ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0339/01

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: World summit for children in September 2001

At a meeting on 20 November 2000 in Paris, European ministers responsible for child welfare discussed at length issues relating to children and the family, and agreed that a European day for children's rights is to be held annually.

Agreement was also reached on reviving the European monitoring centre for children, setting up an emergency phone number for children suffering abuse and drawing up a European code of ethics concerning the quality of audio-visual programmes.

Looking ahead to the world summit for children to be held in New York in September 2001, what steps does the Commission intend to take to put into effect the decisions reached at the ministers' meeting of 20 November 2000, in order that Europe can be seen to be leading the way with regard to policies to protect children and promote the family?

Anwer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

On 20 November 2000 in Paris EU Ministers responsible for children's matters agreed on a common action plan including undertakings for children's rights, and notably the establishment of tools for the operational follow-up. Taken the inter-governmental context of the agreed results of the ministerial meeting, the Commission will not undertake any specific initiative.

In spite of a very large number of interventions of relevance for children there is currently no explicit or formalised EC policy focus on childrens' issues. Especially in the field of humanitarian aid the issue of children in conflicts is given special attention. The Commission will however participate in co-ordination with the Member States in the preparatory process and Special Session for Children and will submit to the Special Session a factual document providing an overview of its activities in support of children, including in the field of development co-operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0264/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

In the event of a resale involving persons liable to two or more national VAT and/or sales tax regimes, how is the sale price net of tax to be calculated for the purposes of the draft Directive on the Right of Resale? In the event that the VAT/sales tax treatment rules have yet to be agreed, on what basis will the right be calculated?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0256/01, E-0260/01, E-0262/01 and E-0264/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 13 December 2000, Parliament approved several amendments to the Council's common position of 19 June 2000 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art(1). Under Article 251(3) (formerly Article 189b(3)) of the EC Treaty, it is for the Council to decide on those amendments. The Commission will therefore take the common position as amended by Parliament as the basis for its answers to the Honourable Member's questions on certain specific provisions.

The Honourable Member is concerned about the obligations under which this Directive will place the persons mentioned in Article 9 who, under Article 1(4), will often be liable for the payment of the resale right if several persons think they are entitled to it, or if the resale right is not claimed.

The procedures for paying the resale right will depend on the way it is managed. According to the common position as amended, this question is a matter for the Member States, which may adopt specific solutions. For example, if a Member State opts for compulsory collective management of resale rights, it will be for the bodies responsible for collective management to deal with these questions.

In any event, the question of payment of a debt when the identity of the creditor is uncertain arises in many other areas apart from resale rights, and the Member States have well established rules. The persons referred to in Article 9 will therefore only have to follow the procedures prescribed in their national legislation.

Establishing a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs would therefore seem to be a pointless administrative formality, and the Commission has no such intention.

The Honourable Member also wonders about the scope of Article 5. The Commission confirms that the selling price taken as the basis for calculating the resale right must not include any of the taxes, such as VAT, normally added to the net price. This Directive is therefore without prejudice to the tax systems in force in the Member States.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0084/01

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

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Situation of the Tibetan Ngawamg Sangdrol, held in Drapchi prison in Tibet by the Chinese authorities

The young Tibetan Ngawamg Sangdrol is being held in Drapchi prison in Tibet, in one of the most flagrant cases of death or imprisonment perpetrated by the repressive forces of the Chinese state. The Chinese authorities have arrested her because of her prominent role in the struggle of her people for freedom, and have sentenced her to imprisonment up to 2013. This case calls for extraordinary action by the Council: the imprisonment of Ngawamg Sangdrol has already induced a group of MEPs to propose her name for the Sakharov Prize for 2000. Is the Council taking the political actions required to obtain her release?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

1. The EU raises individual cases of prisoners with the Chinese authorities, in particular during the sessions of the EU China human rights dialogue. Because of its sensitiveness, the list of individual cases is confidential.

2. In the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of January 2001 on the EU China human rights dialogue, the EU has expressed its concern at the continuing widespread restrictions on freedom of assembly, expression and association, the violations of freedom of religion and belief, the situation of minorities, including in Tibet. The conclusions have also identified specific areas in which the EU will be seeking progress through the dialogue. These include, in particular, respect for cultural rights and religious freedoms in Tibet, a halt to the patriotic education campaign in Tibet and a constructive response to individual cases raised by the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0196/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Tobacco Control Directive

Would the Commission please confirm that Article 3 of the draft Directive is the only article in the draft which applies to products manufactured in the EU and exported therefrom?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Article 3 of the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products(1) concerns inter alia all products manufactured in the Community including those intended for export. There are other provisions in the proposal which could also concern products for export, such as those relating to additives and to misleading descriptors, for example.

