ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/720

(2004/C 78 E/0770)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Detention of Oscar E. Biscet in Cuba

On 10 April 2003 in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it called on the Commission to promote positive change with regard to the human rights situation in Cuba.

Among the victims of Fidel Castro's regime is Dr Oscar E. Biscet González, the founder of the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights and an activist for the promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba. After three years' imprisonment in Holguin, Dr Biscet was released on 31 October 2002. On 6 December 2002, he was re-arrested on a charge of associating with other human rights activists. On 7 April 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. Since 24 April 2003, Dr Biscet has been transferred to the prison in Piñar del Rio, where he is being held in solitary confinement.

Is the Commission aware of the detention and ill-treatment of activists like Dr Biscet?

What has the Commission done to comply with the request set out in the resolution referred to above, and what has the Commission been able to do in the specific case of Dr Biscet?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission is closely following the human rights situation in Cuba and the recent detention and sentencing of 75 dissidents and independent journalists in Cuba, including Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet González.

The Commission, together with the Member States, has strongly condemned such arrests in a declaration published on 26 March 2003, which was followed by a Union démarche in Havana to urge the Cuban authorities to allow the prisoners' immediate release. A second Union démarche in Havana took place on 18 April 2003, following the Foreign Ministers' statement issued on 14 April 2003.

Further measures have recently been agreed, including limits to high-level visits.

The grave concern felt was also highlighted in the Union's statement on ‘Human Rights in the World’, at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in April 2003. The statement called for the prompt release of those arrested whom the Union considers to be prisoners of opinion.

The Commission decided on 30 April 2003 to defer the examination of the Cuban application for accession to the Cotonou Agreement, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive to co-operation between the Union and Cuba. The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May 2003 to withdraw their application.

Through these actions, the Cuban authorities have been made aware that detentions on political grounds are not acceptable and that the Union urges the release of prisoners held due to their opinions or political activities. In this context, we will certainly also bring the case of Dr Oscar Elias Biscet to the attention of the Cuban authorities, and will follow this matter closely, exerting continued political pressure on the Cuban authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/592

(2004/C 88 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2003)

Subject: Maltese referendum

Would the Commission say how much EU money from information or from other funds is going to Malta before the referendum? How much money has the Commission allocated for referendums in the applicant countries in general?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

The total amount of pre-accession funds allocated by the Community to Malta from 2000 to 2004 is EUR 38 million, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 555/2000 of 13 March 2000 on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta (1). However EUR 2 million, which were earmarked for 2004, will not be committed because of Malta's foreseen accession in 2004. Therefore, Malta will effectively have received EUR 36 million of pre-accession aid. From this amount, EUR 0,7 million has been allocated for activities related to information.

With regard to referenda in other Candidate Countries, Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union states that the Accession Treaty ‘shall be submitted for ratification to all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’. The responsibility for organising a referendum is that of the relevant authorities in each country concerned. The Commission does not fund, nor is it otherwise involved with, the organisation of the referenda or the campaigns associated with them in any Candidate Country. The Commission operates a Communication Strategy for enlargement in all Member States and Candidate Countries. The strategy is largely decentralised. In the Central European Candidates, it is financed by the PHARE budget and implemented by the Delegation of the Commission. Details of the precise funding for the overall and individual programmes, and the actual implementation of the Communication Strategy can be found in the regular updates that are available on the web site of the Commission at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/index.htm.

(1) OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/729

(2004/C 84 E/0821)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2376/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

On 23 November 2002 Mohamad Al Sahri, sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary and in exile since 1983, arrived at the Milan airport of Malpensa and five days later the new Bossi-Fini law was carried out and he was deported to Syria against his will. On 9 July 2003 Christopher Hein, chairman of the Italian council for refugees, announced that Mr Al Shari had been executed in Syria on 28 February 2003. Defying credibility, Italian immigration authorities have stated that Mr Al Sahri, asked to choose between Jordan and Syria for his deportation, indicated his preference for the latter where he had been sentenced to death.

Does the Commission believe that the Italian government violated in this case not only its own national Constitution, but Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the spirit and the letter of all the directives followed by the EU on political asylum and against deporting foreign citizens to countries where they might be put to death?

What measures does the Commission intend to take against the Italian authorities for such a blatant violation of human rights and of the most basic legal and humanitarian principles of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

In accordance with Article 19(2) of the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union, ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ This is one of the principles that are common to the Member States and that the Commission must respect in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission would recall its answer of 29 January 2003 to Questions P-3821/02 by Mrs Paciotti and P-3826/02 by Mr Di Lello Finuoli (1) concerning this case and the absence at this stage of powers to intervene in the examination of any infringement of Article 19 of the Charter, the reason being that no Community provisions exist on asylum procedures and on determination of the need for international protection and the relevant statutes. The draft directives on these two matters are still being examined within the Council.

