ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3138/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Community initiative Leader+ in Greece

The newspaper Kathimerini reports that the Kozani development company, which was responsible for the Greek network of the Community's Leader initiative in the previous planning period, sent a letter to the development companies implementing the Leader+ programme for 2000-2006, requesting them to incorporate measures for the benefit of hunting associations in their programmes.

The aims of this proposal are:

- the development of the wildlife of selected areas of the country,

- measures to be implemented in areas where hunting is not prohibited,

- the drawing up of integrated management plans for the forest areas concerned,

- special breeding areas for game and a register of animals caught drawn up by the hunting associations (!),

- training groups to develop skills, the aim being to inform hunters on matters relating to ecology, biology of species, ecosystem management, use of guns etc.

The proposal was put forward by the Greek Hunting Confederation and signed by its president, who is also the Director-General of the management authority for the 3rd Community Support Framework in Greece. EUR 175 000 are required to draw up the management plans and EUR 200 000 for training for each local Leader+ programme.

This top-down sponsorship is contrary to the compulsory bottom-up approach required in drawing up local programmes (Commission communication on Leader+, April 2000). At the same time, hunters are given the right to draw up management plans for forests for which they have no competence, while the Ministry for Agriculture has itself announced 24 management plans for forests which are to be financed from the operational programme Agricultural Development for 2000-2006.

Can the Commission say what practical measures it proposes to take to ensure that the Leader+ programme is implemented without hindrance or unlawful intervention? What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the EU financing the same measures twice (forest management plans, seminars etc.) from the same structural fund and the Leader+ programme from funding incompetent bodies (the Hunting Confederation and hunting associations)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1012/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Delay in answering question on funding of the Convention

I have received no answer from the Commission to my questions concerning the funding of the Convention on the Future of Europe within the six-week timescale laid down in the rules (Written Question E-0337/02). Bearing in mind the importance of accountability in the Commission, shouldn't regard be paid to these rules?

To repeat my questions therefore: What is the attendance allowance for members of the Convention on the Future of Europe? What basis is it calculated on and by whom?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The written question E-0337/02 by the Honourable Member(1) was answered late by the Commission, because it was considered adequate to draft a common reply to this question and to the written questions E-0139/02 by Mr Garriga Polledo(2) and E-0419/02 by Mr Sjöstedt(3), and to update it following the procedural developments after the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 February 2002 on the financing of the Convention on the future of the Union.

By letter of 13 March 2002, the Secretary General of the European Convention transmitted the draft budget of the Convention to the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Commission gave its approval on 3 April 2002, and the Parliament voted its approval on 10 April 2002. The Budget of the Convention for 2002 was adopted on 18 April 2002 by the Representatives of the Member State Governments.

Concerning the attendance allowance of the Convention, the understanding of the Commission is that no attendance allowance is foreseen in the Convention's budget, except for the members of the Convention's Praesidium. The General Secretariat of the Convention is responsible for drafting and proposing the Convention's budget, and may therefore complete this information or provide further details if requested by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 15.

(2) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 15.

(3) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2290/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Council

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Conditions for the reception of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom

Does the Council believe that the plan of the UK Government to build an accommodation centre for 750 asylum-seekers at Throckmorton, on a former airfield used as a burial site for animals during the Foot-and-Mouth crisis, near a small village of 160 inhabitants and with only 2 593 people living in the surrounding 4 parishes, allows sufficient scope for guaranteeing access to all benefits referred to in forthcoming Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers in Member States?

Does the Council believe that such a site is appropriate to ensure harmonious relationships between local communities and accommodation centres (recital 14), access to the education system under similar conditions as nationals of the host Member State for minor children (Article 10(1), or the possibility of communicating with relatives, legal advisers (Article 14(2))?

Does the Council believe that Member States should not engage in individual asylum policies which contradict imminent policies and legislation of the European Union?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council does not have information on the plans to build the accommodation centre referred to in the question from the Honourable Member.

As regards the draft Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers in Member States, the Honourable Member is reminded that, pursuant to Article 211 TEC, once the Directive has been adopted it will be for the Commission to ensure that the provisions thereof are applied in the different Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Human rights

Given the absence of a specific human rights mechanism within the new framework of cooperation between the EU and its Mediterranean partner countries, and despite the stated intention to base cooperation on human rights, could the Council indicate how it intends to address such human rights issues generally and, in the case of Algeria, specifically?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, human rights issues are raised through national and regional presentations at meetings of the Senior Officials responsible for monitoring the Barcelona Process. Those officials hold exchanges of views on the implementation of international agreements on the matter. The Valencia Action Plan adopted on 23 April 2002 provides for the continuation of that dialogue and calls on the Senior Officials to look into ways of improving its structure and reinforcing it in order to increase its effectiveness in the framework of the Partnership.

In the context of the bilateral relations that it has established with the Mediterranean countries, notably through Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements, the Council addresses those questions regularly both as regards the principles and, if necessary, with regard to specific cases. Respect for human rights is a vital element in those Agreements, and one on which the Parties' internal and external policies must be based. In addition, those agreements institutionalise regular political dialogue at various levels on all subjects of common interest.

