ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Kaliningrad (citizenship rights)

Bearing in mind the German law of jus sanguinis, does the Commission have any information on what percentage of the population of the region of Kaliningrad are citizens of or entitled to citizenship of (a) current EU Member States and (b) Poland and Lithuania?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Although reliable statistics are not available, the Commission estimates that very few inhabitants of the Kaliningrad region are citizens of/or might be entitled to citizenship of current Member States. The percentage of inhabitants who are citizens of/or might be entitled to citizenship of either Poland or Lithuania is also very small. The Kaliningrad authorities consider under 2,5 % of the population of the region to be of Lithuanian or Polish origin. However, the Commission has no information on the entitlement to citizenship of this part of the population, as the rules concerning citizenship lie within the competence of the countries concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1411/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Use of languages at chat session by Commissioner Lamy

On 14 March 2002, Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade, held a chat session on the subject Development: what is the role of trade?, evidently as part of a series of such sessions on European policy. Those attending the session were allowed to ask questions in English, French, German and Spanish. The whole debate could be followed direct in English. For some time a full record of the debate has been on the official website, Europa. This can be accessed only in English.

Why was it not possible for this chat session to be held in the 11 official languages of the Union? Will the Commission in future ensure that it is possible for such sessions to be held in the 11 official languages? If not, why not?

Can the Commission explain why English, German, Spanish and French were the languages ultimately selected for the asking of questions?

Why was it ultimately decided to place only an English version of the debate on the website?

Does the Commission agree that this limited choice of languages constitutes a violation of Article 21, Chapter III, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

The purpose of chat sessions is to have direct real time communication with citizens. The chat of 14 March 2002 on Development: What is the role of trade was one of the most successful in terms of traffic (1006 communications) and it was a serious, lively and constructive debate. The Commission is, however, well aware of the problems connected with the present level of multilingualism for this type of exercise. The fundamental reason why chat sessions are not always available in all the official languages of the Union is the amount of resources needed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/02

by Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Impact of the forthcoming enlargement on customs officials

Since a number of candidate countries will become part of the European Union in 2004 and the customs barriers with those countries will be abolished, what steps does the Commission intend to take regarding possible compensation (as in the case of the previous enlargement) for staff involved in customs formalities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

As referred to by the Honourable Member, the Council launched in 1992 a 30 MECU action programme designed to retrain and re-employ custom agents and allowed Member States to use Community structural funds (European Social Fund and Interreg I) to introduce accompanying measures (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the internal market(1)). It established also a training programme to help national administrations reorganise their custom operations (Council Decision No 94/844/EC of 19 December 1994 establishing specific common programmes for the vocational training of customs officials, with regard to preferential systems, the control of containers, processing under customs control, and warehouse regimes (Matthaeus programme)(2)).

A similar issue was raised in Commission Communication concerning the employment aspects of the decision to abolish tax- and duty-free sales for intra-Community travellers(3). At this point, the Commission encouraged Member States to apply for assistance under the Structural Funds or for securing approval of State aid under the relevant guidelines laid down by the Commission. It did not propose a new and separate measure.

The Commission intends to adopt the same approach as regards custom agents who will be concerned by the forthcoming enlargement.

(1) OJ L 394, 31.12.1992.

(2) OJ L 352, 31.12.1994.

(3) OJ C 66, 9.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/02

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

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Equatorial Guinea

With respect to Equatorial Guinea, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

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-1999/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Micronesia

With respect to Micronesia, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

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-2705/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Natura 2000 Cyprus

Has the Commission now received proposals for Natura 2000 sites from the Cyprus Government?

If so, is the Commission satisfied with these, particularly in respect to the extent of designations within and around the Akamas Peninsular?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The Commission has financed a LIFE-Third countries project in Cyprus to assist with the elaboration of the list of sites for the Natura 2000 network and the collection of information that will lead to the development of the necessary Standard Data Forms and maps of the sites. The project is expected to finish by the end of 2002. So far, the Commission has received the project's progress reports and a preliminary list of sites, maps and information, which includes the area of the Akamas Peninsula.

According to existing arrangements, candidate countries have to submit their proposals for Natura 2000 by the date of accession at the latest. The Commission will then assess the adequacy of these proposals at biogeographical region level, through the procedures that have been established to this effect. The assessment of the Akamas Peninsular site that has been proposed for designation will therefore only be possible at that stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Unemployment in Finland and emissions trading

The Commission has expressed disquiet at the Finnish unemployment trend. That is the assessment contained in its spring budget forecast.

However, the Commission is energetically promoting emissions trading, which according to published reports has a direct adverse effect on employment. This applies especially to Finland, where 40 000 people work in the industry that would be hardest hit by emissions trading and whose operations would be most severely hampered from the economic point of view. Emissions trading thus directly affects the future of those 40 000 people. The problems entailed are not as serious in the other Member States.

