ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1665/00

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Violation of the rights of the child

The Italian Prime Minister's Office Social Affairs Department Committee for Minors, ruled on 3 May 2000 that Izabayo Fidencie, a Rwandan girl without identity papers living in Italy, should be expatriated to Switzerland to her would-be father, Nshimiyimana Juvenal, despite the existence of documents proving beyond a shadow of doubt that he is acting in bad faith.

The appeal brought in the Administrative Court of the Lazio region against the decision taken by the Social Affairs Department of the Prime Minister's Office in this tragic case, without a detailed examination of the available evidence provided by the Rwandan Government and proving that the statements made by Nshimiyimana Juvenal were untrue, reveals the superficial nature of the administrative provisions in force.

The European Union has always declared that it is committed to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, confirming its own obligations in respect of fundamental social rights and of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Moreover, in Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Organisation states that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The Convention also says that the child has a right to a family but not that anyone has a right to a child.

1. What measures does the European Commission intend to take to ensure that Italy actually verifies the paternity and maternity of Izabayo Fidencie and awards custody to her legitimate or natural parents?

2. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that Italy suspends the transfer of Izabayo Fidencie to Switzerland, in the light of the new documents produced and pending the decision by the Lazio Administrative Court?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are not part of Community law.

Accordingly, since the Commission has no powers in the matter, it cannot take action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Guido Viceconte (PPE-DE) and Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Lack of adequate facilities for the disabled at the Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam

During the Euro 2000 final at the Feyenoord Stadium in Rotterdam:

- a number of disabled persons were unable to enter the stadium in their wheelchairs, and, after being searched, had to be carried to their seats, while their wheelchairs were removed to a different area,

- a number of journalists who were filming the event were quickly stopped by police, held in cells and not released until late in the evening, following some very tense moments which degenerated into a brawl between journalists and policemen.

What stance will the Commission be taking on this issue?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2471/00, E-2526/00 and E-2554/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission very much regrets the events which occurred at the Euro 2000 football final in Rotterdam.

The aim of Community policy is to promote the full participation of disabled people in economic, social and cultural life, and the Commission, in application of Article 13 of the Treaty, has proposed a number of measures to combat discrimination against people with disabilities(1).

However, access for people with disabilities to public premises and buildings and to places which are open to the public is still the responsibility of the Member States.

Finally, in line with its Communication of 12 May 2000 entitled Towards a barrier free Europe for people with disabilities(2), the Commission is proposing to undertake a series of initiatives to improve access for disabled people to public transport and the built environment.

(1) COM(1999) 564 final.

(2) COM(2000) 284 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2285/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Admission of a German citizen to employment as a hunting warden in France

The holder of a hunting lease in the Erstein region applied to the Séléstat Erstein sub-prefecture for authorisation to engage a German citizen as a hunting warden. After a lapse of nearly seven months a decision was handed down by the sub-prefecture rejecting the application. It was asserted in justification that the warden's place of residence, in Germany, was not compatible with the duties to be performed. That place of residence is however only twenty minutes drive from the intended place of work.

The candidate's qualifications and suitability are not in question.

Does the European Commission share the view that the above refusal of authorisation is incompatible with EU-Treaty rules as they apply to the free movement of persons?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

On the basis of the information supplied by the honourable Member, the Commission cannot take a final position on the compatibility with Community rules of the Sélestat sub-prefecture's decision based on the hunting warden's place of residence.

The honourable Member is consequently asked to forward for consideration the documents relating to this rejection.

In more general terms, a residence requirement imposed by the national authorities of a Member State within its territory is a restriction both of the freedom of establishment (see judgment of 29 October 1998 in Commission versus Spain, Case C-114/97) and of the freedom of movement of workers (see judgment of 7 May 1998, Clean Car Autoservice, Case C-350/96).

The application of such a requirement is nevertheless acceptable if it is warranted by a genuine and sufficient threat to a basic interest of society, such as public order or security.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1800/00

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Exports of live animals

Council Regulation (EC) No. 1254/1999(1), which entered into force on 1 January 2000, stipulates that the payment of the refund for exports of live animals shall be subject to compliance with the provisions established in Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport (Article 33(9)).

According to Council Directive (EC) 91/628(2) (amended by Council Directive 95/29(3)), Member States shall ensure that transporters do not transport any animal, or cause any animal to be transported, in a way which is likely to cause injury or undue suffering to that animal, that animals shall not be tied by the horns, or by nose rings and that, during transport, animals shall not be lifted by the head, horns, legs, tail or fleece.

Despite the rules, European TV stations have once again exposed just such unlawful conduct where animals are subjected to unimaginably cruel, appalling and totally disgraceful treatment. This cannot be allowed to continue.

What does the Commission do to verify and enforce compliance with the animal welfare provisions of Regulation 1254/99?

