ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0894/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

In reply to Question P-009/01(1), Commissioner Erkki Liikanen said that the Commission was aware that the AfA (Amt für Auslandsfragen), which had been involved in both Aventinus and Sensus via its test centre for language technology, was a government body reporting to the office of the German Federal Chancellor. This is an implicit acknowledgement that the Commission is aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

Since the police and security services, including the Bundesnachrichtendienst, are the responsibility of the EU Member States, they can always invoke national sovereignty as a means of evading any democratic accountability at European level. To a certain extent, therefore, the Commission has given carte blanche to Europol and, in particular, the German federal security service.

Does the Commission acknowledge that the European Parliament is not able to exercise any democratic control over the activities of the police and security services, including the Bundesnachrichtendienst and Europol, in the context of the Sensus project since they come under the responsibility of the EU Member States?

If not, in what way can the European Parliament exercise to the full its democratic right of control of the police and security services, including the Bundesnachrichtendienst and Europol, in the context of the Sensus project, without running up against the limits of national sovereignty?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the question asked refers to an institutional matter since it concerns the democratic control of the Parliament over activitites which are included in the field of the competence of the Member States. This matter is beyond the Sensus project and, in general, the framework Research and Technological Development (RDT) Programmes.

In the context of the Sensus project, however, AfA and Europol, in signing a contract with the Commission, are subject to the same rights and obligations as the other Sensus project contractors, in particular the requirement to submit cost statements, technical results and reports as well as accepting the right of the Commission and the Court of Auditors to undertake audits.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2355/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: EU-Kingdom of Morocco relations

During their recent official visits to the Kingdom of Morocco in June 2001, the Commissioners responsible for external relations, Chris Patten, and for trade, Pascal Lamy, formally stated their desire to improve and expand existing co-operation between the EU and Morocco. In the words of Commissioner Patten, our partners on the southern flank of the Mediterranean have a privileged place in our external relations. However, no reference was made in official speeches at any stage of those visits to the failure of negotiations between the EU and Morocco on establishing a new framework for bilateral co-operation with a view to the renewal of the fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco, which collapsed owing to the intransigence of the Moroccan negotiators, leading to the expulsion of more than 400 European vessels from Moroccan fishing grounds, i.e. directly affecting 4 300 European fishermen who previously supplied the EU market which can now be supplied by third countries and creating an extremely worrying economic and social situation in some EU regions which depend heavily on fishing.

Does the Commissioner responsible for the EU's external relations consider the Kingdom of Morocco's rejection of co-operation with the EU in the field of fishing to be of no significance in the context of the EU's relations with Morocco?

Will Morocco's refusal to co-operate with the EU in matters of interest for the EU itself not have any effect on bilateral relations, which are to be maintained and apparently expanded in matters of interest to Morocco?

On 18 July 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a specific plan aimed at mitigating as far as possible the serious economic and social situation affecting workers in the fleet which used to fish under the agreement with Morocco. Will the EU reward Morocco with increased co-operation with the EU despite the still insignificant financial effort which the EU must bear as a consequence of the intransigence and lack of co-operation shown by our partners on the southern flank of the Mediterranean?

Can the Commission explain why the serious social and economic impact on the EU of Morocco's inflexible opposition to the renewal of fisheries co-operation with the EU will have absolutely no negative repercussions on bilateral relations between the EU and Morocco and why, according to Commissioner Patten, the Commission is even seeking to improve such co-operation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1228/01 by Mr Ribeiro e Castro(1).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 225.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1013/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: European digital literacy plan

In 2003, over 1,5 million jobs in new information technologies may remain unfilled. In order to prevent future shortages (and to alleviate current ones), all the EU Member States should make strenuous efforts to consolidate digital literacy in order to prevent what would constitute one of the major constraints on European economic development from arising.

In order to achieve a level of digital literacy which is comparable to the current level in the USA, the European Union will have to do its utmost to meet a challenge which it cannot ignore.

What has the Commission to say regarding the support which private initiatives may expect from relevant Community policy, which has an essential role to play in promoting and encouraging digital literacy amongst the largest possible number of working people in order to relieve the current (and, in all probability, future) shortage of skilled workers in the new information-technology sector?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The public-private partnership in promoting the teaching of new technologies is, in the Commission's view, a very important issue.

With this in mind, the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to Mr Naranjo Escobar's Written Question E-605/01(1).

One example of the Commission's commitment is the eLearning Summit (La Hulpe, 10/11 May 2001(2)), organised at the initiative of leading companies in the multimedia and information and communication technology (ICT) sectors (IBM, Cisco Systems, Nokia, SanomaWSOY, SmartForce) in collaboration with the Commission. This included debates which brought together the public and private sectors with a view to developing a strategic programme of new models of public and private partnership to help develop eLearning.

The eLearning action plan is in line with the eEurope action plan, one of the latter's priorities being to invest in people and knowledge. Progress made at national level in meeting the eEurope education and training objectives is monitored, and most of the objectives

must be met by the end of 2002. This approach is based on specific indicators which were approved by the Internal Market Council on 30 November 2000. Progress achieved in this area is subject to regular benchmarking using recognised evaluation instruments (Eurobarometer surveys and/or data provided by the Member States, for example by the ESDIS(3) (employment and social dimension of the information society) high-level group).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 86.

(2) For further information, contact Multimedia_Ventures@compuserve.com or jim.ayre@multimediaventures.com.

(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/info_soc/esdis/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1883/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Spain)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Spain have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Spain have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1234/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Arms sales by Spain to Equatorial Guinea and EU Code of Conduct

A report by the Unesco study centre at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, just published, states that Spain sold substantial numbers of weapons to Equatorial Guinea in 2000. According to this report, commissioned by Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Intermón Oxfam and Médecins Sans Frontières (all of which NGOs are participating in the campaign Adiós a las armas [A Farewell to Arms]), 11 500 missiles were supplied to the value of approximately ESP 182 million.

Equatorial Guinea, as is stressed in the report submitted by Mr Gustavo Gallón Giraldo to the UN Commission on Human Rights and as is confirmed in the complaints made by numerous independent bodies, is under the yoke of a regime which systematically violates human rights and consciously denies democratic principles. It has not, to date, signed either the Convention against Torture or the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The author of this question was able to observe in person just over a month ago, in the course of a visit to Malabo and Bata, the failure of the regime of President Teodoro Obiang to respect human rights and democratic principles, despite his repeated promises to the contrary to several international partners, including the EU in the person of Commission President Romano Prodi, whom he met in September 2000.

In the face of these complaints, is the Council considering asking the Spanish government to supply a detailed explanation on the matter? Does the Council not agree with the author of this question that these sales of missiles are contrary to the principles of the EU's Code of Conduct on arms exports to countries such as Equatorial Guinea which fail to respect human rights? Does the Council intend to ask the Madrid authorities to cease this trade, in compliance with the Code of Conduct, until such time as Equatorial Guinea becomes a genuine democracy?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The European Union's position on arms exports is reflected in the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports adopted on 8 June 1998. The particular case raised by the Honourable Member has not been raised in the Council but decisions on whether to grant an export licence are taken by each Member State individually taking full account of the Code of Conduct and the criteria set out in it. The Code of Conduct does not provide for Member States to give any information to the Council about the grounds on which export licences are granted nor does it lie in the Council's purview to pass judgement on any particular transaction. However, Member States are required every year to inform the Council about their arms exports; on this basis an annual report is produced which allows for a common assessment of the functioning of the Code.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Transalpine transport: Brenner Base Tunnel and transalpine link between Lyon and Turin

What is the Commission's view of France's and Italy's plans to build a transalpine rail link between Lyon and Turin? Is this going to be the only project for transalpine transport and will it jeopardise the future of the Brenner Base Tunnel project, or will Italy honour its commitment and proceed with a second major transalpine transport project and build a Brenner Base Tunnel?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

The Commission welcomes the decision taken by the Italian and French governments with regard to the Lyon Torino Alpine crossing project and would in fact favour of an accelerated implementation of the project. This project having been identified in the transport trans-European network (TEN) Guidelines as project of common interest and, on top of this, forming part of the 14 transport TEN projects endorsed as priority by the European Council at Essen, the Commission is committed to promoting this project to the best of its ability. Particular attention is being given in this respect to the planned Mont Cenis base tunnel which would connect both Member States involved.

Lyon Torino will not remain the only Alpine crossing railway project of the trans-European transport network. The Brenner project, linking München and Verona and involving a base tunnel under the Brenner pass comparable in scope, technical features and cost to that under the Mont Cenis, deserves the same degree of attention. This project also being included in the list of Essen projects, the Commission has already granted significant political and financial support in past years, and taken a number of initiatives to facilitate co-operation amongst the parties involved. The Commission notes with satisfaction that, thanks to the commitment of the Member States concerned (i.e. Italy and Austria in particular) and with the Commission's support, noticeable progress was made in the last few years with the technical studies for the Austrian Inn Valley section (now ready for construction) and with the preparation of the Brenner base tunnel. The setting up of the Brenner Base Tunnel European economic interest grouping (EEIG) at the end of 1999 has provided for an efficient execution of technical, environmental, geological, financial and economic studies. These studies now being well under way, their completion is envisaged for around 2006/2007. The Commission is paying particular attention to enquiries into alternative financing concepts for the financing of the Brenner project, which are about to be launched, and provides appropriate assistance in this respect. These activities show in the Commission's view that the Italian government remains fully committed to the Brenner project.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1431/01

by Bruno Gollnisch (TDI) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Time-share holiday swindles

The number of abuses and swindles perpetrated by time-share holiday professionals has been growing for several years now.

Hundreds of people have fallen and are still falling prey to these mafiosi of the tourist trade, who sell or resell annual stays in non-existent flats and then disappear into thin air once they have collected the money.

Such behaviour has in some cases seriously damaged the tourist industry's reputation in several parts of Spain (particularly Tenerife and Denia), in south and south-west France (particularly Canet-Plage) and in French overseas departments (Guadeloupe).

Does the Commission intend to carry out in-depth investigations into what already appears to be a serious problem?

Does it intend to take action against the agencies, companies and even banks that are knowingly involved in such cross-border swindles?

Were it to be established that, owing to the laxity of their public authorities, some States were failing to show the proper diligence in combating such activities, would the Commission consider calling upon them to take action?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the swindles and abuses mentioned by the Honourable Member in sales of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis.

Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis(1) protects purchasers in certain clearly specified areas(2). However, it does not cover the kind of practices mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Member States alone can take action against such practices.

The Commission mentioned the problems relating to the application of Directive 94/47/EC in its report dated 4 November 1999(3). This report sets out a series of points for discussion with a view to extending and reinforcing protection for purchasers. Before entering into a debate on possible changes or amendments to Directive 94/47/EC, the Commission is currently awaiting Parliament's opinion on the report in question.

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994.

(2) For example, the vendor is obliged to provide certain pre-contractual information, the purchaser has rights of withdrawal and cancellation, and the vendor is prohibited from asking for advance payments during the withdrawal period.

(3) SEC(1999) 1795.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2062/01

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Air traffic delays

Does the Commission recognise the anger and frustration felt by European air travellers about the increasing delays caused by air traffic congestion and what urgent steps does it intend to take to resolve these continuing and unacceptable problems?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member on the delays caused by air traffic congestion. Air Traffic Management delays in the first five months of 2001 remain too high although there has been a small drop in the total traffic compared with 2000.

The Commission put in place a High Level Group in early 2000 in order to develop improvements to the current organisation of air traffic services. The High Level Group reported in November 2000(1) and the Commission is now preparing legislative proposals to follow up on that report. These proposals will set out a common approach to the organisation of airspace and service provision and to the standardisation of equipment.

The Commission hopes that these proposals will be favourably received by the Community legislator and will have a significant impact on delays. It has welcomed the support contained in the Parliament's report, drafted by the Honourable Member, on the creation of

the Single Sky(2). The European Council has also considered this issue at its two recent meetings, recalling the importance of the Single Sky initiative at Göteborg on 15 and 16 June 2001.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/air/ses_en.pdf.

(2) Report A5-0141/2000, 26.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1232/01

by Carlos Candal (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Restructuring the Directorate-General for Fisheries

The author of this question would like the Commission to provide information about plans to restructure the Directorate-General for Fisheries.

This restructuring is presumably motivated chiefly by the need to make the Commission's services more efficient by rationalisation and also to preserve the internal balance in the distribution of responsibilities between senior officials from the various Member States, and notably from those with stronger traditions in the relevant sectors of activity. Will the Commission say whether all these considerations are being taken into account in the restructuring of the Directorate-General in question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

The reorganisation of the Directorate-General for Fisheries has aimed indeed to further improve the functioning of the Commission. The balance in the distribution of responsibilities between senior officials reflects their competence in the various fields of the Common Fisheries Policy.

The interests of all Member States, including those with stronger traditions in the relevant sectors of activity, are safeguarded, as in the past, at all times by the Commission acting in accordance with the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1110/01

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Unjust penalisation of German haulage firms by UK immigration authorities

1. In the Commission's view, are the UK's stricter border controls on Union citizens entering the country by bus or car from Member States, in order to combat illegal immigration, consistent with European law?

2. In the Commission's view, is the heavy fine of GBP 2 000 per illegal immigrant imposed by the UK immigration authorities on German haulage firms in the event of such individuals being found in their lorries or containers, when those firms are not culpable, consistent with European law?

Given that haulage firms operating to the UK are already forced to make expensive additional investment in safety precautions and driver training, what is the Commission doing in response to this distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

1. According to the Commission's information, the checks that the British authorities make on Union citizens travelling to the United Kingdom by bus or car are consistent with Community law, which states that Union citizens may enter the territory of a Member State merely on presentation of a valid identity card or passport.

2. Community law as it stands does not deal with the responsibility of road haulage firms for persons who are on board vehicles and who do not have the travel documents required for entry into the territory of the Member States.

The requirement to comply with safety precautions and provide driver training does not in itself constitute a distortion of competition. The British inspection measures do not make any distinction as regards the origin of the goods or the nationality of the road haulage firm concerned. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not contravene Community law.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-4024/00 by Ms Doyle(1).

The Commission will, however, continue to monitor this problem and to examine any implications for Community law.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 50.