ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Repatriation of bodies between Member States

Is the Commission aware of the frequent delays, expenses and suffering for families involved attempting to repatriate a body back to the home Member State from another Member State?

Given the differences in the approaches and regulations between Member States, would the Commission be prepared to investigate this issue and bring forward proposals for the adoption of a common policy?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0073/02, E-0087/02,E-0210/02, E-0344/02, E-0346/02, P-0407/02 and E-0679/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, No 4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event it should be recalled that Member States which regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice, apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not envisage any specific initiative for the moment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0019/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Subject: Respect for civil and political rights in the Lao People's Democratic Republic

On 15 February the European Parliament adopted and forwarded to the Commission an urgent resolution(1) highlighting the case of Laotian prisoners of conscience, including the five leaders of the movement of 26 October 1999, Keuakoun, Sisa-At, Phengphanh,

Chanmanivong and Keochay, who were arrested on that day and subsequently disappeared. It called on the Laotian authorities to release all prisoners of conscience and to guarantee that they can exercise fully their fundamental rights, as well as guaranteeing fundamental political and civil rights, by ratifying and implementing the United Nations conventions on the subject.

Commissioner Patten, answering Written Question P-3175/01(2) on behalf of the Commission on 6 December 2001, said that the Commission was determined to stress the need to step up respect for civil and political rights in Laos.

1. How does the Commission intend to respond to the requests made in Parliament's resolution of 15 February?

2. Has the Commission officially requested precise information from the Laotian authorities on the fate of the five student leaders arrested on 26 October 1999, who have not been heard of since? If not, why not, and if so, what response did it receive?

3. Does the Commission consider it necessary to convene an emergency meeting of the Joint Committee envisaged in Article 14 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Lao PDR, in order to ask the Laotian authorities to guarantee respect for the civil and political rights recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to meet the demands contained in Parliament's resolution of 15 February 2001?

(1) OJ C 276, 1.10.2001, p. 281.

(2) See page 67.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

As was mentioned in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-3175/01, the Commission has participated in Union démarches requesting information on political prisoners, including the group of persons arrested in October 1999. The Commission has also raised the issue of political prisoners and other questions related to Human Rights in its bilateral meetings with Laotian authorities.

The Commission does not intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Joint Committee at this point, as there are continuing opportunities to raise Human Rights concerns with the Lao Government through other channels.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0266/02

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Preparation for the European Council meeting Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Member States, together with the Commission, to work towards introducing greater competition in local access networks before

the end of 2000 and unbundling the local loop in order to help bring about a substantial reduction in the costs of using the Internet. What cost reductions for Internet use have been achieved in the EU since the Lisbon Summit?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

A list of Internet access prices in Member States in March 2000, at the time of the Lisbon European Council (23 and 24 March 2000), and in August 2001, which are the latest data currently available is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. These data show that prices across the Community have dropped by between 19 % and 37 %, depending on how intensively the Internet is used. It is usually considered that among the four sets of data the 20h off-peak use and the 40h peak use are the most relevant figures, the former corresponding to a typical private household and the latter to a typical business user.

The Honourable Member should be aware, however, that due to the large number of tariff schemes available both for access calls and subscriptions to Internet service providers (ISPs), a comprehensive analysis of prices for Internet access is not feasible. The data in the above-mentioned list relate to the lowest prices applied by the largest telecommunications operator for each usage profile chosen, in accordance with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) methodology. The prices applied by alternative telecommunications operators and ISPs may differ from those indicated, and in particular may well be lower.

It should also be borne in mind that Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loo(1) came into force only at the beginning of 2001. Given the time necessary for competitors to invest in equipment and roll out their infrastructure, the main impact of local loop unbundling on prices will not be felt immediately. The Commission has also pointed out in its Seventh Implementation Repor(2) that the take-up of unbundled local loops has sofar been disappointing across the Community. It should in this context be noted that other regulatory or market action, such as the introduction of flat rate interconnection offerings, is likely to have an impact on the price of access. The Commission is following these developments with great attention, in particular in the light of its intention to promote broadband.

(1) OJ L 336, 30.12.2000.

(2) COM(2001) 706 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Public access to Europe's wild areas

Is it the intention of the Commission to promote legislation to extend or protect the public's right of access to Europe's wild areas, and particularly to special areas of conservation within the Natura 2000 programme (where this is possible without risk or damage to species requiring protection)?

Is the Commission aware of any non-legislative initiatives being taken jointly by Member States to promote this objective?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The Commission has no intention to promote legislation that would extend public rights of access to the countryside across the Community. There are no relevant articles of the EC Treaty which provide for Community competence in this area. The Commission is, nevertheless, keen to promote public awareness and enjoyment of Natura 2000 sites, provided that this is managed to prevent disturbance of the nature conservation value. Many of the projects that have been funded under the LIFE-Nature programme have included significant elements related to visitor facilities and management, i.e. visitor centres, nature trails and walkways and visitor information and education material.