How many export refunds have been withdrawn on grounds of breaches of those provisions?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

Ill-treatment of animals during transport in breach of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC can occur both when animals are transported within the Community and when they are imported from or exported outside it.

Under the rules on export refunds on bovine animals (Article 33(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98) failure to comply with the provisions on the protection of live animals being transported debars from the refund. Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 lays down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(1).

Articles 2 and 3 of that Regulation require systematic checking of all animals exported from the Community and targeted checking when animals are unloaded in third countries. Only if its provisions have been respected can export refunds be paid.

The Commission has no information on the refund amounts refused or recovered owing to non-compliance with the abovementioned provisions. It will ask the Member States for figures for the period since 1 September 1998, when the new rules of application introduced by Regulation (EC) No 615/98 came into force. These figures will then be notified to the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Consumer price data

Will the Commission please state which Member States collect consumer price data on a regional basis, allowing a real comparison of incomes in each region?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Germany: Regional prices are collected but not such as to permit regional income comparisons. Consumer price indices (CPIs) are however published for the former German democratic republic and the former German Federal republic.

Spain: Regional CPIs at NUTS-3 level are published.

Italy: The Italian statistical office, ISTAT, publishes CPIs for the main city in each of 20 regions. In addition, about 80 municipalities publish their own CPIs.

Austria: CPIs at the NUTS-2 level are not published but are available on request (a charge is made).

Portugal: Regional CPIs are published at Nomenclature of territorial statistical units (NUTS)-2 level.

Finland: Regional CPIs at NUTS-2 level are published.

Belgium, Denmark, Greece, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom do not publish regional CPIs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (IV)

In the opinion of many legal experts this statement lacks any legal basis. Furthermore these sanctions do not merely cover bilateral affairs, as is often speciously argued. They have an effect on the relations between Member States and on their joint work, and thus on the Community as a whole.

The high-level representatives of the 14 Member States and the leaders of Austria clearly thought then that if they acted quickly they could prevent the FPÖ from joining the government. However, the statement failed in its original purpose and has also significantly harmed the reputation of the European Union.

When will the Council finally come round to abandoning this counter-productive strategy which goes against the ideals of the Community, repeal the statement and begin a productive dialogue with the Republic of Austria which remains a reliable and trustworthy partner so that relations can be normalised again?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not stated its position on this subject and is therefore unable to reply to the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1854/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: International Criminal Court (ICC)

In the context of the CFSP, what joint standpoint are the Member States adopting with regard to the US proposals to amend the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order, for example, to prevent their own citizens from being tried by the court, to exempt individuals who act within the overall direction of a State, to allow the court to enter into agreements with individual states, and to permit the negotiation of a supplemental document which would have the effect of radically amending the Rome Statute?

Do the Member States and the Commission, acting in concert under the CFSP, agree that it is vital to work to convince the US that it is in interests to support and sign the existing Statute and resist any attempt to undermine the integrity of the Statute, which already has 96 signatories and has been ratified by eight countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission agrees that it would be very valuable if the United States were able to participate fully in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Community has carefully analysed the United States' proposal on the rules of procedure for the court and has come to the conclusion that the text in its present form would lead to an unacceptable modification of the key provisions of the Statute related to the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Community has raised this issue repeatedly in the framework of the Common foreign and security policy dialogue between the Community and the United States. On 31 May 2000 at the Community/United States summit, the member of the Commission responsible for foreign relations discussed the issue with Secretary of State Mrs Albright. He indicated that the Community was ready to look at other American proposals on the ICC but any such proposal could only be considered in the light of full respect of the integrity of the Court's Statute. The Presidency has also recently informed American officials about this position.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1894/00

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Subject: Forest fires in polluted areas of Belarus and the Ukraine

1. Is there any truth in the reports that forest fires have broken out in Belarus and the Ukraine in areas polluted as a result of the Chernobyl disaster?

2. Will these fires result in greater risks for public health in the countries in question and beyond?

3. Have the fires prompted action by the European Union, or will they prompt such action?

4. In what way is the EU helping to control the risks of pollution in Belarus and the Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Several forest and peat fires broke out in Belarus and Ukraine in mid May 2000. The Commission has no information suggesting that these fires broke out as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

However, some of the forests involved are contaminated, and the fires may therefore constitute a mechanism for spreading radioactivity. This issue was the subject of Commission research projects within a programme of international cooperation on the environment and health consequences of the Chernobyl accident. The investigations found that only a marginal fraction of the total inventory of radionuclides existing in contaminated forests can be suspended in the air once more following a fire. The recent fires seem to reinforce this finding, since only small increases were recorded in the levels of radiation.

Regarding new initiatives to respond to this situation the Commission will keep the situation under review. It is worth recalling that the Commission has an active programme of assistance in this field, which continues to address the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. This includes assistance to build an adequate shelter for the reactor, to improve radioactive waste management and to address the environmental aspects of the situation. A Commission funded pilot project to install radiation monitoring systems for air and river water was initiated in Ukraine and Belarus during 1995. These systems are in operation.

