ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: The direct awarding of feasibility study contracts in Greece

According to Greek press reports, the national authorities have decided to award directly a feasibility study contract of Drs 4,1 billion to the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava relating to projects surrounding the site of the Olympic stadium in Athens, works within the stadium and the electric rail link with the future suburban rail service.

Council Directive 92/50/EEC(1) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts stipulates tendering procedures for the award of feasibility study contracts and authorises the direct award of such contracts only in emergencies, for example major natural disasters or if the service in question can only be provided by one specific person or if it relates to the protection of intellectual property rights. It is noteworthy, however, that none of the conditions laid down by the Council directive appear to apply regarding the direct awarding of the feasibility study contract to Mr Calatrava, thereby excluding dozens of other eminent architects throughout Europe from a tendering procedure which should, under normal circumstances, have been announced and organised by the Greek authorities in a manner entirely above reproach.

Is the Commission aware of the above situation? Does it consider that any infringement of Community legislation has occurred? If so, what steps will it take and what sanctions will it apply to Greece if appropriate?

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that it is aware of the award by negotiated procedure without publication of a notice to the Spanish architect, Santiago Calatrava, of a series of studies in connection with the preparations for the Athens Olympic Games in 2004.

The Commission has already contacted the Greek authorities with a formal request for information and clarification on the matter. In their written reply, the Greek authorities confirmed the facts and justified their decision to proceed in such a manner on the basis of the exceptions referred to in Article 11 (3) (b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Article 20 (2) (c) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors(1). According to the provisions in question, the awarding authorities may resort to a negotiated procedure without publication of a notice to award a contract for services when, for artistic reasons, the services may be provided only by a particular service provider.

The Commission is in the process of considering the reply from the Greek authorities. At the moment, therefore, it is not in a position to inform the honourable Member, of the action that will be taken in this matter.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3011/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Commercial and sexual exploitation of children

The Second World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children is to be held in Yokohama, Japan, from 17 to 20 December 2001.

Will the Council be taking part in that Congress? What views will it express and what commitments will it give as the European Union's contribution to the international fight against the sexual and commercial exploitation of children, and what is its assessment of its policy so far?

Does it have an evaluation of the implementation of the action plans adopted at the First World Congress held in Stockholm in 1996?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

There are plans for a representative of the Council or the Council Presidency to attend the Second World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children although a decision has not yet been taken.

The Council has already had the opportunity in reply to Question 8 No H-0431/01 put by the Honourable Member to stress the importance it attaches to combating the sexual exploitation of children and to draw up a list of the initiatives it has taken in the field. The Council's position on previous initiatives will serve as a rule of thumb for its representative if it is decided to participate in this conference.

The Council does not have an assessment of the implementation of the action plans adopted at the previous conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Communication between the Commission and the public

The personal letter sent directly by the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs to thousands and thousands of firms and professionals, as well as meeting the objective of making Europeans aware of their crucial date with the euro, also had the effect of making each of the addressees grateful for the fact that such a high-ranking figure in the Commission wrote to them personally on a specific matter of particular importance.

If we are looking for ways in which the Commission might move closer to Community citizens in a more direct and personal way, there is no doubt that this letter sets a good example.

Can the Commission say whether, following the success of this information campaign based on personal letters, it will add this approach to the list of possible ways in which it should move closer to Community citizens as they themselves wish, given that they are gradually coming to understand that the Commission is having a growing influence on their lives?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for expressing his appreciation for the actions taken in communicating directly with the public on the issue of the Euro.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, on 27 June 2001, the Commission adopted a Communication on A new framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the European Union(1). Its aim is to establish a new inter-institutional relationship based on a framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the Union. This is the first step in a process that will lead to a more effective and coherent strategy that improves the quality and delivery of information and stimulates greater public engagement.

Part of that process is the consideration of existing and new instruments and tools for the provision of information, including the sending of personalised letters. More direct communication with citizens about the Union and its policies will help to bridge the current information gap and it will enhance people's understanding of the Union.

There will also be an evaluation of all aspects of the euro campaign, including direct communication with the public. This evaluation will clearly influence the conduct of future information campaigns.

(1) COM(2001) 354 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/01

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

(6 August 2001)

Subject: Protection measures with regard to time-sharing

Directive 94/47/EC(1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a time-share basis deals with aspects relating to time-share contracts. Article 3 lays down that the Member States must make provision in their legislation for the necessary measures to ensure that the vendor provides purchasers with information on the immovable property and that this information forms an integral part of the contract. In practice, time-share contracts are misleading for consumers who, once they have acquired their right, do not know what they can do to protect themselves.

