ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1041/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: Annual company accounts publication requirement internet option

European company law requires business operators to confirm that their annual accounts have been lodged with their Chamber of Commerce by publishing an announcement in a newspaper specified by their Member State. Changes in business operations and management also have to be published. In the Netherlands, Mr Stef Blok, a Member of the Second Chamber of the States-General, has argued that these requirements place an administrative burden on business operators over and above the publication costs incurred. In the present state of technology, such paperwork imposes an unnecessary burden on business and runs counter to the objective of turning Europe into the world's most dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. Is the European Commission prepared to submit a proposal for this publication requirement to be simplified by authorising internet publication?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The requirements in respect of compulsory filing and disclosure of a series of documents and particulars by limited liability companies are set out in the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community(1) (the First Company Law Directive).

In the context of the fourth phase of the Simplification of the Legislation on the Internal Market (SLIM) process, a Working Group issued in September 1999 a Report on the simplification of the First and Second Company Law Directives. The main recommendations relating to the First Directive consisted notably of the need to accelerate the filing and disclosure of company documents and particulars by the use of modern technology.

The Commission is currently working on a proposal for a directive amending the First Company Law Directive on the basis of the SLIM recommendations. The proposal is expected to be adopted by the Commission before the summer.

The modernisation of the First Directive will not only help to meet the important objective of making company information more easily and rapidly accessible by interested parties, but will also simplify significantly the disclosure formalities imposed upon companies.

More particularly, companies will be able to choose to file their documents and particulars by paper means or by electronic means. Interested parties will be able to obtain a copy of such documents and particulars by paper means and by electronic means. Member States will be able to decide to keep the national gazette, appointed for the publication of company documents and particulars, in electronic form or to replace this publication with equally effective means.

(1) OJ L 65, 14.3.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Information measures in the field of the common agricultural policy

It appears that the ARP the Portuguese Alliance for the Protection of the Rural World submitted an application to the DG for Agriculture within the specified deadlines (after another application for the programme of activities had not been approved) with a view to holding a conference on the rural world, the specific topic being the role of rural development for the future of the CAP, in the context of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000(1) on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy.

Bearing in mind the importance of the initiative and the need for it to be approved as soon as possible, with the allocation of a 75 % subsidy from the DG for Agriculture, as happens with the structural funds for Objective 1 regions, can the Commission supply any information on this application, in particular the possible date of its approval?

(1) OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The Commission can confirm that the ARP submitted a grant application for a conference on the rural world under Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 of 17 April 2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (Budget heading B1-382).

As a Committee has to scrutinise grant applications in several stages (eligibility, evaluation) before a grant is awarded, this scrutiny is now under way. The outcome as regards the award of grants, and in particular the ARP's application, cannot be known until the scrutiny has ended.

Under the circumstances, we cannot provide any information until this procedure has been completed, which should be in July 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1832/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Recreation horse riding

Is the Commission aware of the regulations restricting recreational horse riding on fields set aside for the Arable Area Payments Scheme?

Is it not possible for these fields to be used for the purposes of exercising horses in a recreational manner, as opposed to using public roads, in areas where there are limited options?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Article 1(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/2002 of 21 February 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1) states that set-aside areas may not be used for any agricultural production other than provided for in Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(2), nor put to any agricultural or lucrative use which would be incompatible with growing an arable crop. Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 allows the use of land set-aside for the provision of materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or animal consumption.

Set-aside was introduced as a market regulation instrument, mainly for cereals and plays an important role in limiting production. Land used for recreational horse riding is frequently arable land eligible under the arable crop regime. To allow set-aside land to be used for recreational horse riding, or

similar purposes, would entail the risk that producers would alter their normal cropping plans in order to make use of this possibility. Were this so, then the effectiveness of the set aside regime would be weakened. Moreover it is important that set-aside areas may not be put to any agricultural use, which is incompatible with growing an arable crop.

However, a non-lucrative use for occasional access in a recreational manner can be admitted.

(1) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2402/02

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 July 2002)

Subject: Direct aid of EUR 10 million per month to the Palestinian Authority

A financial agreement for the payment of EUR 10 million per month in direct aid, concluded on 31 May 2001 between the European Commission and the Palestinian Finance Ministry, is due to expire on 31 July 2002. Has it been extended beyond that date?

Is it true that the Israeli Government is prepared to resume the withheld transfer payments of tax and import duties, which it suspended in 2000, to the Palestinian Authority?

Will the Commission continue to provide flat-rate aid, even if Israel pays an initial instalment of EUR 40 million to the Palestinian Authority in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

On 27 February the MED Committee approved EUR 120 million in direct budgetary assistance (DBA) for the Palestinian Authority. Accordingly, on 26 March the Commission granted the Palestinian Authority the first EUR 50 million under DBA III to cover payments over the period March through July. A financing agreement was signed with the Palestinian Authority the same day. The five EUR 10 million tranches have already been disbursed.

