ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Nitrates directive

The Commission has produced an excellent, but very worrying, report on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC(1) concerning the protection of waters against the pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(2).

However, the main maps are presented only in the English version of the report, and the far Western Atlantic edge of Europe is cut off namely the Autonomous Region of the Azores, which is European not only in law, but by virtue of geography.

Does the Commission intend to publish the other language versions with the maps in their entirety?

Does it intend to cover the European section of the Atlantic in Map I?

Does it intend to disseminate the report as broadly as the importance of the issue merits?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(2) COM(2002) 407 final.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his appreciation of the report on the implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC, published this year and now being printed. It is true that the situation gives cause for concern, but significant progress is beginning to be seen both in the water monitoring systems and in the designation of vulnerable zones, the content of action programmes and the monitoring of their application.

All the language versions of the report may indeed be consulted on the Commission's internet server, but the maps (which take up a lot of server space) have only been included in the English version. The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (Eur-OP) is including these maps in colour in the other language versions of the paper edition of this report to be published by the end of 2002 in all the languages of the Union.

As far the Azores are concerned, these islands feature in the general map of vulnerable zones (although no vulnerable zone has as yet been officially designated in that area), but not in the maps monitoring changes in water quality, since no data on such monitoring activities in the Azores was forwarded for the year 2000 in the report from Portugal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2737/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Limit values for GMOs and sloppy legislation

On 3 July 2002, Parliament adopted its first reading of two proposals for directives on, respectively, the traceability of GMO materials and labelling of GMO-treated food and feed. With regard to food labelling, a content limit value of 0,5 % for authorised GMOs was adopted by a large majority in Parliament. The Commission is now apparently drafting a proposal on seed grain. In it, limit values for GMO contamination in conventional seed grain of between 0,3 % and 0,7 % are being proposed, which do not accord with Parliament's decision of 3 July 2002.

In this connection, can the Commission say why it is not proposing limit values which are in keeping with Parliament's decision, possibly with a reference to Parliament's final decision, so that consumers and farmers are not confused and misled? What does this proposal mean in the light of the proposals voted on by Parliament on 3 July 2002? How and, possibly, when is Parliament going to be involved?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The Commission is still discussing internally a draft for a Commission Directive amending the annexes of the seed marketing Directives in particular in respect of purity criteria, by including thresholds to allow for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified seeds in seed lots of non-genetically modified varieties. The proposed thresholds for authorised genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are 0,3, 0,5 and 0,7 %.

The Commission considers it to be of utmost importance that thresholds be established in the seed legislation in order to take into account the reality which is that traces of genetically modified seeds can be found in non-genetically modified seed lots, as other impurities are found and are regulated for. A legal text is thus needed as soon as possible to address such an adventitious presence in seeds in a harmonised way.

When the internal discussions within the Commission will be completed, the opportunity will be given to Member States and also, as the Member of the Commission in charge of Health and Consumer Protection has already announced, to the Parliament, to scrutinise the proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1615/02

by Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Hunting Technical Services compensation claim following the termination of project 7-ACP UN1012 Oban Hills Programme

In 1996, all aid was unilaterally terminated by the EU to Nigeria. Hunting Technical Services (HTS), whose contract had been terminated as a direct result, submitted a claim to the Commission for compensation according to the terms of the contract. The Commission having failed to propose a settlement for over four years, HTS submitted a complaint for maladministration to the European Ombudsman (Complaint No 444/2000/ME).

On 7 February 2002 the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had the ability to propose a settlement within that time and that its failure to do so constitutes an instance of maladministration. He recommended a settlement of the case by the end of May 2002 at the latest. The Commission has reiterated its position that it cannot do so because it is not a contracting party.

Will the Commission explain why it has failed to use powers expressly available to it under the European Development Fund to comply with the recommendation to propose a settlement of the claim for all the financial claims put forward by HTS within the deadline set by the Ombudsman?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns for the delay leading to a settlement to the dispute between Hunting Technical Services (HTS) and the Nigerian authorities further to the termination of a technical assistance contract by the latter, in 1996.

As the Honourable Member is aware, in the framework of the European Development Fund (EDF), the Commission acts as a funding agency and is not party to the contract. In line with the procedures set out in the Financing Agreement between the Commission and the Government of Nigeria, whereby the Chief Authorising Officer may intervene should the National Authorising Officer fail to execute his mandate, the Commission transmitted its draft settlement proposal to the National Authorising Officer of Nigeria back in May 2001. Despite several reminders, the Commission only received a reply by letter dated 2 May 2002. Further to this reply, the Chief Authorising Officer of the EDF has decided to use the powers conferred upon him by the Financing Agreement and make all the payments directly to the company concerned out of the credits available for Nigeria under the 7th EDF.