Moreover, medical and humanitarian assistance has been provided to the inhabitants of the areas worst affected by the disaster.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget Item A-3021

Organisations advancing the idea of Europe are allocated 1 800 000 from Item A-3021. Could the Commission indicate which organisations receive this money and the projects in which they are involved?

To whom are these organisations accountable, and what systems are in place to monitor this use of Community funds?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The grants awarded under budget line A-3021 are published every year in the annual Report on Beneficiaries of Part A Commission Grants which the Commission sends to Parliament and which is also published on Europa, the Commission's server at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/beneficiaries_en.htm.

In fact, 14 of the organisations receiving a grant in 1999 were earmarked by Parliament in the remarks to the Budget rather than selected by the Commission, amounting to 85 % of the total appropriations on the line.

Organisations receiving a grant under budget line A-3021, like all organisations receiving a grant from the Commission, are required to submit both an activity and a financial report on the use of their grant. This has to be approved by the Commission before the final instalment is paid. Organisations are also subject to on-the-spot inspections by the Commission and are liable to auditing by the Court of auditors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1940/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Budget items relating to culture

Could the Commission indicate the structure and aims of the Our Europe Association, which receives Community funding from Item A-3020?

Why was this organisation in particular chosen for a European grant?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The association Our Europe was set up in 1996 as a non-profit-making organisation registered under the French Law of 1901 as the Groupement d'Etudes et de Recherches: Notre Europe. Its object, as set out in its registered articles of association, is: To conduct studies, research and training on Europe, its past, its civilisations, its progress towards unity and its future prospects. The association develops its action in the spirit of a closer, federal union between the peoples of Europe, comprising a common defence and a single currency, upholding the Community acquis and underpinned by common policies that promote full employment, competitiveness and solidarity. To that end, it organises educational activities and conferences, conducts studies and consultations, issues publications, mounts information campaigns, awards grants and prizes, and carries out any other activities of European interest.

The association was given its own heading in Chapter A-30 of the budget in 1997 in agreement with both the Council and Parliament, which considered that its activities would make it a useful think-tank on the process of building Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2320/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Budget 2001

The Commission proposes in the 2001 Preliminary Draft Budget to find ways of funding a 48 % increase in spending in the Western Balkans (38 % between 2000-2006) including 2,3 billion for Serbia.

How can the Commission justify such an increase and simultaneously propose cuts on lines for the poorest countries? Can such levels of spending be effectively spent?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The 48 % increase in Balkans expenditure proposed by the Commission in the 2001 preliminary draft budget is largely attributable to Kosovo. The Commission and the World Bank assessed the needs for reconstruction in Kosovo at 2 300 million. It is generally recognised that stabilisation in the region will depend to an extent on the rapid reconstruction of Kosovo. The United Nations mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) asked donors to concentrate their efforts in the three years after the end of the conflict. On this basis the Commission decided that 350 million should be disbursed in 2001. If this special allocation for Kosovo is not included in the overall proposal for spending in the Balkans, the increase over 2000 proposed by the Commission for the five countries of the Balkans is only 1,03 %. The Commission would like to emphasise that 90 % of the Kosovo allocation was committed by the end of June with 54 % contracted. The Commission notes that the Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation that visited Kosovo from 31 May-3 June confirmed that Kosovo demonstrates a real capacity for absorption in relation to the 2000 Budget and the PDB for 2001. Of the total 2000 budget allocated for the Western Balkans countries ( 527 million) the Commission expects 87 % will have been committed by September, with nearly 60 % contracted. The absorption capacity of these countries is not comparable to that of other less developed countries. The Commission does not propose to reduce the allocations for the poorest countries but to find a better balance between countries over the period within the same overall allocation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2790/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Comparative drug licensing systems in EU Member States

In the UK, the Medicines Control Agency grants a licence for a new drug after determining that it is safe to be used, but it does not give any consideration to the charge made by the manufacturer for that drug. Do other Member States operate under a similar drug licensing system, or do they, in addition to licence approval, set a price ceiling for the manufacturer? If so, might this provide the main explanation as to why prices for newly licensed drugs vary considerably between the UK and other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

European pharmaceutical legislation is based upon the separation of the considerations by public authorities of the safety, quality and efficacy of a given pharmaceutical product on the one hand and the arrangements for negotiating pricing and reimbursement conditions within the health systems on the other. This separation is therefore practised throughout the Community. The negotiation of marketing conditions with the pharmaceutical companies including price negotiations in the Member States where these are conducted is a matter for the Member States. These pricing and reimbursement negotiations must take account of the principles underlying the single market and in particular must be in accordance with the terms of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems(1) which establishes procedural constraints, including requirements of transparency and objectivity of criteria used, time constraints for responding to a company request for price or reimbursement and a right for companies to appeal a given pricing or reimbursement decision.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.