ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Closer cultural and trade links between the EU and China

China's economy grew by 7,9 % in the first half of this year and the growth of Chinese GDP is four times that predicted for the world for this year, indicating that the Asian giant is the only large economy that has so far been able to avoid the slowdown that is affecting the rest of the world. It is followed by India, which grew by 3,8 % in the first quarter of the year and looks set to maintain this growth rate until the end of 2001.

In view of China's forthcoming entry to the World Trade Organisation, scheduled for the next few months, does the Commission intend to promote closer cultural and trade links in an attempt to avoid the significant economic and cultural impact that China's entry could have?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Recent developments both in the Union and China have created a new setting for Union-China relations. China's reform process, its growing economic weight and its impending World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession are all important factors in this context.

The Commission's recent Communication to the Council and the Parliament EU Strategy towards China: Implementation of the 1998 Communication and Future Steps for a more Effective EU Policy(1) examines this new setting. It proposes a series of adjustments to the Union's policy vis-à-vis China, with a view to supporting China's progressive, positive and constructive international engagement in a way which is consistent with its increasing weight in the global arena. This Communication was endorsed by the Council in the General Affairs Council (GAC) Conclusions of 25 June 2001.

In the economic field, the Communication calls for China's further integration into the world economy. It suggests that the Union should promote this objective through a multi-pronged approach which includes a close monitoring of China's implementation of its WTO commitments, but also the strengthening of mechanisms to deal with bilateral trade issues, and the reinforcement and expansion of dialogue or the conclusion of bilateral agreements in a number of key sectors or areas, such as the information society, environment, energy, science and technology, enterprise policy and regulation, maritime transport and customs. The Communication also confirms the Union's readiness to implement assistance programmes which can help to make China's WTO accession, as well as its economic and social reform process, a success.

In addition, the Communication foresees a strengthening of contacts between European and Chinese individuals and businesses, through the fostering of educational exchange programmes and of dialogue between enterprises on both sides.

(1) COM(2001) 265 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Council Presidency meetings with the ERT

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) lobby group states that it meets (or at least tries to meet) the government of every Member State that holds the Council Presidency.

In its answer to my question (H-0894/01(1)), the Belgian Presidency stated that Mr Verhofstadt, the Belgian Prime Minister, had a meeting with the ERT on 20 November 2001.

Can the Council state whether all governments that have held the Council Presidency since 1995 have had meetings with the ERT and, if so, when?

(1) Written answer of 12 December 2001.

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to address his question directly to the Governments of the Member States which assumed the Presidency of the EU Council in previous years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Development of democracy in Belarus

Following the latest presidential election in Belarus, in September 2001, the situation as regards political democracy there can only be described as disastrous. Belarus is the only blank space on the map of Europe where there is, from a formal point of view, no political democracy with free elections, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

How does the Commission assess the situation in Belarus now, and how can the European Union support the development of the opposition's democratic role in forming public opinion in Belarus?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The Commission is deeply concerned by recent developments in Belarus, in particular that the Government of Belarus has shown no inclination to take into account the Union's view on a range of issues affecting democracy and human rights in that country.

The Union is considering how it might play a more effective role in bringing the country out of its self-imposed isolation and encouraging it to meet the standards of behaviour set out notably in the documents of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It will again make clear to the Belarussian authorities that a closer relationship with the Union will require a radical change of policy on their part.

In particular this means that elections are conducted in a way which offers the voters a genuine choice, with opposition parties participating on equal terms; an end to harassment of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), opposition figures and the media, and the release of political detainees. The Commission also continues to support civil society in Belarus through its Tacis programme, and it expects the Union to reiterate to the Belarussian government that restrictions on the operation and funding of NGOs must be removed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Hazardous waste at Krasny Bor in Russia

The hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities at Krasny Bor, some 40 km from St Petersburg and the River Neva, have received US$ 500 000 in Tacis funding towards upgrading. Tacis has been involved with Krasny Bor ever since the early 1990s. In the Commission's view, how successful have efforts been to upgrade the waste disposal and hazardous waste management facilities at Krasny Bor?

Is the Commission monitoring the situation continuously? To what extent is it prepared to continue contributing to the financing of the hazardous waste installation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Following a pre-feasibility study financed by Finland, the Tacis Cross-border Co-operation Programme has funded, between 1998 and 2000, the preparatory phase of the Krasny Bor Toxic Waste Clean-Up Programme. The Tacis project Hazardous Waste Management in St Petersburg ( 1,5 million) has indeed provided assistance to local authorities for the technical, economic and financial evaluation of site rehabilitation and waste disposal. It has also contributed to building environmental awareness and to establish links between potential donors.