Such an Agreement was signed with Algeria in Valencia on 22 April 2002 and will enter into force after receiving the assent of the European Parliament and being ratified by the Parliaments of the Member States. Meanwhile, the Council is continuing the political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level which it began three years ago. In the body in question, where it is represented by the Troika, the Council regularly discusses with the Algerian authorities issues relating to respect for human rights and strongly urges that slippage and abuse in the context of the fight against terrorism be avoided. The Council has pointed out repeatedly that it is concerned by the reports on arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial arrests, the use of torture and the fate of missing persons. At the political dialogue meeting held in Brussels on 5 December 2001, it asked Algeria for information on the fate of a number of missing persons and called on it to cooperate with the UN and NGO mechanisms in the field of human rights. A similar meeting took place in Algiers on 5 June 2002 and provided a fresh opportunity to continue discussing those issues with the Algerian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Missions by OLAF officials

Can the Commission provide statistics showing the number of days spent on mission by each individual OLAF official since 1 January 2001?

Can the Commission also provide a list of all missions to countries outside the EU and state the duration and purpose of each of these missions, together with the costs incurred?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)(1) and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999(2) provide in Article 12, paragraph 3 that the Director of OLAF shall report regularly to the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the findings of investigations carried out by the Office, whilst respecting the confidentiality of those investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons involved and, where appropriate, national provisions applicable to judicial proceedings.

With respect to the Honourable Member's request for statistics showing the number of days spent on mission by each individual OLAF official since 1 January 2001, the Commission is unable to provide such information as it might risk compromising ongoing investigations or prejudice the rights of economic operators and/or individuals, who have been or are being investigated for the detection of irregularities.

The Commission is also unable to provide a list of all missions to countries outside the Union and state the duration and purpose of these missions, together with the costs incurred as the Honourable Member has requested, for the same reasons given above.

The Commission is however able to inform the Honourable Member that officials of OLAF have spent a total amount of 2 244,50 days on missions during 2001 and that the total costs of these missions was EUR 743 690,84. The average amount of days spent by each OLAF official on mission during 2001 is therefore equal to 15 days. This amount includes the number of days spent on missions in countries outside the Union.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0554/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Subject: Aid to developing countries: SHARE India

Does the Commission intend to continue concentrating on food security and rural development in programmes of assistance to developing countries? Does it agree that microfinance programmes which help the very poor should be part of European Union development plans? In this context is the Commission aware, for example, that SHARE India is a particularly striking example of an effective agency for poverty reduction?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

Rural Development and Food Security are important areas of intervention for Commission assistance to developing countries. Co-operation with India in the early days focused largely on these two sectors. Over the last decade, however, support to the social sectors health and education has become the priority area for Community development co-operation with India. The Commission agrees that micro-finance programmes and the development of financial services in general can equally contribute to an important extent to poverty reduction.

The Commission, in it's Communication The Development policy of the Community(1) gives a priority to local development and particularly attention to micro-enterprises within private sector development. In order to set up favourable conditions for micro-enterprises to develop, the Communication focuses on two particular aspects of support: the development of business services and a sustainable financial system.

Micro-finance activities are therefore incorporated in many of the Community projects in India, as well as in the other regions of the world, like Africa and Latin America. For more information on the principles

governing Community assistance to micro-finance operations, it is suggested to refer to the Community publication Micro-finance Methodological considerations(2). As far as food security is concerned, India is not considered as a priority under the Food Security Budget line, since the country has not experienced acute food shortages for many years and is even a surplus producer. In India, therefore, this budget line provides only sporadic funding and mostly via the association EuronAid to very few local non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Moreover, considering that India has not agreed a food security strategy with the Commission, and to concentrate our efforts in other regions, the Budget line will discontinue the financing of project in India.

The Commission never financed or co-financed projects with SHARE and therefore cannot comment on the efficiency of this organisation.

(1) COM(2000) 212 final.

(2) ISDN 92-828-8998-1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Presidential election in Madagascar

1. What is the Commission's position with regard to the presidential election in Madagascar?

2. What evidence, if any, has the Commission received through its representation or directly which indicates that outgoing President Didier Ratsarika has indulged in election rigging or political misconduct of any nature?

3. How much aid has the government of Madagascar received from (a) EU states and (b) the EU?

4. Has any aid been directed towards electoral assistance?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The Commission regrets the violence which has occurred in the aftermath of the presidential elections which took place in December 2001. It supports the mediation efforts of the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations, and has issued declarations encouraging the parties involved to enter into a democratic dialogue and demonstrate moderation.

The Commission is being informed of political developments through its Delegation in Antananarivo on a daily basis. Electoral observation reports provided to the Commission's Delegation by the Local Electoral Consortium point to irregularities in the electoral process. The Consortium's figures, however, are at odds with official data. Furthermore, they are only partial.

