ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: European Round Table of Industrialists

What EU money or support is provided to the EU Round Table of Industrialists?

On what occasions to date has it met with representatives of the Commission to discuss policies over 2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Commission does not provide any financial or other support to the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). It is, however, possible that individual members of the ERT are participating in Commission programmes in their own right.

A number of meetings have taken place between representatives of the European Round Table of Industrialists and Members of the Commission since the new Commission started in 1999, including the President. These meetings are part of the general consultation process the Commission has engaged with civil society.

Discussions in general were focussed on issues related to enterprise and competition policies, but also other areas of EU policy.

As well as these meetings at high level, there have been other, occasional working-level contacts between members of the ERT and Commission staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1803/01

by Maj Theorin (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2001)

Subject: Kurds in Turkey

Years of violent conflict between the Turkish military and the Kurdish PKK has driven more than 560 000 villagers of mainly Kurdish origin away from their homes in the impoverished South East region of Turkey. The systematic destruction of over 3 500 villages in this region has rendered repatriation a very difficult task, and a majority of the displaced families now live in squalid conditions and extreme poverty in the outskirts of cities.

What is the Commission doing to improve the situation of the displaced Kurds in Turkey and to further develop this particular region?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

The Accession Partnership for Turkey was adopted by the Union on 8 March 2001(1). This document sets out the priorities for the progress Turkey needs to make on political and economic issues in advance of accession to the Union. Reducing the disparities between different regions is specified as a priority that should be addressed in the short-term. Lifting the state of emergency in the South East region of Turkey is also specified, as a medium term priority.

As part of the Union's financial assistance to Turkey, the Commission is financing a regional development programme in the South East of the country, in the GAP region. 43,5 million has been made available for this project. Overall objectives of the programme are to sustain economic growth, to alleviate regional disparities, to increase productivity and employment capacity in the region. Specific actions will target increasing employment opportunities through assistance to local Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), supporting income generating activities for the rural population, renovating and restoring important cultural heritage sites, promoting their cultural and touristic potential, and improving the environmental conditions in the region.

(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0458/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Controlling the damage caused by toxic agents

Public opinion is understandably concerned about the increasing incidence of specific tumours, such as melanomas and leukaemias.

1. Is the Commission able to confirm this increased incidence?

2. Is it willing to set up a special temporary working group, under Commissioner Byrne, to conduct investigations in each EU Member State to ascertain what damage has been caused over the past ten years by specific toxic agents, such as benzene, additives used in strong detergents (for car bodies, graffiti, etc.), the impact of radiation from Chernobyl on water and the earth in Europe and contamination by depleted uranium, plutonium or other agents in the wake of the bombs dumped in the Adriatic and Lake Garda?

3. What measures does it intend to take to ascertain whether or not there is a connection between the increase in such tumours and the uncontrolled dissemination of these toxic agents?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

1. The Commission is not in a position to confirm an increased incidence of specific tumours in Europe, referred to by the Honourable Members.

2. The Commission has under the Europe against Cancer programme a European network of Cancer Registries, which produces incidence and mortality data for all cancers. The data are accessible to the European citizen via Internet web site http://www.iarc.fr.

3. The Commission already follows the evolution of cancer incidence and mortality with the Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention, which advises the Commission on all issues related to the prevention of Cancer including toxic agents as risk factors.

4. The Commission additionally funds research helping to elucidate the links between cancer and environmental factors including environmental pollutants and thus contributes to the development of measures to protect public health under its Specific Research Program Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Key Action 4 Environment and Health. The catalogues of funded projects 1999 and 2000 are accessible to the European citizen via Internet web site http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 March 2001)

Subject: German chemical weapons in Turkey

In mid-December 1999 the German Ministry of Defence admitted that it wanted to help Turkey construct a military chemicals laboratory. The project would have a purely defensive function. Yet the Kennzeichen D programme on ZDF television has quoted military sources as maintaining that on 11 May 1999 the Turkish army was using chemical weapons on the Kurdish PKK movement. Twenty Kurds had apparently been killed. Research at the University of Munich also shows that the Turkish warheads on the chemical weapons used were supplied by the German firms Buck and Deyfag.

Fourteen months ago questions were tabled to the Commission, the Council and the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs to obtain clarity about these two issues. In its joint answer to written questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00(1), the Council stated that the specific points made in the questions had not been raised in the Council or in any of the Council bodies. However, on 31 January 2001 the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs provided some information on the dubious export licence for German warheads: The warheads, filled with tear gas, received a licence because of their use for purposes of law and order.

In view of the dramatic events in Turkish prisons, the violations of human rights, the persistent use of chemical weapons in Kurdistan and the fact that the arms supplies are in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, I should like to ask: Does the Council subscribe to the Belgian Minister's attitude towards the export licence for German warheads for Turkey ('The warheads, filled with tear gas, received a licence because of their use for purposes of law and order')? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 146.

Reply

(30 May 2001)

All EU Member States as well as Turkey are States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC).