In the framework of this year's Green Week, the Commission is promoting, in association with Eurosite, the pan-European association of nature site management organisations, a programme of green days under which Natura 2000 site managers are being encouraged to organise events on their sites aimed at the general public, the objective being to raise public awareness of the importance of individual sites and the Natura 2000 network as a whole. Depending on the outcome of this year, the Commission will consider making this an annual event.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Applicability in EU Member States of the Swiss campaign to protect babies against shaking

1. Is the Commission aware that, in Switzerland, it has been found that stressed parents sometimes shake crying babies without intending them any harm, but that because babies' neck muscles are not yet sufficiently developed, a quarter of them die and three quarters suffer irreversible harm?

2. Does the Commission have any comparable data for EU Member States, or can it obtain national data, indicating that a problem similar to that identified in Switzerland exists here?

3. Is the Commission aware of the national campaign Schütteln Sie nie ein Baby, which is now being carried out in Switzerland in response to publicity about the data referred to in question 1?

4. How does the Commission believe that it can help to draw similar attention to this problem and to prevent further harm to young children in the fifteen EU Member States?

Source: Radio 1 News, the Netherlands, 25 January 2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

1. The Commission is aware of Shaken Baby Syndrome, and of international studies concerning this topic and the Swiss report on the epidemiology of this problem.

2. In the Community, there are no comparable incidence data. A study was made (Ludwig Bolttzmann Institut für kinderchirurgische Forschung) of an Austrian hospital ('Sozial Medizinisches Zentrum' (SMZ) Ost, Vienna) where, retrospectively, medical records have been analysed. Of about 30 000 attendances to the paediatric surgical outpatient clinic, 45 cases were due to child abuse and, out of them, two were probably due to Shaken Baby Syndrome. The Swiss report states: Typically babies with an average age of about five months are concerned.

The relation of boys to girls amounts to 3:2. The actors are in 75 % of the cases men; in 50 % of the cases the parents were responsible for the shaking, partners of the mother

and babysitters for 17 %. According to American Studies, about ¼ of the children traumatised due to shaking die days to weeks after the event. Of those surviving, according to the American sources, ¾ have permanent damage'.

3. The Commission is aware of the Swiss activities, and is in contact with the Swiss institutions involved. There are also activities in Member States, for example the provision of information material to parents in Germany, in Scotland, and in France.

4. The New Public Health Programme, which will probably be adopted later in 2002, has as one of its main objectives to Address health determinants through health promotion and prevention of disease. Dealing with the prevention of child abuse will be one of the operational targets that the Commission will propose to the future Programme Committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/02

by Jan Andersson (PSE) and Hans Karlsson (PSE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Closure and structural aid Gislaved, Sweden

Continental has decided to stop tyre manufacturing at Gislaved in Sweden. This decision will result in the loss of about 800 jobs, and will also directly affect a number of persons performing tasks for the factory, such as carriers of its products. Closure will also indirectly affect trade and other commercial and public services in the local community, thus causing a further loss of jobs. It is claimed that the factory is being closed because of the opportunity of obtaining EU aid to move production to Portugal, and that this aid would make it commercially profitable to do so, which would not be the case without that aid.

1. Is it permissible to use EU structural aid to move output and jobs from one Member State to another?

2. If it is, is the Commission prepared to initiate a review of the rules in question?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The Honourable Members are requested to refer to the answers given by the Commission to Oral Questions H-0009/02, H-0031/02 and H-0040/02 by Mr Sjöstedt, Mr Gahrton and Mr Schmidt respectively at the Question Time of the first February 2002(1) part-session of Parliament.

(1) Written answer of 5 February 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/02

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: China's accession to the WTO and respect for human rights

During last October's part-session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted Mr Gahrton's report on China's accession to the WTO (A5-0366/2001). Incorporating China into the World Trade Organisation cannot be viewed in any way other than favourably. As far as can be judged, the repercussions for the Chinese population could only be positive. The choice of holding the Olympic Games in Peking in 2008 is presumably based on the same logic.

However, there are signs of public concern. Admitting the Chinese communist regime into the international community must not mean forgetting its daily violations of human rights: death sentences, torture, arbitrary detention etc., are not uncommon.

If China joins the World Trade Organisation it must conform to the rules. One of those is the GATT's General Agreement on customs tariffs of 1947, Article 20 of which provides for exceptions to the agreement, notably concerning the import of products manufactured in prison.

In the case in point, many Chinese are sentenced to forced labour and are thereby compelled to manufacture products for export.

