ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0579/03

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Distribution of seats in the European Parliament

At the Brussels and Copenhagen European Councils a framework agreement was negotiated on the future allocation of seats in the European Parliament after the enlargement of the Union. Up to now Belgium has had 25 seats, 14 of which were for the electoral district of Flanders, 11 for that of Wallonia. After the enlargement Belgium will have only 22 seats. As a transitional arrangement, however, pending the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, it is planned that there will be a gradual adjustment in the number of seats to which the present Member States will be entitled at next year's European elections. Various newspapers have reported that Belgium will still be given 24 seats at the 2004 European elections, and that this number will be reduced to 22 only at the 2009 elections.

Can the Commission indicate how many seats the present Member States will be given at the elections in June 2004 and 2009?

Has the Commission given any recommendations to the Member States as to any proportional distribution of seats among the various electoral districts to be made in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

It results from the Nice Treaty and the Treaty of Accession due to be signed on 16 April 2003 in Athens that the number of members of the European Parliament to be elected in each of the present Member States in 2004 shall be as follows:

- Belgium: 24;

- Denmark: 14;

- Germany: 99;

- Greece: 24;

- Spain: 54;

- France: 78;

- Ireland: 13;

- Italy: 78;

- Luxembourg: 6;

- Netherlands: 27;

- Austria: 18;

- Portugal: 24;

- Finland: 14;

- Sweden: 19;

- United Kingdom: 78.

These figures will not change until further modification of the relevant Treaty articles. With a view to the possible accession of more Member States at a later stage, the allocation of seats in a Union of more than 25 Member States will have to be determined in a future accession treaty, taking account of the provisions and principles established by the Nice Treaty.

The Commission has not given any recommendation to the Member States as to the distribution of seats within each Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1779/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Doha trade talks and anti-retroviral drugs

What is the Commission's view on the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks in relation to the improved access to medicines including anti-retroviral drugs to treat HIV/Aids?

Joint answerto Written questions E-1779/03, E-1784/03 and E-1791/03given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The Commission is disappointed that thus far no agreement has been reached to address the problems faced by developing countries with no or insufficient manufacturing capacities (Article 6 of the Doha Declaration on Public Health and TRIPs). It is working together with its World Trade Organisation (WTO) partners in order to secure a solution prior to the Cancun Ministerial in September 2003. Such a solution should under no circumstances undermine the content of the Doha Declaration on Public Health and TRIPs as agreed in November 2001.

Taking forward the access to medicines agenda is part of a broader and ambitious Commission strategy spelt out in our Community Programme for Action on Communicable Diseases. The Commission works jointly on the implementation of a series of actions eventually leading to the same objective: accelerated action and improved health outcomes, in particular in the area of Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis (TB). In light of this, the Commission is fully committed to incorporating the Doha Declaration on Public Health and TRIPs into its trade policies, and with particular regard to technical assistance for the implementation of the TRIPs Agreement. It is the view of the Commission that proper implementation will improve access to medicines including antiretrovirals (ARVS) to treat HIV/AIDS. The Community recently adopted a Communication to the TRIPs Council: on the implementation of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health calling upon all technical assistance providers, and in particular multilateral organisations to join them in taking up this commitment, and thus fully integrate the Doha Declaration in their policies and practices. This communication was welcomed by developing country members of the WTO.

As to the Round Table on Access to Medicines hosted by the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade and the Member of the Commission responsible for Research and Technological Development on the 28 April 2003, the discussions were meant to inform the Commission's input

into the G8 Summit in Evian. The main conclusions of the Round Table noted that political will on all sides is essential in improving access to medicines. Tiered pricing of medicines was reconfirmed as being crucial and be pursued in conjunction with other policies, as developed in the Community Programme for Action. The need for genuine partnerships between developed and developing countries was emphasised in improving research and development in access to medicines.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: EU waste strategy

What steps, if any, is the Commission taking to prepare a strategy and recommendations for reducing the total volume of waste being generated across the EU? Is the Commission able to identify any examples in Member States of successful implementation of zero waste growth or total waste reduction policies?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce requirements for a minimum content of recyclable materials in all goods and packaging?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Data on overall waste generation are too scarce to allow a judgement whether particular Member States have been successful or not in reducing overall waste generation(1). Overall, waste quantities still seem to be on the rise. Therefore, while the goal of 200 waste is one to which we could aspire, it is not yet possible to identify any examples in Member States of successful zero waste growth or total waste reduction policies. Data on municipal waste (around 10-15 % of overall waste) are more complete although there should still be some degree of caution as regards the exactness of data. Data from the European Environment Agency indicate that apart from Germany and Finland, the amount of municipal waste has increased in all Member States between 1990 and 1995(3). This suggests that successful strategies towards an absolute reduction of waste generation are rare and have not led to significant overall reductions in waste generation. More information and case studies can be found in the European Environment Agency's publication Case studies on waste minimisation practices in Europe(2).

