ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2469/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Kashmir elections

What is the Commission's view regarding the desirability of independent election observers being sent to monitor the forthcoming state elections in Indian-controlled Kashmir?

Has the Commission made any representations to the Indian Government about this matter? If so, what was the response? If not, will it make such representations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Government of India has made a commitment to organise free and fair elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian Election Commission has established a framework whose objective is to avoid flaws that have occurred in the past.

In this context it is important to recall the overall situation in which these elections take place: Kashmir remains at the heart of the India-Pakistan dispute as recent events have clearly shown, and violent incidents are reported regularly.

The presence of international observers would be valuable and desirable. This issue has been discussed with the Indian authorities at various occasions and levels. The Government of India has, however, explained that the Indian law does not permit international observation, but that it would allow the presence of foreign diplomats in their personal capacity only.

Such an arrangement would not be consistent with the guidelines for EU Observation Missions outlined in the 2000 Commission Communication on Election Assistance and Observation. The Commission and the Member States are currently evaluating the advisability of having a presence on this basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/02

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

(6 December 2002)

Subject: The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

Does the Commission believe Corpus Juris is required for the European Public Prosecutor to work properly?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

For almost ten years, at the request of the Parliament and the Commission, groups of experts in criminal law from all the Member States have been working on the subject of the protection of the financial interests of the Community. The result of their work was established in a comprehensive study including recommendations for the protection of the Community's financial interests by criminal law, the Corpus Juris(1). These have inspired the preparation of the Commission's Green Paper on criminal law protection of the financial interests of the Community and the establishment of a European Prosecutor(2).

However, the Commission has identified its own preferences. The Corpus Juris suggested a higher level of harmonisation of general criminal law (Articles 9 to 17) and the laws of evidence (Article 32) and questioned the ability of non-professional judges to try complex cross-border financial cases [Article 26(1)]. The Commission (Green Paper) considers that the individual Member States' legal order must be respected in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. More generally, in its proposals, the Commission has concentrated on the pre-trial phase and has suggested reliance on national law and national systems as far as possible.

(1) Corpus Juris introducing penal provisions for the purpose of protecting the financial interests of the European Union, under the responsibility of M. Delmas-Marty, Economica, Paris, 1997. The Implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States, M. Delmas-Marty/J. A. E. Vervaele, Intersentia, Utrecht, 2000 (4 volumes).

(2) COM(2001) 715 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: Abuse of funds in Romania

Libération reported on 27 September 2002 that the Romanian authorities have announced the opening of an inquiry into the abuse of EU funds intended for the construction of a port facility on the Danube.

Can the Commission confirm the correctness of this press report?

Can the Commission provide guarantees that it is following this procedure with the necessary attention and that it will forward to Parliament, in good time, a detailed report in the context of the discharge procedure for the 2001 budget?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

The Romanian authorities have informed the Commission that an investigation had been launched concerning a project co-financed by PHARE under the CREDO Programme.

The CREDO Programme was a multi-country grant scheme for cross-border co-operation projects between Central and Eastern European countries and between them and the bordering New Independent States. The objective was to promote good neighbourliness, social stability and economic development in the border regions by providing funding for projects which yield tangible benefits to both sides of the border.

The project under investigation was a ferryboat passage for large vehicles between Tulcea and Reni on the Romanian Ukrainian border. Total amount of the project was EUR 302 530, out of which EUR 239 466 were provided by PHARE.

The Commission has confirmed to the Romanian authorities its readiness to support the investigation in Romania. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has been notified as a matter of course. However, it should be underlined that at this stage the Commission has not received any information which would confirm any abuse of EU funds.

As soon as the Commission receives further information from the Romanian authorities on the developments of their investigation, the Honourable Member will be duly informed in writing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Destruction of ancient Greek and Roman monuments in Turkey

The Turkish press reports that extensive cracks have appeared in the ancient theatre of Ephesus in Asia Minor after a number of rock concerts were held there by permission of the Turkish authorities. Furthermore, camel fights (!!) have been held in the ancient stadium of Ephesus which has damaged the monuments and, needless to say, is an affront to its history.

This is not the first time that monuments have been damaged in Turkey, while something similar is happening to the ancient Greek and Christian monuments in northern Cyprus, which is occupied by the Turkish army.

Is the Commission aware of the damage to the monuments at Ephesus? What is its view of the events held there? On how many occasions (and which specifically) has the Commission officially taken up the subject of the destruction of monuments in Turkey with Turkish officials (monuments which were created by other peoples and only happen to be situated on the territory of present-day Turkey) and how many times (and on which specific occasions) did the Turkish officials give adequate and satisfactory explanations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the specific facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. It is well known that the Ephesus theatre hosts events connected to theatre and music festivals during the summer. Some of these events have great political significance. On 30 August 2002, for the first time, the antique theatre in Ephesus hosted a concert of songs in Armenian, Kurdish and Greek.

