ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3715/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Colour coding for milk

Within the UK there exists a number of different colour codes for different types of milk.

In Plymouth, for example, skimmed milk is colour coded green. However, in Bristol, skimmed milk is coded red, and green is allocated to the semi-skimmed milk.

For people travelling regularly from one part of the country to another, this can lead to great confusion.

Can the Commission indicate if it is considering colour coding the packaging for milk, in order to ensure greater harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Marketing standards for drinking milk are laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/97 of 18 December 1997 laying down additional rules on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products for drinking milk(1). This Regulation deals notably with sales denominations and compositional requirements for drinking milk but contains no provisions on the use of colour codes.

It should be underlined that the use of colour codes is a typical British phenomenon linked to the important market share of fresh milk sold in glass bottles. The Commission believes there is not sufficient justification for regulating the use of colour codes at Community level and that, therefore, the principle of subsidiarity should apply in this case.

(1) OJ L 351, 23.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3539/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Possible public aid for the Terra Mítica theme park

The valuation of the land occupied by the Terra Mítica theme park made by the Provincial Compulsory Purchase Board of Alicante differs sharply from valuations previously given of other adjacent land apparently with the same value, as the following table shows.

>TABLE>

It must be remembered that the Compulsory Purchase Board is an administrative body under the authority of the Ministry of Finance and that a valuation of the land lower than the market price and also lower than the price it had previously established could be seen as public aid for the Terra Mítica theme park, since it would be acquiring the land at a price lower than would be possible for any competitor, thereby gaining competitive advantages.

Does the Commission consider that this information is significant in examining whether public aid has been given to the Terra Mítica theme park?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

In its decision initiating the proceedings under Article 88 (2) (formerly Article 93 (2)) of the EC Treaty in connection with the presumed aid granted to the Terra Mitica Park in Benidorm, Alicante(1), the Commission had already decided that the acquisition of the land by the theme park following the expropriation as referred to by the Honourable Member did not in itself constitute state aid for the reasons outlined in the decision(2). Moreover, these facts are not relevant to the examination of the other aspects of this case, in respect of which the proceedings under Article 88 (2) have been started.

(1) OJ C 300, 26.10.2001.

(2) See point 50 of the decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2728/01

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

For the past few months left-wing militants have been on a hunger strike to the death in Turkey. They have resorted to this extreme form of protest, which to date has resulted in 35 deaths, in response to the terrible conditions under which political prisoners are held in Turkish jails and, in particular, to the prison reforms currently being implemented, under which political prisoners are to be transferred to tiny isolation cells. In late August 2001, demonstrations organised by HADEP in various towns around Turkey, calling for recognition of the cultural and linguistic rights of the Kurdish people and other minorities living in Turkey, were violently broken up by the Turkish police.

What are the Commission's views on the above events? Would it not agree that they are incompatible with the Copenhagen political criteria for accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2001)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the hunger strikes and death fasts in Turkey which have caused, to date, the death of 40 prisoners.

On 21 March 2001, at the occasion of the first prisoner's death, the Commission issued a statement in Ankara, together with the Swedish Presidency, urging the Turkish authorities to take all appropriate measures to avoid further death. It also recalled, in this context, the recommendations made by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

Furthermore, the Commission expressed its regrets, from a humanitarian point of view, for the continuing loss of lives of the hunger strikers while stressing that it did not support in any way the political views of those who were behind them.

The Commission continues to follow closely the developments concerning the situation in prisons, including the adoption by the Government of a number of legislative measures intended to improve the overall conditions of detention in prisons.

These measures relate to the setting-up of facilities aimed at alleviating the isolation regime in F-type prisons, the establishment of enforcement judge offices for the purpose of handling complaints regarding actions taken in respect to prisoners and the creation of monitoring boards intended to carry out inspections and to report to the authorities on prisoner's living and health conditions as well as on transfers and disciplinary measures affecting them.

The Commission trusts that the implementation of these relatively recent measures will be a positive step in the settlement of the ongoing crisis. It should also serve as a contribution to an adjustment of the detention conditions to international standards, which is one of the priorities of the Union Accession Partnership for Turkey.

In the context of its forthcoming annual Report on Turkey's progress towards accession to the Union, the Commission will deal in further detail with this matter as well as with other human rights issues such as the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3213/01

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE),Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE),Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE),Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE),Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: The implication for money-laundering of the new EUR 500 note

Bearing in mind that only two EU Member states (Germany and Holland) use banknotes of comparable value to the EUR 500 note that will enter circulation in January 2002 and that the Deutschmark has for some years been the banknote of choice for criminals across large parts of Europe, can the Commission say why it believes there is any need for a note already dubbed the gangster's note of such a high denomination, whether police forces were consulted before the decision was made to issue it and whether the Commission would be prepared to recommend the note be withdrawn if, following its introduction, Europol or Interpol were to conclude that it significantly assisted organised criminals in carrying-out their activities, including the purchase of large quantities of drugs or nuclear material?

