ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1581/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Recent events in Angola

The offensive launched last week-end by rebel forces near Luanda left approximately a hundred dead and a further hundred missing. In addition, 60 children were kidnapped by an armed group belonging to the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in an operation, which according to eye-witnesses, was both targeted and well-planned. The group of kidnapped children consisted of 51 boys and nine girls between the ages of 10 and 18. As if the murder of four members of humanitarian organisations unconnected with the conflict in the region of Luanda was not enough, children are once again falling victim to abuses in the areas dogged by conflict. Once kidnapped, children usually end up being subjected to sexual abuse or being used as human shields or pawns in the conflict.

Has the Commission condemned these events which constitute a flagrant violation of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular of its optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict? To what extent is the protection of minors in areas of conflict taken account of in the European Union's cooperation with third world countries? What extraordinary measures does the Commission think could be adopted in order to help the child population which is particularly vulnerable and defenceless against guerrilla attacks of this nature?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The Union has issued a declaration strongly condemning the attack by UNITA near the town of Caxito in Angola, which resulted in the abduction of 60 children from a school supported by a European non-governmental organisation (NGO). Through this declaration of the Presidency, the Union called for the immediate release and safe return of all abducted children and insisted that the perpetuators should be brought to justice.

As regards the assistance and protection of children affected by armed conflict in general, the Commission has made children a priority in humanitarian assistance. Since the beginning of 2000, the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) has spent more than 40 million on projects targeting the special needs of children. Typical projects include: projects for the demobilisation, rehabilitation and reintegration of child soldiers, health and nutrition projects, psychosocial support for war-affected children, family tracing and reunification, and emergency education. Such projects contribute to help the children against guerrilla attacks. In Angola, a number of projects targeting the special needs of children have also been implemented in co-operation with partners such as Médecins sans frontières - Belgium (MSF-B), Concern Ireland, United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), Cooperation, Interchange and Culture (CIC) Portugal, and Caritas Italy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Pollution of the Cares and Deva rivers in the Picos de Europa

The Picos de Europa mountains, situated in the north of Spain in the regions of Asturias, León and Cantabria, have been designated a national park by the Spanish authorities.

Beech, oak, yew, holly, ash and lime trees shelter a rich fauna, including 64 species of mammal and 146 kinds of birds, several of which are protected, including the capercaillie, golden eagle and goshawk. It is the only national park to be home to bears, wolves and salmon, three of the species that are most representative of the native wildlife.

Until recently, the rivers running through the national park were clean and clear. But over the last ten years, untreated urban and agricultural waste has been threatening this purity. Discharges into the Deva and Cares rivers and their tributaries may infringe Directives 78/659/EEC(1), 79/923/EEC(2), 91/271/EEC(3) and 76/464/EEC(4) on water quality, the recently revised Directive 91/676/EEC on pollution by nitrates and Directive 92/43/EEC(5) on habitats.

What steps does the Commission plan to take, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure compliance with Community environmental legislation in this area?

(1) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47.

(3) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

A complaint received recently on the subject has been registered and is now being examined.

In its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will take the necessary steps to ensure that the relevant Community legislation is complied with in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Capital flows between eurozone countries

Will the Commission please examine the scale of capital flows between the eurozone countries since the launch of the euro compared with the periods before and state whether there has been an increase in the scale of such flows and, if so, by how much?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2716/00(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1159/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Use of preservatives and additives in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin

Will the Commission state whether the addition of preservatives and additives not expressly provided for in product specifications is authorised in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin?

Will the Commission also state whether the use of milk which does not comply with the criteria laid down in Annex A, Section 4 of Directive 92/46/EEC(1) is authorised in the production of cheeses of protected designation of origin, made from raw milk, which have matured for more than 60 days?

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission reassures the Honourable Member that only products that comply with all the horizontal Community rules in force, in particular covering animal health, can be granted registration as protected designations of origin (PDOs) under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1).

Furthermore, the specifications for certain PDOs may contain provisions that are more restrictive than those laid down by the Community legislation. In such cases, those more restrictive provisions must be complied with.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), Den Dover (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Bashir Khanbhai (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: The role of the Economic and Social Committee and the prioritising of expenditures within the European Union

Can the Commission state what role it sees the Economic and Social Committee (Ecosoc) as having now that the European Parliament is directly elected, and whether it believes that the continued expenditure of hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayers' money on the Committee is justified and likely to command the support of the European taxpayer if knowledge of these levels of expenditure was better publicised?