A dispute settlement agreement was put forward to HTS in a meeting held in Brussels on 29 May 2002. In doing so, the Commission adhered to the line of conduct suggested by the Ombudsman who had asked the Commission to propose a settlement of the claim for financial losses put forward by HTS, by 31 May 2002 at the latest. Subsequently, HTS has agreed to the settlement as presented by the Commission in that meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/02

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: Legislation banning the sale of air weapons to young people under 18

In the interests of public health and safety will the Commission consider bringing forward legislation banning the placing on the market of air guns and air pistols for sale to young persons under the age of 18 years? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons(1) does not contain any provision relating to air guns and air pistols.

However, this does not prevent Member States from maintaining or adopting, in their national legislation, restrictive provisions on the conditions for the acquisition of such guns and pistols.

Nor has the consultation of the Member States and those involved in the process of reviewing Directive 91/477/EEC revealed any need for harmonisation at Community level in relation to the point raised by the honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Seigniorage

What has been the impact of seigniorage on the national finances of each of the Member States which have adopted the euro?

Does the Council have any estimates of the financial costs or benefits in terms of seigniorage to the UK if it were to join the euro?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

After the adoption of the euro by participating Member States, the monetary income which they formerly generated from their national currencies (seigniorage income) has been transferred to the ECB. In accordance with Article 33 of the Statute of the ESCB and the ECB, this monetary income is added to the net profits or losses of the ECB.

In the case of net profits, Article 33 stipulates that profits which remain after deduction of an amount to be transferred to the general reserve fund of the ECB are distributed to the NCBs, which are the shareholders of the ECB, in proportion to their paid-up shares.

However, in the three years from 1999 to 2001, the seigniorage income from the national banknotes in issue was not pooled and allocated.

At the present time, the Council has no further information to enable it to reply to the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Including social integration in the globalisation process

Following the Doha ministerial meeting, the Council reaffirmed the Union's commitment to keeping secure the inclusion of social integration within the globalisation process, calling on the Commission to continue and step up its efforts to convince the WTO to ensure that globalisation contributes not only to trade and prosperity, but also to global social development and respect for fundamental rights.

What action does the Commission intend to take to establish dialogue between the WTO and the ILO?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The promotion of core labour standards and social development in the context of globalisation is a priority for the Commission, as was evidenced by its communication Promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation(1). In this communication, the Commission presented a comprehensive strategy to promote core labour standards, suggesting action at European and international levels, by public and private actors alike, and in all relevant policies: social, external relations, development and trade. The strengthening of social global governance was a central objective

of this communication, and increased co-operation and dialogue between the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO), is one important means of improving governance. In view of the strong development component of the social dimension of globalisation, the Commission suggests involving relevant development organisations in such strengthened co-operation, including United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

While the Doha outcome was relatively modest as regards core labour standards, it does provide a good basis for further progress, by confirming the commitment to core labour standards and the need for co-operation between WTO and ILO. The Commission is following up on this commitment in its direct contacts with the two organisations by urging closer co-operation and in the institutional context, including by its call that the newly established ILO World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation involve and draw upon the experience of other organisations. Following the efforts of the Commission, the WTO has in fact taken interest in and contributed to the ILO Working Party on the Social Dimension of Globalisation by the WTO Secretariat contribution on trade liberalisation and employment, which was discussed on 18 and 19 March 2002. The Commission intends to continue its efforts in this field to strengthen the ties between the WTO and the ILO to help promote core labour standards and decent work in the context of globalisation.

(1) COM(2001) 416 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2140/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Kenya

With reference to Kenya, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Kenya?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2784/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Federal Mogul factory closure transfer of jobs to EU applicant countries

The Federal Mogul Company, currently based in Bridgwater, south-west England, employs 370 people. On 20 August 2002 the company announced that the Bridgwater factory would be closing and the work transferred to Poland and Turkey, in order to reduce production costs.

Poland and Turkey are applicant countries to join the EU.

What action does the Commission intend to take with respect to this transfer of jobs to cheaper areas of the enlarged EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The concept of free and open market economies lies at the very heart of the Union and features as one of the criteria for membership of the Union outlined at the Copenhagen European Council in December 1993. In addition, candidate countries must be able to assume the obligations of membership. The respective transposition of the legal and institutional framework, known as acquis, is intended to ensure a level playing field for economic operators in the enlarging single market.