Can the Commission indicate whether it would have been possible to generate sufficient liquidity within the Eurozone by January, 2002 had the decision been taken to make the EUR 200 note the largest banknote to be issued?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Some participating Member States Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria currently have high-value banknotes in a range of 200 to 600. A banknote of DM 1 000 is, for instance, in circulation in Germany. Hence, at least part of the European population is accustomed to using high-value banknotes for transactions and as a store of value. In this respect, high denominations of euro banknotes are replacing some high denominations of national banknotes.

It is of course difficult to assess to what extent the euro will be used in unlawful transactions. And even more difficult to predict whether the 200 and 500 banknotes will have an influence on such use.

The Commission will, within the limits of its competence, endeavour to detect any evidence of disproportionate use of euro banknotes in unlawful transactions after 2001.

The Commission is not aware of any studies on how the denominations of banknotes would effect the liquidity within the euro zone.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3207/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Creation of a single European sky

In its recent Communication on creating a single European sky, the Commission puts forward proposals designed to create a regulatory framework for the entire EU, whilst giving Eurocontrol responsibility for operational matters and the provision of miscellaneous services.

This division of tasks, although justifiable in itself, may create a problem for the representatives of general and light aviation who, on behalf of tens of thousands of private pilots, have always in the past had the opportunity to discuss any proposed changes to the rules by means of a consultation mechanism within Eurocontrol.

The Commission proposal also refers to consultations with users of the single European sky. Would it not be advisable to set up a formal consultation scheme involving representatives of general and light aviation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

On 10 October 2001 the Commission presented a package of proposals on the creation of the Single European Sky(1) intended to set up a decision-making and regulatory framework which was more in line with the constraints of air traffic in Europe.

As far as institutions are concerned, the Single European Sky is based on the complementary relationship between the Union's regulatory powers and the competence and expertise which exist within Eurocontrol and the Member States. More precisely, the Eurocontrol agency will be entrusted by the Commission with the technical expertise work needed to draw up Community rules.

In the face of lack of harmonisation in the classification of European airspace, the proposals aim to consider European airspace as a common resource which must be effectively organised and managed, in complete safety, in order to meet the requirements of users and to permit a fair and non-discriminatory distribution of resources among all users, including general and light aviation.

The Commission is currently holding talks with Eurocontrol to define the procedures for cooperation between the organisations. This cooperation will also involve Eurocontrol in observing certain requirements with regard to the consultation of interested parties. The Commission will ensure that these consultation mechanisms permit the taking into consideration of the viewpoint of the associations concerned.

In this way, the representatives of general and light aviation will continue to have an important role in this consultation process.

(1) COM(2001) 123 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: World Cup 2002 Commission cooperation with the Japanese and Korean authorities

Is the Commission planning to coordinate the provision of information to the Japanese and Korean authorities regarding European Union citizens who have been convicted of football-related offences in a Member State or deported from a Member State, so that the Japanese and Korean authorities may control entry to the World Cup matches in June 2002.

If it is planning to assist in the provision of this information, how will it ensure that the individuals are informed that they may be refused entry?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The Commission is not planning to coordinate the provision of information related to Union citizens to the Japanese and Korean authorities in the context of the World Cup matches in 2202 and has no competence to do so.

In addition, since the next World Championship will be held in Asia, the Commission has no specific information regarding the organisation of the tournament.

The Commission is aware however that some Member States are in contact with the organising countries Korea and Japan as regards the possible supply of information on their national supporters so as to enable the organising countries to better prepare their security measures. The extent to which Union citizens will be informed that their personal data is being transmitted to the Japanese and Korean authorities depends on the law of their Member State.

As the Honourable Member knows, there has been a successful development of the co-operation between law enforcement services of the Member States on public order and security during sporting events organised inside the Union over the past few years.

Some examples that can be mentioned are:

- the possibility for Member States to send police officers to the Member State where an international competition is played, with the task of tracking supporters and, where authorised, co-operate with local authorities;

- the development of common standards for Member States hosting international sporting events;

- adoption by the Council of recommendations as regards the prevention and control of disorder at football matches.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3646/01

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

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Budget line B7-6000

On 18 January 2000 the Commission adopted a discussion paper entitled The Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership. The document outlined various ways of providing a Commission-wide framework for cooperation more coherent than that previously organised on a sector-by-sector basis.

However, the working document Draft guidelines for implementation of NGO co-financed projects carried out in developing countries under budget line B7-6000 in 2002 seeks to limit still further NGO autonomy and their scope for initiative in submitting co-funding projects.

Given that the funds allocated to budget line B7-6000, which is specifically for NGOs, represent barely 3 % of the total aid earmarked for cooperation with third countries:

- Will the Commission explain why it is seeking to restrict NGO autonomy still further, given their already limited sphere of action?

- Does the Commission want to continue curbing the scope for NGOs to take initiatives in submitting co-funding projects under budget line B7-6000?

Could these attempts to curb and restrict initiatives by NGOs not be seen as contrary to the provisions on encouraging participation by civil society contained in the Cotonou Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Commission has indeed undertaken to explore ways of improving the framework for cooperation with non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Development is one of the areas in which cooperation between the Commission and the NGOs is particularly well established and forms the subject of regular, in-depth discussions.