In particular, in view of Commission President Prodi's statement last year to the effect that the European Commission needed more funds to carry out its core tasks and the Commission's refusal at the end of last year to take on certain new tasks until it had received additional funds, does the Commission feel that if it cannot find funds through elimination of wasteful expenditure within the Commission that it should suggest to the Member States that they agree to wind down the Economic and Social Committee and use part of the savings (including, where appropriate, the transfer of staff from Ecosoc) to pay for the additional tasks which the Commission may in the future be asked to carry out?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

The Commission takes the view that, pursuant to the Treaty of Rome and its successive amendments, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) is an institutional body with advisory status whose role has not changed as a result of direct elections to Parliament. Furthermore, under the Treaty of Nice, the Committee is defined as a body consisting of representatives of the various economic and social components of organised civil society.

Its operational costs are justified by virtue of its consultation role, which is compulsory where the Treaty so provides; the Committee may also be consulted by Parliament. The relevant expenditure forms part of the Community budget, which is in the public domain.

The Commission is in the process of reorganising its expenditure priorities in the light of the strategic objectives contained in its programme. It has no intention of financing its new tasks from any savings made through cutbacks to the activities of the other institutions or institutional bodies, including the ESC.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0707/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 February 2001)

Subject: Crisis in Montenegro

This week, the President of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, called a general election for 22 April with the intention of holding a referendum on independence in June, should he win the election.

In the light of the European Union's endeavours to promote stability in the Balkans, which culminated in the Balkans stabilisation process signed in November 2000, how will the Council respond to this fresh crisis in the Balkans?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council has always followed closely the situation in Montenegro and discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member on several occasions.

As the Honourable Member rightly underlines, the primary objective of the EU is stability in the region. This was clearly stated at the highest level last November not only by the EU but also by regional Heads of State and Government during the 23 November Zagreb Summit. President Djukanovic was present and committed the government to support this objective. Following President Djukanovic's announcement of the holding of Parliamentary elections 22 April, followed by a referendum on independence, the EU has immediately clarified its position during the 22 January meeting of the Council (formation General Affairs) in which the Council urged authorities in Belgrade and Podgorica, to agree on an open and democratic process, within an overall Federal framework, to decide on a new constitutional arrangement for the relations between the components of the Federation acceptable to all the parties. The Council welcomes the readiness shown by President Kostunica to play a constructive role to that end. It underlines the importance of avoiding any unilateral action which could jeopardise this negotiating process and to ensure the democratic legitimacy of its outcome. It reaffirms its conviction that any renegotiation of the Federal relationship must be consistent with the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of South Eastern Europe.

The EU position was clearly presented to Belgrade and Podgorican authorities by Troika visits, respectively at Ministerial and Political Directors level, 7 and 8 February 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2226/01

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2001)

Subject: Tobacco directive, Article 7

Can the Commission confirm that the descriptor ban on normal-strength cigarettes does not apply to cigarettes exported outside the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products(1) states that with effect from 30 September 2003 and without prejudice to Article 5 (1) of the same Directive, texts, names, trademarks and figurative or other signs suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others shall not be used on the packaging of tobacco products. There is no distinction made between tobacco products imported into, exported from or manufactured in the Community. There is a reference in Recital 27 to the justification for this measure and to the development of international rules, a reference to the draft World Health Organisation framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in the negotiation of which the Community and its Member States are presently engaged.

(1) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0755/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Financing of a school fruit programme

The Netherlands parliament has asked the country's ministers for public health and agriculture to draw up a programme for supplying fruit to primary schools. The intention is to get children into the habit of eating fruit from an early age so that it stays with them for life.

In view of the provisions of Regulation (EC) 2826/2000(1) on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, school fruit programmes could be included amongst actions focusing on nutritional and health aspects. Does the Commission consider that school fruit comes within the scope of this definition?

Is it prepared to release money for the school fruit programme under the support scheme for promotional measures?

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market(1), the sectors or products which can be the subject of information or promotion measures are determined taking into account, inter alia, the desirability of drawing attention to the nutritional and health value of the products in question, by means of thematic or target-specific campaigns.

The desirability of Community measures in favour of fruit consumption in schools will shortly be discussed in connection with the detailed rules for applying that Regulation, which are to be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the management committee procedure.

The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of the outcome of these discussions.

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Coordination of the Sensus project

Coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of a certain Stephan Bodenkamp. Officially he is employed by the Amt für Auslandsfragen in Munich. A ruling from a Munich court (20 December 2000) shows that Bodenkamp's real name is Christoph Kionowski and that he is an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, although apparently he has now been suspended.

1. Is the Commission aware that coordination of the Sensus project is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, an agent of the German state security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If so, why did the Commission put him in charge of the Sensus project?

2. Will the Commission relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project since he is an agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Commission continue to entrust him with coordination of the project?

