ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Pakistani blasphemy law

Two men are currently being held in Pakistani prisons accused under the blasphemy law. The first man, Mr Parvez Masih, has reportedly been tortured and is under constant threat of further violence.

The second man has been subjected to extra-judicial threats on his life and was shot inside the Sahiwal Sessions Court by the complainant.

In mosques in Pakistan, it is taught that blasphemers deserve to be killed immediately and that protecting one is as bad as blaspheming oneself.

This law has lent itself to severe abuse: it is apparently possible to eliminate a business rival by claiming that he blasphemed.

General Musharraf is believed to want to repeal or, at all events, revise this law, but it is feared that the extremist lobby may make it difficult for him.

Does the Commission agree that this law poses problems for human rights?

Does the Commission believe that the Pakistan Government should be put under pressure to revise these laws?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission remains concerned about the continued application of the blasphemy law in Pakistan.

It would appear that the blasphemy law is applied arbitrarily and basic standards of due process are often not met. In addition, a disproportionate number of cases are brought against non-Muslims, often of the basis on denunciations (approximately 70 % of all cases of blasphemy concern Muslims, meaning that 30 % of all cases relate to the small non-Muslim community of 3 %). It should be said, however, that according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) active in the human rights field, all six verdicts handed out in 2001 under the main blasphemy provision were directed against Muslims.

On the occasion of a human rights conference organised by the Government of Pakistan in April 2000, a procedural reform of the blasphemy law was announced. However, following protests by religious groups the government withdrew the proposal.

The Commission is actively participating in joint Union efforts to address human rights issues in Pakistan as part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. Within this framework, the Commission will continue to address questions of concern, including the blasphemy law. The new Community Pakistan Co-operation Agreement, which contains a clause on human rights and democratic principles, will offer, once it has entered into force, the possibility to re-establish the full co-operation dialogue with Pakistan, including on sensitive human rights issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1581/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Subject: Creation of Euro-CIA

The UK Daily Telegraph (27 April 2002) reports the creation of a Euro-CIA security service.

Can you please tell me:

- Is this report substantially correct? If so, what is the treaty basis for the Euro-CIA? Is there any funding from the EU budget, and if so, under what budget line?

- In the UK, the security services are accountable to a committee of the House of Commons. What provision is there for parliamentary scrutiny of the Euro-CIA?

- By what name is this organisation to be known and what are its remit, its powers and objectives?

- Does it, or can it, clandestinely monitor electronic communications in the European institutions?

- According to the report, this project is paid for by Member States outside of the EU budget. Are there any other major EU projects funded off-budget by Member States in this way? If so, what are they, and what is their level of funding? Is this a device to enable the EU to breach the agreed 1,27 % GDP spending limit?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the report to which he refers in his question is substantially incorrect.

The organization to which the article refers is the European Police Organization (Europol), established by the Europol Convention of 26 July 1995(1). This organization is not an EU project, it has been established by the Member States on the basis of an international convention.

According to Article 35(2) of the Convention the Europol budget is financed from contributions from the Member States.

Europol is competent to deal with all forms of serious international crime mentioned in the annex to the Europol Convention. The Europol Convention limits Europol's tasks basically to information exchange, crime analysis and coordination. On 26 February 2002 the Commission presented a Communication(2) on the democratic Control of Europol to the Parliament and to the Council. It describes in detail the competencies and tasks of Europol as well as the detailed control mechanisms which are in place. It also explains that existing controls may need to be strengthened if at some point in future Europol is to receive executive powers.

As a result of the events of 11 September 2001, the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, on 20 September 2001, decided to establish a special counter-terrorism Task Force at Europol to enhance the Union's effectiveness in the fight against terrorism. This Task Force exists since November 2001. It is composed of some thirty counter-terrorism experts from all fifteen Member States. Its main function is to improve the exchange of information and to prepare terrorist threat assessments.

Europol is not allowed, and does not, monitor electronic communications in the European institutions.

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995.

(2) COM(2002) 95 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1045/02

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: New Residence Act in Austria and the Schengen Agreement

The new draft Residence Act in Austria includes, inter alia, an integration aspect which provides that, after a certain period of time has elapsed, foreigners of either sex may have their residence permits withdrawn and may be deported unless they take advantage of an offer relating to their integration into society and, within a certain period, successfully complete a German-language course.

Since refusal of a residence permit and deportation having the force of law in Austria would also apply to nationals of the countries signatory to the Schengen Agreement, the new Residence Act might give rise to a situation in which a person from a country where French is spoken might come to Austria, fail to learn a sufficient amount of German and then, although speaking perfect French, not be permitted to return to France under the Schengen Agreement.

1. Can the Council verify whether this depiction of the situation is accurate and whether this absurd example might be one of the consequences of the Austrian Residence Act?