The guidelines for implementing projects cofinanced with the NGOs and carried out in the developing countries under budget heading B7-6000 for 2002 and 2003 were recently adopted by the Commission after it had consulted the Member States. The guidelines are based on respect for the NGOs' right of initiative and recognition of their specific role among the disadvantaged and marginalised sectors of the population in the developing countries.

The Commission does not therefore share the point of view that the Commission is restricting NGO autonomy and their scope for initiative. It is worth pointing out that the Commission's support for the NGOs is not confined to budget heading B7-6000, but is provided through a number of other financial instruments, such as the budget headings for human rights, humanitarian aid, rehabilitation etc.: consequently, cooperation involving the NGOs greatly exceeds the percentage mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In the case of cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), the new guidelines for the budget heading not only tie in fully with the Cotonou Agreement, but are also particularly tailored to supporting the strengthening of civil society in the partner countries, one of the key points of the Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3568/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: 1956 Hungarian uprising

Would the Commission indicate whether the issue of impunity after the 1956 uprisings to the present day is a matter of concern in the pre-accession deliberations taking place between the EU and Hungary?

Is the Commission aware that the statutes of limitation in Hungary, effectively, procrastinated the bringing to trial of the perpetrators involved in the 1956 uprisings, and enabled many of them to go unpunished in Hungary?

Would the Commission agree that the length of sentence delivered in the Mosonmagyaróvár case, in June of this year, in effect gave pardon to the accused, Mr Dudás, through invoking Act No 39 of 1990 on General Amnesty?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

In the framework of the pre-accession strategy, the Commission is closely following the political developments of candidate countries. In fact, in its Regular Reports it assesses on an annual basis whether the political criteria for accession are met, as laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993. In

line with these criteria, the candidate countries must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The latest Regular Report was issued in November 2001.

According to this Report, Hungary fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria.

However, as a matter of principle, the Commission does not qualify isolated decisions taken by a competent Hungarian Court. In addition, in the current case of Mr Dudás, a final decision by the Hungarian Supreme Court is still outstanding following the introduction of an appeal by Mr Dudás to the decision of the first instance Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3652/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Multifunctionality of European agriculture

Given that various non-Community countries have criticised the system of Community subsidies for agricultural exports and in view of the current discussions on recognising the multifunctionality of European agriculture and reducing import tariffs, would the Commission state:

- what its position is on the issue of multifunctionality?

- whether it considers that it would be appropriate to cut tariffs and, at the same time, to review the tariff system so as to strike a fairer balance between European products, which are currently over-protected, and Mediterranean products (for example, customs duty on tomatoes currently stands at 8 %, on butter at 68 % and on sugar at 68 %)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

A multifunctional role for agriculture is an essential element of the Community's general negotiating position. Agriculture is not and cannot be treated as an industrial sector. It has a production function (agricultural goods) in both developed and developing countries but also contributes to sustainable development, the vitality of rural areas, protection of the environment and the fight against poverty.

A number of members of the World Trade Organisation (South Korea, Japan, Mauritius, Norway etc.) have joined the Community in defending a tempered view of agricultural policies and trade. As it did at Doha, the Commission will continue in the WTO negotiating fora to defend resolutely its vision of the European agricultural model.

On the question of tariff rebalancing between European and Mediterranean products, the Commission will take its stand on the Community's general negotiating position of supporting a formula for reducing bound tariffs of the same type as was used in the Uruguay Round. It also points out that in addition to tariff protection a specific entry price provision, applies to tomatoes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Clarification of the reply to Oral Question H-0751/01 concerning UNIDCP activities in Afghanistan

Further to the clarifications which it provided in its written reply of 2 October 2001 to Oral Question H-0751/01(1), to the effect that it has funded projects in Afghanistan, would the Commission now state:

1. what the objectives are, how many projects are involved and how much they are costing;

2. who has organised and implemented them; and

3. under which budget heading they have been funded?

(1) Written answer of 2.10.2001.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Community currently finances no project specifically related to the fight against drugs in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Community is financing actions in favour of uprooted people in this country, on the credits available under budget line B7-302, which can be of benefit to those populations suffering as result of the poppy ban.

These actions, their location, their costs, as well as the organisations which carry them out, are displayed in the table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

On the base of the adoption of the Regulation 2130/2001 of 29 October 2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on operations to aid uprooted people in

Asian and Latin American developing countries(1), new NGO projects in favour of the Afghan people totalling some 20 million are in the process of being decided by the Commission, to be financed on the resources of the same budget line for 2001.

(1) OJ L 287, 31.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/01

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Tobacco premiums for 2005

Commission proposal(1) fixes tobacco premiums for 2002, 2003 and 2004. In view of the fact that tobacco growers need to know what the premium for their product will be at least one marketing year in advance, when does the Commission intend to submit its new proposal for the arrangements which will apply to the harvest in 2005 and thereafter?

(1) COM(2001) 684, 21.11.2001.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2002)

As part of its systematic assessment of the agriculture measures the Commission has launched an assessment study of the common market organisation for raw tobacco that will review the impact of the Community rules. Its conclusions are expected by the end of 2002.

On that basis the Commission will present a reform proposal for the tobacco CMO in the first quarter of 2003.