ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/697

(2004/C 78 E/0746)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0192/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject: Indian priest imprisoned without charge in Qatar

Mr Arokiyasamy Stanislas Chellappa is a Christian Indian who has lived and worked as an engineer in Qatar on the Arabian peninsula for 22 years together with his wife, Ester, and their 12-year old son. On 9 December 2002, he was arrested with no reason given. Two weeks later, on 23 December, he was released on bail but was told to return to India by 22 January 2003 at the latest.

If that does not happen, Mr Chellappa will be re-arrested. The authorities gave no reason for the arrest on this occasion either.

Mr Chellappa has been a priest in a community of Christian Indians in Qatar. His family and friends suspect that the reason for his arrest is connected with his faith and Christian activities.

In what way does the Commission work to influence governments in such cases and what is the established practice? Is the Commission aware of the above case? Is the Commission able to take any action on this specific matter concerning human rights and religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission does not have any precise information on the case raised by the Honourable Member. Without a delegation in the country, it is difficult to obtain details.

If it possesses the necessary evidence, the European Union can intervene in individual cases of abuse of human rights by making representations to the authorities of the countries concerned. The appropriateness of such representations is assessed on a case by case basis through a confidential consultation procedure.

In addition it should be pointed out that the Commission is in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement between the Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council which would include the human rights clause as one of the essential elements. The Commission has also put a proposal to the Gulf Cooperation Council on opening a political dialogue on human rights. The purpose of this dialogue would be to regularly discuss issues of respect for fundamental rights as enshrined in particular in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and its complementary International Covenants, and to encourage the GCC party states which have not yet signed and ratified these instruments to do so. Individual cases might also be raised during this dialogue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/13

(2004/C 78 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Gibraltarian police violence

On 20 January 2003, in the bay of Algeciras, whose waters Spain considers Spanish, Greenpeace activists carried out a peaceful demonstration against the single-hulled Maltese-registered oil tanker ‘Vemamagna’.

Public opinion in Spain and various other European countries is extremely sensitive to issues like this, thanks to the ‘Prestige’ disaster, and all the more so now, thanks to the sinking of a barge carrying over a thousand tonnes of fuel in the very waters of the bay of Algeciras on 21 January 2003.

There was considerable media coverage of the Greenpeace demonstration. Reporters from El País, El Mundo, Tele-5, Antena 3, RTVE, Canal Sur and Associated Press were, in the course of their professional duties, violently harassed by the Gibraltarian police and arrested (in waters which are, to say the very least, the object of international legal dispute), and the Tele 5 reporter was punched by the Gilbraltarian policeman, as highlighted on the front page of El Mundo (21.1.2003).

Quite apart from the fact that the Member State of which Gibraltar is a dependency is unwilling to persuade Gibraltar that it has to apply Community directives on single-hulled tankers, it is rather surprising that one of the principles or values which distinguishes us as Europeans, namely respect for the freedom of expression enjoyed by those working in the media, should have been so fragrantly violated in Gibraltar.

Does the Commission intend to approach the Council, — with enlargement under way, the moment could not be more opportune — with a view to encouraging the Council to suggest to the Member State whose colony Gibraltar is that, for the sake of the Union's good name, that Member State's government should both respect this principle and ensure that it is respected?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Further to its holding reply to the Honourable Member's written question of 27 March 2003, the Commission is now in a position to give more information on the subject raised as it has received the British authorities' response.

The British authorities report that of the twenty people arrested, only six are to be charged and these cases came before Court on 22 September 2003.

Furthermore, the response points out that decisions on arrests and on prosecution are taken pursuant to the principle of law and in light of detailed legislation. The right of appeal against action of the police is also foreseen.

In view of this response, although it deplores the use of force against media, the Commission proposes to close its inquiry into this matter unless there are any issues on which the Honourable Member requires further clarification.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/260

(2004/C 84 E/0307)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3897/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Unsustainable fishery by-catches

Have proposals for a requirement for fishing fleets across the world to make use of the latest by-catch exclusion technology been put to the UN Committee on Fisheries (COFI) by EU Member States? What, if any, coordination took place between Member States prior to making such submissions?

What role will the Commission play in coordinating proposals by EU Member States to the next meeting of the UN Committee on Fisheries (COFI) for the use by fishing fleets across the world of by-catch exclusion technology?

What will be the timetable for the submission and coordination of such proposals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

According to information available to the Commission, no Member State has made any approach in connection with utilisation of by-catch exclusion technology by fleets worldwide to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in preparation for the next COFI Session in 2005.

This is in any case a matter where authority to act belongs to the Community alone and any approach would have to be made by the Commission following definition of a Community line of action with the Council.

As we have already indicated in our reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question No 3359/03 (1), although the subject definitely merits attention the resources at present available to the Commission are such that it is unlikely, given the CFP priorities already set for 2004, that such an initiative could be mounted. For the Commission to be able to ask for a proposal to be put on the agenda for the next COFI it would have to be prepared before this summer along with all the technical and financial background information needed to make FAO acceptance likely.