On 7 August the Commission approved a further EUR 30 million under DBA IV for the period August through October. This sum will be the subject of a rider to the DBA III financing agreement.

According to reports in the international press, the Israeli government announced, on 24 July, that it would shortly be releasing some ILS 210 million (about USD 44,7 million) in tax revenue withheld from the Palestinian Authority since the second Intifada started in September 2000. The Jerusalem Delegation tells the Commission that the Israeli government has released an initial tranche of ILS 70 million (about USD 14,8 millions) and that the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority are now discussing the payment of the balance.

The Israeli government is still holding on to almost USD 600 million in tax transfers belonging to the Palestinian Authority and has not agreed to resume monthly transfers equivalent to USD 30 million.

In this situation, and given the Palestinian Authority's worsening revenue crisis, the Commission will be continuing its assistance to the Authority. The Union's budget aid is, it should be pointed out, subject to conditions, including administrative, judicial and financial reforms, and these conditions are regularly reviewed and updated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1767/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Subject: Extension of the fingerprinting of non-Community nationals

- Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 2725/2000(1) ('Eurodac'), which has been in force for about two years, requires the taking of the fingerprints of all fingers of every alien of at least 14 years of age who is apprehended by the competent control authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the border. These rules are to be applied to all asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

- However, the fight against rising immigration-related crime and, above all, anti-terrorist intelligence activities mean that is necessary for the competent police and judicial authorities to be able to identify with certainty the majority of immigrants.

- Some EU countries have already adopted (Belgium) or are in the process of adopting (Italy) measures for the routine fingerprinting of foreigners from outside the Community.

Does the Commission not consider that, in connection with the work of the forthcoming European summit in Seville, such procedures should be generalised at European level in the interests of security, control of illegal immigration and preventing and combating terrorism?

(1) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

The purpose of Eurodac is to facilitate the effective application of the Dublin Convention(1) and the proposed Dublin II Regulation(2).

The Eurodac Central Unit collects and/or compares the fingerprints of asylum applicants and certain other categories of third country nationals submitted by the Member States. On the one hand, these other categories refer to foreigners who were apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of the border of a Member State, having come from a third country and who were not turned back, and, on the other hand, to foreigners found illegally present in a Member State.

In all cases, the fingerprints are taken and submitted for the sole purpose of helping the Member States determine which one is competent for examining an asylum application according to the Dublin Convention. At the initiative of one Member State, the possibility of using Eurodac data for police purposes, as an additional measure to combat terrorism, has been addressed in the Council but without conclusions so far.

The Commission does not envisage any proposal for taking and recording fingerprints of persons not falling under the categories as mentioned above.

(1) Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States OJ C 254, 19.8.1997.

(2) Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2199/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Italian mobile phone and card denied to German nationals Written Question E-0808/02

Unfortunately, the Commission failed to reply to one of the questions which I put in my Written Question E-0808/02(1).

May an Italian mobile phone network operator deny a German national use of an Italian prepaid card with an Italian mobile phone on the grounds of that person's German nationality?

If so, what are the grounds for this action by the Italian mobile phone network operator?

If not, how can this deplorable state of affairs be remedied?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 140.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Commission will write to the Italian authorities asking them:

- to make enquiries as to the existence and the specific circumstances of the refusal by Italian mobile phone operators to permit a German national the use of an Italian prepaid card with an Italian mobile phone and,

- if this is found to be the case, to request them to take action in order to bring such practices to an end.

The Commission would also like to recall that, as explained in the previous response of the Commission to Written Question E-0808/02 of the Honourable Member(1), the regime applicable to pre-paid mobile phones remains a question of commercial practice by operators and of consumer choice in the absence of european and national legislation on this issue.

Consequently, nationals of other Member States may bring actions before the national courts which can decide, on a case by case basis, the legitimacy and justification of such commercial practice and take appropriate action against the commercial operator if they rule that the practice constitutes a discriminatory solution contrary to Articles 12 (ex-Article 6) and 49 (ex-Article 59) of the EC Treaty.

This has been confirmed by the Court of Justice and, for instance, in Walrave and LJN Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale, C-36/74 (paragraph 16) the Court stated that: the first paragraph of Article 59 (current Article 49) of the EC Treaty, in any event in so far as it refers to the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality, creates individual rights which national courts must protect.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 140.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1662/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Protection of marine life

1. Does the Commission believe that the use of pelagic trawls has reduced the number of unintended killings of cetaceans?

2. Does the Commission have any intention of commissioning an independent assessment of the damage being done by pelagic trawls, including the number of dolphins, porpoises and smaller whales being caught in these nets?