The Commission would also recall that interested parties may bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Court's Rules if they consider that provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights have not been complied with.

(1) See page 707.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/165

(2004/C 88 E/0173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4004/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Disabled children in Russia

A number of my constituents have expressed much concern over the treatment of disabled children in Russia.

Is the Commission aware of the lack of provisions for both physically and mentally disabled children in Russia?

Could the Commission please indicate what measures, if any, it has taken so as to encourage Russia to address this issue and improve this situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission has been working for several years via TACIS to improve the treatment of disabled children in Russia. Examples of projects include ‘Partnership in health, education and social assistance’, implemented as part of the 1999 TACIS Action Programme for Russia in cooperation with the Ministry of Education, which has promoted the early detection of disabilities and the better treatment of Russian children in several regions of Russia.

Further projects — to be implemented with Russian institutions including the Russian Ministry of Labour and Social Development — are currently being prepared.

These projects aim, ‘inter alia’, to:

— improve existing legislation;

— develop mechanisms of cooperation between different departments/agencies and organisations dealing with disabled children;

— develop programmes for the social inclusion of children with disabilities and provide support to their families;

— better train social workers, medical staff and teachers;

— raise awareness of the rights of disabled children and their families, the problems which they experience and their contribution as valued members of society.

The Commission has also provided support to a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, parents' associations and religious organizations via its Civil Society Programme, with the aim of promoting better understanding and treatment of disabled children. The Commission has every intention of continuing its work in this important area.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/37

(2004/C 78 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Labelling of products containing asbestos

Council Directive 83/478/EEC (1) of 19 September 1983 lays down special provisions making it compulsory for the labelling of products containing asbestos to warn against the dangers.

However, in Portugal some products containing asbestos, such as fibre-cement, do not carry a warning when sold to the public.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the legal transposition of this directive in Portugal?

Can it explain the reason for Portugal's non-compliance?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Council Directive 83/478/EEC of 19 September 1983 amending for the fifth time (asbestos) Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations was transposed into Portuguese national legislation on 14 January 1987 as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 28/87 de 14/01/1987. Limita a comercialização e a utilização do amianto e dos produtos que o contenham, Diário da República I Série n. 11 de 14/01/1987 Página 183’.

Portugal has therefore complied with the obligation to transpose the Directive into national legislation, in particular those provisions dealing with the labelling of products containing asbestos (Annex II of Directive 83/478/EEC).

It is nevertheless important to note that, apart from Annex II which is still in force today, the Annex I of Directive 83/478/EEC is no longer in force. Indeed Directive 83/478/EEC has been subsequently amended (2) or adapted (3) (4), by several Directives that will lead by 1 January 2005 to a total ban of all kind of asbestos fibres (except diaphragms for electrolysis installation). The placing on the market of asbestos based fibre-cement, except for that containing chrysotile, is already prohibited within the Union.

The enforcement of the provisions of Directive 83/478/EEC (labelling) and its subsequent modifications in the national legislation is primarily the responsibility of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, the Commission has responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto, including directives, are applied. It will, therefore, contact the Portuguese authorities in order to ensure that they take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question.

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 33.

(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1985; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 138/88 de 22.4.1988’.

(3) OJ L 363, 31.12.1991; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 228/94 de 13.9.1994’.

(4) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999; not yet transposed into Portuguese national legislation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/697

(2004/C 78 E/0745)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Border fishing dispute at the mouth of the Guadiana

The fishing dispute taking place at the mouth of the River Guadiana on the border between Spain and Portugal has reached such an intensity that fishermen from the coastal villages in Huelva (Spain) have complained that the Portuguese navy has fired shots at them.

It is for this reason that these Spanish fishermen have called for suspension of the current fishing agreement until the Portuguese navy undertakes not to open fire, because according to them it was a miracle that nobody died in the attacks by the Portuguese patrol-boat, which was ‘shooting to kill’.

Given the powers that the Commission has in the area of fisheries under the CFP, what initiatives has it taken to resolve this fishing dispute, how far will it intervene with the Portuguese authorities to prevent the Portuguese navy from continuing to fire on Huelva fishermen, and will it act as an arbitrator to find a compromise solution to the dispute?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Commission has received no request from the national authorities to take any action over incidents that have occurred at the mouth of the Guadiana.

It falls to the national authorities to apply the Community or national rules in force and to their judicial bodies to impose penalties on those who break them.

In any case it goes without saying that the Commission wishes fishing in this zone to be conducted under satisfactory conditions for all parties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/58

(2004/C 78 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1946/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Investigations into subsidies paid by Spain to the Izar company and resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene shipyards in Galicia

To what extent can the investigations undertaken by the Commission into alleged payments of subsidies by the Spanish Government to the Izar group affect the legitimate complaints relating to resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene — formerly Astano — shipyards in Galicia?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission does not see any direct link between the investigation of possible subsidies paid by the Spanish Government to the IZAR group and the prohibition of Fene shipyard to construct merchant ships.

