ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2117/02

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Hungary

Hungary is a front runner in accession negotiations to join the EU in 2004. However, it has only partially complied with the Copenhagen criteria laid down in 1993, which call on potential Member States of the EU to have a fully functioning market economy and to respect democracy and human rights.

I understand that mental health patients in Hungary are subject to some appalling conditions, such as confinement to what are known as cage beds. In addition, the use of guardians, whereby a person is arbitrarily appointed trustee of another person, is questionable on human rights grounds. Indeed, such guardians wield a significant and disproportionate amount of power in that they are able to commit their trustees to a mental institution.

Whether Hungary currently breaches the ECHR is a moot point, and this is a separate issue from its eligibility to accede to the EU. However, the EU is based on the principle of respect for human rights and such controversial practices should not go unchecked since they could undermine the principles upon which the EU is founded.

Is the Commission aware of these practices, and what does it intend to do to resolve this situation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The political criteria for accession, as laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 and which have to be met by the candidate countries, are monitored by the Commission through its Regular Reports on candidate countries' progress towards accession. Assessment of respect for the political criteria, of which respect for human rights forms part, is carried out by the Commission on the basis of the broadest possible array of sources. This includes, besides information provided by each candidate country concerned, also contributions by, and exchanges with, relevant international organisations, such as the Council of Europe and the relevant United Nations (UN) bodies, and with non-governmental organisations.

Until now, neither the report of the Ombudsman for civil and political rights nor the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHCHR) have made explicit reference to the treatment of patients in psychiatric hospitals. However, the UN Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) had raised in its 1999 report concerns about the situation in psychiatric hospitals in Hungary. Since then, the Hungarian Government has undertaken a number of measures (conduct of a nation-wide survey, publication of a circular prohibiting the use of caged beds in psychiatric hospitals) including the consolidation of the legal framework to remedy the situation. The provisions of the Health Care Act relating to psychiatric patients have since 2001 prohibited any torturous, cruel, inhumane, degrading or punitive measures. There is also the possibility for legal remedies and regular reviews by outside professional experts.

The Commission is following developments in this area in the context of its preparations for the upcoming 2002 Regular Report.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3376/02

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2002)

Subject: Accident at sea off the Galician coast

Legislation has been tightened up in the area of maritime safety in recent years because of the accident rate among vessels, especially oil tankers, which have a serious impact on coastal areas.

At Community level the Commission reacted by drawing up two packages of measures known as ERIKA I and ERIKA II. The aim of these packages was to strengthen inspection and safety systems in ports (port State control), among certification bodies (classification societies) and as regards vessels themselves (double-hull tankers).

In view of the accident off the Galician coast involving the tanker Prestige, which was apparently on its way from Latvia to Gibraltar, does the Commission consider that according to the information available Community rules regarding port State control have been complied with? If not, what measures will it adopt?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

According to the information available, the Prestige last underwent a Port State control (PSC) inspection in Rotterdam in 1999. This inspection revealed only minor deficiencies, which were corrected before the departure of the ship.

After this date, the ship did not call at any Union port with the exception of Kalamata, Greece and Gibraltar, United Kingdom. The ship called, however, at Ventspils, Latvia and at Saint Petersburg, Russia. During these visits, no PSC inspection was performed under Directive 95/21/EC(1) (PSC) or the Paris Memorandum of Understanding rules.

The Commission wrote to the competent authorities of the countries concerned in order to obtain information on the absence of PSC inspection to the Prestige.

In any case, in its Communication of 3 December 2002 on improving safety at sea(2) in response to the Prestige accident, the Commission draws the attention of Member States to the need to respect PSC obligations. It calls upon Member States to recruit a sufficient number of inspectors to enable them to fulfil the 25 % minimum inspection rate obligation set out in Community law. The Commission also invites Member States to ensure a sufficient level of inspection in all their ports and anchorage areas in order to avoid the emergence of ports of convenience. The Commission will propose specific measures on this respect.

The Commission will remain particularly vigilant on PSC issues. In this context, it has recently lodged an application to the Court of Justice aiming at declaring that two Member States, France and Ireland, have disrespected the 25 % PSC inspection minimum rate and have thus failed their Community obligations.

(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(2) COM(2002) 681 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3027/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: EU-Sudan relations

Would the Commission give details of the current status of its dialogue with Sudan, and the purpose of it? This should include details of the personnel involved, the structure of the dialogue, progress made and the role of the Commission.

