ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3703/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights

Protocol 9 to the Treaty of Amsterdam (which relates to the role of national parliaments) requires that a full economic impact statement should be provided wherever new legislation is contemplated. Since the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights clearly proposes new initiatives which could impact on a national level (e.g. national works councils) why has Protocol 9 not been complied with?

Europe purports to be competing with trading blocks such as Japan and the US, but in reality will such initiatives not run counter to the spirit of Lisbon? Will they not effectively fetter the competitiveness of EU undertakings on world markets, by adopting social practices which can only be adversely reflected in the price and competitiveness of our goods abroad?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

1. The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Protocol No 9 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union contains no obligation such as that referred to in the question. It would emphasise that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is not a Commission proposal for legislation to which the Protocol could apply.

2. As regards the risk referred to by the Honourable Member of the competitiveness of EU undertakings on world markets being fettered as a result of application of the Charter, the Council would refer to Arti-cle 51 of the Charter. This Article, which defines its scope, stipulates that the provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers.

3. As for the need, stated at the Lisbon European Council, to prepare the transition to a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that the objective here was to modernise the European social model by investing in people and building an active welfare state for ensuring that the emergence of this new economy does not compound the existing social problems of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Article 14 Committee

Will the Commission please indicate the remit of what is known as the Article 14 Committee and list its members by name and function? When, and how often, does it meet?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission does not have sufficient details to be able to reply to the Honourable Member's question. The Honourable Member is requested to provide more details of the committee (e.g. the area of its activity, or the directive under which it was set up).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/00

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Promotion of unfair competition in the Valencian press by the Valencian Generalitat

Between January 1998 and August 2000 the Valencian Generalitat's Department of Culture, Education and Science granted subsidies amounting to 293 573 098 pesetas to virtually every newspaper in the Autonomous Community of Valencia with a view to their supplying educational establishments with free copies. The aim of this lay in introducing schoolchildren to the practice of reading and consulting the press, so as to highlight the value of freedom of expression. These subsidies have served to boost these newspapers' circulation figures, on the basis of which advertising agencies choose the publications in which they publicise their clients. However, the Levante-EMV and Información newspapers, both part of the Editorial Prensa Ibérica, S.A. group, have not received subsidies, despite boasting the highest sales and largest readership in the Autonomous Community of Valencia. The Government of the Valencian Generalitat, headed by Eduardo Zaplana, is thus funding an increase in the circulation of newspapers selected directly by the department concerned from the public purse. There has been no public call for tenders and the policy pursued is lacking in transparency, as evidenced by the fact that the opposition has been denied access to the files and information regarding the award of subsidies to the selected undertakings. Furthermore, in limiting the choice for schools to just one set of newspapers, the pluralistic principles which should govern any educational measure are being flouted.

In reply to complaint 980893 on a similar issue last year, the Síndic de Greuges (Ombudsman) the Valencian Parliament's high commissioner for the defence of citizens from potential abuses by the authorities urged the Generalitat to avoid unwarranted discrimination vis-à-vis the media.

In view of the aforementioned situation, does the Commission not agree that the Valencian Government's approach undermines the principle of free competition amongst undertakings laid down in Community law and Title VI of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Commission must in principle verify all State aid granted by the authorities of a Member State when it distorts or threatens to distort competition and trade within the Community.

The circulation of the newspapers to which the Honourable Member refers is basically local or regional. In these circumstances, the assistance granted by the Valencian authorities is not liable to produce any cross-border effects on trade. Consequently, this aid falls outside the scope of the Community control provided for in Articles 87 and 88 (ex-Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3705/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 November 2000)

Subject: The treatment of pro-democracy protestors in Belarus

Is the Presidency aware of the suppression of pro-democracy supporters in Belarus? Peaceful demonstrators from the youth wing of one of Belarus' mainstream pro-democracy parties, the Belarusian Front, were venting their anger at Belarus' questionable democratic credentials when they were subjected to violence at the hands of the police. What are the intentions of the Council to ensure that these human rights violations are not repeated, especially in the light of Belarus' potential entry into the European Union?