The investigation of possible subsidies to IZAR is part of a state aid investigation covering the years after 2000. The prohibition of Fene shipyard to construct merchant ships was decided by the Commission (1) in 1997 as a condition for state aid supporting a major restructuring of the public Spanish shipyards. Therefore, even though Fene shipyard is part of the group of public Spanish shipyards, the two issues are not directly linked.

(1) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/26

(2004/C 88 E/0028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1345/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: EU penalties for collusion by European banks with the Baghdad regime

Recent newspaper reports have carried details of the Baghdad regime's financial network, which consists of a great many European banks. These banks are mainly French or German, but also include the omnipresent Italian bank BNL.

In the ‘Full final and complete declaration’ submitted by Iraq to the UN experts, these banks are in fact referred to as the Iraqi Central Bank's ‘correspondent banks’, which bore the cost of the letters of credit issued by the Iraqi Central Bank for the purchase of suspicious materials. They include the German banks Dresdner Bank, Deutsche Bank, Commerz Bank, Vereins-und West Bank, UBAE, Berliner Handels-und Frankfurter Bank, DG Bank, Westdeutsche Landesbank and Bayerische Landesbank, and the French banks Banque de France, Société Générale, Crédit Lyonnais, BNP, Crédit Commercial de France and UBAF.

Does the Commission not consider it very serious that some of the most prominent institutions in the European banking system, along with other western establishments, should gladly have supported at a financial level the Baghdad regime's large-scale operations to purchase chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, even during the embargo?

What urgent steps will it take to penalise these banks for colluding with the criminal activities of the Baghdad regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the financial network linking the Iraqi regime to the major European banks referred to by the Honourable Member, including the alleged purchase of prohibited material by Iraq.

The UN has imposed restrictions on transfers to Iraq through the UN Security Council Resolution 661 (1990), but these restrictions have been implemented by means of national legislation and not by Community legislation.

Accordingly, the Commission does not have any power to proceed against Member States if they fail to apply these restrictions or to take appropriate measures against any organisation (e.g. banks, companies) which break national laws.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/731

(2004/C 84 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3129/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Guinea-Bissau, Commission support

The media have reported that the former Portuguese Foreign Minister, at the end of a meeting with his EU counterparts, asked the Commission to ‘focus particularly on cooperation programmes with Guinea-Bissau’, a country which recently experienced a coup d'état and is now making the transition to democracy.

The Commission:

— how does it intend to examine the Portuguese Government's request;

— what information does it have to the way the Guinean political process is developing;

— what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to collaborate in the transition process in Guinea-Bissau?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is carefully monitoring the political transition process in Guinea-Bissau, further to the military coup of 14 September 2003, with particular reference to the EU Presidency declaration condemning this coup.

In the Framework of the Cotonou Agreement, the Commission is currently exploring the possibilities to positively influence developments in Guinea-Bissau.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/507

(2004/C 78 E/0527)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Restrictions imposed on flights into Zurich airport

Can the Commission indicate when it will be in a position to report on the complaint submitted by the airline company Swiss against the German authorities in regard to restrictions imposed by them for flights into Zurich airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has indeed received a complaint from the Swiss authorities regarding German measures which could affect certain landing procedures at Zurich airport. The complaint has been examined on the basis of the agreement concluded between the Community and Switzerland, and on 5 December 2003 the Commission has reached a decision on it in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Agreement and in Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1). This decision finds that Germany may continue to apply the 213th regulation for the implementation of German Air Traffic Regulations establishing procedures for instrument-guided landings and takeoffs at Zurich airport as amended by the first amending regulation of 4 April 2003. The Decision of the Commission will be published in the Official Journal in the near future.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/101

(2004/C 84 E/0138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3791/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Ancona under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1091/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3779/03, E-3780/03, E-3781/03, E-3782/03, E-3783/03, E-3784/03, E-3785/03, E-3786/03, E-3787/03, E-3788/03, E-3789/03, E-3790/03 and E-3791/03

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission refers to its joint answer given to the Honourable Member's written questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03, E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03, E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03 on 22 April 2003 (1).

On 8 August 2003, a call for proposals in the field of Community cooperation as regards civil protection was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). Out of 25 proposals received, five have been selected, of which one was presented by the Municipality of Rome. None of the other Italian municipalities presented proposals to the Commission.

The next call for proposals in this context will be published at the end of February 2004. The Honourable Member is invited to consult the internet page http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm on which this last call under the Community action programme in the field of civil protection will be announced.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2) OJ C 188, 8.8.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/319

(2004/C 78 E/0324)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3771/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Pistoia municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1071/03 (1)) asking whether the Pistoia municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Pistoia had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.