ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: US study on solicitation of children on the Internet

Will the Council be taking any action to examine the recent findings of US studies which showed that one in five children who go online regularly have been approached by strangers for sex at least once in the past year. The studies indicate that neither the presence of Internet filters nor parental monitoring of children's Internet use decreased the likelihood that a child would be sexually solicited by a stranger online. Because of the global spread of the Internet it is unlikely that these trends are isolated to the United States. Does the Council therefore intend to complete similar European research to build upon the American results? Furthermore, does the Council see that such studies raise the need for further European-wide action in this area that builds upon the STOP and Daphne programmes and the recently adopted initiative of the Swedish Presidency on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography? If so, what future action is planned?

The main study to which I refer is Kimberly J. Mitchell, PhD; David Finkelhor, PhD; Janis Wolak, JD, Risk Factors for and Impact of Online Sexual Solicitation of Youth. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 285, No 23, June 20, 2001.

There is also a similar report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. This is due for full publication very soon.

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council views with concern abuse in the use of the internet, particularly where children are concerned. The Community is already active in the area of the protection of minors in audiovisual and information services as indicated by the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services(1) which is itself closely connected with the multiannual Community action plan for promoting safer use of the internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks(2). The latter followed on from the Commission's communication on illegal harmful content on the internet.

As far as the recommendation is concerned, which is in fact the first Community legal instrument in this area, it should also be noted that the Commission has published an evaluation report on its application (27 February 2001) and that the Council adopted, on 26 June 2001, conclusions(3) on that evaluation in which it invites the Member States and the Commission to pursue work, in their appropriate spheres of competence, in the context of the recommendation.

In this connection the Council would point out that as the current STOP II programme, adopted on 28 June 2001, runs until the end of 2002, and the Daphne programme, adopted on 24 January 2000, runs until the end of 2003, it is too early to comment on possible follow-up to these programmes.

(1) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(2) OJ L 33, 6.2.1999.

(3) OJ C 213, 31.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 25/26 June 2001

Will the Commission state whether any votes were taken in the General Affairs Council on 25/26 June 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2620/01, E-2622/01, E-2624/01, E-2626/01 and E-2628/01given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that, under Article 9 of its Rules of Procedure, it is for the Council to make public the results of votes and explanations of votes by its Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2320/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: GMOs

European legislation on the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is highly inadequate. Knowledge of the implications of these production methods is still very limited and imprecise and does not take proper account of the precautionary principle. Full product labelling is necessary if consumers are to be able to avoid GMO products. How are the present labelling rules to ensure that consumers are able to make an informed and genuine choice regarding GMO products both goods produced in the EU and goods imported from the USA, for example. Furthermore, how will the forthcoming new labelling rules for GMO products ensure that consumers are given real choice in respect of products consisting of, containing or produced using GMOs, e.g. by the use of GM feedingstuffs? Will the new labelling rules cover both goods produced in the EU and goods imported from the USA, for example?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, on 25 July 2001, it adopted a proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed(1). The Proposal includes provisions for the mandatory labelling of all food and feed consisting of, containing or produced from genetically modified organisms. These labelling requirements apply to both food and feed produced within the Community as well as food and feed imported from third countries. Products such as meat, eggs and milk from animals fed on genetically modified feed are not covered by the proposal due to the fact that such products are not directly derived from genetically modified organisms.

(1) COM(2001) 425 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Illegal fishing in Mauritania's EEZ

I recently returned from a visit to Mauritania, where I met the country's Minister for Fisheries. Mr Zamel complained bitterly that 30 to 40 boats regularly operate illegally inside the country's exclusive economic zone. These vessels, most of which are from Asian countries, apparently use the Spanish port of Las Palmas as a base, even to unload fish illegally caught in Mauritanian waters. These illegal fishermen would therefore seem to be competing unfairly with European fishermen, who operate in the Mauritanian EEZ within the framework of the existing fishery agreement.

Can the Council confirm this information received in Mauritania? What steps does it intend to take to stop this illegal trade and hence contribute to sustainable protection of Mauritania's fishery resources?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

The Council is fully aware of the problem of illegal fishing in general and of that in the Mauritanian exclusive economic zone in particular, and shares the Honourable Member's concerns on this issue.

Combating illegal fishing is a matter of constant concern to the Council, which actively supports the initiatives taken in this area by international bodies and the various regional fisheries organisations.