Reply

(12 March 2001)

The Council follows the situation in Belarus very closely, as befits a country destined soon to find itself at the frontiers of the EU. Time and again, the EU has repeated the importance that it attaches to democratisation in Belarus. It is a source of the utmost concern that the Belarus authorities show no sign of improving their poor human rights record.

The Council therefore deplores the forcible suppression of the demonstration by opposition youth movements on Sunday 12 November 2000. Several aspects of this case offer grounds for particular concern: a large number of young demonstrators were arrested, many of those arrested were under 16 years of age, and some of those arrested have been subjected to relatively very heavy fines. In addition, there have been numerous accusations that the police used quite excessive violence in making arrests.

The Council fully echoes the position adopted by the Parliament in October 1999, when it called on the Belarus authorities to release immediately all those who are in prison for exercising their right to freedom of expression. It reiterates the appeal, made on numerous occasions, for the Belarus authorities to respect international standards in the field of human rights.

The Council has gone to the greatest lengths to try and get this message across. In their various declarations, the Presidency and the Council have constantly made clear their frustration at the stance of the Belarus authorities. Furthermore, most recently in November, the Council has given very public support to the OSCE AMG as it legitimately seeks to fulfil the terms of its mandate. These positions have been communicated at the highest possible level, as when the High Representative, Mr Solana, spoke by telephone to Mr Lukashenko.

The EU position remains that a policy of isolation would be counterproductive and would serve only to destabilise the region. Still, the EU has maintained restrictive measures on Belarus since introducing them in 1997. It is the belief of the Council that the best way to bring about an improvement in the human rights situation in Belarus is to pursue the step-by-step approach, mapped out in April 1999, which is designed to offer incentives for better relations to the Belarus authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3937/00

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Funding for European political parties

In the draft budget for 2001, the Commission has once again provided for a separate item for subsidies to European political parties. A token entry has been made against that item, because no actual amount could be entered, apparently on the grounds that no legal basis exists for it but also in the light of other factors.

Since the various national political parties receive huge subsidies from national budgets, would the Commission kindly answer the following questions?

1. Are their any indications, or have any calculations been made, of the amount which will probably be entered against that item in 2001?

2. Does the Commission already know the date, or can it be estimated, when the European political parties may be sure of receiving these subsidies?

3. Will every European political party receive a subsidy, or have more specific criteria already been laid down for the selection of the parties which are to receive subsidies? Is it already known which parties will definitely receive subsidies? Do lists already exist, for example, on which those parties appear?

4. Have any national parties received subsidies this year or in previous years from appropriations entered against other budget items? If so, which Austrian parties received subsidies?

5. Is it conceivable that, once again, the item created in the budget for subsidies to European political parties will not have any appropriation entered against it in the 2001 financial year, although national parties will receive funds from other items in the 2001 budget?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2001)

1. and 2. As the Honourable Member indicates, a new budget line was created by Parliament in the 2001 budget (B3-500N) on which there is only a token entry because there is not, as yet, a legal base.

The Commission has now made a proposal for a regulation(1) on the statute and financing of European political parties on the basis of Article 308 (ex Article 235) of the EC Treaty. Parliament must give its opinion and it requires to be adopted unanimously by the Council before it can enter into force.

3. The draft regulation proposed by the Commission establishes clear criteria which a political party would need to meet in order to qualify for subsidy:

- table a statute with Parliament;

- meet in its statute and its activities basic requirements of respect for democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law;

- be represented itself or through its member parties in the Parliament or national parliament or regional parliaments in at least five Member States, or have received 5 % of the vote at the last European elections in each of at least five Member States.

4. As the report of the Court of Auditors (No 13/2000)(2) makes clear (paragraph 46), some political groups have traditionally made both funding and support in kind available to the European political parties with which they are associated. This is a matter for the Parliament.

