ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3541/01

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Nursery school education for five-year olds

At a time when Europe is debating its future and its future institutions, the teaching of European integration in the education systems of the Member States of the Union is becoming crucial to developing a genuine European citizenship.

The subject should be introduced in nursery schools as from the age of five, in appropriate forms, and continue into higher education in all disciplines.

Above all, it should also be made a compulsory and permanent part of the curriculum at the different stages of each education system with a programme that is developed and adjusted to the level of education provided.

Could the Commission begin by carrying out a survey on this issue in the Member States and candidate countries?

Once this analysis has been done, would the next step not be to draw the consequences and invite the governments to introduce the measures required to achieve the desired results?

Does the Commission not see this as a crucial challenge for the democratic future of the Union, namely to give real substance at last to European citizenship for the younger generations of today and tomorrow?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Socrates programme on education helps to fund many European citizenship projects, for example under Comenius 1 and 2 for schools, from nursery education to the end of secondary education. Moreover, this is one of the 13 priority areas in the 2002 call for proposals for the creation of Comenius networks (Comenius 3).

However, it is not the Commission but the Member States which have sole responsibility for education programmes. It is therefore not among the Commission's priorities to carry out a survey. Within its remit, the Commission will continue to take resolute action to develop European citizenship in education and in other areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3398/01

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Gibraltar

Under the Brussels process, the UK Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister have undertaken to reach an overall agreement on Gibraltar by next summer (2002). However, the elected representatives of the

population of the territory refused to take part in these talks as they demand the prior recognition of their right to self-determination. While the joint communiqué issued after the ministerial meeting does express a wish for the voice of Gibraltar to be heard, it says nothing about the exercise of this right.

Gibraltar is now recognised as a colonial territory by the United Nations. The question was raised again on 10 October before the fourth (decolonisation) committee.

Can the European Union accept within its ranks a colonial territory in defiance of the wishes of peoples, the only legitimate holders of sovereignty?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Article 299(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.

On that basis, Gibraltar, one of Her Majesty's dominions that is not part of the United Kingdom but for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible insofar as it is a dependent territory, is part of the European Union, subject though to a number of exemptions under the 1972 Act of Accession of the United Kingdom to the Community.

The dispute over Gibraltar between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain has not been without untoward effects on the implementation of certain Community policies. Under these circumstances, the Commission can but welcome the resumption of talks between these two Member States and hope that they will be concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned.

However, since there are matters of national sovereignty, the Community institutions have no power whatsoever to interfere in the organisation and conduct of these talks between two Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3272/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Members of the Radical Party in Laos and respect for human rights

The regrettable incidents involving the detention of several members of the transnational Radical Party, including the MEP Olivier Dupuis, in conditions contravening the main standards relating to protection of basic human rights in terms of both conditions of detention and the failure to respect the right to a fair trial raises wider issues relating to universal respect for democratic principles. Laos plays a leading role in cooperation between the European Union and ASEAN. The European Union is committed to protecting human rights and promoting respect for fundamental democratic rules (known as the Copenhagen criteria).

In view of the above, would the Commission not agree that the implementation of economic cooperation agreements is subject to respect for and the protection of the main, universally recognised democratic principles by the parties involved?

Would the Commission not agree that, in the event of serious violations of humanitarian standards recognised as binding by the entire international community, under conventions as well as more generally, any agreements concluded with the perpetrator of such violations should be suspended, irrespective of the subject to which the agreements relate?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission has expressed on many occasions, both to the Lao Government and in the Parliament, its sincere pre-occupation as regards the human rights situation in Lao PDR.

Human rights issues, such as restrictions on freedom of opinion of expression, flaws in the system of administration of justice, as well the situation of individual political prisoners, will remain high on the agenda in bilateral meetings between the Commission and representatives of Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR). On the occasion of the first Community-Lao PDR Joint Committee, which took place in May this year, the Commission raised its concerns regarding these issues and re-iterated the suggestion by the European Parliament Delegation, which visited Vientiane in April, that Union Ambassadors and/or the International Committee of the Red Cross be authorised to visit political prisoners.

It has to be taken into account, however, that Laos is the poorest of the Southeast Asian countries, with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of only US$ 350 and with 30 % of the population living on less than US$ 1 per day. Consequently, the development programmes of the Commission and of Member States focus on the most vulnerable segments of the population. Rural development, health and basic education are the main areas of intervention, with a particular attention being given to human rights and good governance actions.