Following the Tacis project, the St Petersburg City Administration signed an Agreement for an 6,5 million loan with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in April 2001. In May 2001, the City Administration also signed a Co-ordination Agreement with the EBRD, Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA), Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO), the Finnish Ministry

of Environment and Tacis for supporting grants ( 4,5 million, including 0,6 million from Tacis for technical and institutional assistance). This 11 million programme for the emergency environmental rehabilitation of the Krasny Bor site and for treatment facilities will be implemented in 2001-2004, with the first tranche of the EBRD loan to be disbursed in February 2002.

At this stage, no additional major funding is foreseen by the Commission, which will closely follow the progress of the clean-up programme through its Tacis component. The rehabilitation of Krasny Bor can be considered as an example of successful collaboration between Russian authorities and different donor and financial institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/01

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: European Day against the Death Penalty

The European Union has long been strongly committed to combating the use of the death penalty. This is true of the European Parliament in particular.

With a view to raising public awareness, in its resolution R5-0401/2001 of 5 July 2001 the European Parliament proposed that a European Day against the Death Penalty be introduced as an additional means of applying pressure for the abolition of the death penalty in those countries in which it is still legal.

Provision has also been made in the EU budget for the implementation of campaigns and measures in support of a moratorium on executions.

Would the Commission state what action has been taken on these European Parliament initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission has taken note of the interesting proposal of the Parliament to establish a European Day against the Death Penalty. This proposal has also been taken up by renowned non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the organisation: Together against the Death Penalty. The competence to decide whether such a day should be established, however, lies with the Member States.

As concerns measures in support of a moratorium on executions, a number of projects have been financed under the budget line B7-7, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Below are a few examples of such projects.

A joint programme with the Council of Europe to foster public awareness is under implementation since 1999 (Community-contribution 334 850). This project, that covers Russia, Turkey and Albania, notably provides training for legal professionals and parliamentarians about the impact on the abolition of the death penalty on crime prevention.

A second project covers capital punishment activities to inform and support strategies to establish alternatives to the death penalty. This project is implemented in cooperation with the University of Westminster (Community contribution 675 859).

An additional project provides assistance for prisoners under Sentence of Death in the Caribbean and is implemented in cooperation with Penal Reform International (Community contribution 596 456).

For the future, activities in support of the abolition of the death penalty are among the four thematic priorities that have been identified in the Commission's EIDHR Programming for 2002-2004.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Individual rights in the EU

What is the Commission's current view of the operation of double taxation on a single income in EU Member States (as, for example, operated between Sweden and the United Kingdom)?

In the case of residence in a Member State other than the country of origin, may an individual make a free choice as to the country in which that individual pays his or her taxes?

If not, is this not contrary to the spirit of the founding principles of the European Union which aim to enable EU citizens to seek employment and a home wherever they will in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

In the absence of unifying or harmonising measures in the Community, direct taxation falls essentially within the competence of Member States, subject always to their obligations under the EC Treaty. They have concluded conventions with a view to avoiding double taxation, and in so doing have allocated tax jurisdiction between themselves. The legitimacy of that practice has been recognised by the Court of Justice (Case C-336/96 Gilly [1998] ECR 2793; see in particular paragraph 30).

It follows that an individual having moved residence to another Member State does not have the choice in which Member State to pay his or her taxes. Nor can this lack of choice be considered contrary to the founding principles of the Union. A citizen should not, however, incur any double taxation by virtue of being subject to the tax systems of more than one Member State.

It may be considered that the conclusion of bilateral conventions is an effective method of avoiding double taxation, since it makes it possible to take into account the interaction of the taxation systems of the Member States concerned. Nevertheless, as the Commission recognised in its Communication Towards an Internal Market without tax obstacles of 23 October 2001(1), the current tax treaties of Member States need to be improved in order to comply better with the principles of the Internal Market enshrined in the EC Treaty. This issue is being examined further by the Commission as part of the follow-up to that Communication.

(1) COM(2001) 582 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Diamond trafficking

There are frequent rumours and reports, not all of them confirmed, about the export and fraudulent marketing of diamonds obtained in equatorial Africa, the countries most often mentioned being the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa), Angola and Sierra Leone. The diamonds are allegedly sold on the black market in a number of European countries. According to views expressed by the authorities in the countries mentioned and by some European diplomats with whom the questioner has spoken personally on several occasions, the profits from the sale of diamonds on the black market are sometimes used to fund military and guerrilla activities in the African countries.

What does the Commission know about these alleged activities? What steps have been taken in Europe and the Community to combat these practices?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

During the past few years the evidence of rough diamonds fuelling some of the longest and most cruel conflicts in Africa has become substantial. In these conflicts rebel movements fighting legitimate governments are partly financed by the proceeds from sales of rough diamonds mined in areas controlled by these groups.