How does the Commission believe that anxiety about rising unemployment in Finland and advocacy of emissions trading can be combined to produce a coherent policy?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission has not seen the studies referred to in the question, and cannot therefore provide a detailed rebuttal of their results. However, the Commission is unaware of any objective analysis which concludes that emissions trading will lead to severe job losses compared to alternative methods of achieving Finland's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the Burden Sharing Agreement.

On the contrary, there is a wide range of analysis and studies which show that a system of tradable emission allowances will achieve any specified reduction in emissions at lower cost to output and therefore employment than alternative instruments. This is because it offers individual enterprises flexibility in deciding how to achieve their emission targets. It is precisely for these reasons that the Commission has proposed that an emissions trading scheme should form a major part of the Community's action to achieve its emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Accordingly, far from seeing any contradiction between concerns about unemployment and its proposal for emissions trading, the Commission believes that concerns about the economic and social impact of climate change policy are best addressed by using cost-effective instruments to implement that policy. The scheme of emissions trading that the Commission has proposed is such a cost-effective instrument.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Global terrorism: a European response

The Evil Axis, as George W. Bush calls it, which runs from Tehran to Baghdad and Pyongyang, could, in the medium-term, lead to a level of international terrorism that would make the 11 September attacks on the Twin Towers in New York seem like a bad joke.

Iran apparently has Shahab-3, Shahab-4 and Shahab-5 ballistic missiles at an advanced stage of construction which have a range of 1300, 2000 and 5500 km respectively.

Iraq is reported to have Al-Hussein and Al-Abbas ballistic missiles with ranges of between 600 and 1 000 km.

North Korea has Nodong-1, Nodong-2, Taepodong-1 and Taepodong-2 ballistic missiles at an advanced stage of development with ranges of between 1 300 and 6 000 km.

These missiles armed with nuclear, chemical and biological warheads could, within the space of a few hours, destroy the whole of the Western world, while China would not stand back looking on.

Although the war against international terrorism has a defence weapon in the shape of the Space Shield and is fought on battlefields, it is won by secret diplomacy, the latest form of signals intelligence.

- How does Europe intend to respond to such scenarios? In particular, does the European Union not intend to create synergies in the intelligence sector between the various national intelligence organisations, using new systems of non-integer digital cryptography?

- Are there no plans to establish an advanced European Institute of Intelligence with links to the scientific and academic community?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his insights. There are currently no plans of which the Commission is aware to rise to the challenge outlined.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2468/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: EU funding for flood aid

Over the past few weeks, Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic have been devastated by floods of hitherto unimagined proportions.

Thousands of people have been deprived of their livelihoods; their lives have been destroyed.

The cost of the damage caused by the flood amounts to several billion euro.

In view of this catastrophe:

- To what extent could structural assistance be redeployed so as to make funding available from the EU Structural Funds, in order to ensure that the victims receive rapid financial assistance?

- How much financial assistance could be granted, and how soon?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2468/02, P-2506/02 and P-2542/02given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission shares the distress of the families plunged into grief by August's serious flooding in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and is fully alive to their social, economic and environmental implications. Accordingly, on 28 August it announced a series of initiatives involving various Community policies to help the countries and regions concerned and the impact of the floods.(1)

Among the existing instruments available are the Structural Funds (for affected Member States) and the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (for the applicant countries).

In the zones and regions eligible for assistance from these Funds 2000-2006 programming period appropriations that have not yet been committed or projects already scheduled can at the Member States' request be redeployed between the priorities of the regional programmes. Meetings with the various national regional authorities are in progress in order to specify the amount that can be reallocated. The Commission will make full use of the margins of flexibility offered by the regulations governing these Funds and by the Community rules on State aid and public procurement.

Going beyond the existing mechanisms, the Commission on 18 September adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a European Union Solidarity Fund(2) to aid countries and regions affected by major disasters. It could be given in both the present Member States and the countries for which accession negotiations are in progress. Article 13 of the Commission's proposal states that countries affected by disasters from 1 August 2002 onwards can request assistance from the Fund. The proposals for the Regulation and for an institutional agreement making the necessary resources available are now being negotiated in Parliament and the Council with adoption expected at the end of October. The Commission is therefore unable at present to indicate what amount of aid from this Fund could be granted to Austria.

(1) COM(2002) 481 final of 28.8.2002: Commission communication to Parliament and the Council the European Community responds to the flooding in Austria, Germany and several applicant countries: a solidarity-based initiative.