In this context, it is worth bearing in mind the forthcoming adoption by the FAO Council of the international action plan to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in the preparation of which the Community played an active role. This action plan also contains a chapter on measures which are the responsibility of port States to prevent the landing of illegally caught fish.

With specific regard to Mauritania, the Community has just begun negotiations with this country aimed at renewing the current fisheries protocol which is due to expire on 31 July 2001.

As with the fisheries protocols recently concluded between the Community and other third countries, the Community will endeavour, in line with the Council conclusions of 30 October 1997 on European Community Fisheries Agreements with Third Countries, to persuade the Mauritanian authorities to devote a significant amount of the financial compensation received to measures enabling it to strengthen its monitoring and control facilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Proposal for an EU-wide police force and border protection service.



Official Journal 081 E , 04/04/2002 P. 0039 - 0039



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (1 June 2001) Subject: Proposal for an EU-wide police force and border protection service Recently German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called for Europe to upgrade to an FBI-style unit to prevent international criminals from exploiting a border-free Europe. Will this issue be on the agenda of the forthcoming JHA Council? If not, when is it expected to be addressed? Reply (21 November 2001) No formal initiatives or proposals for an EU-wide police force and border protection services has been introduced in the Council framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/01

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 September 2001)

Subject: Contribution of tourism to employment and growth

On 21 June 1999 the Internal Market Council called on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate closely in order to maximise the potential contribution of tourism to growth and employment taking particular account of the contribution of SMEs, which make up the majority of this economic sector.

Four objectives were set, as follows:

- facilitating the exchange and dissemination of information, notably through new technologies;

- improving training in order to upgrade skills in the tourism industry;

- improving the quality of tourist products;

- promoting environmental protection and sustainable development in tourism.

Could the Commission say what progress it has made in achieving these objectives since the publication of its progress report on the subject in September 2000?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The working parties referred to in the Commission's progress report(1) submitted their final reports in July 2001.

The Ministerial Seminar organised by the Belgian Presidency in June 2001 in Bruges enabled representatives of the Member States and the Commission to hold an initial discussion on the results of these working parties. In November 2001, the Commission intends to adopt and send to the other Institutions a communication on tourism policy which will set out, on the basis of this work, an operational framework for coordinating the various parties involved in tourism and a limited series of measures and actions which they should put in place.

The Member of the Commission for the Information Society, Enterprise and Tourism gave a speech to Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on 9 October, in which he presented the broad lines of the communication being prepared.

(1) COM(2000) 696 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/01

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 August 2001)

Subject: Events in Genoa between 19 and 23 July 2001 infringements by the Italian Government of Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union

The convincing television and video documentation, published by the international press and confirmed by thousands of eye-witness accounts given by those taking part in the demonstrations accompanying the G8 summit in Genoa, is evidence of large-scale, repeated and continual violations of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law perpetrated by the police forces and the Italian Government in the Ligurian capital between 19 and 23 July this year.

These violations, which culminated in the killing of a demonstrator, beatings and serious injuries suffered by hundreds of Italian nationals and foreigners who were detained, the denial of their right to legal assistance and the disappearance of some of them, which has not yet been explained by the local or national authorities, are now the subject of protests and requests for clarification by the other governments of the European Union and inquiries launched by the Italian judiciary, but are being denied by the Government, which has defended the behaviour of the police, accepting responsibility for this behaviour itself and, because of its majority in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, has rejected requests for a parliamentary inquiry.

1. Does the Council not consider that it must recognise that the Italian Government has committed a serious and persistent breach of the principles set out in Article 6(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union concerning respect for fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and sanctioned by the constitutional traditions shared by the Member States as general principles of Community law?

2. Does the Council not consider that, after ascertaining the facts, it should initiate the procedures provided for in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, with a view to deciding, by a qualified majority, whether to suspend some of the rights of the Member State responsible for infringements of the Treaty?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2379/01 and E-2454/01

(6 December 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the responsibility for maintaining law and order and safeguarding the internal security of the Member States of the Union rests with the authorities of each Member State. It is not for the Council to comment on an issue which does not fall within its sphere of competence.

The Council does not envisage any discussion of the other matters raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2138/01

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

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Global fund against Aids

Is the Council planning to lend political and economic support to the global fund against Aids which has been set up on the initiative of the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and to encourage all the EU Member States to support it too?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2138/01 and E-2140/01

(29 November 2001)

The Council has repeated on numerous occasions its grave concern about the situation created by the spread of communicable diseases in particular in developing countries, and most notably in sub-Saharan Africa.