3. Does the Commission have any plans to demand compulsory monitoring of cetacean bycatch in all European waters?

4. Does the Commission have any plans to ban all large-scale netting, as well as drift netting?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

1. The Commission is aware of possible by-catches of cetaceans by using pelagic trawls, but has no information on the trends over time of such by-catches.

2. With regard to the assessment of cetaceans by-catches in different fisheries, including in pelagic trawl fisheries, and to the possible monitoring and mitigation measures to be taken in a co-ordinate manner at Community level, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to its previous replies to written questions E-500/02 by Mr Martin(1) or E-967/02 by Mr Wyn(2) in particular.

3. In any case, the Commission is aware of the need to improve the monitoring of the status of conservation of cetacean species and of the possible impact that by-catch may have on it. To this end, the Commission would like to stress the obligation for Member States to fully comply with relevant provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3).

4. The Commission would also remind that the Community has already put in place a general ban on the use of drift nets, Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(4). This prohibition entered into force on 1 January 2002 and is applicable within all Community waters except the Baltic Sea and to all Community fishing boats outside Community waters.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 93.

(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0170/02

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Executions in China

China holds the unenviable world record in executions, of which there were more than 2 000 in 2001 alone. Chinese law provides for the death sentence for a wide range of offences, including, in some cases, embezzlement, the establishment of illegal sects, which are subject to widespread political manipulation, thereby depriving citizens of their right to freedom.

Would the Commission, which stands as guarantor of human rights as upheld by the European Union, not agree that the participation of European countries in the 2008 Olympics in China should be reconsidered?

Would it not agree that European countries should withdraw their support from the 2008 Olympics in China unless appropriate institutional reforms are immediately introduced?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member about the continuation of the death penalty in China, the large number of executions taking place, and the wide range of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, a bilateral dialogue on human rights was established between the Union and China in 1996. In the course of this dialogue, the Union presses for action in the areas of most concern to us such as the death penalty and its excessive use under the Strike Hard Campaign, repression of political dissidence, religious freedom, ethnic minorities, including Tibet, and arbitrary detention conditions.

With respect to the 2008 Olympics the decision that these should be held in China was taken by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Union and the Commission did not take position on whether or not the games should be held in China or elsewhere. The decision was for the IOC to take. In order to make the games in Beijing a success it will require both welcome and necessary steps on the part of the Chinese authorities which can have a positive influence on developments in China. The decision on whether or not to participate in the 2008 Olympics is for individual countries to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/02

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Juan Carlos Gonzalez Cuba

Juan Carlos Gonzalez is a blind human rights activist who has been in prison in Cuba since 5 March. Will the Commission call for the release of this man and impress upon the Cuban authorities that the imprisonment of human rights activists and the mistreatment of prisoners is unacceptable, particularly when the EU is attempting to broaden its relations with that country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1458/02 and E-1467/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission is following this matter very closely: Mr Gonzalez was detained by the Cuban security forces on 4 March 2002 on charges of public disorder and contempt. Both crimes, according to Cuban law, can carry a possible sentence of one to three years. No trial has been set so far.

The Commission is very concerned about this case. The European Union Human Rights Working Group established by the Member States embassies in Havana is monitoring the case. Experience with similar cases in the past suggests that the most effective way of addressing human rights violations in Cuba is through concerted and co-ordinated action at Union level. As a rule, the Commission and the Member States closely monitor the human rights situation in Cuba, in the context of both the six-monthly evaluation of the Union Common Position on Cuba and the annual Geneva meetings of the United Nation Commission on Human Rights. Furthermore, human rights matters form an integral part of the Union's political dialogue with Cuba, which was re-launched under the Belgian Presidency in December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1891/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Genetically modified organisms

Is the Commission likely to take up the suggestion that GM-free zones should be established within the European Union? If so, on what basis will these zones be decided?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The system authorising the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms for research and development purposes or for their placing on the market is currently governed by Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(1). Directive 2001/18/EC(2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 comprehensively amends the above Directive and repeals it with effect from 17 October 2002, by which date the Member States must have transposed the new Directive into their national legislation.

Under this Directive the Commission must ensure a high level of health and consumer protection. For a GMO to be authorised under Part B (deliberate release for research and development purposes in particular) or Part C (placing on the market of products containing GMOs) a scientific assessment must be made of the risks to health and the environment inherent in the introduction of GMOs. Once GMOs are authorised for cultivation, they can be planted provided that the notification regarding their placing on the market covers their cultivation as well.

Neither Directive 90/220/EEC nor Directive 2001/18/EC provides for the creation of GMO-free zones in the Union. However, the issue of GMO crops existing alongside conventional or organic crops has been raised in the Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology and the resulting action plan, in which the Commission has committed itself to developing certain ideas in partnership with the Member States, farmers and the various operators involved. The aim is to ensure that conventional and organic agriculture remains viable and can co-exist with GMO crops.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.