(2) COM(2002) 514 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Arrest and imprisonment in Tunisia of a woman and her two children (respectively eight- and two-years old)

During the evening of 15 August 2002, Mrs Souad Hamrouni, née Maghroum (born 6 July 1967 in Bizerty); travelled on flight LBT 365 to Tunis with her two children, Rahma (eight years old) and Amine (two and a half years old), both of whom were born in France. On arrival at Tunis-Carthage Airport at 11 p.m., she was arrested by border police who searched and then questioned her in front of her two children. According to the police officers, she was then taken to the Ministry of the Interior, where she spent the night with her two children. Mr Abderraouf Ayadi, Mr Abdelwahab Matar and Mr Mohamed Abou, three lawyers and friends of the family who had come to meet Mrs Hamrouni at the airport, were present when she was arrested and were able to observe the irregular nature of this arrest.

Is the Commission aware of the arrest? What measures does it intend to take to make clear to the Tunisian authorities that such practices are absolutely incompatible with Article 2 of the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement (human rights clause)? More generally, does not the Commission believe that President Ben Ali's dictatorship has now become intolerable?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission quickly learned of Mrs Hamrouni's arrest through press releases published by her husband and human rights organisations in Tunisia.

It also has documents from the Tunisian authorities emphasising that Mrs Hamrouni was released straight after questioning.

The Commission regularly points out to the Tunisian authorities the importance it attaches to freedom of speech and political pluralism, both as values in their own right and as basic parameters for the development of a modern society.

At the meeting of the EC-Tunisia Association Committee in Tunis on 25 September we will once again reiterate our attachment to the democratic principles to which Tunisia subscribed when it signed the Association Agreement with the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2410/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(7 August 2002)

Subject: Peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda

Earlier this week, representatives of Rwanda and of the Democratic Republic of the Congo concluded a peace agreement in the South African capital, Pretoria. That agreement follows in the wake of a recent agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda.

What is the Council's assessment of the peace agreement concluded between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda?

What implications does the agreement have for relations between the European Union and the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Will the arrangements for EU assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo be strengthened thereby? If so, how?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

The EU has congratulated the governments of the DRC and Rwanda for the signing of the Peace Agreement between the DRC and Rwanda on the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from the territory of the DRC as well as for the programme for its implementation. The EU also welcomed the dismantling of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe forces in the DRC. The EU has at the same time, expressed the hope that the Congolese Parties will make full use of the present momentum to promote an all-inclusive conclusion of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. It repeatedly reassured all Parties of its continued support to the ongoing process of securing peace and security for all countries and people in the region of the Great Lakes.

The EU considers that progress in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue and the withdrawal of external troops in the DRC are both necessary prerequisites for obtaining a lasting peace in the DRC. It therefore considers the agreement between the DRC and Rwanda as a major step forward towards peace in the region.

The bilateral relations between the EU and the DRC are already normalised and the signing of the Peace Agreement in itself is therefore not expected to have any immediate consequences in this respect. The new National Indicative Programme with the DRC, opening up for resources under the European Development Fund was signed in January. Whether the Peace Agreement and its implementation will have any implications for EU assistance to the DRC will have to be examined in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0861/02

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: European art market

What steps, if any, is the European Commission proposing to take in response to the recent report commissioned by the European Fine Art Federation which shows that the European art market is losing out to the United States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

The question asked by the Honourable Member concerns the report The European Art Market in 2002, commissioned by the European Fine Art Foundation (TEFAF).

According to TEFAF, this survey reveals among other positive contributions made by the art market a worrying decline in Europe's share of the global market since 1998, which has fallen by 7,2 % in favour of the United States. This decline, according to the report, can be attributed among other things also to the harmonisation of the resale right (Droit de Suite) at Community level.

The above report was commissioned by TEFAF with the support of other European organisations representing some of the economic operators in the art market. Therefore, the economic and regulatory analysis carried out in the report reflects a partial vision of the European Art Market, notably that of art trade organisations like TEFAF.

With regard to the allegedly negative effects of the harmonisation of the resale right, the Commission wishes to recall that the Resale Right Directive(1) is not yet in force and will not be until 1 January 2006. In fact, the Directive has not yet brought about any change in the Member States. Furthermore, the Directive provides for appropriate mechanisms aimed at preventing the displacement of sales of modern art particularly in the highest price brackets outside the Community. Therefore, the claim that the Resale Right Directive should be considered responsible for a 7,2 % drop in the European Art Market has no basis, even less so if one considers that already nine Member States apply the resale right in practice.

Moreover, resale rights already apply in more than sixty countries world-wide. With a view to meeting any perceived concerns regarding potential disadvantages for the European art market, the Commission is committed under the Directive to seeking to further extend the application of resale rights at international level.

Finally, in a report published on 28 April 1999 on the impact of Directive 94/5/EC(2), the competitiveness of the Community art market compared to third countries' art markets, the Commission found that the adoption of this Directive had not had a significant impact on the Community art market and even that the art market had boomed since the introduction of VAT on imports.

(1) Directive 2001/84/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, OJ L 272, 13.10.2001.

(2) Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC Special arrangements applicable to second-hand goods, works of art, collectors' items and antiques, OJ L 60, 3.3.1994.