ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1387/01

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Use of EU Institutions' facilities

Could you please advise whether or not you consider it appropriate behaviour for a Principal Administrator at DG Environment to use the facilities of the EU Institutions to promote an e-mail flood to the e-mail address of President George Bush of the USA, to protest against his policy on Kyoto?

Is this not an inappropriate use of the facilities of the EU Institutions, inappropriate behaviour by a civil servant and an affront to a friendly and allied nation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

E-mail is a relatively new tool and no detailed code of conduct for its use within the Commission currently exists although an Internet Charter is being prepared at the moment.

However each member of staff, prior to being given access to the Internet and external e-mail facilities, signs the following agreement: I will use the facilities granted to me essentially for the purposes of my professional duties at the Commission. I will use the Internet for private purposes only in so far as such use does not run counter to the interests of the service or hamper the smooth running of the institution.

In general terms e-mail flooding is not considered acceptable and the incident to which the Honourable Member refers has been investigated accordingly.

The mail originated from Friends of the Earth who sent it to several different members of staff. As far as could be ascertained there was only one Principal Administrator who merely sent it to two external contacts for information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/01

by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Dutch abortion ship

This month a ship with doctors on board is sailing from the Netherlands in the direction of Ireland in order to offer Irish women the opportunity to have abortions. The ship is sailing under a Dutch flag. The abortions will be carried out in international waters.

1. Is the Commission aware of this initiative of a Dutch abortion ship moored off the coast of Ireland?

2. How does this initiative stand in relation to European Community law, relevant case-law and international public law?

3. Does the Commission think that this initiative may have the effect of undermining Irish law because the doctors on the ship intend to circumvent Irish law?

4. Has there been any discussion of this matter in the Commission? If so, what was the outcome? If not, does the Commission intend to discuss the abortion ship initiative in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

From press information the Commission understands that no measures were taken by the Irish authorities to prevent the carrying out of the intended activity from the Dutch ship. The Commission further understands that the Dutch ship has returned to the Netherlands on its own initiative and in these circumstances there is no need for the Commission to address the matter further at this time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Reply to Parliamentary Question to the Commission No E-3400/00 on whether or not French is an official language in Valle d'Aosta

With regard to the reply to the above Parliamentary Question on whether or not French is an official language in Valle d'Aosta, I would like to point out two facts:

- bilingualism in Valle d'Aosta is founded on a constitutional law which is set out in the Special Statute of Autonomy of 1948;

- the Italian Constitutional Court ruled, in judgment No 156 of 11 December 1969, that the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute granted equal status to the French and Italian languages on the basis of the established fact of full bilingualism in the region, and that as a result the equal use of both languages is guaranteed under the constitution, ruling out the description of one or other language as the official one in Valle d'Aosta (in contrast to the situation in the multilingual province of Bolzano, where, under Article 84 of the Statute, Italian is considered the official language).

This implies that for Valle d'Aosta French is an official language. Does the Commission not therefore think that it should reconsider the position expressed in its previous reply?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the legal information about the status of French in Valle d'Aosta and the bilingual status of this Italian region.

As already explained in the answer to question E-3400/00 from the Honourable Member(1), the Hello Europe CD-ROM is designed to give an initial presentation of the Member States that make up the Union.

The presentations of each Member State contain a brief message in the official language(s) of the Member State. The languages were chosen on the basis of their status of official language at Member State level. For example, in Finland, Swedish and Finnish are the two official languages of the Republic, and the CD-ROM includes an oral presentation in these two languages. In Spain, while the languages of the Autonomous Communities are also official languages, Spanish is the official language of the Member State, and the oral presentation is conducted only in Spanish, while mentioning the official languages of the Autonomous Communities.

In the case of Italy, the official language of the Italian Republic is Italian, as stated in Article 1 of Law No 482 of 15 December 1999 on the historical linguistic minorities. The presentation of the CD-ROM is therefore in Italian and only mentions this language at national level. However, the linguistic diversity of Italy is described in the section of the CD-ROM dealing with the population, which includes the following description: The official language is Italian, but German is spoken in South Tyrol, French in Valle d'Aosta, Slovene in Trieste and Gorizia, and LadinS in several valleys of South Tyrol. In all, 12 languages are spoken in Italy.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 157.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Armin Laschet (PPE-DE), Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Restoration of international rail freight transport on the historical route of the Ijzeren Rijn line

1. When the possible reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line is discussed, the Treaty of 1839 between the Netherlands and Belgium is often cited, which provides for the right of free transit. What is the relationship between the provisions of this Treaty and the relevant European legislation?

2. Would reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line require an environmental impact assessment, despite the fact that the line already exists?

3. The line runs through areas which are protected pursuant to the Wild Birds and Habitat Directives. What are the consequences of this?

4. What is the Commission's view of the existing line between Antwerp and the Ruhr (the stations Aachen West-Montzen and a new line via Venlo) as an alternative to reopening the Ijzeren Rijn line?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

In its answers to Written Questions E-2381/99(1) and E-0525/00 by Mr Staes(2), the Commission pointed out that the treaty on Belgian-Dutch secession of 19 April 1839, and the resultant treaties are bilateral agreements concluded between two Member States and do not impinge upon Community law where they are not in breach of the treaties on European Union.

