ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1957/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Provisions banning traffic in Austria

The President of the Tyrolean regional government, Herwig van Staa, recently issued an astonishing ban on the circulation of motor vehicles weighing more than 7,5 tonnes on a section of motorway between Kundl and Ampass in Tyrol, in accordance with the following provisions:

- from 1 June this year the ban on night traffic, which was in force during the winter, will be reintroduced;

- furthermore, from 1 August there will be a 24-hours-a-day ban on vehicles in certain sectors: waste, scrap metal, cereals, timber, minerals, motor vehicles, steel and stone;

- the ban will also affect the mining and transport of porphyry, which in the Alpine region is the sole and irreplaceable source of income for thousands of families and hundreds of SMEs, which would suffer incalculable damage.

Whilst one can understand the Tyrolean authorities' reasons for the ban, it is only fair to remind them that solutions of this kind contravene the provisions of the Treaty, in that they restrict the free movement of goods within the single market. It is unacceptable that regional authorities should be allowed to compromise a great deal of work which has already been done by adopting unilateral decisions outside the sphere of Community rules.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that the long-standing problem of eco-points applied unilaterally by Austria has been challenged by all the other Member States and is going to be abolished as a result of European Parliament pressure, can the Council say:

1. whether it does not consider, once again, that the Austrian Government and the Tyrolean regional government are contravening the EU Treaty as regards rules concerning the free movement of goods and persons;

2. what steps it intends to take to ensure the withdrawal of these unilateral decisions, which do not correspond to Community law;

3. whether it does not consider that these repeated violations of the Treaty should be brought before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council recalls that it is up to the Commission, in its capacity as Guardian of the Treaty, to undertake the necessary actions including, as the case may be, an action before the Court of Justice in order to ascertain whether the driving ban to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers constitutes a violation of Community law. In this context, the Council is aware that the Commission is already engaged in the process of undertaking the actions which it deems necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/03

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Nickel in coinage

It is argued that coins contain nickel in order to guard against counterfeiting. Have steps been taken to develop alternatives to nickel? Are there specific plans to phase out nickel in all euro coins and, if so, within what timescale? Is it an objective to apply the nickel directive to euro coins in the future, thereby ensuring a nickel-free coinage?

Have statistics been compiled of the number of allergy sufferers today, including children, thus providing a general picture of the number of allergy sufferers affected?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

In the Commission's view, the normal use of euro coins does not represent a health risk for European citizens. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy which can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins (the six other coins do not

contain any nickel at all). Neither is there scientific evidence of a recent increase in nickel allergies among European citizens. It is not, therefore, envisaged either to phase out the use of limited quantities of nickel in the euro coins or to develop alternatives to the use of nickel.

As regards the application of the EU-Nickel Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(1)), it should be noted that this Directive exclusively refers to objects that come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin, such as jewellery or wristwatch cases. Therefore, the limit stipulated by the Directive 94/27/EC should not be applied to coins.

Certain specialised institutes are known to collect data on allergies, including those related to nickel, on a systematic and scientific basis.

(1) OJ L 188, 22.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1149/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Seychelles

Recently, an Italian businessman was the victim of a violent aggression on the island of Mahé by a colonel in the Seychelles armed forces.

Such violence is particularly harmful to the image of the islands.

As the Seychelles are a favourite destination for many European tourists, what measures is the European Union willing to take to better protect its citizens?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Unfortunately, violent aggressions towards tourists happen in tourist destinations all around the world and even inside Europe. The Commission does not possess any evidence that attacks on tourists in the Seychelles occurs regularly or are even driven by the Government. On the contrary, the Government Tourism board is probably deeply embarrassed by the incident, since the man in question was involved in promoting tourism in Seychelles. This isolated incident of road rage is not an issue where the Commission can usefully intervene.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Law No 383 of 18 October 2001

The Italian Government has amended Law No 383 of 18 October 2001 (the so-called Tremonti Two Act), which has been in force since 25 October 2001, to limit the scope of the measures to certain areas of Italy, and in particular to those hit by natural disasters in recent months. In this way, Law No 383 will no longer apply to general impacts but to very localised ones with respect to potential beneficiaries.

Bearing in mind that it would be appropriate for this provision to be submitted to the European Commission for scrutiny, even though it has received no notification of it to date and the decrees implementing the law are soon to be issued, could the Commission indicate what action it will take to avert the risk of a potential infringement of EU competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The amendments to Law No 383 of 18 October 2001 (the so-called Tremonti Two Act) have not been notified to the Commission under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission asked the Italian authorities for precise information on this Act, which will be analysed under State aid rules. The Commission will take a position once the analysis of the file is completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2273/03

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: 2006 Turin Winter Olympics ice rink asbestos

According to reports published in Italian national newspapers, asbestos has been found near Turin, on the site of the future ice rink, a sports facility to be built for the 2006 Winter Olympics. The noxious mineral is buried just 30 centimetres deep and mixed with crushed stone and fragments of glass and metal.