Does the Commission know whether there are any Member States which have not yet made provision for these protection measures in their legislation? What can citizens of the Member States concerned do in the face of this legal vacuum? What measures exist to protect consumers in such cases?

What action will the Commission take to ensure that these measures are adopted and complied with in all the Member States?

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

All Member States have communicated the measures that they have taken in order to implement the Directive 94/47/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis. However, the Commission considers, as far as Article 3 of the Directive is concerned, that the measures adopted by Italy do not transpose this article properly, given that no provisions have been adopted for the consequences of non-compliance with this article. Therefore, the Commission has initiated an infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is currently examining the situation in Greece and the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2951/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Gibraltar's exclusion from the proposals for a European Single Sky

Could the Commission say what possible basis there is for excluding Gibraltar from the current proposals for a European Single Sky, and whether it believes that there is a legal basis on which such discrimination could be challenged in the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission adopted proposals on the realisation of a Single European Sky, referring to the reform of air traffic management, on 10 October 2001(1). As the Honourable Member will have noted, the Explanatory Memorandum of that proposal indicated that The Commission takes note of the recent understanding reached between the United Kingdom and Spanish authorities on Gibraltar airport which will be addressed in the Council through a specific provision on the scope of the measures for the creation of the single European sky.

(1) COM(2001) 123 final and 564 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Arrest of eight foreign nationals by the Taliban in Afghanistan

Since 5 August, the Taliban Islamic fundamentalist regime has held eight foreign nationals (four German, two Australian and two American) and 16 Afghans working for the NGO, Shelter Now International, in custody charged with attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity. At the same time, hundreds of humanitarian aid workers are helping many thousands of Afghan civilians to survive the civil war. Under Islamic law, the sharia, the accused may face the death sentence.

What measures and diplomatic initiatives will the Council take to compel the Islamic regime to guarantee the safety of the foreign nationals in its custody and respect their human rights, and what steps will it take to exert pressure on the unlawful government of Afghanistan to comply with international law and respect religious freedom, the right of freedom of expression and free will?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

For the time being, the Member States concerned have specifically asked the Council not to intervene on behalf of their detained citizens in order to facilitate confidential bilateral contacts which are under way to solve the issue.

In reply to aspects related to the 16 Afghan nationals detained by the Taliban, the Council would like to draw the Honourable MEP's attention to the reply given to the similar Oral Question H 0797/2001.

In any case the situation in Afghanistan has lately evolved in such a manner that the resolution of these cases should be undertaken taking those changes into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Free trade with the 48 poorest countries in the world

In March 2001 free trade with transitional periods between the EU countries and the 48 poorest countries in the world was decided on.

Is there any possibility that the EU might reappraise this decision in principle or is it hard and fast? If there is any scope for reappraisal will the Commission state the terms on which it would take place?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

On 26 February 2001, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 416/2001 of 28 February 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least developed countries (LDCs)(1) commonly referred to as the everything but arms (EBA) Regulation, granting duty-free access to imports of all products from LDCs (48 poorest countries), except arms and munitions, without any quantitative restrictions. Only for imports of fresh bananas, rice and sugar liberalisation will take place in stages, with full liberalisation taking effect in 2009.

The EBA Regulation amended Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998, applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001(2) (generalised system of preferences (GSP) Regulation).

EBA as part of the GSP is an autonomous trade policy instrument providing development-oriented preferences. It is a unilateral concession from the Community to the world's poorest countries to improve trading opportunities for LDCs and enhance their participation in world trade.

The EBA Regulation foresees a liberalisation process which will end in 2009. It also provides that the special arrangements for LDCs should not be subject to the periodic renewal of the Community's scheme of generalised preferences. Therefore, the date of expiry of the present GSP scheme (31 December 2001) does not apply to EBA provisions.

(1) OJ L 60, 1.3.2001.

(2) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2560/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Electricity shortages in Spain market regulation and consequences for consumers

Despite the over-optimistic statements made by the Spanish Government on the liberalisation of the electricity market, that market reveals serious shortcomings and monopolies still remain in the transport and distribution sectors.

These shortcomings have recently led to power cuts which have left consumers in the dark for hours in many parts of Spain, particularly the Community of Valencia.