The European Union has a duty to monitor this situation. How does the Commission intend to deal with this matter?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Commission fully shares the concern of the Honourable Member with regard to practices of forced labour and prison labour.

Respect for human rights, including core labour standards, globally is a priority objective for the Commission. The Communication from the Commission Promoting core labour standards and improving

social governance in the context of globalisation(1) indeed presented a comprehensive strategy for the promotion of core labour standards in the context of globalisation. The strategy suggests action at international and European levels, in all external relations as well as in the International Labour Organisations to ensure the application of core labour standards.

With respect to trade policy, the Communication suggests an incentitative approach by a strengthening of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) social incentive scheme. The Council adopted the revised GSP scheme in December 2001 and has thus confirmed this approach.

As regards prison labour more specifically, the Honourable Member rightly pointed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article XX, which allows for trade measures to be taken against prison labour. China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in fact provides greater transparency in trade practices related to prison labour. The Commission will monitor the situation in China in the light of WTO provisions and will take action as appropriate.

(1) COM(2001) 416 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0377/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Arbitrary killing of rare birds by licensed and unlicensed hunters

Both licensed and unlicensed hunters in Greece, untroubled by conscience, continue to shoot rare migratory birds and other birds. Despite persistent complaints by Greek environmental organisations, nothing is done to restrict this barbaric sport which costs thousands of innocent animals their lives each year. Hunting weapons are also responsible for numerous cases in which human beings are seriously wounded or killed.

What is the Commission's position on the persistent shooting of rare birds by hunters in Greece? When does it think a ban could be introduced on this damaging and backward tradition of hunting? Is the hunting period in Greece shorter or longer than in the other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

As a general rule, the killing of rare birds is prohibited under Community legislation (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1)) and the national authorities have to take all necessary measures in order to enforce relevant national provisions. On this basis, the Commission will draw the attention of the Greek authorities to the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member and which emphasise the need for effective control mechanisms for these illegal acts.

Hunting is a fully legitimate activity under the Birds Directive. It is however restricted to a certain number of species listed in Annex II of the Directive and is subject to the specific conditions laid down in its Article 7. The Member States authorities have in particular to ensure, according to Article 7(4), that the practice of hunting complies with the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of the species of birds concerned and that the species to which hunting laws apply are not hunted during the rearing season nor during the various stages of reproduction or, in the case of migratory species, during their return to their rearing grounds. The Commission does not intend to propose a general ban on hunting but takes all necessary measures, including legal action, to ensure that the Directive's requirements relating to hunting are properly implemented in national legislation.

In accordance with the above-mentioned principles, the hunting season applicable in the different Member States for the various huntable species depends on a number of factors and, most importantly, on the biology of the species concerned. As a result, no single fixed opening or closing dates can be envisaged. A comparison of the hunting season in Greece with that in other Member States would therefore be of limited value. However, it should be noted that the hunting season in Greece for many migratory species was recently reduced as a result of legal action by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0535/02

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Recognition of entitlements acquired in Italy by foreign language assistants

In the light of the judgments handed down on 30 May 1989 in Case 33/88 and on 2 August 1993 in Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-332/91 and of an initial infringement procedure (No 92/4660) brought by the Commission pursuant to former Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226), the Italian Government enacted Law No 236 of 21 June 1995 on the reform of foreign language teaching in Italian universities. After that law had entered into force, the Commission received a number of complaints from former foreign language assistants alleging discrimination by Italian universities. The Commission subsequently brought infringement proceedings against the Italian Republic. In its decision of 26 June 2001 in that case (C-212/99), the Court of Justice found for the plaintiffs and decided that the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the former Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now Article 39) in that it had failed to ensure recognition of the entitlements acquired by the former foreign language assistants.

Further to the decisions of the Court of Justice enumerated above:

1. Does the Commission have any information as to whether or not the Italian Republic has now adopted national legislation in compliance with Article 39 of the EC Treaty so as to take account of the entitlements acquired by the former foreign language assistants?

2. If it has not done so, does the Commission intend to bring proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment referred to above pursuant to Article 228 of the EC Treaty for failure to fulfil an obligation deriving from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 2001 (C-212/99)? Should the Italian Republic continue to fail to act, will the Commission apply to the Court of Justice for the imposition of financial penalties on the Italian Republic?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

On 31 January 2002, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Italian authorities and asked for information about the measures taken by Italy to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 June 2001 in Case C-212/99. If the Commission considers that Italy has not taken such measures or when the measures taken are considered unsatisfactory or insufficient, the Commission can, in accordance with Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty, issue a reasoned opinion.

If Italy fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within the time limit laid down by the Commission, the Commission may bring the case before the Court of Justice again.