The Commission therefore maintains a cohesive policy of constructive political dialogue with the Laotian government, paired with continued support to the Laotian population through Community-assisted development programmes, which aim to support and accelerate the democratisation process in the country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3307/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Recommendation on fur farming

A recommendation on fur farming has been available since 22 December 2000 (T-AP(96)19).

1, What action has the Commission taken on that recommendation?

2. Has the Commission submitted a proposal for legally binding rules on fur farming? If so, which proposal? If not, when does it envisage doing so?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998(1) provides the main principles for the protection of all species of animals kept for farming purposes, including fur farming.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes (T-AP) adopted a recommendation concerning fur animals that entered into force in December 1999. The Commission and the Member States participated in the process of drafting and adoption of these recommendations.

Council Directive 98/58/EC provides a legal base for proposals for Community measures in relation to the Convention or recommendations made under it, if this is necessary for its uniform application within the Community.

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare of the Commission adopted on 13 December 2001 an opinion on the welfare aspects related to the keeping of fur animals. The opinion is available on the following internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/outcome_en.html.

The Commission will examine this opinion and will consider whether it is necessary to submit to the Council an appropriate proposal.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Community funding for regasification plant at the bay of Ferrol (Spain)

The company Regasificadora del Norte S.A. (Reganosa) is promoting a project for the creation of a liquefied natural gas plant at Punta Promontoiro, on the inner side of the narrow bay of Ferrol (Ría de Ferrol) in Spain. This major project would entail the construction of four tanks of 150 000 cubic metres, and would also mean the entry each year of over 40 methane tankers (dimensions: 280 m x 42 m x 12-13 m).

Reganosa is in receipt of financing from the Galician regional government as well as from the companies Unión Fenosa, Endesa and Mugardesa de Energía, S.A.

The project has met with widespread rejection from the local community, and the Ferrol city council has declared itself against. A number of citizens' organisations have filed complaints with the Commission's DG Environment and DG Transport and Energy, in view of the severe risks of such an industrial development in this area. The Ferrol city council believes the plant could be located within Ferrol's projected outer port complex (this was in fact the original option). Nonetheless, the location currently proposed, i.e. the inner side of the bay, is a densely populated area which is only one kilometre from the built-up area of Mugardos and Ferrol. This location means that the plant could become a real accident trap: displacement would be virtually impossible, and the methane tankers could only put to sea at high tide. The proposed site of the regasification plant would border on such existing installations as fuel tanks, military vessels and a military arsenal, and there could be a domino effect in case of accident, with unforeseeable consequences.

Is this project, or has it ever been, in receipt of Community funding of any kind? Has any request for funding been received? If so, what amounts were asked for, and from which of the Community Funds?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

During the 1994-1999 programming period the Structural Funds provided no part-finance for the installation referred to by the Honourable Member. The Spanish authorities have told the Commission that they do not currently intend to seek part-finance for this project during the current period 2000-2006.

Those authorities have not so far made any application for part-finance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/342

(2004/C 78 E/0360)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: The legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties

Could the Commission state which articles in the Consolidated Treaties constitute the legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

The Commission proposal is based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0480/02

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of live cattle exported to the Middle East and North Africa

The EU exports approximately 300 000 live cattle to the Middle East and North Africa on an annual basis. The main exporters are Germany, Ireland, France and the Netherlands. Each year between EUR 60 and EUR 100 million are paid out in subsidies ('export funds') to traders who export live cattle from the EU to the Middle East and North Africa.

In November 2001, the European Parliament voted to end long journeys for animals going for slaughter and further fattening. The Parliament also voted to remove the subsidies that support live cattle shipments to the Middle East.

Will the European Commission now give an assurance that it intends to change the EU animal transport law so that it takes into account Parliament's views and brings to an end the live animal export trade?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of complaints from animal welfare organisations concerning the mistreatment of animals during transport and in particular after arrival in third countries.

Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 provides a set of rules on the protection of animals during transport(1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998(2) links the conditions for granting export refunds to the compliance of such rules. Member States have had clear difficulties in enforcing the current Community legislation. The Commission shares most of the views expressed by the Parliament on this issue, and believes that better enforcement is essential to improve the current situation.

A new opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare is expected in March 2002. This report will provide a comprehensive and wide-ranging scientific review of issues related to animal transport. In particular, it will look at the current definitions of travelling times and loading densities and how they could be improved. The Commission has already undertaken to present further legislative proposals in the light of the report during the first part of this year.