As regards the possible revival of the Iron Rhine, the Commission feels that an environmental impact assessment must be carried out, as stated in paragraph 3 on the Answer Given to Written Question E-2381/99 pointing out that the Commission does not have to tell the Dutch Government to meet an obligation falling upon it under a non-Community treaty. The Dutch Government stated that Articles 6(3) and 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3) should be applied since the former railway line crosses a special conservation area as defined by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(4). This means that all of the special provisions of those articles must be complied with. Thus Article 6(4) stipulates that no plan or project can be carried through unless there is no other option. That provision thus enables a route other than the Rhine rail link to be adopted.

The matter of the existing link between Antwerp and Ruhr region in place of the Iron Rhine could not be considered until the parties concerned have drawn up their cost/benefit analysis which takes account of the environmental impact and of the relevant Community law.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.

(2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1149/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Funding costs of German banks

Will the Commission estimate, for any reasonable period, the funding costs in both the money market and in the capital markets of the German Landesbanks compared with the funding costs of the largest three privately-owned banks in Germany?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The Commission is currently examining the system of state guarantees for German public law credit institutions (Anstaltslast and Gewährträgerhaftung) under the state aid rules of the EC Treaty. To the extent necessary for correctly applying these rules the Commission will assess the advantages deriving from these guarantees for the credit institutions in question. However, it cannot be said at the current stage whether the investigation will require the Commission to estimate the actual funding costs of the credit institutions in question and compare them with those of the largest three privately-owned banks in Germany.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2087/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: European Commission office in occupied Cyprus

Will the Commission state whether it intends to open an office in the occupied part of Cyprus, and, if so, what will be the intended purpose of this office, where is it hoped it will be located, what budget will be allocated towards its operation, how many staff will it employ, who will manage it, and who will be this person's line-manager?

If it is the intention of the Commission to open such an office, what has been the reaction of the Government of Cyprus and of the authorities in occupied Cyprus to the proposal?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has a Delegation in Nicosia and has no intention of opening another representation in Cyprus.

As part of the Commission's efforts to inform the Turkish Cypriot community about the Union, the acquis and the benefits of membership, the Commission is planning to recruit a Turkish Cypriot local agent, who will be based in the Delegation in Nicosia under the management of the Head of Delegation.

The Commission is also examining with representatives of the business community, ways and means to improve the flow of information concerning the Union in the north.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus supports these initiatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2170/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Ban on Kinder Eggs

Kinder Eggs have been a controversial product and have caused several serious accidents as result of children swallowing the plastic toys they contain.

Portugal last year passed legislation prohibiting Kinder Eggs after a number of children were hurt. Sweden's National Consumer Protection Agency has also proposed that they be prohibited.

Can a Member State ban Kinder Eggs whilst they are still permitted in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Concerning the potential risks of the products in question, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission replies to Written Questions E-2479/97 by Mr Whitehead(1), E-3085/97 by Mr Apolinário(2), E-3813-97 by Mr Graenitz(3), E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira da Silva(4), E-2631/00 by Mrs Damião(7) and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(8), and to the result of Petition No 280/99 on the subject of toys contained in foodstuff.

The products in question are not specifically covered by Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the safety of toys(5), although Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on General Product Safety(6) is applicable in relation to possible risks.

According to the case law of the Court of Justice, in the absence of harmonisation of legislation, national measures restricting the imports of certain products, including also those applying to all products without distinction, are prohibited by article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty unless they can be justified by a public-interest objective taking precedence over the free movement of goods and are proportionate to that objective. This implies that the principle of mutual recognition must be complied with.

Any measures related to the products in question should therefore be examined in the light of the assessment of the risks posed and the principles mentioned above.

As legislation passed last year in Portugal failed to comply with the principle of mutual recognition, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against that Member State. As a result, Portugal is not enforcing that legislation and has notified draft legislation intended to put it in line with Community law. The Commission, which has also had the occasion to examine similar measures proposed by Greece, has considered, on the basis of the justifications presented to it, that they were not proportional to the declared objectives.

(1) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998.

(2) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998.

(3) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998.

(4) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(5) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(6) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(7) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(8) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: EU-Albania Association Agreement

The Commission has adopted a report on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EU and Albania, which is to be submitted to the Council for approval. In order to have a positive effect on stability and peace in the country and the region, an Association Agreement with Albania must place emphasis on democratisation and security in Albania and ensure that the rights of its minority communities are protected.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. what guarantees the Albanian Government has provided to ensure that there is no repetition of events adversely affecting the Greek minority such as those which occurred during last year's local elections (which were pointed out by international organisations and independent observers)), and

2. what measures Albania has committed itself to in order to ensure that the minority community can pursue education without hindrance?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The future Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the Union and Albania will place emphasis on essential political criteria such as democracy, rule of law, human rights and the protection of minority rights.

The Albanian Government has committed itself to take all possible steps to try to prevent a repeat of events such as those experienced in certain areas with strong Greek minority presence during the local elections of October 2000. The fact that the first round of the Albanian Parliamentary elections on 24 June 2001 has taken place without particular incidents in these areas is a positive sign.