2. Does the Council take the view that the new Residence Act could be implemented in the European Union and that it is compatible with its principles?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council points out that it does not comment on draft legislation of the Member States.

The Honourable Member is also reminded that matters concerning immigration, visas and asylum fall within Community competence by virtue of Title IV of the TEC. It is, therefore, for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to verify whether the Member States are fulfilling their obligations with regard to these matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1772/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Subject: The EU as contracting party to a Unesco Convention

In the third paragraph of the answer given by Commissioner Reding to my Written Question E-0730/02(1) of 29 April 2002 entitled: Year of the Mountain the Dolomites as a World Heritage Site, the Commission states that the EU is not a contracting party to the 1972 Unesco Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Would it not, then, be sensible for the European Union to become a contracting party to Unesco conventions?

(1) See page 50.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

The Convention mentioned by the Honourable Member does not contain a clause allowing the Community to becoming a contracting party.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: New legal provisions governing technical assistance under the 3rd Community Support Framework (CSF)

During the 2nd CSF, the legal provisions governing technical assistance measures (expert studies, promotion and publicity campaigns, etc.) allowed projects of a value up to Drs 6 million, including VAT, to be commissioned directly by decision of a Minister or Secretary-General. Projects with bigger budgets were subject to invitations to tender.

The new legal provisions (Presidential Decree 4/2002) governing technical assistance under the 3rd CSF, however, overturn this situation, making only technical assistance projects over EUR 130 000 subject to public tender, in accordance with Presidential Decrees 394/96 and 346/00, as applicable.

Is the Commission aware of this particular matter and what measures will it take to ensure transparency in the awarding of contracts?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

In accordance with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(1), the amount of EUR 200 000, VAT not included, is the minimum amount of a contract for the provision of services for which a call for tenders is compulsory.

Since in the case of the national legislation referred to by the Honourable Member, the minimum amount for a tendering procedure is EUR 130 000, the relevant European legislation is respected.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2002)

Subject: Distance contracts: varying cancellation periods

Distance contracts are contracts for the delivery of goods or the provision of services which are concluded between a business and a consumer using means of distance communication only (letters, catalogues, internet, telephone, etc.).

Directive 97/7/EC(1) grants consumers a cancellation period of at least seven working days for distance contracts. There are differences in the way in which the Member States implement this Directive. For example, in Austria the cancellation period is

seven working days, in Italy ten working days and in Germany two weeks. In addition, Austrian legislation excludes Saturday as a working day, whilst Italian legislation does not refer to the issue (therefore leaving the last word to the courts).

Is it acceptable for cancellation periods to differ so greatly between Member States?

Do directives or regulations exist which regulate the term working day? If so, is Saturday considered a working day or not?

Does the trader have a specific obligation to inform the consumer of the cancellation period?

(1) OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Directive 97/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts(1) is a so-called minimum harmonisation directive which allows Member States to introduce or maintain more stringent provisions compatible with the Treaty, to ensure a higher level of consumer protection (Article 14) than the common level set in the Directive. Differing cancellation periods that are more favourable to the consumer, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, are therefore permitted. However, the Commission, has started a broad debate about the future of Union consumer legislation in its Green paper on Union consumer protection(2) that includes the question of complete harmonisation of cancellation periods of consumer directives.

Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits(3), that applies to acts of the Council or the Commission establishes a definition of working days as meaning all days other than public holidays, Sundays and Saturdays (Article 2(2)).

Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 97/7/EC requires the supplier to provide the consumer, in good time, prior to the conclusion of any distance contract with information about the existence of a right of withdrawal (subject to some limited exemptions). The consumer must receive written confirmation of this during the performance of the contract unless the information has already been given to the consumer prior to the conclusion of the contract in writing. As well as in writing, the supplier can also send such information in another durable medium, for example, by electronic mail.

(1) OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(2) COM(2001) 531 final.

(3) OJ L 124, 8.6.1971.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0850/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Mobbing at work

What steps will the Commission take with a view to introducing a legal definition of mobbing so that effective prevention policies can be shaped, for example by including it in the Framework Directive on health and safety at work, and with a view to drawing up a Green Paper containing a detailed analysis, action plan and specific timetable?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its recent Communication Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006(1), which adopts a global approach to well-being at work, taking account of changes in the world of work and the emergence of new risks, especially of a psycho-social nature. With this in mind, and as indicated in the above Communication, the Commission will examine the appropriateness and the scope of a Community instrument on the issue of psychological harassment in the workplace.

(1) COM(2002) 118 final, 11.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/02

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

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Prisons in Turkey

Of the 50 000 prisoners currently being held in Turkey, 10 000 are political prisoners accused of terrorist acts or of belonging to an illegal political organisation.

These prisoners are being held in solitary confinement or in three-person cells. They are remanded in custody for an average of four years before being sentenced.

For more than a year there has been a growing number of protests against this system, particularly in the form of hunger strikes by prisoners. These strikes could lead to the death of fifty of then. 130 prisoners are currently on hunger strike.