Would it also give details of the current position and immediate and long-term objectives of the dialogue with Sudan?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

As development cooperation could not be implemented in the Sudan since March 1990, due to human rights violations and the resumption of hostilities in the South of the country, the Commission suspended direct dialogue with the Government. In November 1999, the Union and the Sudan began a formal political dialogue in order to support a strengthened peace process and to encourage progress in governance in which the Commission was fully associated. In December 2001, during a visit by an EU Troika mission of senior officials, including Commission representatives, the two parties agreed on the need to pursue and intensify the dialogue in the perspective of a gradual normalisation of relations.

Since February 2002, and after the 9th EDF Notification letter to the Government of the Sudan on 22 January 2002, the Commission started the policy dialogue with the Sudanese partners for the preparation of the Country Strategy Paper (CSP). On 21 October the CSP received an unanimous favourable opinion of the EDF Committee. A Commission decision on the CSP is expected during November 2002.

In 2002 the Union-Sudan dialogue has been based on monthly meetings between the Union Heads of Mission based in Khartoum and the Government of Sudan, in which the Commissions' Head of Delegation to the Sudan participates. At this stage, the progress achieved in the dialogue is being evaluated by the Union Missions in Khartoum and in Union capitals. The conclusions of this assessment will be made public in due course.

The Union is also preparing a Troïka mission to Khartoum planned for December 2002, to which the Commission will be fully associated. During this mission, an assessment of progress achieved in the 2002 commitments in the areas of democracy and rule of law, human rights and the peace process will be made together with the Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Sudan

In view of the International Crisis Group's latest report on Sudan, would the Commission agree that there are a number of reasons for concern about recent developments in that country?

Are these concerns being raised with the Government of Sudan, and if so would the Commission clarify exactly what issues are being raised and what the response has been?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the developments in Sudan and is particularly concerned about the escalation of the fighting during the first half (dry season) of this year -which is partly due to the acquisition of new weaponry by both sides and possibly the restriction of humanitarian access, as described in the International Crisis Group (ICG) report of 27 June 2002.

The issue of the war and the related peace process are constantly being addressed in the Union-Sudan dialogue, which now takes place on a monthly basis. It is worthwhile to mention that the reactivation of the political dialogue between Sudan and the Union has opened the possibility to a progressive normalisation of the Union-Sudan co-operation in terms of the Cotonou Agreement provided progress in the political dialogue is considered satisfactory by the Union.

Furthermore, a number of actions are being taken by the Commission: (i) a declaration of the Union Presidency on behalf of the Member States has been issued condemning the impeded access; (ii) a donor meeting was held in Geneva on June 26 2002 where several actions were decided including joint declarations, regular donor meetings, joint donor missions, etc. and (iii) the Delegation in Khartoum is actively exercising strong pressure on the Government of Sudan and the other warring parties alongside the United Nations agencies and other humanitarian donors.

The recent progress in the peace talks indicates that there might at last be hope for ending the war in the near future. If this will be the case, then the concerns addressed by the ICG report would be fortunately resolved.

The Union gives its utmost importance to support the negotiations, which have been resumed after 12 August 2002.

Finally, it has to be underlined that the Union as well as Member States need to be continuously informed during the negotiation process and not only at the end of each round, which can only be done by United Kingdom and Italy, who are attending the talks as observers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3208/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Internet voting

What is the Commission's view of conducting elections via the Internet?

When will all voters be able to vote via the Internet in European elections?

Are pilot projects in the pipeline for 2004? If so, where?

Is the Commission funding these projects? If so, what is the amount involved?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Honourable Member's question concerns voting via internet in elections to the Parliament. Voting methods, like internet voting, are part of electoral procedures, which, pursuant to Article 7(2) of the 1976 Act(1), shall be governed in each Member State by its national provisions. This principle was not changed but confirmed by recent Council Decision 2002/772/EC amending the 1976 Act(2).

Therefore, it is up to the Member States to decide, whether they will introduce internet-voting mechanisms for the parliamentary elections.

There have been some pilot projects on multi-channel and electronic voting in the Member States. It was, for example, possible to vote via internet for certain local authorities at local elections of May 2002 in the United Kingdom. However, the Commission is at the moment not aware of any Member State, or of any candidate country, whose citizens should be able to participate to the next elections to Parliament, which would plan pilot projects on electronic voting for the elections to the Parliament in June 2004.

In the context of the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme of the 5th Framework Programme, the Commission has been supporting research and technological development (RTD) projects on electronic democracy, including on-line voting. The RTD projects addressing the issue of on-line voting include Cybervote (an innovative cyber voting system for Internet terminals and mobile phones), E-POLL (Electronic polling system for remote voting operations), and EURO-CITI (European cities platform for on-line transaction services). An accompanying measure called EVE (Evaluating practices and validating technologies in e-Democracy and e-Voting) aims at leveraging individual efforts for common benefits in the field of electronic democracy.