The Commission understands that Albania has already taken steps to make it possible for members of the national minorities to receive education in their mother tongue within the so-called minority zones. During discussions in the framework of the Union/Albania High Level Steering Group in May 2001, the Albanian Government stressed its intention gradually to complete the legal framework for minority protection and to abolish the concept of minority zones. These steps will certainly help enhance the education possibilities for national minorities in Albania. The Commission will closely follow developments in this sensitive field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2124/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Transposition of transport legislation

According to data published by the Commission in May 2001, 30 % of Community transport legislation has not been transposed into the legislation of all the Member States. Will the Commission say which specific transport policy directives are being violated by Greece and what measures it intends to take to ensure the implementation of Community legislation in such a dynamic but sensitive sector?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The fragmentation factor, or the percentage of directives for which not all Member States have notified national transposition measures to the Commission yet, is indeed still very high in the transport sector (30 % in May 2001). However, the transposition rate in that sector, or the ratio of national measures Member States have notified to Commission as transposed to the number to be transposed) has improved slightly, from 88,5 % on 31 December 2000 to 94 % on 1 July 2001.

The transposition of directives continues to be a problem in some Member States, for example in the case of maritime transport in the Netherlands (81 %) and inland transport in Greece (80 %).

Greece's transposition backlog is one of the worst, with only 86 % of all transport directives transposed by 1 July 2001. The Commission has accordingly been obliged to institute numerous infringement procedures (21) against Greece for failure to notify national transposition measures. Ten of these procedures are still in progress: it has been decided to bring seven of them before the Court of Justice and to deliver a reasoned opinion on three of them. The problems basically concern the inland transport sector, in particular the directives on the transport of dangerous goods.

The Commission regularly monitors the progress Member States are making in transposing directives and it is planned to hold a special meeting on the transposition of directives with the Greek authorities before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2311/01

by Michael Cashman (PSE) and Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Legalised discrimination against foreigners

Two British tourists were recently denied discount theatre tickets for the elderly in Madeira, Portugal, because they were not Portuguese, although they carried proof of their eligible ages. In light of this, can the Commission investigate and comment on legalised discrimination against foreigners in any of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

The Honourable Members' have asked a question about the different prices of theatre tickets for the elderly which are applied according to the nationality of the buyer in Madeira, Portugal.

In order to be able to fully analyse the issue raised and draw conclusions, the Commission would need to receive further information either directly from the persons concerned or through the Honourable Members. In particular, the Commission would be interested to know more about the theatre in question, whether the differences concerning the rules on admission to the theatre are based on a measure emanating from the Member State in question or are somehow otherwise attributable to the public authorities or are purely as a result of the practise of a private undertaking.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2061/01

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Lack of competition in Portugal

In Portugal, credit card payments made outwith the country are surcharged at 1,7 %.

How does the Commission intend to solve the problem of the lack of competition in the banking system and of properly transparent information?

How is it possible to charge a percentage on payments in euro zone countries, when there is now a single currency?

This situation has obtained since 1999. How is the Commission going to resolve it by 1 January 2002?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The problem raised by this question could be resolved when the proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation on cross-border payments in euros, which the Commission tabled on 25 July 2001, is adopted and comes into effect.

The Regulation would establish the principle of equal charges for domestic and cross-border payments in euros: each bank would set a single charge for the euro payments area. This principle would apply from 1 January 2002 for both card payments and withdrawals at cash dispensers. If that target date is to be met, Parliament and the Council must swiftly reach agreement so that the text can be adopted before the end of this year.

On the lack of competition alleged by the Honourable Member, it should be pointed out that charging commission on transactions does not in itself constitute a restriction of competition. The Commission is not aware of the existence of any anti-competitive agreements between Portuguese banks on the fees charged to consumers for the cross-border use of cards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/01

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

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Punishment of the authors of the Rwanda genocide

Those responsible for the extermination of 800 000 Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 are still walking free, while the international community remains indifferent to the massacres which raged over a hundred days in that African country.

The Rwandan government is continuing to press for the arrest of the ringleaders of the massacre and of the hundreds of criminals who concocted and implemented the plan to eliminate the Tutsi community from the face of the earth.

Can the Council state what action the EU is currently taking to ensure that the authors of these brutal crimes are arrested, put on trial and sentenced for the worst act of genocide suffered by humanity since the Nazi era?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council shares the opinion of the Honourable Parliamentarian that those responsible for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 should be brought to trial. Already in 1994 the Council adopted a Common Position on the objectives and priorities of the EU vis-à-vis Rwanda(1), where it stressed the importance of bringing to justice those responsible for the grave violations of humanitarian law, including genocide. In this respect the EU considered the establishment of an international tribunal as an essential element to stop a tradition of impunity and to prevent future violations of human rights. This is still the opinion of the EU and even though the actual arresting, judging and sentencing of those responsible does not fall within the competencies of the Council, the EU Member States and the Community have supported the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda set up by the UN in November 1994.

(1) OJ L 283, 29.10.1994.