(1) OJ C 150 E, 30.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: TV rights relating to football

With regard to the sale of TV rights, relating to football, can the Commission confirm that it intends to commence an investigation into the lawfulness, under competition law, of the block sale of TV rights by UEFA and other football authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission can confirm that it has a number of open cases which concern the joint selling of television rights to football matches. The Commission has not yet reached any firm conclusions as to the likely outcome of these cases but it will be guided, inter alia, by the practices of the Member States in this regard and by the specific characteristics of sport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0127/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Illegal arrest of Greek Cypriot by Turkish-Cypriot regime

Approximately one month ago, the Turkish occupation forces abducted and arrested the Cypriot citizen, Panikkos Tsiakourmas, from the territory of the sovereign British bases in Cyprus with a view to exchanging him for the Turkish-Cypriot drug-trafficker arrested a few days previously on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, in whose possession a substantial quantity of drugs had been found.

Given that the Turkish occupation forces are using blackmailing tactics to equate a person charged under public criminal law with an innocent citizen suspected of no wrongdoing, will the Commission act within its powers to secure the release of this innocent Greek Cypriot who is being held illegally by the Turkish-Cypriot regime?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0045/01 by Mr Zacharakis(1).

(1) See p. 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/01

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: European Commission answer to Written Question E-0194/01 concerning the Iron Rhine railway line

On 19 April 2001, the European Commission answered Written Question E-0194/01(1) concerning the resumption of international rail freight transport on the historic Iron Rhine route.

That answer prompts the following additional questions:

1. Does the European Commission share the view of the Netherlands Government that the section of the Iron Rhine railway line located on Netherlands territory falls within the scope of Council Directive 92/43/EEC(2) and of Council Directive 79/409/EEC(3)?

2. What is the Commission's view of the applicability of Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC to the German section of the Iron Rhine railway line?

3. Does the European Commission share the view that, if such an extensive long-distance freight transport route is reopened, the German section of the route also requires an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the relevant European Union law?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 60.

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

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

The section of the Iron Rhine railway line located on Netherlands territory partly falls within the scope of Directive 79/409/EEC(1) and Directive 92/43/EEC(2), since it may affect the Meinweg and the Weerter en Budelerbergen. Those areas have been designated as special protection areas in accordance with Directive 79/409/EEC and the Netherlands has also proposed them as sites of Community importance in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-496/01 by Mr de Roo(3).

As the Commission noted in the above-mentioned reply, the reopening of the Iron Rhine is currently under consideration, but no decision has been taken yet. In the absence of information about the concrete characteristics of this project, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether or not in its view Germany will be under an obligation to conduct an impact assessment under Council Directive 85/337/EEC(4), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC(5). For further information on the legal background in this context, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-496/01.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(3) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 67.

(4) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985).

(5) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1334/01

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Special arrangements for sportsmen and sportswomen

In order to be able to pursue professional careers once their sporting careers are over, sportsmen and sportswomen try to combine the latter with college studies.

This double life requires a major effort on their part, since their daily sports practice and frequent travelling to take part in competitions and championships mean that they have real difficulties in attending classes on a regular basis and following courses of study.

Do universities in any Member State offer any kind of special arrangements for sportsmen and sportswomen, enabling them to reconcile the demands of studying with their sporting careers? If so, what benefits and/or advantages do the sportsmen and sportswomen enjoy vis-à-vis other students?

If not, does the Commission intend to take any action in this area?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the need for sportsmen and sportswomen to be able to reconcile their studies and their sporting careers, in particular in order to promote their future switch to alternative employment.

Accordingly, the Helsinki Report on Sport(1) stressed that Community action could, among other things, within the context of its educational and training programmes, focus on the objective of promoting the subsequent switch to other employment and future integration onto the labour market of sportsmen and women.

The Commission does not have full information on the opportunities that are offered to sportsmen and sportswomen in order to pursue studies in each Member State. However, it is aware of certain initiatives, such as those taken in France. This Member State has introduced a full set of measures in order to promote the success of sportsmen and sportswomen in sport and work, comprising financial assistance, measures granting easier access to competitive examinations, loans to those who set up a business, etc. Similar measures have been adopted in other Member States, such as Belgium.

The Commission respects the responsibility of the Member States for adopting measures, where necessary, in order to make it easier for sportsmen and sportswomen to reconcile their studies and their sporting careers. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission could not taken any initiatives to adopt legislation in this area. However, it encourages the Member States to introduce the most favourable mechanisms for taking account of the specific needs of top sportsmen and sportswomen in the national school and university systems.

(1) The Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework The Helsinki Report on Sport COM(1999) 644 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: EU-wide scams against the consumer

Is the Commission aware of letters being sent to the recently bereaved in some Member States from addresses in Italy, Holland, France and Switzerland purporting to provide through lunar magic such services as hypnotelepathic transmission treatment, and four months of luck, for a payment of £39.

What arrangements exist, or does the Commission intend to establish, to enable it to liase with the police and trading standards officers in Member States, with a view to sharing information about EU-wide frauds and planning concerted action?

In the view of the Commission, does the provision of four months of luck at a cost of £39, represent good value for money for the consumer?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the specific practice mentioned and is grateful for this having been brought to its attention.

