ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3402/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Total Information Awareness

According to some articles that have appeared in the press, the United States Government approved last February a USD 200 million budget to develop two new offices: the Information Exploitation Office and the Information Awareness Office. The latter is notably building a programme called Total Information Awareness (TIA), whose aim is the collection, integration and treatment of any kind of information in order to detect suspect individual behaviours and identify potential terrorists. Some of the planned activities of TIA are the development of the Genoa I software for the clandestine exploration of all electronic databases and other forms of data-mining and information collection at international level.

Given the global nature of electronic communications, the system would have immediate implications for and be effective on communications even between EU citizens.

Can the Commission ask the US Government for confirmation of this information? If this information is confirmed, does the Commission not think that the planned activities of TIA would be in breach of EU directives on data protection, and of other relevant treaties between the EU, its Member States and the US? What measures will the Commission take in order to have EU law and European citizens' rights and freedoms fully respected?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of a programme called Total Information Awareness (TIA) managed by the Information Awareness Office of the American Department of Defence's Research and Development (R & D) agency Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

According to publicly available information, the TIA programme would focus on the development of architectures for a large-scale counter-terrorism database, building on existing sources and new sources to be created, as well as on new tools for processing information for subsequent inclusion and analysis which would enable actionable intelligence. The goal would be to improve the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists and their plans and thereby enable the United States to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts. The Commission has no specific contacts with American authorities on this programme. Operational use of the prototypes developed under this programme could imply cooperation with authorities outside the United States. Where applicable, Community law, including privacy rules, must be fully respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1751/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: European Central Bank employees

The leading trade union at the ECB considers that the social rights of the employees of that institution are being violated because they neither enjoy the rights arising from the Staff Regulations nor benefit from German labour law, which should apply by default since the seat of the ECB is in Frankfurt. The ECB argues that its independence recognised in the Treaty allows it to pursue an autonomous personnel policy.

Does the Commission consider that the independence of the ECB justifies the current situation of that institution's employees?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The European Central Bank (ECB) has been established under Article 8 of the EC-Treaty. It acts within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the EC-Treaty and by the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) Statute.

In particular, Article 36 (1) of the ESCB Statute stipulates that the Governing Council of the ECB lays down the conditions of employment of the staff of the ECB and Article 36(2) stipulates the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in any dispute between the ECB and its servants. This Article constitutes the parallel to Articles 283 and 236 of the EC-Treaty, which are applicable to the officials of the Community. In addition, the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities states, in its Article 23, that it shall apply also to the ECB, the members of its organs and to its staff in the same ways as it applies to the officials of the Community.

In this situation, the question of a possible applicability of the labour law of the Host State to employment conditions at the ECB does not arise. For reasons of transparency, the non-applicability of German labour law has been recalled in Article 15 of the Headquarters Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the ECB.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3702/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Suriname

With regard to Suriname, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 September 2002)

Subject: International Criminal Court

Following the USA's refusal on 1 July to ratify the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it has signed a bilateral agreement with Romania concerning exemption for Americans from the ICC. Given that Romania is applying for membership of the EU, and in view of the USA's clear intention to sign bilateral agreements of the same nature with other applicant countries, could the Commission say whether it intends, in addition to expressing its displeasure, to take additional measures with regard both to the USA and the various pre-accession countries in order to prevent the institution of the International Criminal Court being undermined from the very outset?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

It is correct that since last summer, the United States has approached a number of countries, including Member States and candidate countries, with a view to negotiating bilateral agreements on non-surrender of nationals of the other party to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Commission attaches great importance to preserving the full integrity of the Rome Statute and has taken part in the discussions aiming at a common European Union line on this issue. A common line was adopted by the Council on 30 September 2002 by way of conclusions and guiding principles which provide a common basis for Member States to respond constructively to the US without undermining the integrity of the Rome Statute or the good functioning of the ICC. The Commission concluded in its 2002 Regular Report on Romania(1) that the bilateral Agreement with the US to which the Honourable Member refers does not comply with these guiding principles.

