ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Seats of the EU Institutions

Every EU Treaty makes specific reference to the seats of the European Institutions. A debate is held on that subject at every Intergovernmental Conference which precedes a new Treaty and the ensuing decisions are incorporated in the text of the Treaty. The Conference which began in Brussels on 28 February 2002 is to pave the way for a revision of the modus operandi of the Union's institutions and for enlargement.

What view does the Commission take of the Conference discussing the possibility of transferring some of the Union's institutions to cities other than Brussels and Luxembourg, such as the more historic capitals in the Union, e.g. Rome, Berlin, Paris and Athens? Would it be possible to hold such a discussion at the Conference and to take decisions to move the seats of some of the main institutions of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Under current law, the seat of the institutions is decided by common accord of the governments of the Member States (Article 289 of the EC Treaty).

In addition, the decisions already taken on this subject were included in the relevant Protocol in the Annex to the Amsterdam Treaty and are, therefore, henceforth governed by the EU's primary legislation.

According to the conclusions of the Laeken European Council held on 14/15 December 2001, the mandate of the Convention on the future of the Union, whose work began on 28 February 2002, does not include drawing up proposals on the seat of the institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Western Sahara

According to media reports, on 24 December 2001 several score of the Saharan prisoners in the notorious black jail of El Aaiun (Western Sahara) began a hunger strike in protest against the inhuman conditions in which they are being held. It appears that many of them have been subjected to torture, ill-treatment and total isolation from the outside world. In support of them, their relatives held a peaceful march which was violently suppressed by the Moroccan authorities.

In total contrast to this reappearance of human rights violations in Western Sahara. the Polisario Front has simultaneously shown proof of its good will in its decision, on 2 January 2002, to release 115 Moroccan prisoners of war.

What information can the Council supply on these developments? Has the Council asked the Moroccan government for an explanation, and has it requested it to adopt positive measures? Does the Council not consider it necessary to send an observer mission as soon as possible to verify the state of affairs at ground level?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0208/02 and P-0410/02

(21 May 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member, Mr Carlos Carnero González, that it has no knowledge of the events in the El Aaiún prison to which he refers.

More generally, the Council remains most concerned by the fate of more than 1350 prisoners of war who are still in captivity, and have been, in most cases, for 20 years, requiring an early solution which complies with the obligations under the Geneva Convention. It has steadfastly emphasised that one must not wait for the end of the political process

to begin seeking a solution to urgent humanitarian issues such as exchanges of family visits or the release of prisoners of war. In spite of limited progress, the Council still deplores the very worrying situation of the Saharan refugees in the Tindouf camps, while emphasising that the tense situation in the Western Sahara makes it yet more difficult to solve humanitarian issues. That is also why the Council, which is in regular contact with the UN Secretary-General's personal envoy, Mr James Baker, and all parties to the conflict, is willing to contribute to establishing a climate of confidence between the parties concerned in order to facilitate an acceptable solution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0114/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Publication European Dialogue

Up to 1999 the then DG 1A published the quarterly magazine European Dialogue, which was translated into all the Eastern European languages and which was intended to inform the public in these

countries about the benefits of EU membership. When Commissioner Verheugen assumed office the magazine was abruptly discontinued. The Commission terminated the contract and had to pay the publisher a six-figure sum as compensation for the fact that European Dialogue would no longer be published.

How much compensation was paid?

How much had it previously cost to publish the magazine? Why were no attempts made to improve or change the magazine's quality and content?

If the magazine and its editorial staff were so bad and supposedly beyond correction that the publication contract had to be terminated ahead of time, with the high compensation costs this entailed, why did the magazine exist unchallenged for so long and at such great expense?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The quarterly magazine European Dialogue published in the central and eastern European languages was launched in 1995 under the responsibility of the former DG for Information, Culture and Communication and was financed by the PHARE programme. Its objective was to provide basic and timely information on the European Union. The publication appeared for four years at an annual cost of about EUR 600 000. This first contract ran for the full term and the publication met the agreed objectives with a satisfactory standard of quality.

At the end of the four-year period, an invitation to tender was published in August 1998 with a view to concluding a new contract. As the company to be selected withdrew its tender following internal restructuring, in line with usual practice the second best tender was accepted and the contract was signed in 1999. The first issue of the new version, which appeared after some delay, proved to be of poorer quality than the preceding one. The new enlargement DG, now responsible for the magazine following the restructuring of the Commission, tried to explore with the publisher how the publication's quality and editorial line could be improved. After various initiatives to that end it became clear that the new partner could not achieve the objectives of the new communication policy in the candidate countries, which was based on the Commission delegations themselves taking charge of information tools for enlargement preparation. Being present in the candidate countries, the delegations were in a better position to gear information tools to the needs of the individual candidate countries, including in regard to language.