Tests carried out by the appropriate bodies have confirmed the presence of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, and amosite), and, indeed, the councillor to whom responsibility for the Winter Olympics has been delegated has said that asbestos has been found in the neighbourhood of Lingotto, where the ice rink is shortly to be built. The public prosecutor's office to which the case has been assigned has opened an investigation.

In the light of the foregoing, will the Commission take steps to ascertain whether the above information is true and whether the quantity of asbestos detected exceeds the limits allowed by the laws in force and could harm the public? Furthermore, will it check whether the appropriate bodies are decontaminating the area concerned and determine which parties, if any, are to blame?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The Commission does not have any knowledge of the presence of asbestos near the future ice-rink in the neighbourhood of Lingotto. From the information given in the question submitted by the Honourable Member it appears that the material is waste that has been deposited.

The management of waste must be done in accordance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(1). In particular, Article 4 requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information on the issue raised by the Honourable Member and to ensure, within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the compliance with Community law.

Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it will not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the compliance with relevant Community law.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Human rights in Egypt

Is the Commission aware of the arrest and detention of two Egyptian Christians, Malak Guirguis Fahmay and Sarah Mikhail Lahzy? They were arrested at Cairo airport in February this year as they were attempting to leave the country.

London constituents have raised this case and others where they feel the Egyptian authorities are deliberately persecuting Christians. The Commission has responded previously to questions on events in El Khosheh and the subsequent imprisonment of Christians. Can the Commission give an assurance that it is continuing to raise with the Egyptian authorities human rights issues and the need for freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the case of Malak Guirguis Fahmay and his wife Sarah Mikhail Lahzy (a Christian convert from Islam) and of the allegations that they were arrested for illegally altering her identity documents to reflect her change of faith. The Commission is not, however, aware of the final outcome and has requested further information from its Delegation in Cairo.

The Honourable Member notes that the Commission, together with the Member State Embassies in Cairo, have made representations to the Egyptian Government on several occasions with respect to human rights issues involving Egypt Coptic community. The Parliament can be assured that the Commission will continue to raise these issues with the Egyptian Authorities in the usual manner whenever appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Turkey and the denial of the Armenian genocide

In recent months the Turkish authorities' policy of denying the Armenian genocide has become ever more aggressive. The European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy reports that the Turkish government, through its education ministry, has launched a counter-information campaign to refute the accusations of genocide against the Armenian people. The ministry is now running indoctrination sessions for teachers and officials, with the aim of imposing an official classroom line, contrary to the right of free expression, claiming that the Armenian genocide never happened. In a decree of 14 April 2003, the Ministry called on primary and secondary schools to hold lectures affirming that the Armenian people and other peoples who have been victims of genocide have never been persecuted in Turkey, and to encourage pupils to write essays on how to fight genocide claims.

This manipulation of history in the classroom is a practice that runs counter to European education standards. The policy of denying the genocide is, furthermore, incompatible with the European values of protection of human rights and minority rights, and is therefore in breach of the Copenhagen criteria.

Does the Commission believe that the Turkish authorities' policy of denial is compatible with the principles of the Copenhagen agreement and with the acceptance of Turkey as a candidate country?

Does the Commission consider that one of the indispensable requirements for the launching of accession negotiations with Turkey in the near future must be the public admission by the present Turkish authorities of the facts of the Armenian genocide, as recognised by the European Parliament in June 1987 (A2-0033/87)(1)?

(1) OJ C 190, 20.7.1987, p. 119.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

In response to the points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission recalls its reply to Written Question P-3186/00 of Ms Carlotti(1), indicating that this issue does not fall under the scope of the Copenhagen political criteria.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2157/03

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Satellite monitoring of fishing vessels under 24 metres in length

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002(1) provides that a system for locating and identifying fishing vessels (satellite monitoring) must also be installed on board vessels exceeding 18 metres in length as from 1 January 2004 and on vessels exceeding 15 metres in length as from 1 January 2005. Up to now, this requirement has been restricted to fishing vessels exceeding 24 metres in length.

The previous Regulation provided derogations from this obligation for fishing vessels which either returned to harbour within 24 hours or fished exclusively within the 12-mile zone. This derogation has been abolished in the new Regulation.

1. Is the Commission prepared, within the framework of Article 22(3), to reinstate the current derogation for fishing vessels under 24 metres?

2. If so, by what date can such a decision be expected?

3. If not, does the Commission not take the view that, in the case of small fishing vessels operating exclusively within the 12-mile zone or returning to harbour within 24 hours, fulfilling these obligations would create a disproportionate burden () compared to the economic importance of the activity?