Since then, the EU has sought to ensure the coherence of policies on the ICC taken by the Member States and by candidate countries. In particular, the Presidency has been active in informing candidates and associated countries about the Council conclusions and guiding Principles.

(1) COM(2002) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3919/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: European satellite agency

At a meeting between the President of the Lazio Region, Francesco Storace, and the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in Brussels a few days Rome was once again put forward as a candidate for the seat of the European satellite agency.

Mr Prodi stressed that the criterion of unanimity risked paralysing the process of choosing the location of agencies, including the food and satellite agencies, and emphasised that despite the complexity of the situation the Commission would make every endeavour to reach a decision.

Although these statements were very general and wide-ranging they reveal some sort of commitment on the part of the Commission and suggest that the issue is on the way to being settled.

However, this conclusion is not confirmed by the answer to Question P-1940/02(1) of 26 June 2002, given by Mrs Palacio on behalf of the Commission. To the questions concerning the desirability of making Rome the seat of the future satellite agency Mrs Palacio replied no decision has been taken as to the possible setting-up of a European multimodal satellite navigation agency. Consequently, its location, resources and the number of people which it would employ are of course unknown.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. how the Galileo programme will be developed;

2. how the two contradictory statements are to be interpreted;

3. what the Commission's position is on the subject?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 249.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

During its development phase, which will last until 2005, the Galileo satellite radionavigation programme will be run by the Galileo Joint Undertaking, whose statutes, adopted by the Council in May 2002, locate its seat in Brussels.

Once the joint undertaking is dissolved, the private entity holding the Galileo concession will take over responsibility for the system's deployment and operational phases. It will be for that entity to decide, according to its own criteria (efficiency, cost, etc.) where to set up its company head office and operations centre(s).

During the second half of 2003, the Commission will be sending the Council and Parliament a proposal for the establishment of a public structure, whose seat has of course yet to be determined, to be the granting authority in respect of the concession holder.

In view of the foregoing, and given that no proposal or decision exists regarding the creation of a multimodal satellite navigation centre, the statements by the Commission President and the answer by the Commission Vice-President responsible for transport and energy, to which the Honourable Member refers, are in no way contradictory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Sudan

With reference to Sudan, will the Commission specify the projects which were financed out of the EU budget in 2000?

Will the Commission state the total amount of aid allocated in 2000 to all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3689/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: São Tomé and Príncipe

With regard to São Tomé and Príncipe, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3519/02

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Statute and financing of European political parties

Since the European Parliament opinion of 17 May 2001, the Council regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties has been the subject of a so far fruitless discussion in the Council of Ministers. On account of criticism from the European Court of Auditors, this regulation is intended to be a transitional measure until the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, which establishes an autonomous legal basis.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. After the positive result of the referendum in Ireland, it is expected that the Treaty of Nice will shortly enter into force. Will the Commission then submit a new proposal on the statute and financing of European political parties?

2. A new proposal with the legal basis established by the Treaty of Nice will be debated with the European Parliament in accordance with the codecision procedure. How does the Commission intend to come to a workable solution for this transitional period that also stands up to criticism from the Court of Auditors?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

As promised by the President of the Commission during the debate in Parliament on the Commission's work and legislative programme for 2003, the Commission intends to make a new proposal based on article 191 of the EC Treaty once the Nice Treaty is in force on 1 February 2003. The Commission is planning to adopt its proposal during the month of February 2003.

Article 191 as amended at Nice now offers a solid and uncontestable legal base for community legislation on European political parties and their financing.

The new proposal will replace the transitional proposal made in 2001 and never adopted by Council. It will lay down rules on the obligations of recipients of community funding in terms of respect for democracy and fundamental freedoms, minimum representativity and financial transparency and accountability.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3498/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: EC Petition 566/2000

In April 2001 the Petitions Committee asked the Commission to state the grounds used in 1992/1993 to decide why trade between Member States was not affected, after previously saying that it was. This request was repeated in Parliament on 21 February this year. The answer has still not been received, and should be given forthwith.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the only position it has expressed when it was examining the case which is the subject of the petition in question is the one set out in a letter of 5 February 1993 from the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition for the attention of the petitioner. This letter was sent as part of the formal procedure to be followed by the Commission when it intends to reject a complaint.

