emissions. One proposal is to incinerate waste in cement kilns. This method of incineration may well reduce CO2 emissions, but it releases other harmful substances.

According to articles in the press, Commissioner Loyola de Palacio suggested, after European Environment Agency figures for greenhouse gas emissions were presented, that greater and more intensive use be made of nuclear power in order to meet the Kyoto standards.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware that harmful substances other than CO2 may be released when alternatives to fossil fuels are used? What steps will it take to ensure that action to deal with one problem does not result in another problem?

Can it confirm whether Commissioner Loyola de Palacio did in fact call for greater and more intensive use of nuclear energy so as to meet the Kyoto standards?

Is this her personal view, or does she have the backing of the whole Commission? If the latter is the case, what arguments does the Commission have for choosing nuclear energy, the waste from which is extremely difficult to process, over alternatives such as solar or wind energy?

If the Commissioner was expressing a personal view, what arguments has the Commission employed in order to persuade her otherwise?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 August 2002)

Concerning the use of nuclear energy the final report on the Green Paper on security of energy supply adopted by the Commission on 26 June 2002(1) stressed that this remains an inseparable part of the debate though there continue to be divergent views within the Union on it's use. It pointed to the contribution of this source of energy to avoiding greenhouse gas emissions a contribution that currently estimated at over 300 million tonnes of CO2 emissions reduction.

The final report on the Green Paper noted the fact that no-one disputes this far from negligible contribution in the understanding that it is seen in the context of a large range of other measures aimed at reducing emissions. For example, under the European Climate Changing Programme, the Commission has announced a set of measures that can potentially cut emissions by some 122 to 178 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and is identifying further potentials for emission reduction options. The final report notes that, in order to meet Kyoto commitments, it has to be considered that the total abandonment of nuclear power would mean that 35 % of the electricity production would have to be replaced by renewable and conventional sources, to which must be added considerable efforts in energy efficiency and the fact that energy demand is forecast to rise.

The Commission emphasised that the range of choices available to the Member States has to be as wide as possible without prejudice to their sovereignty in these matters and that the nuclear option remains open to those Member States who would like it.

(1) COM(2002) 321 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2484/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Imports of tuna caught with driftnets

Representatives of the small-scale fishing fleet in Andalusia (Spain) have reported that Moroccan vessels are capturing tuna and other species in Mediterranean and Atlantic waters using driftnets, which are banned in the Community, and are then exporting the fish to the EC.

Is the Commission aware of these practices?

What measures has it adopted to put an end to them?

Has the Commission acted to ensure that Member States operate customs checks to ensure that fish imported from Morocco has not been caught using driftnets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the imports of tuna caught by Moroccan vessels to which the Honourable Member refers.

The ban on using driftnets to catch highly migratory species effective from 1 January 2002 and introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1), applies only to the fishing activities of Community vessels or third-country vessels fishing in Community waters.

In consequence, the Regulation cannot prohibit imports of fish caught with driftnets by vessels flying the flag of a third country outside Community waters.

The Commission has no information to indicate that the fish exported by the Moroccan vessels in question were caught in Community waters.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2516/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2002)

Subject: Illegal fishing for tuna with drift nets

Fishing for tuna with drift nets, or nets of death, has been banned in the EU since 1 January 2002, largely thanks to the initiatives launched by the European Parliament.

Community fishermen have reported that vessels flying a flag of convenience have been found illegally using drift nets in international waters this fishing year. According to these reports, the fisheries inspection services were alerted and illegal fishing activities were detected on a vessel called the Albatross, which was flying the Belize flag. Illegal gear was found in which cetaceans and other marine species had become trapped.

Can the Commission confirm that these reports are true?

Could it also provide all available information on the infringements committed to date in the current tuna fishing year?

Is it aware of the existence of the Albatross and of its illegal activities?

Can it confirm what the vessel's Flag State is and where its owners are from, and say where it lands it catches?

What measures has it adopted or will it adopt with regard to the presumed illegal fishing activities carried on by this vessel?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2002)

The Commission has been told about the fishing vessel Albatros II. Withdrawn from the Irish fleet register, it is flying under the flag of Belize in order to carry out drift net fishing for albacore tuna outside Community waters. The Commission has passed on its information to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

In line with ICCAT's ad hoc recommendation the vessel has not been authorised to land its catches at Community ports. At present the Commission does not know how it is disposing of its tuna catches.

The Commission and the relevant Member States are collaborating to monitor compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98(1) introducing a prohibition on the use of drift nets by Community vessels to catch highly migratory species. At this stage in the albacore fishing season in the North East Atlantic no infringements have been detected.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for conservation of fishery resources, OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Enlargement

Can the Commission confirm that under the Treaties up to five candidate countries may join the European Union even without the ratification of the Nice Treaty? If the Nice Treaty is again rejected by the Irish electorate will the Commission recommend that the fifteen Member States agree to a slimmed-down version of the Treaty which concentrates on the so-called Amsterdam leftovers so that there will be no additional legal obstacle to the enlargement process?