Article VIII of the Convention established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it. All States Parties to the CWC are members of the OPCW. This is the organisation entrusted with the verification of compliance by States Parties with the provisions of the Convention.

Requests by a State Party for clarification on situations which may be considered ambiguous or which give rise to a concern about the possible non-compliance of another State Party with the Convention are processed in accordance with the provisions of Article IX of the Convention.

The specific issue referred to by the Honourable Member has not been raised within the Council or the Council bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Violation of European Treaties by UEFA rules

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) prohibits clubs which are financially linked from playing against each other in UEFA matches (the cup-winners' cup and champions' league). Ajax and Germinal Beerschot Antwerp are likely to become the first victims of this ban. On Tuesday, 16 May 2000 the Dutch club bought a majority holding of 51 % in the Antwerp club.

In answer to Question P-0357/01(1), the Commission refers to the rules governing the integrity of UEFA competitions for club teams: clubs independence', approved by UEFA in 1998, which according to UEFA itself are intended to protect the sporting integrity of club competitions. The Commission is currently investigating whether or not this measure falls outside the ban instituted by Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. The Commission says that no final position has yet been adopted.

1. Has the Commission now adopted a final position on the rules governing the integrity of UEFA competitions for club teams: clubs independence', approved by UEFA in 1998? If so, what is the Commission's final position? If not, when will the Commission announce its final position?

2. On what legal grounds does the Commission assert that the rules governing the integrity of UEFA competitions for club teams: clubs independence', approved by UEFA in 1998, either do or do not comply with Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 185.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-0357/01.

The Commission has not yet adopted a definitive position on the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) rules governing the protection of integrity of the UEFA club competitions.

The Commission will publicly announce its definitive position as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1173/01

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Disarming the UCK since the end of 2000

Referring to my Written Question E-2287/00(1) of 11 July 2000, on illegal arms dumps and armed incidents in Kosovo, and the relevant reply of 20 November 2000, would the Council say:

1. How many rifles, pistols, support weapons, machine guns and mortars, anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft weapons, explosive devices and rounds of ammunition KFOR has collected in Kosovo since the end of 2000?

2. How many illegal arms dumps UNMIK and/or KFOR has discovered since the end of 2000?

3. What information there is on the existence of other illegal arms dumps in Kosovo?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 80.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1173/01 and E-1209/01

(20 July 2001)

The Council is very concerned about the quantity of illegal arms in Kosovo, which contribute to violence and to the level of criminality not only in Kosovo, but also in the whole region. In answering to the Honourable Member's question last year, the Council pointed out that the EU has no direct responsibility for public order and security in Kosovo, including the establishing of relevant crime statistics. Following UN Security Council Resolution 1244, these are matters entirely in the hands of UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) and KFOR (the NATO Kosovo Force). Both report regularly, to the United Nations Secretary General and Security Council and to NATO (including on the issues raised by the Honourable Member).

The Council strongly supports the full implementation of UNSC Resolution 1244, including on the important and delicate aspects referred to by the Honourable Member. It also applauds the efforts deployed by UNMIK and KFOR as well as the success they achieved in combating criminality and the illegal trafficking of arms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2097/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: ESF support for training in Connaught, Ulster

Will the Commission provide details of the level of EU support through the European Social Fund to Connaught, Ulster from the period June 1994 to date?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission manages the European Social Fund (ESF) at a programme rather than project level and does not hold records of ESF spending on a sub-regional level.

However, the Managing Authority for the ESF in Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has provided the following details of ESF spending from January 1994 until December 1999 under the Human Resources Development Operational Programme (HRD OP) and for 2000 under the Ireland Objective 1 and Objective 1 in Transition Employment and Human Resources Development Operational Programme (EMPHRD OP).

Records of drawdowns from the European Structural Funds under the 1994-1999 round were not broken down by province and specific figures for the Connaught and Ulster areas are therefore not available.

From an examination of regional forecasts and available data on expenditure it can, however, be estimated that the total drawdown for the Border and Western regions, under the HRD OP, was approximately:

- IEP 108 070 000 for the Western region, and

- IEP 162 250 000 for the Border region.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, in addition to the HRD OP, a total amount of 395 755 471 in ESF assistance was allocated to Ireland through five sectoral programmes, the Tourism OP, the OP for Industrial Development, the Fisheries OP, the Local Urban and Rural Development OP and the OP for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry.

For the 2000-2006 funding period Ireland has regionalised into 2 NUTS II regions, the Border, Midland and Western region (BMW) and the Southern and Eastern region (SAE). All funding allocations for the new round were made on a regional basis.

While the BMW region does not equate exactly with the Connaught and Ulster area because of the inclusion of Counties Longford, Louth, Westmeath, Offaly and Laois, figures for this region are the most accurate available at this time and indicate a drawdown, under the EMPHRD OP, for 2000 of IEP 23 110 000 in the BMW region.