It has not been possible to reach a definitive conclusion on the election results because no external election monitoring took place.

In 2001, Madagascar received EUR 46,4 million in development aid from Member States (France, Germany, United Kingdom), and EUR 96,1 million from the Community (of which EUR 23 million from the European Investment Bank (EIB)).

Two Member States, namely Germany and the United Kigdom, have granted aid towards the electoral process by supporting the Local Electoral Consortium.

The Commission has not granted aid towards the electoral process. Nonetheless, it is considering the possibility of providing assistance, if new elections are held. To this end, it is proposing that Madagascar be considered as a priority country for elections observation under the 2002 budget line.

In light of the above, the Commission sent a mission to Madagascar last February 2002, in order to assess the needs for assistance in particular to domestic observers. The deployment of an Union Elections Observation Mission will, of course, be effected according to the established procedures, and will be preceded by an elections exploratory mission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2007/02

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

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Niger

With respect to Niger, 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-2599/02

by Janelly Fourtou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Trademark law in Poland

The Polish Sejm (lower house of Parliament) is soon to decide on an amendment to the law on definitions and designations of spirituous beverages, which would make the Polish brand of vodka Wyborowa (duly registered for many years with the Polish Trademark Office on behalf of the producer company Pomos Poznan, which is owned by the company Pernod Ricard SA) into a generic name. Were it to adopt this amendment, the Sejm would be going against the government's original bill and the recommendations of the country's Minister for European Integration, the Polish Trademark Office and the Polish Senate. Apparently, the Commission's services also endorse these recommendations.

If adopted, the amendment would deprive the brand of its distinctive character, as the exclusive rights it enjoys would be lost, enabling anyone to produce spirits bearing the name Wyborowa. This would undermine the protection enjoyed by the name Wyborowa, rather than improving it.

What representations will the Commission make to the Sejm in order to avert what would be a flagrant breach of intellectual property rights in a country applying for accession to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

The Honourable Member draws attention to the possibility of the Polish parliament adopting a law rendering the Polish brand of vodka Wyborova a generic name.

In Poland as in other candidate countries for accession into the EU, the Commission closely monitors the gradual adaptation of national rules and regulations to the Community legislation. This adaptation is, however, an enormous task and in many areas this involves overcoming the resistance of interest groups and calling for major powers of persuasion.

In the case the Honourable Member refers to, the Polish authorities were duly informed about the risk that adoption of a law containing provisions incompatible with the Community rules would entail serious consequences. The Commission is therefore pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the Polish parliament took the same position as the government and the Polish senate and the law finally adopted on 13 September 2002 is in compliance with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1690/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Protection of vinegar production

Regulation (EC) 1493/1999(1) on the common organisation of the market in wine makes no distinction between vinegar produced from sun-dried grapes and vinegar produced from wine. On the contrary, it recognises vinous alcohol and dried grape alcohol as equivalent. Certain groups of wine vinegar producers have recently made attempts to have the European Union impose restrictions on the marketing of dried grape vinegar on the grounds that it is not covered by the relevant regulation.

1. Is the Council aware of any measures aimed at preventing the marketing of dried grape vinegar?

2. Has the Union made sufficient study of the different varieties of vinegar produced in the Member States with a view to their protection and standardisation?

3. Does the Council intend to clarify the relevant regulation in order to avoid disputes about the different varieties of vinegar in the EU?

4. What action will the Council take to prevent such an unjust prospect from materialising?

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

Reply

(5 November 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine makes no reference to vinegars other than wine vinegars, such as those made from dried grape or table grapes. In fact its Annex I defines wine vinegar as vinegar obtained exclusively by acetous fermentation of wine.

That Regulation defines wine as the product obtained exclusively from the alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must. The alcoholic fermentation of dried grapes therefore cannot produce wine and vinegar from dried grapes, which by definition is not produced from wine, is not covered by the provisions of the abovementioned Regulation.

Nevertheless, all types of vinegar fall within the scope of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 establishing the general rules for the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs, whereby the Community aims to ensure that consumers are given correct information on such products.

The Council has not hitherto been aware of facts such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member, and no claims have been referred to it in connection with such problems. In any event, the Council could act only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, if the latter considers the current legislation insufficient and believes that it is necessary and appropriate to put in place specific regulations on vinegars. No proposal on this subject is being considered at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1866/02 by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Council. ILO's report on child labour.



Official Journal 052 E , 06/03/2003 P. 0112 - 0112



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1866/02 by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Council (28 June 2002) Subject: ILO's report on child labour Will the Council indicate how it intends to respond on behalf of the European Union to the International Labour Organisation's first global report on child labour which alarmingly estimates that out of a global total of 246 million child labourers aged 5-17 years, nearly 180 million or 73 % are now believed to be engaged in the worst forms of child labour including hazardous work and even sexual exploitation, slavery, trafficking and debt-bondage? Reply (5 November 2002) The Council refers to its reply to an identical oral question by the Honourable Member in May 2002 (H-0377/02).