3. Will the Commission relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his sentencing by a Munich court for forging a contract with a German technology firm in the context of the Sensus project? If not, why does the Commission nevertheless entrust him with coordination of the project?

4. Will the Commission relieve Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of coordination of the Sensus project in view of his suspension by the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, why does the Commission nevertheless continue to entrust him with coordination of the project?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

Amt für Auslandsfragen (AfA) became the co-ordinator of the Sensus project at a late stage of the contract negotiation phase, at the suggestion of the other project participants. The responsible Commission services in charge of the project negotiation did not have objections to this suggestion, as in light of its participation in previous projects and as a government agency, AfA had the necessary commitment to the project, as well as the administrative ability and financial stability to manage a large and complex project such as Sensus. Similarly, Mr Bodenkamp as technical director of AfA, was considered to be suitable as project manager. The Commission was not informed at the time of the signature of the contract that Mr Bodenkamp was an official of the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).

At the request of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprises and Information Society, the Information Society Directorate General has initiated an internal review on the management of the Sensus project. Depending on the results of the internal review and with due consideration of the information that has been brought to the attention of the Commission, the Commission will take further measures, if appropriate. These measures may include asking AfA to nominate another co-ordinator to the Sensus project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Large shopping centres and unfair competition

There appears to be a general tendency other than in those Member States where such practices are expressly banned to install petrol pumps or service stations in large shopping centres. These centres are in some cases in a position to trim their profit margins or, indeed, resort to dumping in order to cut prices as a means of attracting customers to their petrol pumps. This results in situations of unfair competition, with the resultant losses for consumers and other retailers (service stations).

1. Can the Commission state whether it has adopted any recommendation to the Member States to prevent such practices or whether it intends to adopt any control measures in this connection?

2. Can the Commission state what specific measures it will adopt to promote consumers' interests and transparency as regards fuel prices at petrol pumps or service stations located in large shopping centres?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission has not adopted any recommendation to Member States to prevent that large shopping centres engage in motor fuel retailing, applying, in some cases, a strategy of cutting retail prices, nor does it intend to adopt any control measures in this regard.

In general, the Commission considers that the presence of new entrants and independent, non-integrated companies is essential to maintain and improve the competitive pressure in the motor fuel retail markets. In its press release of 2 October 2000(1), the Commission pointed out that the experience of the Member States shows that markets where independent non-integrated operators with a countervailing buying power are present typically show a more competitive performance than markets where only integrated oil companies are present. Examples of Member States where supermarkets have proven to be successful entrants at retail level markets are France and the United Kingdom.

Moreover, motor fuel retail markets tend to be regional, or at most, national in scope. The effects of restrictions of competition are therefore likely to be felt mainly within one Member State. In this case, it seems that the questions invoked by the Honourable Member would primarily be a matter for national authorities rather than for the Commission.

It should finally be noted that undertakings are free, under Community competition rules, to sell at whatever price they decide. Community competition law does thus not prohibit undertakings from selling at low prices as a means of attracting customers. Only in case of dominant undertakings this freedom may be limited to a certain extent.

The Commission does not intend to take any specific measure with regard to transparency of motor fuel prices at service stations. It believes that the best way to promote consumers' interests in the motor fuel market is to ensure that competition is not distorted in the Community.

(1) IP/00/1090.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: Suckler cow premiums

Would the Council agree that the recent 7 point plan for the UK is unfavourable to beef production in the UK, and especially for Wales? Given the proposal to reduce the number of productive suckler cows eligible for the suckler cow premium, the UK will be affected disproportionately - with 18 % of the suckler cows population in the UK compared with only 11 % of total EU beef production.

Does the Council accept that it is unfair that the UK has to introduce these changes when we already have in place an over thirty month scheme that has removed animals from the market for the last five years?

Does the Council also accept that reducing the number of suckler cows in the market will have a negative effect on consumers as it will reduce the higher quality beef being produced for the European consumer?

Is it not also illogical to further concentrate beef production from dairy herds where a much higher incidence of BSE has occurred.

Finally, will the Council look again at the calf slaughter premium scheme? This scheme can be carried out at lower cost than the other measures being proposed by the Commission such as the change to the suckler cow scheme. It will remove the lower quality animals from the market and will also have a more rapid impact in the re-balancing of the market.

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Council has received a proposal concerning amendments to the CMO for beef and veal, with the aim of adapting production to the reduction in demand due to a lack of consumer confidence following the BSE crisis.

This proposal, on which the European Parliament is yet to deliver its opinion, is currently under examination at the Council. It would therefore be premature for the Council to state its position on the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

The Council will in any case take account of the opinion of the European Parliament before acting on the proposal.