The managing director of Iberdrola recently said that unless charges were raised, there would be more cuts.

Given that Article 82(b) of the Treaty lays down that one form of abuse of a dominant position consists in limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers, does the Commission see signs of abusive behaviour in the Spanish electricity sector, or does it take the view that these shortcomings are simply the consequence of poor regulation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Opening up the market has not noticeably changed the situation regarding electricity transport and distribution structures in the Union which existed prior to Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity(1).

Interruptions in electricity supply are related to the general problem of continuity of supply, which is part of the concept of universal service. The Commission takes the view that, even after the entry into force of the electricity Directive, legislation by national administrations would appear to be the best way of ensuring continuity of supply at this stage. However, it remains alert to this type of problem and has included in its new proposal on the completion of the internal market in electricity and gas(2) additional provisions aimed at providing further guarantees as to security of supply.

At this stage, the Commission does not have any information that would lead it to conclude that the interruptions in the continuity of the supply of electricity in certain regions of Spain are due to abusive practices by one or more players on the Spanish electricity market.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Common position on Cuba

The Council has not reviewed the common position on Cuba since 1996. Relations between the Union and Cuba have changed profoundly and the common position does not reflect the current state of relations.

It is above all in the Union's interests to review the common position on Cuba before the end of this year.

1. What does the Council intend to do about this?

2. Has it already placed the issue on its agenda?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2272/01 and P-2505/01

(17 December 2001)

1. As laid down in the EU Common Position on Cuba, every six months since its approval the Council has reviewed the situation in that country with a view to evaluating the need to revise the Common Position.

2. During its ninth evaluation on 25 June 2001, the Council noted that, since the previous evaluation, there had not been any significant signs of change in the Cuban Government's policy towards the accomplishment of the aims of the Common Position. The Council also noted that the Common Position remained the basis of the European Union's policy towards Cuba.

3. The Council reiterated that the objectives of the European Union towards Cuba remained the encouragement of a process of peaceful transition to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

4. In the light of the ninth evaluation, the Council considered that a broader presence of EU actors in Cuba would lead to a more efficient pursuit of the Common Position as it would offer opportunities for an ongoing process of dialogue, exchanges of experiences and learning for the future. The Council therefore encouraged the European Commission to strengthen its efforts for cooperation with, in particular, civil and non-governmental organisations in Cuba.

5. The Council also stressed the importance of the EU and Cuban authorities engaging in a constructive and frank dialogue on all issues of common interest and stated the European Union's readiness to resume such dialogue.

6. It was against this background that, on 23 and 24 August 2001, a Troika fact-finding delegation led by the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Louis Michel, travelled to Havana at the invitation of the Cuban authorities. The delegation held talks with the Cuban Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Pérez Roque, and the Vice-President of the Council of Ministers and Minister for the Economy and Planning, Mr Rodríguez. It also met representatives of Cuban dissidents who gave the EU their account of the situation in Cuba.

7. The Troika held an exchange of views with the Cuban authorities on the EU Common Position on Cuba. Both sides agreed on the need to resume, as quickly as possible and without any preconditions, a dialogue addressing all issues of common interest, including human rights.

8. In any event, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that EU-Cuba relations will shortly be under discussion in the Council in the context of the six-monthly review of the Common Position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Environmental situation in Marianna di Pietrabianca (Province of Catanzaro), Italy

There is good reason to believe that, in Marianna di Pietrabanca (Catanzaro, Italy), hundreds of railway sleepers are buried underground, less than thirty metres from the water's edge. These sleepers have apparently been transported there by the Mollo company in relation to building work for a bathing establishment. The Ministry of the Environment classifies such sleepers as special waste. Over the years, bathing establishments with fixed booths made of concrete and other concrete constructions have been built on the Santa Maria cliffs, in blatant contravention of the ministerial decree of 26 March 1970 (designating the Bonifati coastline as an area of special public interest). In the winter of 2000 a large portion of these cliffs collapsed into the sea. Along the Bonifati coastline, many of the paths giving access to the sea are permanently closed to walkers, in contravention of the relevant state laws.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the area is rehabilitated and that any prohibitions which are considered illegal are removed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission's powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty, in particular, it is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States. On the basis of Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied.

On the basis of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no clear breach of Community directives can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues in relation to applicable Community environmental law, the Commission would be able to start an investigation on the case.