The Commission attaches great importance to the protection of archaeological heritage. There are, however, no specific provisions in the Community acquis related to the protection of ancient monuments. The Culture 2000 Community programme, established for the period 2000-2004, contributes to the promotion of good practices concerning the conservation and safeguarding of the common cultural heritage of European significance and it supports projects of co-operation in the field. Seventy-five heritage projects were funded for the year 2000 through this programme.

Although Turkey does not currently participate in the programme, the Commission is willing to facilitate its involvement in the future.

In 2001 the Community committed EUR 11,5 million to protect Turkey's cultural heritage in the southeastern part of the country. Implementation of this project will be spread over the coming three to four years. Given the availability of funds, the Commission does not at this stage foresee other projects devoted to cultural heritage in Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3473/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: The Commission's new accounting officer

The Commission appointed Mr Marc Oostens as its new accounting officer with effect from 1 September 2002.

Can the Commission forward to me a copy of its Decision appointing Mr Oostens?

Can it say from how many candidates Mr Oostens was selected and whether it is true that only Commission officials were given the opportunity of applying for this post?

After Mr Oosten's appointment, when was the interim statement of account drawn up, as required by Article 18 of the Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation?

What was the date of the interim statement of account?

Who signed the interim statement of account?

When did the new accounting officer countersign the interim statement of account?

Did he express any reservations when so doing?

If so, can the Commission let me know exactly what he said?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

1. A copy of the Decision appointing Mr Oostens is being transmitted direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

2. Two eligible candidatures were received for this post. It is not true that only Commission officials were given the opportunity to apply for this vacancy; applications were also invited from officials of the other institutions.

3. The interim statement of account was prepared by the accounting services during the fourth quarter of the year 2002. Mr Oostens signed it on 27 January 2003. This delay is because the financial statements include extra information on accrual elements, collected within several Directorates General (DG's), controlled by DG Budget and introduced in the accounting system on a double entry basis by the Accountant's services.

4. In the event of an accounting officer terminating his duties, an interim statement of account shall be drawn up on the date of the termination of officer's duties. Consequently, the interim statement of the accounts was drawn up as of 31 August 2002.

5. Mr Taverne signed the transmittal note on 21 January 2003 as the Accounting Officer terminating his duties on 31 August 2002. Mr Oostens, the appointed Accounting Officer as from 1 September 2002, signed the reception note for the interim statement on 27 January 2003.

6. The new accounting officer countersigned the interim statement of account on 27 January 2003.

7. Yes.

8. A copy of the notes is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3419/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2002)

Subject: Tuberculosis and the Stop TB Partnership

The WHO and other experts working on issues relating to the fight against tuberculosis have recently highlighted the current funding shortfall for TB control. The World Health Assembly has set targets of detecting 70 % of TB patients under the DOTS programme and curing 85 % of them by 2005. Although the estimated annual cost for this is USD 1,2 billion, funding has only been secured for three quarters of this amount.

Although Parliament and Council are currently examining the Commission's proposed Regulation on aid for poverty diseases in developing countries, does the Commission intend to take more immediate action to help to address this shortfall? Is the Commission aware of any action taken by Member States that is intended to fill this funding gap?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

The Commission is aware of the Tuberculosis (TB) burden and the financial gap to extend DOTS as one of the main priorities in the control of the major communicable diseases related to poverty. The Commission supports the extension of the DOTS strategy. This strategy relies on effective health systems and, therefore, it is through the support at country level and in dialogue with the government authorities towards sector support we can best support TB control. The Commission is also co-financing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which have focused on TB control in some regions.

The Commission supports the Global Fund to fight the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis aiming at TB control in the context of millennium development goals. It is making a contribution of EUR 120 million for 2002. These funds will target tuberculosis control programmes, including scaling up DOTS. The annual contribution 2003-2006 from the Budget Line for poverty-related diseases is being discussed at present in Council and Parliament, and the Commission has proposed a significant increase in funds compared to previous years. It will allow us, inter alia, to fund innovative initiatives towards the control of TB, which can later be scaled up through the other financial instruments of the Commission.

Eleven Member States are contributing to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The total pledges from the Community are almost EUR 1,2 billion, or 55 % of all pledges.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3874/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Improved European military resources for a greater margin of autonomy

It is clear that Europe now needs improved military resources if it is to achieve a greater margin of autonomy and successfully develop a purely European Rapid Intervention Force.

On the political level, one of the great challenges facing the EU concerns the effective creation of an area in which it can develop its own common security and defence policy, so as to ensure a certain guarantee threshold for the preservation of peace throughout Europe: this goal seems more important than any other, unrealisable objectives at world level.