In the light of this new approach in its information strategy, the Commission's Enlargement DG as authorising officer decided to terminate the contract with the contractor in question and did so with a compensatory payment of EUR 136 250.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/02

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Infringement procedure No 1999/4715 concerning the Lotto Zero project: alternative to state road SS 80 between Teramo and Giulianova

On 26 July 2001 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Italy concerning the infringement of Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

In its opinion, the Commission stated that Italy had not met its obligations under Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, as it had not checked whether the project to construct a by-pass to the city of Teramo (Lotto Zero project: alternative to state road SS 80 between Teramo and Giulianova) a project covered by Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC required an environmental impact assessment under Articles 5 to 10 of that directive.

Under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission called on Italy to take the necessary steps to comply with its reasoned opinion.

In view of the above:

- what stage has the above infringement procedure now reached and, specifically, has Italy taken the necessary steps to comply with the Commission's opinion?

- If so, what measures have been taken, and does the Commission consider them to be appropriate and satisfactory?

- If Italy has not taken the necessary measures, how does the Commission intend to act?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

On the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if the Commission considers, that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

The last development in the procedure, under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, mentioned by the Honourable Member is the decision of the Commission to make an application to the Court. In the opinion of the Commission, Italy has breached Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) in this specific case. The contents of infringment procedures are confidential.

The Parliament is regularly informed of the status of all infringement procedures under way. Details about the stage of infringement procedures against all Member States, which have at least been made the subject of a reasoned opinion, can be found in the Reports on monitoring the application of Community law annually published from the Commission.

Information concerning infringement procedures are also published, and frequently updated, on the Commission's Europa Internet site(2).

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_en.htm

infractions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Advertised automobile performances

Automobile manufacturers take particular pride in advertising performances of the models they produce. The vast majority of automobiles are capable of achieving speeds greatly in excess of speed limits applicable on European motorways and it is not at all rare to find automobiles achieving speeds of 250 or 300 km/h or even more. However, it is known that in most EU Member States the speed limits are situated between 100 and 140 km/h.

How is it possible to justify advertisements for models which are capable of achieving two or even three times the statutory speed limits? Which authority is responsible for issuing type-approval for automobiles capable of exceeding speed limits applicable on motorways? Can this be justified? What solution could be found to prevent this indirect infringement by drivers of the statutory speed limits applicable in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Most passenger cars today have a maximum design speed in excess of 140 kilometres per hour (km/h). Since the Community motor vehicle legislation sets no maximum limit for design speed of vehicles, Member States cannot refuse to issue Community type-approvals for cars with high-speed performance. However, the issue of a Community type-approval cannot be interpreted as providing clearance for the vehicle to be driven at speeds exceeding the speed limits set for public roads.

It must be noted that on some portions of the motorway network in the Community territory the speed of vehicles is not limited and that driving rules fall largely under the competence of the Member States according to the principle of subsidiarity.

There is no Community legislation that restricts the advertiser from mentioning the maximum speed of a motor vehicle in an advertisement. However there exists national legislation and codes of conduct that forbid the use of concepts based on speed in cars advertising.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0153/02

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Question of 19 October 2001 by Francesco Turchi

Considering that:

- the deadline for replying to a priority written question is three weeks from the date of the question's official notification;

- on 19 October 2001, the above-mentioned Member tabled a priority written question (P-3036/01) to the Council, on the murder of Afghan military commander Ahmad Shah Massood;

- to date (22 January 2002) no reply has been received from the Council;

- the international situation remains extremely worrying and unstable.

Would the Council, especially the Belgian and UK authorities, say why they have not yet replied to the above question, and whether they would not agree that, by failing to do so, they are giving others good reason to suspect that they care little about the respect due to representatives of the European Parliament or are unable to come up with convincing arguments to prove that they did not fail to take appropriate action in this matter.

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member of the replies it has already given on the points of procedure raised (please see the replies to questions E-1299/01, E-1300/01, P-1541/01 and E-2384/01).

Regarding question P-3036/01, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that the reply was adopted on 12 February 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Cost of food safety measures to producers

The costs of Community measures taken in order to protect consumer health (tests for SRM and MBM) are considerable. Does the Commission not think that the failure to harmonise regulations relating to costs incurred by the application of health measures taken at Community level lead to competition distortion within the Single market?