The International Marketing Supervision Network (IMSN) brings together national consumer protection enforcement bodies from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to share information and plan concerted action. A sub-group of the IMSN has been established to bring together enforcement bodies from the Community. The Commission has also established a network for the exchange of information between the national enforcement bodies in the Community. Its forthcoming communication on co-operation on consumer protection enforcement will make policy proposals to reinforce co-operation between Community enforcement bodies to address practices such as this.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0769/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: The destruction of Schinias marsh on the Attica peninsula

Can the Commission indicate whether the Greek government's plans to use the site of the battle of Marathon as the venue for the rowing and canoeing events for the forthcoming Olympic Games and the destruction which this will cause not only to the battle site but also to the adjoining Schinias marsh, which is home to a hundred and seventy six species of birds (including eagles, herons, peregrine falcons, red kites, pelicans and the glossy ibis) as well as four thousand species of insect and the baskia fish, found nowhere else in the world, is legal under European law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2001)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member of the registration of a formal complaint related to the proposed construction of an Olympic canoeing and rowing centre in Schinias. In the framework of the investigation of the case, the Commission sent a letter to the Greek authorities

drawing attention to the value of the site for nature conservation and requesting information concerning any intended proposal of the site for the Natura 2000 network by virtue of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The Commission is currently investigating the case and the elements supplied by the Greek authorities in their reply, taking into account the conservation value of the site. A technical visit to the Schinias site is scheduled by the Commission in order to assess the compatibility of the planned Olympic project with the nature conservation of the site.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1493/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Management of biodegradable waste

The Commission's draft proposals for a directive on this subject have a primary aim of reducing the amount of organic material going to landfill.

In what ways do they recognise and accommodate the need for certain sectors, such as packaging, to meet EU recycling targets?

Answer given Mrs de Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission has so far taken no decision on whether to adopt a Proposal for a Directive on the biological treatment of biodegradable waste. The working document on the biological treatment of biodegradable waste (second draft of February 2001), elaborated by Directorate general (DG) Environment, outlines some of the issues that may be of relevance, should the Commission decide to propose a Directive on the matter to Council and Parliament.

Insofar as packaging recycling is concerned, the Commission notes that the opinion of Member States (as expressed so far in the Commission working groups on biodegradable waste management) on so-called bio-plastics is divided. While in principle recognising that packaging made of compostable plastics fulfilling CEN standard EN 13432 on Packaging - Requirements for packaging recoverable through composting and biodegradation - Test scheme and evaluation criteria

for the final acceptance of packaging is perfectly fit for being composted, some Member States have misgivings about the practical arrangements that would guarantee such an approach. In particular, the impact on the purity of the biowaste fraction separately collected is questioned. Consumers may not distinguish between packaging meeting the standard from other types of a similar visual appearance.

The Commission is aware of this possible conflict between a higher material recycling rate of packaging and compost quality. Should the Commission decide to present a Proposal for regulating composting and anaerobic digestion of biowaste to Council and Parliament, this aspect will be duly evaluated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Delays by the Civil Aviation Authority in implementing international standards

According to Greek press reports, experts of the JAA (European Joint Aviation Authorities) have found that there have been long delays by the Civil Aviation Authority in promoting and implementing international standards and regulations as part of the flight procedures (JAR-OPS), owing to the fact that the Greek Ministry of Transport has failed to press ahead with the legislative framework for the modernisation and incorporation of these standards.

1. Can the Commission confirm these reports? If so, what measures does it intend to take?

2. Could this problem affect the proper functioning of the new airport of Spata and the beginning of operations there?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

The Commission has indeed been informed of the doubts expressed within the international aviation community as regards the abilities of those Greek authorities responsible for air safety to assume their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Moreover that question has already been put by Mr Hatzidakis, a Member of the European Parliament (P-3217/00).

This is why it has initiated an infringement procedure against the Greek Government for poor implementation of the provisions of the regulations adopted by the Community in respect of aircraft maintenance.

As regards the other areas, such as that of the aviation operations highlighted by the Honourable Member, where there are still no common measures, the lady Vice-President of the Commission responsible for transport matters has drawn the attention of the Greek Government's Ministry of Transport to the shortcomings pinpointed by both the Joint Aviation Authorities and the Civil Aviation Organisation and the American Aviation Administration. In his reply the Minister stressed that the shortcomings were minor in extent and could in no case affect air traffic safety. Moreover, he insisted that, since they had been confirmed, appropriate action had been taken to remedy these quickly. The Commission has taken note of this.

However, at this stage, nothing in the comments of which the Commission is aware enables one to think that the placing in service and the operation of Spata airport could be affected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1240/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Safe Harbour

Given that so few US companies have signed up to Safe Harbour, what impact will this have on the European Commission's forthcoming six-month review of the agreement? How does the Commission plan to assess the Safe Harbour agreement and its implementation and which criteria will it look at?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

The fact that fewer companies have joined the Safe Harbour so far than the American Department of Commerce originally expected has no impact on the Commission's undertaking to the Parliament to make an interim report this year on how the Safe Harbour works. The Commission is collecting factual information from a number of Community and American sources, with a view to determining whether all the elements foreseen in the arrangement are in place and whether there is any evidence that the Safe Harbour is either not providing the level of protection foreseen for data subjects or not providing the security and simplifying effect that it should for those involved in making data transfers.