Can the Council, in the context of its competences in the matter, provide information on its level of diagnostic capacity as regards a regular review of the Union's shortcomings vis-à-vis achievement of the objective of establishing a genuine and authentically European security and defence policy?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The work conducted since the Helsinki European Council has enabled the European Union to define the variety of measures needed successfully to carry out the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding among these. The military capabilities and forces required by the EU to meet the headline goal have been spelt out in detail and are listed in a capability catalogue, which is regularly reviewed according to the principles approved at the Nice European Council.

Two Capabilities Commitment Conferences, one held under the French, the other under the Belgian Presidency, made it possible to draw together the specific national commitments corresponding to the military capability goals set by the Helsinki European Council. Member States committed themselves, on a voluntary basis, to making national contributions corresponding to the capabilities required to attain the headline goal. Those commitments have been set out in a forces catalogue. Analysis of that catalogue confirms that by 2003, in keeping with the headline goal established at Helsinki, the European Union will be able to carry out the full range of Petersberg tasks, but that certain capabilities need to be improved in both quantitative and qualitative terms in order to maximise the capabilities available to the Union.

Accordingly, at the Conference on Military Capability Improvement (CIC) held on 19 November 2001 Member States identified the remaining shortcomings and agreed on an action plan to remedy them. That plan is based on national decisions (a bottom-up approach) aimed at rationalising Member States' respective defence efforts and on increased synergy between national and multinational projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Terrorism and the Middle East Peace Process

The Commission is deeply involved in the quest for a solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Can the Commission confirm that it has properly impressed on Chairman Arafat the need to use all his authority to provide a window of opportunity free of terrorist attacks so that genuine negotiations on a two-state solution can take place, and that it is in the fundamental interests of the Palestinians themselves to achieve this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Commission, in meetings with Palestinian Authority representatives but also in written communications to President Arafat has made its view point clear that violence and terror must end and that the Palestinian Authority, as legitimate governing body in the Palestinian territories, must fight terrorism. In the same fashion the European Council and the General Affairs Council raised this issue on numerous occasions, e.g. declarations of Laeken (14 & 15 December 2001) and Seville (21 & 22 June 2002).

The Commission has also drawn attention to the need for the Palestinian Authority to address the problem of incitement to violence.

Equally, the Commission has expressed its regret that periods of relative calm, like at the end of last year and in July/August 2002 have not been seized as opportunities in finding a negotiationed solution on the principle of two states. It is the Commission's view that matters relating to security must be addressed at the same time as political and economic aspects in order to allow the political process to move forward.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: The forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees by the People's Republic of China

In recent years, tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled famine and persecution in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), clandestinely crossing the border into the north-eastern provinces of China.

Since 1999, the Chinese Government has been forcibly repatriating thousands of these North Korean refugees and asylum-seekers, whom it regards as economic migrants and thereby illegal immigrants. Over the last year there has been a notable crackdown on these refugees, and an intensification of forcible repatriations.

This is despite the fact that having fled from a country with such a deplorable human rights record as the DPRK, many of the refugees will undoubtedly have genuine asylum claims. Once extradited by the PRC, the North Koreans meet an uncertain fate back in their home country, which might include imprisonment, torture and in some cases summary execution or death in detention from starvation and disease (source: Amnesty International).

In forcibly repatriating the refugees, the Chinese Government is denying them access to any refugee determination procedure. This violates the fundamental principle of non-refoulement embodied in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which China is a state party.

What action is the Commission taking to ensure that the rights of North Korean refugees and asylum- seekers are respected, and that they have access to a fair and independent asylum procedure, as embodied in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees? Will the Commission agree to raise the issue of the unjust forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees at the next round of the biannual EU-China Human Rights Dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The human rights situation in North Korea is a major concern for the Commission. Human rights issues, including the plight of refugees, are systematically raised by the Commission during its regular political contacts with the North Korean authorities. In June 2002 in Pyongyang, the Commission had the opportunity to express to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) authorities its concerns over the treatment of these persons once returned by China and urged the DPRK to respect the fundamental rights of these citizens.

Since large numbers of North Koreans flee over the border to China, the Union has also urged China on several occasions and in the context of the human rights dialogue it maintains with that country, to respect international humanitarian norms and to grant access to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees to assess the situation of North Koreans in the border area.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of refugees from North Korea closely and to raise it in its contacts with the DPRK and Chinese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3264/02

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Customs authorities

Do Customs authorities at Palma Airport, Majorca, Spain have the right to confiscate cigarettes from outbound travellers on cigarettes that have been duty paid?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has received complaints relating to seizure of tobacco products by Spanish authorities from outbound travellers. The Commission is investigating these complaints to ensure that Spanish law and practice are in line with Community single market law and, in particular, with Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1).

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.