The Commission is currently preparing a thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling, pursuant to the 6th Environment Action Programme. As a first step, a communication to the Parliament and the Council is foreseen within the coming months. This communication will inter alia describe experiences on waste prevention. It will launch a general debate on possible measures for waste prevention and recycling and invites the European institutions and stakeholders to contribute to the further development of the strategy.

Currently, the Commission does not have plans to introduce requirements for the minimum content of recyclable materials in all goods and packaging. It is felt that it is preferable to use recycling targets and leave the question where to use the recycled materials to businesses and the market.

(1) Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment;http://reports.eea.eu.int/92-828-3351-8/en/toc.html/tab_abstract_RLR.

(2) European Environment Agency, Topic Report No. 2/2002,http://repository.eea.eu.int/reports/topic_report/2002_2/full_report/en/html/abstract

(3) Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment;http://reports.eea.eu.int/92-828-3351-8/en/toc.html/tab_abstract_RLR.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Quality of economic projections

Further to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3315/02(1) and Written Question E-0014/03(2), will the Commission please note that the question referred to the projections in each stability and convergence programme for each Member State for real GDP growth, inflation and the budget balance, together with the currently published outturns for each of those variables?

This question clearly refers to each Member State's stability and convergence programme since those programmes began to be agreed, together with the outturns since that point. Will the Commission further show a summary table for each variable and each stability and convergence programme detailing the difference between the projection and the subsequent outturn for each Member State?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 107.

(2) See page 13.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

In response to the question, a set of tables is being transmitted direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat showing two key variables submitted by all the Member States in their stability and convergence programmes, real gross domestic product (GDP) growth and the general government budget balance as a percent of GDP. Since 1998 there have been five successive rounds of these programmes. The first round of stability and convergence programmes was submitted between end 1998 and early 1999. The latest and fifth round of programme was submitted between end 2002 and early 2003.

The left-hand side of each table shows, for each Member State, the targets/forecasts in successive programmes and the actual outcome taken from the Commission's Autumn 2002 Forecast. When programmes contain different scenarios, one of the estimates is provided in the table while the other scenarios are summarised as footnotes. The budget balance excludes the one-off receipts between 2000 and 2002 from the sale of universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) licenses (details in footnotes). The right-hand side of the table calculates the difference between the targets/forecasts and the actual outcome.

A table is included showing inflation outcomes for each Member State over the period 1997-2002 (harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP) definition). A table detailing performance-to-target has not been compiled because it is only for Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom that the assessment of inflation and monetary policy developments, in the context of their convergence programmes, is relevant.

Further information, including the texts of the stability and convergence programmes for each Member State, can be found at the following Commission website. http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/scplist_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1772/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Thessaloniki June Council meeting

Will the Council please give its view of the agenda of the June Council meeting in Thessaloniki? Will the meeting discuss the question of EU border police, policing resources for the new EU external borders post-enlargement, coordination of integration issues in relation to migrants, and the issue of coordination of managed economic migration?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the debate which took place at the plenary part-session in Strasbourg on Wednesday 4 June 2003, during which the Council Presidency set out the agenda for the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki on 20 and 21 June 2003.

It would also refer the Honourable Member to the conclusions of the Seville European Council, and in particular Annex II, detailing the Council's role in preparing for the European Council (point A.2(a)).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Soccer and racism

Can the Council please give its response to the rise in racism and the organised racist behaviour of soccer supporters of particular soccer clubs within EU countries and to the fines recently levied by UEFA on particular soccer clubs?

Does the Council have a view on the disturbing evidence of organised racism at soccer matches in particular accession countries, again identified by UEFA (for example in Slovakia)?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any racist incident, whether it takes place in the framework of a soccer match or not. The Council equally condemns racist incidents in the acceeding countries. The Council cannot comment regarding the fines levied by UEFA.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0014/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Economic integration

1. Further to the Commission's answer to Written Question No E-3315/02(1), will the Commission now provide the figures in answer to the first part of the question, namely the projections in each Stability and

Convergence programme for each Member State for real GDP, inflation and the budget balance together with the currently published outturns for each of those variables?

2. Concerning the answer to the second and third parts of the question, does the Commission now intend to conduct an ex post study of the projections and the outturns to discover systematic differences?

3. And if so, when will it be ready?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 107.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2003)

A copy of tables compiled by the Commission is sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat General of the Parliament. These tables present the projections in the Stability or Convergence programme for each Member State, and the resulting ones for the euro area and the Union as a whole, for real gross domestic production (GDP), the budget balance and inflation. These tables also include the Autumn 2002 Commission Forecasts, which besides forecasting developments for these variables between 2002 and 2004, also reproduce the published out-turns for 2001. Out-turns for 2002 are not available in many cases yet. The out-turns for 2002 budget balances will only be available and published in the course of March 2003, following the regular notification by Member States of figures for the net borrowing requirement.