(1) Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC OJ L 278, 8.10.1976.

(2) Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage OJ L 283, 21.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 between the WHO and the IAEA

On 28 May 1959 the 12th Assembly of the World Health Organisation adopted Resolution WHA 12-40 covering an agreement linking the WHO to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA's sphere of activities would be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation and that the procedures for and conduct of such work and programmes would be subject to a negotiated consensus (Article 1(3)).

The same article set out the explicit and partisan aims of the IAEA, stating that its main responsibility is to encourage, assist and coordinate around the world research into, and the development and practical use of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes. In the WHO Constitution which was ratified in July 1946 and which entered into force on 7 April 1947, in accordance with the United Nations Charter the contracting parties adopted the following principle as basic to the security of all peoples: Informed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples. In the report which it submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.

Is the Council not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with WHO reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?

Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programmes and action in the field of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR or the effects of Chernobyl in Eastern Europe)?

Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish the report of the proceedings, should the Council not denounce the collusion brought about by some provisions of the agreement?

Will the Council undertake, within the framework of its bilateral dialogue with these two international institutions, to demand the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 (Article 1(3), under which each party is to provide the other with information), as provided for in Article 13 thereof?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the points raised in her question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3738/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Redundancies at Euronews

On 12 November 2002 the Portuguese newspaper Público reported, in an article entitled Journalists threatened with redundancy, that the sixteen Portuguese professionals responsible for the national version of the television channel Euronews could be made redundant.

Given that Euronews is a pan-European channel which receives EU support:

1. Is the Commission aware of these developments at Euronews? Does any threat exist to the continuation of Portuguese-language broadcasting by the channel?

2. What measures have been taken or will be taken to ensure the continuation of the Portuguese-language version of Euronews?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3364/02 by Mr Ribeiro e Castro(1)

(1) See page 54.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3605/02

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE)and Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: The euro and nickel allergy

The one and two euro coins contain a high level of nickel and the two-tone design consisting of two alloys makes the coins galvanic elements which corrode heavily when they become electricity conductors on contact with perspiration. This has proven to trigger allergic reactions in people who are allergic to nickel.

Bank employees, shop staff etc., who have a great deal of daily contact with the coins, are a particularly vulnerable group who may run the risk of developing an allergy to nickel in the long term. Moreover, anyone who is allergic to nickel may suffer a worsening condition.

What does the Commission intend to do to remedy the above complaints associated with the use of euro coins? Has the Commission launched an investigation into the effects on health of the use of the current euro coins? Does the Commission intend to withdraw the current coins and replace them with coins which do not produce allergic reactions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The question of the Honourable Members refers to a study published in the magazine Nature in September 2002, where the release of nickel from euro coins in a galvanic environment was tested. The conclusion drawn by the authors of this study is misleading, as the results were generated by sticking EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins to the skin of patients with a known nickel allergy for 48-72 hours. After this period they showed an allergic reaction. As these conditions clearly do not at all reflect the normal use of the euro coins, the Commission does not see the need to revise its opinion, that the normal use of euro coins does not represent any risk for European citizens. Even citizens who frequently touch coins (e.g. bank employees and cashiers) are by far not exposed to the conditions simulated in the test, as a galvanic environment of a coin could only be created by permanent contact with the human skin.

The introduction of the euro coins reduced the share of coins in circulation containing nickel from 75 % to 15 %. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy which can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins. Neither is there evidence of a recent increase in nickel allergies among European citizens.

A recent independent study, conducted under the authority of Professor Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, winner of the Nobel Prize of Physics showed that the amount of nickel released from the EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins is significantly lower than from the national coins used prior to the introduction of the euro.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3620/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Position of Jersey in the EU

Is Jersey a member of the European Union?

Do businesspeople in Jersey have a sales tax identification number for tax-free purchases in the European Union?

If Jersey has a special status in the EU, the Commission is asked to forward the relevant provisions.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Jersey, a British Crown dependency, is part of the Union in so far as the United Kingdom is responsible for its external relations. It does, however, have a special status. Pursuant to Article 26(3) and Article 27(d) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the Communities of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a new paragraph was added to Article 299 of the EC Treaty and Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. The paragraph reads as follows:

This Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and the to European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.

The special arrangements laid down for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are set out in Protocol No 3 attached to the Act of Accession, of which, under Article 158 of the Act, they form an integral part.

As regards VAT, Jersey does not belong to the tax territory as defined in Article 3(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive(1). Firms in Jersey do not therefore have an individual Union VAT identification number. However, deliveries of goods from or to the Channel Islands are treated as exports and are exempt from VAT as set out in Article 33a of that Directive.

(1) 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1997 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax; uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.