The principal aim of Community development policy is to reduce poverty with a view to its eventual eradication. The Council considers that accelerated action by donors to combat communicable diseases, particularly AIDS/HIV, malaria and tuberculosis is essential in view of the devastating impact these diseases can have on efforts to reduce poverty.

The Council, therefore, warmly welcomes the Commission communication on a Programme for Action on accelerated measures to fight communicable diseases. This programme, it believes, provides an ambitious, timely and appropriate framework for priority action by the Community and the Member States over the next five years.

The lack of affordable pharmaceuticals is a serious problem in many developing countries and especially for the poorest people. The Council, therefore, agrees with the Commission that there should be a much broader application of effective global tiered pricing for the benefit of affected developing countries. At the same time, the Council is aware of the danger of diversion of low-priced pharmaceuticals destined for specific markets and price erosion in the markets of developed countries.

It is important to strengthen and increase financial support for research and development. In this context there is a need to reinforce capacity in developing countries and to provide incentives for the development of new treatments and vaccines.

Regarding the proposal for a Global Health Fund, the Council has fully welcomed the proposal made by the UN Secretary-General. The Fund was set up at the G8 economic summit in Genoa in cooperation with the UN Secretary-General.

It agrees with the Commission that the Fund should tackle the three major communicable diseases: HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and considers there should be equitable burden sharing between OECD countries and between the public and private sectors. Finance should be used to support partner countries' own health strategies including prevention, access to care and treatment, as well as capacity-strengthening actions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2722/01

by Yves Butel (EDD) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 Habitats Directive France rescission by court decision of the forwarding of lists of areas in France impact on biogeographical seminars

In France, the Council of State rescinded by a judgment of 27 September 1999 (case No 194648) the first notification decisions by means of which the Minister of the Environment had forwarded to the Commission lists relating to 534 areas eligible for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network (decisions of 16 October, 3 December and 9 December 1997).

The Council of State has just, for the second time, penalised the Minister of Regional Development and the Environment, by judgment of 22 June 2001 (case No 219995) because, despite his claims, he was unable to prove that he had genuinely completed the whole of the consultation procedure required by French law before information is forwarded to the European authorities.

The fresh decisions to forward information to the Commission have thus again been rescinded in the case of the 534 areas in question.

The Minister of Regional Development and the Environment is now compelled to restart the local consultation procedure from the very beginning before again forwarding any information about the main areas in France.

What action will the Commission take in response to this decision by the French supreme court as regards the progress of the European procedure, particularly the holding and conclusions of biogeographical seminars?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2001)

According to information sent to the Commission, the Council of State's judgment of 27 September 1999 rescinded the notification of 534 sites proposed to the Commission for the Natura 2000 network by the French authorities, on the grounds that the statutory consultation procedure had not been followed properly. As yet, the Commission has received no official communication from the French authorities regarding the situation.

At this stage, it would seem necessary to await the outcome of the new round of consultation on the list of sites before commenting on the consequences of the Council of State's decision, particularly for the holding and conclusions of biogeographical seminars.

Any substantial withdrawal of sites proposed by a Member State for the Natura 2000 network must be justified in terms both of the eligibility of those sites according to the scientific criteria of Annex III to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). and of an analysis of the representation of the habitat types and habitats of species of Community interest found in the sites. Should such withdrawal result in any habitat types or habitats of a species of Community interest being insufficiently represented, the Member State will have to propose new sites to make good the shortfalls revealed at the biogeographical seminars.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2051/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Loans to immigrants for business activity

There is experience in the Member States of providing special forms of loan to promote business activity by women. These have, obviously, been aimed only at women and have fostered greater enterprise among them.

Do similar loan schemes exist in the Member States for business activity by immigrants?

If they do, what effect have they had on immigrants' social situation and in helping them to put down roots in their new environment?

If such schemes do not exist, would it be possible to launch a common EU project to introduce them in the Member States?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2051/01 and E-2053/01

(27 November 2001)

The Council does not have information on programmes introduced in the Member States to promote the integration of immigrants into society. The adoption and implementation of national programmes aimed at the integration of immigrants falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1876/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (the United Kingdom)

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 the United Kingdom have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom 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?

Supplementary joint answerto 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 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>