(1) COM(2000) 898.

(2) OJ C 181, 28.6.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/00

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Community-wide interception systems

In response to my Question E-2655/00(1), the Commission stated that it was not aware of any attempt to impose built-in interception systems on a Community-wide scale.

Articles 20 (real time collection of computer data) and 21 (interception of content data) of the draft Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention do imply the introduction of built-in surveillance systems on a pan-European and potentially (thanks to US involvement in the drafting process) global scale. The implausibly broad definitions provided in Article 1 of the draft Convention make this threat even bigger. In its non-paper of 2 October 2000, the European Commission itself raised numerous concerns regarding the current draft Convention, indicating the seriousness of this proposal.

The Council of Europe's Document CJ-PD(2000)10, which discusses protection of personal data, says, in relation to Directive 95/46/EC(2), that one could argue that a general mandatory retention of traffic data is necessary for the investigation of criminal offences. As the draft convention describes traffic data as any computer data referring to a communication, it is difficult to see how this could be imposed without a comprehensive surveillance system.

Could the Commission indicate what it intends to do in order to ensure that the Convention does not lead to built-in surveillance systems?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 143.

(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

In the context of the ongoing negotiations for a Council of Europe convention on Cybercrime, the Commission has submitted a non-paper in which various concerns are expressed regarding aspects of protection of privacy within the emerging text, as the Honourable Member has noted.

The Commission will continue to participate actively in these negotiations, in which it has observer status, and defend the acquis communautaire to the best of its abilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3963/00

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Administration of the ERDF

Further to the Commission's reply to my Oral Question H-0584/00(1), could the Commission inform me if contracts co-financed by the structural funds for investment in, and advice to, SMEs and concluded by the authorities of Member States should be open to public inspection? If not, why not?

(1) Written answer of 5.7.2000.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

The Member States are responsible for the management of Structural Funds programmes. Contracts concluded by the national administrations and part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund are therefore subject to national labour law and national provisions on public access to government documents.

Moreover, as the Commission has already had occasion to recall in reply to Oral Question H-0584/00(1) by the Honourable Member during the July 2000 session, the conclusion of service contracts with local staff to provide services such as guidance to small and medium-sized enterprises comes under national rules for public calls to tender, and the Member States are required to comply with the relevant Community legislation.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (July 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3277/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Monitoring centre for unaccompanied minors

The large numbers of migrants arriving in Europe, and in particular the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, include an alarming proportion of unaccompanied minors. Does the Commission intend to set up a monitoring centre for unaccompanied minors, for the purpose of monitoring the activities of the various organisations authorised to provide reception facilities and services for these young people?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission does not plan to set up a monitoring centre for unaccompanied minors.

The Commission's approach consists of incorporating the problem of unaccompanied minors into all its initiatives and giving them specific protection.

In terms of legislation, the Commission is striving to improve the legal status of unaccompanied minors. In its proposals for directives on minimum standards for the procedures whereby refugee status is granted or withdrawn in the Member States and whereby temporary protection is afforded in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons(1) there are specific references to unaccompanied minors and to the extra protection which they should be given. Similarly, the proposal for a directive on the right to family reunification contains specific rules which apply to those unaccompanied minors who are recognised as refugees(2).

Since the launch of the 1998 action plan to improve the collection of statistical data on asylum and immigration the European Communities' Statistical Office has taken account of unaccompanied minors when collecting data on asylum requests. Information is also exchanged within the Council's Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum (CIREA).

(1) COM(2000) 578 final and COM(2000) 303 final.

(2) OJ C 116 E, 24.4.2000 and COM(2000) 624 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3485/00

by Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Charter of Fundamental Rights

Following the informal meeting of the Council in Biarritz on 13/14 October 2000 and the discussions that took place on the second day thereof, would the Commission please confirm that it was always its intention that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be legally justiciable? In the event of this not being achieved, what status in legal/constitutional terms would it wish the Charter to have?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the communication it presented on 11 October 2000 on the legal nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(1). This communication has been transmitted to Parliament and the Council.