(1) See page 59.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/359

(2004/C 88 E/0365)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1631/03

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: Discrimination on grounds of nationality

The European Community's development is no longer confined to the economic sphere. The Community is now made up of 375 million people, who are not merely consumers in a large single market, but also citizens of the European Union who have the right to move freely within the EU and to settle in any part of that Union for personal or professional reasons and who hope they can live without fear of being discriminated against in any way.

I have been contacted by a Portuguese national who has opted for an international career with Shell Accounting Service in Glasgow, and has been living and working in the United Kingdom (Scotland) for some two years. He maintains that he has been discriminated against on account of his nationality by the Halifax Bank (a member of the Bank of Scotland group), which has rejected his request for his bank account to be ‘upgraded’ on the grounds that this is only possible once a person has been resident in the country for three years. As an EU citizen, does he not have the same rights and duties as a UK national?

Article 12 of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘within the scope of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited’. Does the Commission agree that the Halifax Bank's policy may be considered discriminatory in that it is contrary to the very essence of the European Union and constitutes a clear violation of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

In principle, a bank has the contractual freedom to enter into contractual agreements with a potential customer. This applies both to any intended contractual relationship (e.g. opening an account) and to the conditions under which a corresponding contract is concluded (particularly account maintenance fees, interest rates, overdraft facilities, etc.).

There is therefore, in principle, no reason to challenge the Halifax Bank's decision not to grant a customer better conditions on the grounds that the customer has to have lived in the country for at least three years in order for his/her bank account to be upgraded. This is not necessarily discrimination on grounds of nationality. The reasons for rejecting the application could rather be based on specific economic considerations (risk assessment, account history, volume of deposits and withdrawals, payment record or other reasons relating to the individual customer). The information provided is not sufficient to allow a clear legal assessment to be delivered.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/363

(2004/C 88 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China

Last October I submitted a priority written question (P-2956/02 (1)) to the Commission on the application of the safeguard clause in respect of the overwhelming increase in imports of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China.

In its answer the Commission indicated that it was waiting for the Spanish authorities to provide the necessary documentation since the information previously submitted did not meet the WTO's strict regulations.

Can the Commission confirm whether the Spanish authorities have already submitted all the relevant information requested?

If this is the case, what are the reasons preventing the Commission from taking the steps set out for such cases in Regulation (EC) 2201/96 (2)?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/597

(2004/C 88 E/0610)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/03

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

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Human rights situation in Zimbabwe

Is the Commission aware that the Amani Trust, a human rights organisation which works with victims of torture, has received threats to fire-bomb its offices and that the organisation has had to suspend its activities as a result?

Is the Commission also aware of the fate of Job Sikhala, MDC MP, Gabriel Shumba, a legal officer with the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Charles Mutama, Bishop Shumba and T. Magaya? Medical evidence has indicated that the five men were tortured with electricity.

Is the Commission prepared to arrange an inquiry into the cases of these individuals and the current position of the Armani Trust and publish the findings through an answer to this question?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member, which can be seen as concrete examples of the current decline in the human rights state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Reports received from the Commission's Delegation in Harare confirm the increased incidents of politically motivated violence, some of which are raised by the Honourable Member.

The Union reacted by issuing, on 20 February 2003, a declaration expressing its concern over the recent arbitrary arrests, inhuman treatment and torture of members of the opposition and civil society organisations. The Union calls on the government of Zimbabwe to end all harassment, intimidation and violence against them. It urges the government and all political stakeholders to open serious dialogue to overcoming the current overwhelming problems facing Zimbabwe on the humanitarian, social and economic fronts.

The respect of human rights, which form part of the essential elements of Cotonou, is one of the conditions under constant review in the framework of the 18 February 2002 Council Decision concluding consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. Therefore, the Commission follows the human rights situation closely and has taken and will continue to take appropriate measures in response to the deteriorating situation in this country. However, the Commission is not in a position to conduct inquiries and report on individual cases.

The Commission deplores the harassment to which the Amani Trust was subject and which obliged it to cease operations. It was an independent and reputable organisation offering assistance to victims of all forms of organised violence, whose work in difficult circumstances in Zimbabwe was always appreciated.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/600

(2004/C 88 E/0614)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/673

(2004/C 78 E/0716)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3913/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Oil extraction agreement: granting of authorisations

Does the Commission consider that the Danish government's agreement with A.P. Møller and the Dansk Undergrund Consortium on the conditions for oil extraction over the next 40 years in the North Sea meets the requirement that authorisations ‘shall be granted on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory principles’ (Article 13 of Directive 94/22/EC (1) on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons)? If so, is it aware of any examples of comparable concession conditions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/235

(2004/C 84 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3354/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Minority language groups in Greece and official statistics

Commissioner Reding carries out her duties impeccably and her contribution towards upgrading the status of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture is clear. It appears, however, that certain members of staff within that Directorate-General do not provide her with sufficient information and the inadequacy of the answers which they draw up create a poor impression of the Commission which is totally unfounded.