Can the Commission also confirm that countries will be invited to join the Union strictly on the basis of adherence to the accession criteria, and that if negotiations have been completed with some countries but not others then those countries that have completed negotiations will not be prevented from joining the European Union before the European elections in the summer of 2004 simply because the others have failed to do so?

Does the Commission also accept that the fact that serious negotiations between the existing Member States over reform of the Common Agricultural Policy are unlikely to begin until after the German elections in September means that some slippage regarding the original target date for concluding negotiations at the end of this year is now almost inevitable, even if that still leaves time for Candidate countries who meet the accession criteria to join before the summer of 2004?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2002)

The Commission refers to the Presidency conclusions of the European Council of Barcelona (15 and 16 March 2002), where it is stated, that the ratification of the Nice Treaty which is due to be completed by all Member States by the end of 2002 in order to allow enlargement to proceed as planned.

It would not be appropriate for the Commission to speculate about the course of action to follow in the hypothetical case that the Nice Treaty is not be ratified.

The Commission has always emphasised the application of the principle of differentiation based on each candidates country's own merit for conducting and completing the negotiations. There is no reason to depart from this position.

The Commission holds the view that it is possible to complete the negotiations with the candidates that are sufficiently prepared by the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2135/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Guyana

With reference to Guyana, will the Commission draw up a list of projects approved for financing under the EU budget in 2001 and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1247/02

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Subject: Availability of studies and reports produced with European funding

Through various action programmes the Commission provides funds to support European policy in the Member States. In this way not only Member States but also other authorities and bodies receive European public funds to produce studies and reports on their policy on such subjects as employment and the fight against social exclusion. In many cases these studies are not available to the public.

Is the Commission prepared, when granting financial support to produce reports of this kind, to require the beneficiaries to ensure that studies financed from European public funds must be made available to the public?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

The Commission would like to confirm that, in certain sectors (structural funds, trans-European networks, statistics, justice and home affairs), studies and reports funded from the Community budget are produced at the request of national authorities without the involvement of the Commission. In line with the general financing agreements, these studies and reports remain the property of the Member States which are the beneficiaries of the subsidies granted. It is therefore up to these national authorities to ensure distribution or access where appropriate.

In accordance with the aforementioned agreements, the Commission automatically receives either a full copy or a summary of such studies and reports. Once they are in the possession of the Commission, these copies or summaries are covered by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1).

At a more general level, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern for transparency and tries to ensure that the results of studies funded from the Community budget are distributed as widely as possible. In view of the diversity of the areas affected, and in order to avoid imposing additional costs and administrative constraints, to date the Commission has preferred not to make it compulsory to publish and distribute the studies concerned. In addition, some studies might be covered by the exemptions provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 while others might be of only local interest or concern a specific sector.

In some cases, and notably in the area of research, priority is given to exploiting and disseminating results. Furthermore, several Directorates-General include the results of studies and reports on their websites or in their publications. The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities is currently working on the creation of a central Internet portal which will be geared specifically to studies and reports of interest to a highly specialised public. The Commission supports initiatives aimed at ensuring transparency and facilitating access to studies and reports.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3108/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Marijuana-induced brain damage

According to Susan Greenfield, Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Oxford University and an independent member of the House of Lords, marijuana has its own receptor in the brain and finds its way into the very delicate neurochemical mechanisms which are the basis of the cognitive functions, creating a psychological dependence. This is how Professor Greenfield summarised the results of a batch of studies on the neurological effects of cannabis, including one by the US National Institute on Drug Abuse. These studies have shown that the active principle in cannabis, delta-9-tetra-hydrocannibol (THC), has the same neurological effects as cocaine. In other words, it produces exactly the same changes in the brain.

Could the Commission indicate whether:

1. it is aware of these studies;

2. it knows of the existence of any studies which disprove these conclusions;

3. it does not consider that, in the light of these studies, steps should be taken to avert the liberalisation of soft drugs in the Member States, and above all to inform the general public, and in particular young people, of the damage that can be caused by using them;

4. it would be possible to launch a study (if no such study already exists) to ascertain whether there is any risk of drug users' children suffering injuries to the brain.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

1. The Commission is aware of the studies mentioned in the written question.

2. It is not up to the Commission to give comments on individual studies or their disapproval but in general the Commission is not aware of studies that categorically disapprove these conclusions.

3. This matter falls within the competence of the Member States. Cannabis is illegal in all Member States. There are however differences in enforcement practices between Member States. The Commission has actively contributed to the awareness of this matter in recent years, especially among young people. Under the programme Community Action Drug Dependence, the Commission has supported 180 projects aiming at drug prevention in general at a cost of approximately EUR 38 million during the period 1996-2002. Cannabis is included in many of these projects.

4. Some studies have indicated that babies born to women who used marijuana during their pregnancies display symptoms which may indicate problems with neurological development. Extensive research on the effects of cannabis is being conducted in the Member States and elsewhere. The Commission should not direct or control this research in any detail, but based on the recent expression of interest (http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/eoi-instruments), addiction research has been identified as a suitable area for funding in the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006). Subject to the necessary ethical and scientific expert review, studies into potential risks of drug users' children suffering injuries could be considered for funding in the Sixth Framework Programme.