The European Social Model is founded on the premise that economic growth and social cohesion are mutually reinforcing and that the right balance needs to be struck in order to ensure the dynamic interaction of economic, employment and social policy.

All candidate countries will be obliged, upon accession, to apply the Community acquis, including the acts adopted in the area of social law.

It is evident that the social partners play a crucial part in this context. That is why the Commission aims to develop the social dialogue within candidate countries.

Furthermore, the Commission invited the social partners to engage in a dialogue on anticipating and managing change with a view to apply a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate restructuring.

As regards relocation of enterprises in general, the Commission advocates the idea that, when taking decisions, enterprises should always take into account the effects that those decisions could have on their employees as well as on the social and regional context. This has recently been underlined in the Commission Communication concerning Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). A business contribution to Sustainable Development(1).

(1) COM(2002) 347 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Freedom of expression and the Internet

Following the publication on 25 October 2000 of a report in the Osservatore Romano the daily newspaper of the Roman Curia of an article on blasphemous websites, the Italian financial police, after about two years' investigations, has ordered the shutdown of five US-based Internet sites.

Does not the Commission consider that these provisions are contrary to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by the international instruments concerning human rights, in particular Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights? If so, what steps does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

Freedom of expression is recognised in particular by Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights and by Article 11 of the Union Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which the Honourable Member refers.

However, exercise of that freedom may, in accordance with the two aforementioned instruments, be restricted provided that certain conditions are met.

Any restrictions must be laid down by law and must constitute measures necessary in a democratic society to protect legitimate public interests.

Assessment as to whether those conditions are met must be carried out on a case-by-case basis.

As for the Internet sites mentioned, the Honourable Member does not provide sufficient details for an assessment to be carried out.

The Commission is monitoring closely developments regarding Internet communications and will, should the need arise, take any appropriate measures under the powers vested in it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Death penalty

Could the Commission provide details of any representations which the EU has made, or which it plans to make, to the US Administration regarding the death penalty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Representations made by the Union to the United States on the death penalty have taken several forms. The last general demarche on the issue was undertaken in February 2000 when the Union called upon the United States to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete elimination. The Union urged the United States to withdraw its reservation on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), concerning the prohibition on imposing the death penalty on minors. Furthermore, the Union called upon the United States to respect the strict conditions under which the death penalty may be used, which are set forth in several international instruments. The Union has also demonstrated its commitment to working for the abolition of the death penalty in the United States through its involvement in individual cases. This has included the submission of amicus curiae briefs to the United States Supreme Court and letters to Governors and Boards of Pardons and Paroles considering death penalty cases.

A full list of recent representations made by the Union to the United States regarding specific cases where the death penalty has been invoked can be found at the website of the Commission's Delegation in Washington(1)

The Union also continues to raises the issue of the death penalty on a regular basis during bilateral contacts with the United States Administration under the New Transatlantic Agenda, and in the context of its twice-yearly troika meetings with the United States on human rights issues.

(1) http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/deathpenhome.htm

ActiononUSDeathRowCases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0506/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Sentence of death by stoning in Sudan

According to information from Human Rights Watch, on 8 December 2001, a criminal court in the town of Nyala in southern Sudan sentenced 18-year-old Abok Alfa Akok, who was pregnant at the time, to death by stoning for adultery, whereas the man with whom she had sexual relations was not convicted because of a lack of evidence. The Sudanese Government, it should be recalled, ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights in March 1986 which prohibits the carrying out of the death penalty on a pregnant woman.

Will the Commission exert pressure on the Sudanese Government to honour its international commitments, refrain from carrying out the death penalty by stoning and hold a new trial in accordance with legal procedures which ensure that Ms Abok Alfa Akok has legal representation in court and recourse to the language that she understands?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The Commission through its Delegation in Sudan has been active on this issue and contacts have been taken with the Sudanese authorities. It is clear that the international community's action has been influential. The Court of appeal in Southern Darfur overturned the sentence of death by stoning and sent the case back to the lower criminal court in Nyala for new sentencing where Ms Akok was given 75 lashes.

However, Ms Akok's lawyer has launched an appeal to the high court on the grounds that the sentence was given and immediately executed, thus making it impossible for Ms Akok to seek legal advice and preventing her from exercising any right of appeal. So far, the lawyer did not receive any answer.

The Sudanese government ratified the international covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) in March 1976. However, Sudan has not yet ratified the second optional protocol to the CCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. The Commission will also continue to follow the issue of the international obligations of Sudan.