With regard to export refunds, the Commission believes that the right balance has to be found between the different aspects of this very complex question. It would not be appropriate to remove export refunds for live cattle simply to hand over the export of cattle to other exporting countries. The traditional cattle purchasing countries would not change into meat importers. Removing export refunds would be too harsh a measure for the beef sector as a whole and for the producers that are highly dependent on export. Nevertheless, the Commission is now examining the possibility of introducing stricter welfare conditions for the transport of animals, and stricter requirements and controls for the granting of export refunds.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0116/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Catalan television in France

Under Directive 89/552/EEC(1) on television without frontiers, it is legal for a television channel from one Member State to broadcast to another Member State.

TV3-Televisió de Catalunya broadcasts to southern France and enables Catalan speakers in that area to watch television programmes in Catalan. In so doing it promotes knowledge of one of the languages which constitute the EU's cultural heritage.

What action is the Commission planning to take in response to the French Higher Audiovisual Council's decision to ban TV3-Televisió de Catalunya from the airwaves on the grounds that it considers its broadcasts to France to be illegal?

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The Television without frontiers Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997(1)) provides that Member States shall ensure freedom of reception on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States (Article 2a (1)).

The Directive is based on one of the four fundamental freedoms laid down in the EC Treaty (the freedom to provide services Article 49) and is in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, notably Article 22, to which the Honourable Member refers.

In respect of the issue raised, the Commission is unaware of the events referred to in the Honourable Member's question. It will request information from the French authorities to carry out the necessary evaluation.

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0217/02

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

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Angola

In relation to Angola 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-0043/02

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: The ESF and training in minority languages

Can the Commission say how much the European Social Fund spends on training in minority languages in the EU as a whole? Can it break down the figures by country and minority language, with particular reference to Spain?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission does not have the information required by the Honourable Member neither regarding languages used nor taught in European Social Fund (ESF)-funded programmes. As for language teaching it is only eligible for ESF financing if it helps improving the employability of the persons concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0166/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel

Can the Commission say when and to what extent Greece transposed Directive 90/314/EEC(1) on package travel, package holidays and package tours in its legislation and whether it is implementing it correctly?

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours(1) was transposed in Greece by presidential decreeNo339/96. Having examined this legislation, the Commission felt that the transposal of Article 7 of the Directive, which exempts shipping companies from the obligation of providing a financial guarantee in the event of insolvency in order to ensure reimbursement/repatriation, was inadequate. For this reason the Commission brought infringement proceedings and referred the matter to the Court of Justice (Case C-467/99). When Greece adopted presidential decreeNo129/2000 to amend its legislation as suggested by the Commission, the Commission dropped the proceedings.

The Commission is not currently in possession of any further information.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0206/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: 2nd CSF payments

The period for completing payments in respect of programmes under the 2nd CSF expired on 31 December 2001.

Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of all commitments and any amounts disbursed for each structural fund per operational programme, and of the outstanding balance to be paid to Greece in respect of those programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3001/01(1).

(1) See page 54.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0656/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Subject: Presumptive VAT in respect of small and medium-sized businesses in Greece

Article 6 of Law 2753/99 stipulates that every three years, beginning in 1999, small and medium-sized businesses must compare their gross revenue with total unaccounted earnings and, where the former is less than the latter, VAT is payable on the difference.

Representatives of small and medium-sized businesses in Greece consider that this provision is unjust because not only is VAT levied retroactively, it is also levied on presumptive sales.

In the Commission's view, is this a case of presumptive VAT and is such a procedure consistent with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0151/02 by Mr Folias during question time at Parliament's Mars 2002 part-session(1).

(1) Written answer of 12.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0325/02

by Rosemarie Müller (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Noni juice and the Novel Foods Regulation

A firm in Germany sells noni juice via the Internet. The German Federal Institute for Consumer Health Protection and Veterinary Medicine (BgVV) prohibited noni on 13 February 2001 on the grounds that noni juice falls within the scope of the Novel Foods Regulation. The noni fruit has been known for centuries in French Polynesia, from where it has probably long been exported in substantial quantities. If French Polynesia, which is part of the European Union, has for many years, indeed since before entry into force of the Novel Foods Regulation, been exporting noni fruit in considerable quantities to other EU Member States, and if noni has been placed on the market in considerable quantities for some time already, will the Commission state whether noni should actually be classified as a novel food or whether it should in fact be classified as a medicinal product because manufacturers make health claims on their labels?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Pacific territories of France are not part of the Union. The information which the Commission has obtained from the Member States indicates that Morinda citrifolia was only introduced in the Community as noni juice from 1998, i.e. after the entry into force on 15 May 1997 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(1).

Noni juice is thus a novel food within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, and it can only be placed on the market as food after an authorisation has been granted in accordance with the Regulation. An application for this purpose is currently being examined.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.