The Commission does not intend for the moment to conduct an ex-post study of the differences between projections and out-turn. However, an overview of the programmes and of their assessment will be included, as in previous years, in the report Public Finances in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), which is scheduled for publication in May 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(30 April 2003)

Subject: Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are in a legal vacuum. They are being deprived of the human right to be defended in court. The US Administration has refused to designate them as prisoners of war,

a status that would entitle them to immunity from prosecution for many acts committed during war. The US Administration contends that the prisoners are unlawful combatants, placing them in legal limbo.

Human rights organisations and some countries have criticised the US for not allowing prisoners access to a civilian court.

What action is the European Union taking to ensure that its captured citizens in Guantanamo Bay enjoy the right to be defended in court?

Does the European Union accept the prisoners' new status as unlawful combatants in the light of the Geneva Convention?

Does the EU recognise any circumstances under which the use of unlawful methods, such as detaining people in prisons for an unlimited period of time, is justified as part of the war against terrorism?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is the responsibility of the individual Member States concerned.

The European Union has not taken any position on the issue of whether the status of unlawful combatants is a valid one. It has, however, always insisted on the importance of every detainee in Guantanamo Bay being treated humanely in accordance with general standards of international law. It has moreover recalled on a number of occasions that Geneva Convention III regarding the treatment of prisoners of war stipulates that in case of doubt, a detainee must be awarded the protection of the Convention until such time that a competent tribunal could determine his status. In the meantime, detainees are to be treated humanely, and receive proper medical care, clothing and food. The detaining power is entitled however to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security of the facility and the detainees.

Given the EU's clear stance on the need for full respect of human rights and the rule of law in the fight against terrorism, it follows that it would recognise no circumstances which could justify non-respect for human rights or the rule of law in that fight.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1276/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Regulation on sexual and reproductive health and rights

Regarding the Regulation on sexual and reproductive health and rights, Members of the European Parliament were asked to vote in plenary (13 February 2003) for an increase in the budget up to EUR 73,95 million (Amendment 46) by mobilising the flexibility instrument in order to fund this increased budget line.

Members of Parliament's Development Committee and the EPP-ED Group were informed that this increase followed, and was in conformity with, a Council request.

In the meantime, my office was informed by representatives at Commission and Council level that this requested increase was in fact a unilateral move on behalf of the European Parliament. Furthermore, I am informed it was at the request of the rapporteur. If this is so, it would mean that a conciliation procedure is needed at Council level in order to reallocate funds in the context of EU external actions (Chapter 4).

Could the Council please clarify if it did request the above increase or not?

According to Budget Commissioner Schreyer's office, Budget 2003 is already engaged and fully allocated. Does the Council intend therefore a conciliation procedure in order to reallocate funds in the context of the EU external action? Could the flexibility instruments be mobilised for each year of this programme 2003-2006? Regarding the agreement of the programme itself, could the Council please clarify under which procedure it will act: qualified majority or unanimous vote?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as a general rule, inserting non-binding provisions, such as wishes which might impinge on the Budget Committee's prerogatives especially as concerns use of the flexibility instrument (paragraph 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999)(1) is to be avoided.

Nonetheless, on the question of the points made in the Honourable Member's question, the Council noted, when the Regulation concerned was adopted, the Commission's confirmation that the increased financial framework for this Regulation may be integrated into heading 4 of the financial perspective and, in particular,

into the increased funding earmarked for development policy in the context of drawing up the budget by activity. The Commission therefore has no intention of proposing use of the instruments provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999, i.e. proposing that funds over and above the existing funding for heading 4 be mobilised.

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1263/03

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

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Application of the European Union Solidarity Fund to the Prestige disaster in Galicia and the other regions affected

Experts have calculated that the cost of repairing the various types of damage caused by the Prestige disaster could amount to around EUR 5 billion. This figure also corresponds to the amount USD 5 billion demanded by the US from the company Exxon Mobil, the owner of the Exxon Valdez, which was responsible for the disaster in Alaska in 1989. The Regulation on the European Union Solidarity Fund for disasters, particularly natural disasters, lays down that the fund is applicable where the damage caused exceeds EUR 3 billion. The Copenhagen European Council applied the Fund without taking this into account, but only for a sum of EUR 5 million.

Has the Council analysed the application of the Solidarity Fund in Galicia and the other regions affected, taking account of the actual level of damage caused and the above reference calculation, which exceeds EUR 3 billion? Has it received a corresponding proposal from the Commission?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

On 11 November 2002 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund.

This instrument is intended for regions concerned by major disasters, by providing financial assistance to contribute to a rapid return to normal living conditions in the disaster-stricken regions. The assistance should mainly be mobilised in case of natural disasters.

Article 4 of the Regulation lays down the procedure for applying for assistance from the Fund. This procedure is conducted exclusively by the European Commission in consultation with the budgetary authority. The Council is consequently not involved in the procedure for granting assistance to the applicant Member State, and the final decision is accordingly a matter for the Commission alone. In this connection the Council would refer to the Commission communication entitled Report to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster, which was sent to the Council on 10 March 2003 in accordance with the Presidency conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council.