Would the Commission therefore agree that it is necessary for Community harmonisation for public funding to cover these costs as an emergency measure to prevent them falling to producers and to prevent any distortion of competition.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

Differences in the level of public support to cover the considerable costs resulting from this legislation can lead to distortions of competition. In order to avoid such distortions, the creation of a level playing field via some kind of harmonisation may be required. However, the granting of public support for these costs is only one way

towards such a level playing field. Due to budgetary constraints, it is difficult to imagine additional financing from Community funds. Member States may not be in a position to provide additional public funds as well. As far as existing Community support is concerned, in order to help the beef sector, it should be pointed out that the Community currently contributes 15 towards the costs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing kits.

The Commission has contacted all Member States to get cost estimates concerning recent and forthcoming legislation related to the fight against BSE, and to get information about the level of public support. This information is currently being evaluated, in order to identify more clearly where steps towards more harmonization are needed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/02

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: MEDA funding and culture

The MEDA I and MEDA II regulations make express provision for the promotion of cultural cooperation as part of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. To date this policy has been implemented through the Heritage programme, which primarily focuses on the partners' cultural heritage and architectural traditions.

In view of the current political situation, which makes mutual comprehension and the strengthening of relations between the peoples of the European Union and the partner countries a necessity, does the Commission believe that a new programme for cultural cooperation should be designed and implemented, dealing with the dissemination of art, history, philosophy and religion? If so, does the Commission think that new structures and opportunities should be created to enable Euro-Mediterranean cross-cultural dialogue and cooperation to gain renewed impetus and drive and to become a factor contributing to rapprochement, trust and stability in the region?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Commission shares the need to reinforce mutual comprehension and to strengthen relations between the peoples of the Union and the Mediterranean Partner Countries.

The Commission will shortly submit a Communication aimed at strengthening the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in view of the Ministerial meeting that will be held in Valencia, Spain this April.

Within this context, the Commission intends to present new initiatives which would encompass topics related to cross cultural dialogue such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Ban on diamond imports from Sierra Leone

On 11 January the Council of Ministers adopted a common position extending the ban on imports of uncut diamonds from Sierra Leone until 5 December 2002.

Can the Council assess the degree of compliance with this ban to date?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

On 18 February 2002 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 303/2002 concerning the importation into the Community of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone. By this Regulation, Common Position 2002/22/CFSP concerning a prohibition on imports of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone is implemented within the Community.

The Commission is responsible for assessing the degree to which the ban introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 303/2002 has been complied with to date. The Commission makes its assessment on the basis of inter alia information communicated by the Member States concerning breach and other enforcement problems or judgments handed down by national courts. The Commission and the Member States are required to supply each other with such information under Article 6 of the Regulation.

The Council suggests that the Honourable Member should address his question to the relevant institution.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0960/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 transitional periods for organically produced seeds

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EEC)2092/91 states that only seeds produced organically may be used in organic farming. The transitional period stipulated in Article 6(3) is due to expire on 31.12.2003.

However, it is extremely unlikely that adequate amounts of organically produced vegetable seeds of a sufficiently high quality will be available on the market after 31.12.2003. As regards biannual vegetables, it is also extremely doubtful whether organically produced seeds will ever be ready for marketing. Producers of organic vegetables are therefore afraid that they will be driven out of business.

How does the Commission view this situation, and how does it intend to react?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 473/2002 of 15 March 2002(2) states that only seeds produced organically may be used in organic farming. During a transitional period stipulated in Article 6(3) it is however possible to use seed from non-organic farming if it is not possible to obtain on the market seeds of an appropriate variety and satisfying the requirements for organic farming. The transitional period is due to expire on 31 December 2003.

The Commission finds that it is an important principle in organic farming to use seed produced organically. However the Commission is aware, that for most species grown in the Community, there are no adequate amounts of organically produced seeds available.

Article 6(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 provides for the possibility for the Commission to maintain the possibility of using seed not produced organically and at the same time to introduce restrictions on the conditions for getting derogations to use such seed.

The Commission is therefore now preparing a proposal, which will stimulate the market for organically produced seed and at the same time will prevent situations where farmers can not obtain any appropriate seeds.

(1) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

(2) OJ L 75, 16.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0020/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Subject: EU funding support for the Palestinian Authority

Is the Commission prepared to release information about the total cost of EU funding to date, which has been given to support the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, based in Ramallah?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Community first committed funding, to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) in 1994, with a 1,4 million allocation towards capacity building and preparation of demographic surveys.

In 1999 a further 2 million was committed, once again towards capacity building for the Palestinian statistical system. The latter programme is ongoing. An additional 0,3 million allocation is presently under preparation in order to cover damages (to material and equipment) inflicted upon the PCBS on 5 December 2001 (Budget line B7-4200).

The PCBS is, moreover, a beneficiary of the regional statistical cooperation programme Medstat (MEDA Funding), for the Mediterranean region, under the technical supervision of Eurostat. Medstat Phase I is ongoing, while Medstat Phase II will be launched soon.