In my question No E-2777/03 (1), I noted that the 1996 Euromosaic study reported (page 41 of the English version) that the number of speakers of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian in Greece ranged between 50 000 and 80 000 and I asked who had compiled these statistics and whether they were official and reliable. The distinguished Commissioner, Mrs Reding, replied that the three drafters of the report collaborated with an expert committee comprising ten members from the Union, the USA and Canada.

Does the Council agree with the above statistics? What official information have the Greek authorities provided concerning speakers of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian? Is it ethical not to use the official statistics of a Member State to estimate the size of certain language groups? Does the Council believe that it is not sufficient for European experts to draw up reports on language groups in the Union? What is its view of the involvement in purely European affairs (which are also extremely sensitive) of experts from countries outside the EU who express opinions on the existence or non-existence of linguistic minorities in Europe? What specific measures has the Council taken in the last ten years on behalf of the (internationally recognised and numerous) Greek minority in northern Epirus, which the Albanian regime persistently tried for almost 50 years to deprive of their language and religion?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

Concerning the statistics contained in the Euromosaic Study of 1996, the Council would stress that it is neither its role nor within its competence to pass judgement on work carried out by a third party following a call for tender by the European Commission.

As far as the situation of the Greek-speaking minority in Albania is concerned, it should be recalled that the current negotiations between the EU and Albania taking place in the context of the stabilisation and association process pay particular attention to issues of democratisation and protection of minorities. The European Commission, which received the mandate for negotiations in October 2002, could provide more detailed information in this connection.

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 215.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/619

(2004/C 88 E/0638)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1891/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Iran's nuclear activities

The European Union is currently negotiating on a trade treaty with Iran. Iran has nuclear activities that are not entirely transparent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In February 2003 IAEA officials visited Iran. They are still not convinced and have asked Iran to provide a written answer to their questions.

Does the Commission agree that total transparency on nuclear activities is a precondition for a trade treaty?

What steps will the Commission take if total transparency is not provided?

Is the Commission prepared to stop the negotiations in the absence of total transparency?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Union has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran's right as a party to the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly supports the view of the Union that Iran must be fully transparent in compliance with this Treaty. In this context the Commission welcomes the report of the International Atomic Energy Center (IAEA) but notes with concern that Iran reportedly has failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the NPT safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes that Iran will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments to ensure additional transparency.

The Union will keep Iran's progress in this area under continuous review. Positive measures taken by Iran in the near future on the question of its nuclear activities, including full transparency, would undoubtedly help the Trade and Corporation Agreement (TCA) negotiations. The reverse is also true.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/723

(2004/C 78 E/0773)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1747/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Israel — removal of restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories

According to information from Amnesty International, the Israeli Government has recently decided to require all foreigners entering Gaza to sign a ‘declaration of waiver’ exonerating Israel of any liability in the event of their death or injury. Amnesty International states that entry to the occupied territories has been denied to AI members refusing to sign this declaration, significantly hampering the organisation's work. Fears are being expressed that this tactic is an attempt to relieve the Israeli authorities of their duty to ensure that the armed forces respect human rights in all circumstances. It is also considered likely to impede outside monitoring and scrutiny of the conduct of the Israeli army and to lead to an immediate increase in killings in Gaza.

Does the Commission intend to put pressure on the Israeli Government in order to:

1. have the new restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories lifted, and

2. call for the posting of international monitors in Israel and the occupied territories, in order to ensure that it abides by international standards?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Following parallel demarches in Israel by the Union Troïka and in Athens by the Greek Presidency, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Commission formally raised with the Israeli Ambassador to the Union the restrictive security measures in place at the Erez Crossing on 23 May 2003.

The Commission underlined that the current practise of denying access, requesting information beyond customary norm, and demanding a security waiver to be signed by international staff entering Gaza was of particular concern because Commission/ECHO staff and contractors in general do not carry diplomatic passports. The Commission was aware of Israeli security concerns and fully understood the increased sensitivity in the wake of recent bombings in Tel Aviv carried out by foreign passport holders. However, the near-total closure was disproportionate, and several measures newly introduced, e.g. waiver forms and detailed information on humanitarian projects, have no apparent relation to security concerns.

It further stated that if these restrictive measures continued, international donors would have to consider suspending operations in the Gaza Strip and that a new deterioration of the humanitarian situation was not in Israel's security interests.

The Israeli Ambassador showed understanding for the Commission's points and undertook to convey the Commission's concerns to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has not reacted as of yet.

Regarding the posting of international monitors, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that this issue is being discussed in the framework of the Quartet.

The Commission obviously welcomes any measure taken that would lead to an improvement of the current situation.