This system of solitary confinement has been condemned as a form of torture by the Council of Europe. The presidents of the country's four largest bar associations proposed a compromise solution entitled 3 doors, 3 locks, whereby prisoners in three neighbouring cells would be allowed to communicate with one another for eight hours a day.

This solution has been rejected by the Turkish authorities.

Against the background of Turkey's insistent requests to join the European Union, does the Commission consider the attitude of the Turkish authorities in this matter to be favourable towards Turkey's accession?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the conditions in Turkish prisons to which the Honourable Member refers, and shares it's concern regarding the prisoners on hunger strike. The number of prisoners who have died on hunger strike has now reached 48. The Commission considers that, from a humanitarian point of view, this situation is unacceptable, regardless of the motives of those involved in organising the hunger strikes.

The Commission is following the matter of the reform of the prison system very closely, and has taken note that the compromise formula of Three Doors, Three Locks has been rejected by the Minister for Justice on the grounds that it contravenes Article 16 of the anti-terror law.

There have been attempts by the Ministry of Justice to find an alternative, and it has been proposed in a circular issued on 10 January 2002 that prisons could allow groups of up to 10 prisoners to meet socially for five hours each week. However, this has not been implemented as the Ministry insists that the measure can only be introduced once the hunger strikes have ended.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the situation in Turkish prisons does not contribute positively to the country's preparations for Union membership. The Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement raised the issue of prison reforms during his visit to Ankara on 14/15 February 2002. The Commission hopes that improvements will be made, and that Turkey will, as stipulated in the medium term priorities of the Accession Partnership, adjust detention conditions in prisons to bring them into accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners and other international norms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Comparability of EU and US figures

In the mid-1990s the United States introduced a system of hedonic price indexing. The use of this system results in higher growth figures because it calculates product replacement differently from more traditional methods.

1. To what extent are the results of the US economy flattered by the use of this index?

2. Is it possible to compare the US results that would be obtained with and without this indexing?

3. To what extent is indexing applied to European figures? If not or if only in part, would be right to say that there is an optical divide between the US and Europe?

4. The indexing system is controversial among economists and could entail calculating non-existent wealth. What does the European Commission think about the use of this method?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The American figures for economic growth are not necessarily flattered by the use of hedonic methods. Statisticians use a range of methods to take account of quality change, with different comparative advantages. Hedonic methods do not lead to uniformly higher or lower results. It is not clear that alternative methods are a priori better than the hedonic approach.

Eurostat cannot compare the American results with and without the application of hedonic methods(1), since such an analysis could only be conducted using American micro-data. Given that a range of alternative methods might be used in the place of hedonics, the alternative methods could be expected to give a range of results. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to conclude that there is an optical divide between the United States and Europe. The position is not so clear-cut.

European national statistical institutes are currently very active in the field of hedonics in terms of research but their use is rather limited in practice. Only a few Member States are using hedonics in the measurement of some economic activities. Eurostat has set up a centre to consolidate research in this field and to evaluate the scope for future use. Eurostat, in collaboration with the Member States' national statistical institutes, is also currently developing additional standards for the quality adjustment of the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices, whether by using hedonic methods or other methods.

Eurostat is of the view that hedonic research currently offers a promising route for improving quality adjustment in price indices and hence measuring economic growth in volume terms. That said, Eurostat agrees that there are some controversial issues concerning the application of hedonic methods(2) which are currently discussed in international fora.

(1) The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has published some comparisons for individual product types, see for example: http://stats.bls.gov/.

(2) See for example: US National Academy of Sciences At What Price? Conceptualizing and measuring cost-of-living and price indexes, Charles Schultze and Christopher Mackie, editors, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2137/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Haiti

With reference to Haiti, 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 E-2580/02

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation

In 1997 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive (1) on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation, on which the European Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on 19 February 1998.

To date this dossier has not been completed and the training and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation remain in the hands of the operators, since it has not yet been established that their training should be carried out by independent bodies appointed by the Member States.

In the meantime, and according to information from trade unions representing cabin staff, an increasing number of airlines are employing crews on a temporary and seasonal basis, and some of them have even reduced the period of basic training.

In view of current security concerns in air transport and the importance and responsibility of cabin crews in this area, can the Commission say why the proposal for a directive has not yet been followed up and what the prospects are for its definitive adoption?

(1) COM/97/0382 OJ C 263, 29.8.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

The Commission did indeed present a proposal for a Council Directive on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation(1), which received the support of the European Parliament. The text has been examined several times by the Council, which has failed to achieve a qualified majority on it.

The proposal is currently being examined in parallel with the amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation.(2)

It is for the Council to reach a decision on the two texts.

(1) OJ C 263, 29.8.1997, amended by OJ C 109, 20.4.1999.

(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.