In this communication, the Commission takes the view that the end purpose of the Charter, given its content, its rigorous legal formulation and its high political and symbolic value, is to be incorporated, sooner or later, into the Treaties with binding legal force.

It mentions a number of possible ways of inserting the Charter into the Treaties and suggests the timetable to be set for that purpose.

The Commission finds that the question now arises as to whether Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union should be amended within the framework of the ongoing Intergovernmental Conference, in order to acknowledge the existence of the Charter.

The Commission feels, however, that irrespective of the ultimate form of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it will make an impact in many areas, including the legal sphere, as the Union's institutions will obviously find it difficult to ignore the Charter's existence in future.

(1) COM(2000) 644 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Arrest of priest in Turkey

The Turkish newspaper, Milliyet, reported on 6 October 2000 that the previous morning the police had arrested the Syro-Chaldean priest, Yussuf Akbulut, at the Holy Church of the Virgin Mary at Diyarbakir in full view of visiting tourists. The police confiscated the tourists' cameras, took the priest into custody and then brought him before the State Security Court. The priest's crime was a statement he had made to the newspaper, Hurriyet, on 4 October in which he said that a great many Syro-Chaldeans were also massacred together with the Armenians. What steps will the Commission take to secure the immediate release of the priest?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2000)

The Commission can confirm that Mr Akbulut was interrogated by the Diyarbakir Security Department. He stayed in the Security Department for 8 hours and was then released. Subsequently the priest was indicted for inciting hatred and enmity among people according to Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code. The first hearing at the Diyarbakir State Security Court will take place on 21 December 2000.

The Commission will raise this matter with the Turkish government in the framework of the political dialogue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/00

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: European Southern Observatory

What is the nature of the relationship between the Commission and the ESO (European Southern Observatory)?

Has the Commission helped to fund ESO research projects in the past, and/or does it intend to do so in the future?

Should the EU enter into a partnership with the ESO similar to that with the ESA (European Space Agency)?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

The ESO is a European intergovernmental organisation which occupies a central position in astronomy in Europe. There is no formal link between the ESO and the Commission other than those deriving from its involvement in the framework programme for research and technological development.

The ESO receives many Community contracts. One may mention, in particular, the Astrovirtel project funded as part of the Access to research infrastructures project within the Boosting the human potential of research programme. That project embraces the first virtual telescope permitting access to the phenomenal flow of data from the large international telescopes.

In contrast to space policy the Commission does not play an active part in astronomical research. There is thus no intention to enter into a partnership with the ESO similar to that recently brought into being with the European Space Agency (ESA). Nevertheless, that organisation continues to be one of the Commission's major partners since it is at the forefront in Europe in its particular area. That is especially true in terms of the thinking currently on implementing the European research area project.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4059/00

by Willy De Clercq (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Access to innovative medicines

Council Directive 89/105/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems provides for a maximum period of 180 days for pricing and reimbursement approval by the Member States, once marketing approval has been granted. Some Member States, such as Belgium, still take up to four times as long to grant pricing and reimbursement approval for new medicinal products. This deprives patients from access to crucial new pharmaceutical products. Can the Commission inform Parliament on what it has done or what it will do to ensure that patients are not denied access to new drugs because of bureaucratic inefficiency?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The Council Directive 89/105/EEC, of 21 December 1988, relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion within the scope of national health insurance systems has been fully transposed into national law by all Member States. It is worth noting that the periods of time laid down in the Directive to which the question makes reference are mandatory, and not optional.

It is indeed true that there have been complaints surrounding the length of time taken by some Member States to agree on prices and reimbursement rates for medicinal products, and the Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.

The specific facts to which the question makes reference are currently a matter of law. The Commission has instituted infraction proceedings against Belgium Cases 1999/5305, 2000/4442 and 2000/4544 form a linked dossier, and are being actively pursued by the Commission.