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2156/03 and P-2157/03given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

1. The extension of VMS to smaller vessels is part of the political agreement on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reached in December 2002. The aim of the extension is to improve the control and enforcement of the CFP.

It is believed that VMS is more acceptable to the fishing industry if this type of monitoring applies equally to all fishing vessels based on the length criteria, which has the advantage of being easily identifiable and transparent. This in turn constitutes an important factor in favour of the creation of a Community-wide level playing field for the fishing industry.

This approach is consistent with the Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (the so-called Road Map). Therein, the Commission announced the removal of existing exemptions and the extension of VMS to all fishing vessels exceeding 10 metres in length.

Against this background, the Commission does not have the intention to propose exemptions to the application of VMS for vessels over 15 metres.

2. In line with the answer given to the first question, no further decision is to be expected.

3. The Commission believes that VMS is a cost effective monitoring tool that significantly improves fisheries control and that its extension is justified.

In order to ease the burden for the fishermen, Member States have applied for a community financial contribution for satellite tracking devices. The Commission will grant aid under similar conditions as it did in the past for the vessels already subject to VMS, within the budgetary constraints.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1005/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Carrara

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Carrara, urgently need to use European funds to combat the abuse of women and children,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Daphne programme?

2. whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1004/03, E-1005/03, E-1006/03,E-1007/03, E-1008/03, E-1009/03, E-1010/03, E-1011/03,E-1012/03, E-1013/03, E-1014/03, E-1015/03 and E-1016/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Daphne programme received the following proposals in 2003 alone:

- two proposals from the muncipality of Florence Assessorato Pubblica Istruzione e Politiche Giovanili, Direzione Istruzione;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Pesaro Servizio sociale;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Siena Comitato di ente per le pari opportunita.

The Commission has not yet assessed these proposals and is, therefore, unable to provide the Honourable Member with details of the selection or funding at this stage. Information on the outcome of the assessment process will be sent in July 2003 to all parties which applied to the Daphne programme in 2003.

No proposal was received between 1997 and 2003 for the other municipalities referred to by the Honourable Member (Ancona, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato and Terni).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1514/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Marked increase in anti-Semitic outrages in the EU in 2002

With regard to various studies (including by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)), the Council's attention is drawn to the dramatic increase in anti-Semitic outrages in the EU Member States last year (peaking between the end of March and mid-May 2002). The research studies into what has caused this development point in no uncertain terms to, inter alia, the link between radicalisation of the Middle East conflict (in particular the current criticism, involving anti-Semitic stereotypes, of Israeli Government policy) and the new wave of anti-Semitism.

The various studies point to two significant aspects:

- that what is dangerous is not necessarily how many anti-Semitic incidents there are, but, rather, how serious the actions are;

- that although some of those responsible for anti-Semitic outrages are right-wing extremists, many more are to be found among radical Islamists or young Muslims, though the latter are themselves victims of discrimination and racist violence.

The fact that the political will to combat such waves of anti-Semitic outrages is usually short-lived and, in the process, the need for a long-term approach to be developed and funded is ignored is also clearly pointed up.

Can the Council say:

- whether it is aware of these developments and what conclusions have been drawn to date?

- whether action has been or is being taken to monitor/observe such anti-Semitic outrages more effectively and combat and curb them, and, if so, what does that action involve?

- whether action has been taken or is being taken to contribute to better understanding of Jewish history, the various aspects of Judeo-Christian relations and the Holocaust, with particular regard for a multicultural school-age audience, and, if so, what does that action involve?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any anti-Semitic outrages and is concerned regarding the possible increase of these outrages.

The EUMC is explicitly created to monitor racist or xenophobe incidents, which include anti-Semitic incidents. No further observation mechanisms are planned.

Historical education of the population is not within the competence of the Council.
(2004/C58E/057) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1044/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(28March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheLeader+programmebythemunicipalityofPrato
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearing in mind that somelocalauthorities, such as the municipality ofPrato, urgently need touse
Europeanfundstosupportinnovativeruraldevelopmentmeasuresaimedatenhancingtheculturalandnaturalheritage,creatingnewjobsbystrengtheningthelocaleconomyandimprovingtheorganisationalcapacityofruralcommunities,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPratohassubmittedprojectsfortheLeader+programme?2. whetherthemunicipalityofPratohassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/058) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1045/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(28March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheLeader+programmebythemunicipalityofSiena
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearing in mind that somelocalauthorities, such asthe municipality ofSiena, urgently need touse
Europeanfundstosupportinnovativeruraldevelopmentmeasuresaimedatenhancingtheculturalandnaturalheritage,creatingnewjobsbystrengtheningthelocaleconomyandimprovingtheorganisationalcapacityofruralcommunities,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofSienahassubmittedprojectsfortheLeader+programme?2. whetherthemunicipalityofSienahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?C58E/44 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion