ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1247/00

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Abduction of Somali children from the Italian families charged with their custody

In recent years there have been numerous cases of children, mainly of Somalian nationality, who had been entrusted to the custody of Italian families being abducted by their (real or alleged) parents and illegally taken to other countries (including various European Union countries).

In some cases it has proved possible to trace the children concerned, but the families to whom they had previously been entrusted encountered considerable problems in seeking to ensure that the rights of such children were protected by the judicial authorities of some Member States of the Union.

There is reason to believe that, in many cases, these minors were not abducted by their real parents but by third parties intent on exploiting them for financial gain.

In particular, many problems have arisen as a result of the fact that in some cases the provisions of the Convention of The Hague on international child abduction have not been fully applied in practice, which has caused difficulties in ascertaining how children are being treated and whether they are in good health, and in exercising the right to visit the children and ensuring that minors are repatriated, as laid down by the Convention. This is due to the tendency of the judicial authorities in some signatory states to consider the merits of the original custody proceedings, in flagrant breach of the spirit of the Convention, which limits the requirement to review the merits of custody arrangements to a few special cases only.

In view of the foregoing:

- Would the Commission state what measures the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure effective judicial cooperation with regard to the custody and international abduction of children?

- What measures do the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure harmonisation of the Member States' rules on recognition of child custody arrangements?

- What measures do the Union institutions intend to adopt to ensure that existing international agreements (including the Convention of the Hague) are fully and effectively applied by the Member States' authorities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The Commission is not currently planning measures to ensure judicial cooperation with regard to the international abduction of minors.

With regard to the harmonisation of the provisions of the Member States relating to the recognition of child custody arrangements, the Commission's scoreboard includes measures on mutual recognition in civil matters, including family matters. Moreover, a seminar, to be attended by the Commission, will be held in Paris on 3 and 4 July 2000 in order to discuss mutual recognition. The French Presidency will be giving priority to an initiative to launch a European enforcement order in respect of family matters (visiting rights).

The Commission has no powers top constrain the Member States to apply the Hague Convention in the appropriate manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1103/00

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 96/62 on packaging

Directive 94/62/EC(1), of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste, states in its Article 6(1) that, no later than 10 years from the date by which it must be implemented in national law, a percentage of packaging waste will be recovered and recycled, which will have to be determined by the Council with a view to substantially increasing the targets mentioned.

Article 6(3)(b) of the same directive states that, no later than six months before the end of the first five-year phase the Council shall, acting by qualified majority and on a proposal from the Commission, fix targets for the second five-year phase.

How is it that the Commission has not yet made a proposal in accordance with the instructions given to it in this connection by the European Parliament and Council directive?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The obligation to revise substantially the recovery and recycling targets is provided in Article 6.3(b) and Article 6.1(c) of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, adopted in 1994. The compromise reached by the Parliament and the Council, after lengthy discussions in the conciliation committee, consisted of a first range of quantified targets for recovery and recycling, to be achieved by mid-2001 and a commitment by the Community legislator to increase these targets significantly in a second phase to be concluded by mid-2006.

There are a large number of parties involved in the packaging chain including economic operators, consumers, environmental organisations and authorities. They have a wide variety of different interests. This makes it necessary to set up a framework for dialogue in order to ensure a balanced approach. This process is, however, enabling the Commission to evaluate the situation correctly and to develop possible solutions with the aim to make the Directive more effective. Several options have been presented to and discussed with those concerned and the Member States, but the measures to be finally proposed by the Commission are still under consideration internally.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1948/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 June 2000)

Subject: Restitution of real property expropriated by the Yugoslavian Communist regime

Slovenian law provides at present that real property expropriated by the Communist regime must be restored to its rightful owners or their heirs and successors.

Under that law only persons who were Yugoslavian citizens at the date of expropriation are deemed to be entitled to such restitution.

As a result, all persons who did not have Yugoslavian citizenship at that time are barred from restitution, even though they are Italian citizens or nationals of other Community Member States.

Objective discrimination of this kind based on a citizenship requirement for recognition of the right to the restitution of expropriated property is clearly in breach both of the general principles of international law and of the specific Community rules prohibiting discrimination against individuals on grounds of nationality in the exercise of their property rights.

Can the Commission state:

- whether, during the negotiations in progress between the Community and the Republic of Slovenia with a view to an association agreement with the latter, an item has been placed on the agenda requiring the removal from the Slovenian legal system of all discrimination against European citizens in the implementation of the procedure governing the restitution, in kind or equivalent, of real property expropriated by the Yugoslavian Communist regime?

- if this issue is already the subject of negotiations, what stage has been reached in those negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The accession negotiations embrace all areas of Community legislation and policy, that is the acquis, which each applicant will have to adopt and implement fully by the time of accession to the Union. Property restitution is not covered by the acquis and the matter is not currently being dealt with in the accession negotiations.

The Commission is following the developments with regard to restitution of property in the context of its bilateral relations with Slovenia. This issue has recently been raised at the last meeting of the Community-Slovenia Association Council held in Luxembourg on 14 June 2000 where the Commission recommended to Slovenia to speed up the process of property restitution and to clarify the legal situation in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Safety of television casings

Does the Commission agree that fire safety standards for television casings being applied in the United States and in other parts of the world are much more stringent than those applied within the European Union and does the Commission believe that many lives could be saved each year in the EU if television casings were manufactured to the same standards as those enforced in the US and has the Commission considered this problem?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Directive 73/23/EEC of 29 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits(1) (low voltage Directive (LVD)) regulates the safety of television sets. Aspects relating to fire safety are more specifically addressed in harmonised standard EN 60065:1998, Audio, video and similar apparatus Safety requirements adopted by the European committee for the coordination of electrical standards (Cenelec). The Commission does not develop standards, as this is a matter left by the low voltage Directive to the European standardisation bodies.

The fire safety requirements of EN60065 are identical to those in the international standard International electrotechnical commission (IEC) 60065. This reflects European commitment to use, whenever possible, international standards provided that such standards are in line with Community legislation.

To-date, the Commission has not received any information from Member States regarding shortcomings in the above standard in relation to fire safety. The Commission is aware of studies being carried out in Sweden and the United Kingdom. According to the authorities of those Member States, the final reports will be available by the end of this year. The issue of data on television sets being a cause of domestic fires has already been raised by the Commission with national authorities in charge of the enforcement of the Directive during meetings held on 26/27 April 2000 and 14 June 2000. At that time the Commission asked Member States to provide more detailed information on this subject. The Commission took note that Member States, are following the matter. During discussion with Member States, no request was made along the lines of the Honourable Member's question.

The Honourable Member may rest assured that the Commission attaches a high priority to issues of fire safety. The need for action will be assessed on the basis of data received as a result of this request for information from national authorities, the findings of the aforementioned studies and any other pertinent information made available.

(1) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/00

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Environmental priorities for the CEECs

The EU White Paper on the integration of the CEECs into the internal market exclusively concerns legislation that is directly linked to the free movement of goods and services and does not cover such a highly important sector as the environment.

The alleged flooding of Community markets with crops from eastern European countries at give-away prices is therefore subject to no control whatsoever, as the funding of 10 million, allocated under the PHARE programme for the approximation of environmental laws, appears to be inadequate and somewhat ineffective, not least because the more urgent environmental priorities for the CEECs have yet to be established.

Given the above, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ascertain whether products coming onto the European markets meet the criteria laid down with a view to protecting the health of EU citizens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2000)

The White Paper on the integration of the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEECs) incorporates much of the Union's environmental legislation, including the rules relating to the free movement of goods. The applicant countries must adopt the Community's existing environmental standards before joining the Union.

Within the framework of pre-accession and application of the Europe Agreements, the Commission is helping the applicant countries in their efforts to bring legislation into line with Community rules and ensuring that the Community acquis, including environmental protection standards, is properly adopted and implemented.

The PHARE programme is a means of technical assistance and the quoted figure of 10 million is only part of the total funding allocated for harmonising legislation. PHARE assistance now takes the shape of twinning, amongst other things, and has been supplemented by Regulations on the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) and the administrative structures required to manage pre-accession aid (Sapard).

In the veterinary field, with respect to live animals and animal products the applicant countries are required to adopt national legislation in line with Community rules (principle of adopting the Community acquis). The Commission is, moreover, making every effort to ensure that the CEEC authorities have sufficient capacity to apply these laws effectively. There is no provision for accepting live animals and animal products on the existing internal market under conditions other than those laid down in current Community regulations.

In the plant health sector (pesticides and pesticide residues), none of the applicant countries has indicated any particular problem in adopting the Community acquis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Substandard European Union publications

An article headlined Full funding forQuick Start Packagein South East Europe published in European Union Newsletter No. 9 (Sarajevo, April 2000 Delegation of the European Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina) makes no reference whatsoever to the Egnatia Highway, an EU-funded development project which will be highly instrumental in bringing the Balkan peninsula out of its isolation and underdevelopment. The map accompanying the article shows the ports of Thessaloniki and Alexandropoulos together with their planned links to the rest of the European network but fails, bizarrely, to show the Egnatia Highway.

Is the Council aware that by publishing such unsatisfactory and absurd reports, its departments responsible for the promotion of EU projects, which further development inside and outside the Union, are essentially undermining the significance of those very projects and the impression they make on European public opinion?

What measures will the Council take to monitor the officials responsible for the above omission to ensure that there is no repetition of such blunders in the future?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member has indicated, the publication to which he draws the Council's attention was published by the European Commission.

While the Council regrets any errors that may slip into publications by European Union institutions and bodies, it cannot adopt a position on a publication of which it is not the author.

In the case in point the question ought to have been put to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1317/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Excessive use of water resources (municipalities of S. Giovanni in Persiceto and Crevalcore)

In the municipalities of S. Giovanni in Persiceto and Crevalcore (province of Bologna, region of Emilia-Romagna, Italy), instances of subsidence have occurred (causing the ground level to sink by about two metres) because of the excessive use of water resources in the area by the Seabo water supply company. As a result, this part of the Bologna plain is becoming one of the most vulnerable areas of the Po Valley as regards flooding, and damage is hence being done both to the economy and to the environment.

Can the Commission therefore state:

- whether in this specific case Community laws on environmental protection and citizens' safety have been breached?

- whether there any Community measures designed to prevent subsidence from occurring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

Existing legislation addresses various aspects of water quality, such as drinking water quality, bathing water quality or performance criteria for waste water treatment plants. There is however no Community water legislation addressing water quantity including abstraction or over-abstraction. The Commission therefore sees at present no legal basis to intervene.

The Parliament and the Council are currently negotiating a water framework directive1. The Parliament finalised its second reading at the February 2000 plenary(1)(2) session. The Parliament/Council conciliation procedure is in progress (the time limit for concluding the procedure is 19 July 2000).

One of the main elements of this directive is the obligation for Member States to maintain or achieve good quality of groundwater. Such good quality will be defined as good chemical status and good quantitative status, good quantitative status being defined as a balance between available groundwater resources and the long-term annual average rate of abstraction. To ensure achieving this objective every abstraction of groundwater (and surface water) will as a rule be subject to a permit. Failure to achieve or maintain such balance between natural recharge and abstraction will, after adoption of this proposal, be an infringement of Community legislation.

(1) Commission Proposals for a Parliament and Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Framework Directive (OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, OJ C 16, 20.1.1998 and OJ C 108, 7.4.1998) Council Common Position of 22.10.1999 (OJ C 343, 30.11.1999).

(2) Opinion of Parliament of 16.2.2000, not yet published in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/00

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Press freedom in Russia

On Thursday 11 May a private media group Media Moss was the target of a large-scale police operation in Moscow involving an independent television channel and a number of newspapers and magazines. A few days later, on 16 May, the Russian Ministry of Information issued warnings to foreign media, even threatening to suspend the activities of those disseminating information hostile to Russian interests (sic). This would appear to be a global campaign against the freedom of journalists.

Freedom of information and the press is a universal principle. Guaranteeing such freedoms is also a fundamental element in the development of a relationship of mutual trust and peace among all countries and peoples, based on fundamental principles of freedom, pluralism, democracy and the rule of law, generally recognised in international conventions and declarations on human rights. Furthermore, the latest threat issued by the Russian Government potentially and directly affects a number of journalists and media from the European Union.

Democracy in Russia is of great importance and value for stability and security in Europe, as well as corresponding to the interests and desires of the Russian people.

The signals being sent by Russia are extremely worrying and contrary to both the consolidation of democracy in Russia and the stability of Europe in its broadest sense.

Can the Commission therefore say whether and to what extent it is monitoring the situation? What other information does it have at its disposal concerning press freedom and democratic guarantees in Russia and is this information reassuring or does it give further cause for concern? What steps has it taken or does it intend to take to tackle this situation in the context of its bilateral relations with Russia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written????? E-1778/00 by Mr Ford(1).

(1) See p. 92.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Bonded labour and forced abductions in Pakistan

Will the Commission provide an update on the location and well-being of the eight former bonded labourers who were forcibly abducted on 4 May 1998 in the Sindh Province of Pakistan, Case Reference No 35, and indicate whether any action has been taken by the Pakistani authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the abduction?

Will the Commission provide an update on the number of people who have been successfully prosecuted in Pakistan under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992?

What is the status of the EU funded project on child bonded labour in Pakistan entitled Combating abusive child labour through prevention, withdrawal and rehabilitation, April 1998?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission has no up-to-date details on the location and well-being of the eight former bonded labourers to whom the Honourable Member refers. The Commission has instructed the delegation of the Commission in Islamabad to follow up this matter with the authorities in Sindh Province. Similarly, the Commission's representative in Pakistan will seek details from the appropriate authorities concerning the number of presentations under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992.

The Community funded pilot project combating abusive child labour through prevention, withdrawal and rehabilitation is currently being implemented. A recent report on visits by a Commission representative to two of these centres, in Multan and Shangla Hill, concluded that: Although there is still a lack of coordination between the different implementing partners, the Community Education and Action (CEA) centres are becoming operational. The Pakistan Federal Secretary of Labour has realised the importance of the project and is putting pressure on the Punjab Provincial Labour Department to ensure the progress of the project. It is important that the children selected are from the most hazardous forms of child labour. The possibility of having a second shift in the schools is being studied.

Pakistan's military-led government approved on 10 May 2000 a policy which envisages the progressive elimination of child labour from all economic sectors. It envisages the phased withdrawal of child labourers from the worst forms of exploitation, prevention of under-aged children entering the labour market, universalisation of primary education, family empowerment and finally the rehabiltation of working children through non-formal education, pre-vocational training and skill development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1594/00

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2000)

Subject: Use of mercury in medical appliances

Community legislation, and more specifically Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices (subsequently amended by Directive 98/79/EC), do not address the issue of the use of mercury in medical appliances.

Given that mercury is a hazardous substance, does the Commission intend to take measures of any kind to regulate its use in appliances such as thermometers and sphygmomanometers, which are used in medical centres, hospitals and elsewhere?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

The main current restrictions on mercury, which are confined to mercury compounds, were introduced by Council Directive 89/677/EE of 21 December 1989 amending, for the eighth time, Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(1). These restrictions do not cover, at the moment, the use of mercury in medical appliances.

However, the Commission is at present examining, through an independent study, the risks to health and the environment of mercury in products, including thermometers. This study will be available at the end of 2000. This could lead to a proposal forseen for 2001, to modify the present rules contained in Directive 76/769/EEC, as far as mercury and mercury compounds are concerned.

(1) OJ L 398, 30.12.1989.