The United Nations Security Council has adopted sanctions against the rebel movements in Sierra Leone and Angola and against the Liberian government for their support to the rebels. The sanctions include a prohibition to import rough diamonds from Liberia and from Angola and Sierra Leone, if they are not accompanied by a certificate of origin issued by the respective legitimate governments.

The sanctions have not been able to stop the flow of conflict diamonds into the legitimate trade or to bring the conflicts to a halt.

In order to complement the sanctions regimes, a regime of controls has been discussed within the so called Kimberley Process for about two years. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) asked participants of the Kimberley Process to put forward proposals for a simple and workable international certification scheme for rough diamonds. The purpose of the process is to find ways and means to create a system that would protect the legitimate trade in diamonds against the influx of conflict diamonds.

The Commission has been actively participating in the negotiations on behalf of the Community.

The Kimberley Process has presented a proposal for a Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds to the UNGA at the end of 2001. The UNGA is expected to consider the proposal in March 2002.

Illicit trafficking in diamonds constitutes a serious crime, which can only be addressed effectively through close co-operation at international level. Although no specific law enforcement initiatives have been adopted at Union level against this particular form of crime, considerable recent action and initiatives have focused on combating organised criminal and terrorist activities in general, including their financing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Public relations

Will the Commission indicate what the EU, the governments and their partners are spending on public relations in the candidate countries, and will it also forward copies of all advertisements paid for in the press and copies of all publicity materials broadcast on radio and television?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3014/01(1), in which the Commission informed him of the activities undertaken in the enlargement communication strategy in the candidate countries, and the purposes to which funds were allocated.

As far as the use of radio and TV is concerned, the Commission representatives in the candidate countries and Commission officials visiting the candidate countries appear in the media on a regular basis, given the level of interest in the Union. Much of the content of their appearances is publicity in the broad sense, in as far as they are invited to explain issues related to the Union and the enlargement process. However, the Commission's communication strategy in the candidate countries does not generally use paid advertisements as a way of informing the public.

Many advertisements would have appeared in the press announcing, for example, the holding of a debate or an information event in one of the many hundreds of such instances that there will have been by now in the candidate countries. Some of these may have been paid for indirectly as part of a co-organised information event, for example, by the Commission Delegation and the local mayor.

The Commission is in the process of establishing a register of all physical materials published by the Delegations in the candidate countries as part of their communication strategy. This register will be annexed to a note which the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement will make available to the Parliament in the near future as part of his effort to keep the budgetary authority informed of the way in which the communication strategy is being implemented.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0275/02

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Recognition of a German medical specialist qualification in Corfu, Greece

Following a decision of 13 October 2000 by the Greek Ministry of Health in Athens (No Y9a/6376) the sonography certificate of a fully qualified gynaecologist trained in Germany is not immediately recognised in Greece. The specialist first has to study for a further six months in a clinic before taking another examination. Does this comply with EU directives?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications(1) is based on a minimum harmonisation of the training and on the automatic recognition for professional purposes of the qualifications of doctor listed therein. It concerns General Practitioners as well as those medical specialisations that are incorporated into the directive. Specialisations can be common to all or common to at least two Member States. While the first would give the right to automatic recognition in all Member States, the second gives only the right to automatic recognition in those Member States for which the specialisation in question has been incorporated into the directive.

The specialisation in gynaecology is common to all Member States and is obtained after a minimum length of training of four years.

The German diploma Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe therefore has to be recognised automatically by the Greek authorities, if held by a citizen of a Member State or a citizen of a third country benefiting from the accessory rights under Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(2). Additional examinations before the recognition would be granted, are therefore, contrary to Directive 93/16/EEC.

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Angola

In relation to Angola can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0099/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Regional GDP growth

Will the Commission further calculate for each region over those ten years its dispersion from the mean, placing each region in four quartiles based on how far removed from the mean nominal GDP growth they have been?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0098/02 and E-0099/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The information requested by the Honourable Member can be found in the tables which will be sent to him direct and to Parliament's Secretariat.

His attention is drawn to the following points:

- the calculations have been made on the basis of gross domestic product (GDP) in national currencies ( for EUR 15) in order to avoid changes in growth rates due to variations in exchange rates and regional populations;

- the data have been provided since 1995, as data have been available since then in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community(1). Moreover, data over a longer period would be affected by changes in the regional nomenclature used (NUTS 2);

- all the basic information used for these calculations is available on the site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat, to which the Honourable Member may refer; this database also contains information at a more detailed level (for example, at NUTS 3 level of the regional nomenclature).

The data for 2000 will be available in January 2003.

(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0223/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Barbados

In relation to Barbados can the Commission provide a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget for 2001 and indicate the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Import of horses

Would the Commission state how many live horses were imported by the European Union from the Central and East European countries in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001.

In particular, how many live horses were imported by the European Union in each of the two years from:

1. Poland;

2. Lithuania;

3. Romania?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.