In the letter the Directorate-General indicated the evidence shows that the trade affected by the behaviour you have complained of is direct trade between Norway and the United Kingdom. While this does not mean that the behaviour complained of cannot have an effect on trade between Member States, there is no evidence in this case of any appreciable effect on such trade.

The Commission understands that the petitioner is of the view that a different opinion was conveyed to him at a meeting in 1989. However, even if this was so and the Commission is not in a position to either reject or confirm this contention such statement would not have expressed the position of the Commission but only the preliminary view of the case handler at a moment in time when the official in question was not in possession of all factual and legal elements necessary for the assessment of the case.

It should be noted that the petitioner did not contest the said letter from the Director General and thus opted not to request a formal Commission Decision that could have been challenged before the Court of First Instance.

The Commission, furthermore, wants to stress that when the European Ombudsman was looking into the Commission's handling of the complaint in question, he specifically examined the Commission's conclusion as to the issue of trade between Member States and also found no instance of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.

All the above information has been set out in the Commission's different written communications of 6 February 2001, 12 September 2001 and 19 March 2002 to the Committee on Petitions of the Parliament, and in its oral statement at the meeting of this committee on 21 March 2002 in reply to the requests made by the Committee following its meeting on 21 February 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3775/02

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Common agricultural policy

On 11 October 1999, in my Written Question E-1766/99(1), I asked the Commission for information concerning the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The Commission's reply of 16 December 1999 failed to supply some of the information requested.

In order to be able to perform my duties as an MEP I require the following information to be made available to me:

- the total amount of money spent each year by the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100 largest beneficiaries in each Member State;

- the percentage of total EAGGF Guarantee Section spending received by each Member State and assigned to those 100 largest beneficiaries.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 14.

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

On 1 October 2002, the Commission has transmitted indicative figures on the distribution of direct farm aid payments by size-class of aid received for the financial year 2000 to the Budgetary Committee, the Budget Committee and the Agriculture Committee of the Parliament. The figures have been derived from the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF) payments data received from the Member States. While in general data quality is adequate for use in the clearance of accounts activity, care must currently be exercised over use of the data for other, analytical purposes. Not all Member States

currently employ a system for unique identifiers for all beneficiaries. Therefore, at present, the totals by beneficiary may be inaccurate, which is leading to indicative and not totally precise figures.

Based upon this information, the table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat gives an overview, per Member State, of the total direct payments paid in the financial year 2000, the total amount paid to the 100 largest beneficiaries of direct payments, and the relative percentage of the latter. Please note that certain beneficiaries in the list of the 100 largest beneficiaries per Member State might be producer organisations. Greece did not provide detailed information for all direct payment measures. Therefore, no statistics are available for this Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3913/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE),Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE)and Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Access to the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers denied to representatives of Galicia, the Basque Country and Andalusia

Before the Council of Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries met in Brussels from 16 to 19 December 2002 the delegations from Galicia, the Basque Country and Andalusia asked Spain's Permanent Representation to the European Union for a special pass for their fisheries experts, giving them access to the Council's press room, to allow them to obtain information directly, like the equivalent representatives from other countries directly affected by the issues dealt with on the agenda of that particular Council meeting. The three delegations were not even asking for access to the Council meeting itself, but merely to the public room where press agencies and journalists receive information directly.

Can the Council comment on the attitude of the Spanish Government, which denied the regional representatives of the Autonomous Regions of Galicia, the Basque Country and Andalucia access to the Council's press room?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council has no knowledge of the events referred to by the Honourable Members and cannot therefore comment on them.

It does stress, however, that access to the Council's press room is primarily reserved for accredited journalists. Representatives of professional bodies and regional delegations may also be admitted if there is room.

For this purpose certain formalities, carried out by the relevant departments, are in place for the issue of passes giving access to the Press Centre for a Council meeting. These formalities are based on the principle of equal treatment within the number of seats available.