For the 2000-2006 programming round, additional assistance is allocated to the BMW region through the Border, Midland and Western Region Objective 1 OP. The allocation to this region for 2000 amounts to 1 880 000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1301/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Plans to support the Russian plutonium management and disposition and MOX plutonium fuel programmes

What communications and collaboration has the Commission had with Member State Governments and the governments of the G-8 group of leading industrial nations, concerning plans to support the Russian plutonium management and disposition and MOX plutonium fuel programmes? Are there any plans to provide financial support from Community funds for these Russian plutonium programmes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission participates in the meetings of the group of eight most industrialized countries G8, from the Heads of States Summits to the technical levels meetings. Concerning the specific issue mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is represented in the permanent Non Proliferation Expert group (NPEG) of the G8 and in the temporary Plutonium Disposition Planning Group (PDPG) created following the G8 Summit in Okinawa.

The Commission is also involved in implementing a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Union Joint Action on non-proliferation and disarmament decided by the Council at the end of 1999. This programme is implemented under close supervision of the Council and involves both issues relating to plutonium disposition and the dismantling of chemical weapons.

No decision as been taken to date to use Community funds to support the Russian plutonium programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0617/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Defence budgets of European NATO countries.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0051 - 0052



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0617/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council (2 March 2001) Subject: Defence budgets of European NATO countries What are the national defence budgets of the European countries assigned to NATO for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001? Reply (10 July 2001) The Council does not have the figures requested by the Honourable Member other than in the form available to the public, and as from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Increased funding for cross-border co-operation

Can the Commission state whether it is planning to increase the budget currently available for the Interreg III programme for the programming period up to 2006 for the purposes of cross-border co-operation with particular reference to areas adjoining what will then be the new Central and East European Member States?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Community initiative Interreg is the most important one in financial terms during the programming period 2000-2006. According to the conclusions of the European Council of Berlin, due attention should be given to cross-border activities, in particular in the perspective of enlargement and for Member States which have extensive frontiers with the applicant countries.

On the basis of indicative financial allocations per Member State established by the Commission specifying the margins of flexibility between the different strands of Interreg, Member States make a breakdown of funding by strand, border and region, as appropriate. In breaking down this amount, Member States have to ensure that, on an indicative basis, at least 50 % of their total allocation for Interreg III is allocated to cross-border co-operation under strand A. As all Interreg III strand A programme proposals have in the meantime been submitted, it can be stated that about 67 % of the Interreg allocation will be dedicated to cross-border co-operation.

The Commission is currently in the process of negotiating the Interreg programmes drawn up by the authorities designated by the Member States. Once the Commission has approved those programmes, all resources with the exception of a certain amount set aside for networking in the framework of Interreg will be allocated. No additional financial resources will be available during the current programming period, as the Commission is required to respect the financial perspectives agreed at the European Council of Berlin.

Following the request made by the European Council of Nice, the Commission is preparing a communication on regions bordering candidate countries. The communication will evaluate their socio-economic situation, analyse the potential impact of enlargement on those regions and examine the existing Community instruments. In addition, the communication will include proposals for actions to optimise and better co-ordinate the existing Community instruments in place to support border regions. The communication is likely to be adopted before the summer break.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1326/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Restructuring of the Commission's Directorate-General for Fisheries

According to information received from fisheries organisations in Portugal, it appears that the Commission is in the process of restructuring its Directorate-General for Fisheries so as to create a directorate which is to centralise all policy on internal Community resources, fisheries agreements with northern Europe and multiannual guidance programmes.

This centralisation would remove responsibility from the remaining directorates and divide Community policy on fisheries agreements with third countries into two.

Can the Commission confirm this information? If so, what is the purpose of this restructuring?

Does it not take the view that splitting policy on fisheries agreements between north and south will jeopardise the principle of policy integrity and breach the principle of equal treatment with which all Community fisheries agreements must comply?

What implications does it consider that this restructuring will have for the EU fishing industry, particularly for Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission's Directorate for Fisheries has been reorganised with effect from 1 April 2001.

The new Directorate A Conservation Policy groups together four units one of which handles stock management in Community waters and where there are common stocks with neighbouring countries i.e. the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and another deals with the management of the fleet.

Of necessity, the activities of this Directorate are in no way restricted to any particular geographical area.

Naturally, the principle of equal treatment will be applied and the effect on the Portuguese fishing industry should be as for others that the Commission's responses in these areas will be even more coherent and well motivated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Laser pointer pens

I understand that, in the United States, lasers are classified in a slightly different way from in the EU. The American national standard for lasers has six classes, and the method of allocation is different from the European standard. This has caused some problems with labelling. In some cases, American class 2 lasers would be classified as class IIIA using the European standard. Laser pointers usually contain class II lasers which give a suitable range and power for their intended purpose. Importing into the EU pointers classified and labelled in accordance with the American standard means that they may be classified incorrectly and consequently mislabelled. What measures have been taken, or are to be taken, to ensure that pens imported into the EU are labelled in accordance with the EU standard?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission is currently carrying out a technical examination of the problem mentioned by the Honourable Member and will communicate to her the results of its research within the next few weeks. The Commission will also raise this specific issue in the Emergency Committee (under the General Product Safety Directive, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992(1)) on 22 June 2001, in order to have Member States experiences.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.