ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1373/02

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: EU commitment to devote 0,39 % of GNI to Official Development Aid by 2006 and the applicant countries

During the Monterrey UN Conference on Financing for Development, the Spanish Presidency confirmed, on behalf of the 15 Member States, that the EU had committed itself in Barcelona to devote the EU average of 0,39 % of GNI to its Official Development Aid by 2006. The Presidency also confirmed that this target represents an additional USD 7 billion by 2006 which, in a low-growth scenario, will make available at least some USD 20 billion more over the period 2000-2006.

Does the Commission agree that this commitment to 0,39 % ODA/GNI represents a binding target? Does this target have to be considered as part of the acquis communautaire in the sense that the applicant countries will eventually also have to follow suit?

How, and within what time frame, does the Commission intend to ensure that the commitment is formally incorporated into the acquis so that this issue may be addressed in the outstanding negotiations with the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

The Member States decided in Council conclusions adopted on 15 March 2002 to increase their Official Development Assistance (ODA), so as to reach the collective Community average of 0,39 % ODA/GNI by 2006. In view of this objective, all Member States are committed to strive to reach, within their respective budget allocation processes, at least 0,33 % ODA/GNI by 2006. At the same time, Member States that have already reached the United Nations agreed target of 0,7 % ODA/GNI will renew their efforts to remain above the target.

Council conclusions are not legally binding acts, but both the specific character of it and the kind of decision making process that lead to the Barcelona decision give it a strong political weight. This is not, however, something that legally and formally has to be negotiated before accession but will be part of the ongoing process afterwards.

More generally, and referring to the 0,7 % target, Article 177(3) of the EC Treaty states that the Community and the Member States shall comply with the commitments and take account of the objectives they have approved in the context of the United Nations and other competent international organisations. Candidate countries must comply with this EC Treaty provision in the same way as current Member States, once they become members of the Union. The Commission therefore considers that a discussion will have to take place on how best the new Member States can contribute to the Union efforts in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Release from prison of the Turkish Cypriot journalists Sener Levent and Memduh Ener

The Turkish Cypriots Sener Levent and Memduh Ener, the former the editor and the latter a journalist, of the Turkish Cypriot newspaper Africa (who aroused the wrath of the regime for supporting a peaceful solution to the problem of Cyprus and the accession of Cyprus to the European Union), have been given a six-month jail sentence for publishing an article criticising Rauf Denktash and the Turkish army of occupation. Given that the situation as regards human rights and freedom of expression is steadily deteriorating in the occupied territories, will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to secure the release of these two journalists and ensure that the above rights are respected?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

The Commission regrets the fact that, on 8 August 2002, the editor and a journalist of the newspaper Africa were sentenced to six months in prison for an article published in July 1999 that was said to have contained an insult against the President.

It believes that the right to free speech constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. Free speech, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, does not only encompass value judgements that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.

These principles are of particular importance as far as the press is concerned.

On 9 October 2002, the Commission will present this year's Regular Report of Cyprus Progress towards Accession to the Union. The report will contain a section dealing with the situation in the northern parts of Cyprus, and will take into account the events to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Arbitrary arrests and the political situation in Laos

On 15 November 2001 the European Parliament adopted and forwarded to the Commission a topical and urgent resolution on arbitrary arrests and the political situation in Laos(1) in which it

- pointed out that the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and Lao PDR is based on respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 1), and that failure to respect this condition must be considered a case of material breach of the Agreement with respect to Article 19 and Annex 1;

- said that the arrest and disappearance of five leaders of the 26 October 1999 Movement, Keuakoun, Sisa-At, Phengphanh, Chanmanivong and Keochay, was a clear and visible case of violation of the democratic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and must therefore be considered a case of non-respect of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Laos.

Commissioner Patten, replying on behalf of the Commission to question P-0019/02(2), said on 7 February 2002 that the Commission did not intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Joint Committee provided for by Article 14 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the Lao People's Democratic Republic and explicitly called for in Parliament's resolution of 15 November 2001 because there were continuing opportunities to raise Human Rights concerns with the Lao Government through other channels.

1. What other channels are used by the Commission to ask the Lao authorities to ensure that the political and civil rights recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are observed? On the basis of what criteria are these channels selected? How do they operate?

2. On what occasions has the question of the arrest and disappearance of the five leaders of the 26 October 1999 Movement been raised? What answers were obtained from the government of Lao PDR?

(1) OJ C 140 E, 13.6.2002, p. 577.

(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 166.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

As already indicated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Questions P-3175/01(1) and P-0019/02(2), the Commission has the possibility of raising human rights issues with the Government of Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) in bilateral meetings and when participating in Union political démarches agreed with the Member States. These channels are additional to the Union-Lao Joint Committee and can in practice be used at any time, while the Joint Commission normally meets only once every two years.

The question of the arrest and disappearance of the five leaders of the 26 October 1999 Movement has been raised through these channels. Unfortunately, it has been impossible so far to receive clear information from the Government on the five missing Laotians. The Commission will therefore continue to raise the issue through the available channels.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 67.

(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 166.
3.

No particular difficulties for train passengers have been reported to the Commission since November 2002. Nor does the Commission have any basis for assuming that provocations have recently been staged at the future external borders of the Union with Belarus or the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the Joint Statement agreed by the Union and Russia at the Summit on 11 November 2002, and the agreement on mutual travel of citizens between Lithuania and Russia of 30 December 2002, which succeeds the earlier bilateral agreement between the two countries, should ensure that in future, bureaucratic controls are kept to the minimum. It will now be possible for Lithuania and Russia, with the participation of the Union, to ensure that transit of people between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia takes place as smoothly as possible while respecting Lithuania's sovereignty and the obligations Lithuania has agreed to take on under the Community's acquis. Thus, direct rail passengers will gradually be required to obtain additional travel documentation from 1 January 2003. In addition to the possibility of obtaining a national Lithuanian visa there will from 1 July 2003, be the option of a ‘Facilitated Rail Transit Document’ which passengers may request on reserving a ticket and which will be issued by the Lithuanian authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/290

(2004/C 88 E/0297)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Relaxing of the ban on the use of bonemeal in animal feed

What is the exact quantity of old stocks of bonemeal in the EU and how are they distributed among the individual Member States and their regions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

In March 2001 the Commission carried out a questionnaire survey asking for details of disposal routes, amounts of animal by-products (ABP) disposed of via each route, and costs. The survey was carried out in order to monitor the level of increase in ABP, and its impact in particular on the storage and disposal capacities of processed animal proteins (PAP), including meat-and-bone meal in Member States. Among other things, the survey revealed the following stocks of PAP at that time:

(Tonnes) Member States Estimated amount of PAP stored in March 2001 Belgium 14 000 Denmark 56 000 Germany 27 453 Greece 5 000 Spain 4 194 France 200 000 Ireland 100 000 Italy 30 000 Luxembourg 0 The Netherlands 75 000 Austria <1 000 Portugal 83 617 Finland 10 000 Sweden 12 600 United Kingdom 436 000

Luxembourg sends all his ABP to Belgium for rendering and therefore, has no stocks of PAP. Four Member States (Greece, France, the Netherlands and Portugal) and two Federal States in Germany (Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) indicated a shortage of storage capacity.

Recently, the Commission sent again a request for information to Member States. In particular, each Member State was asked to submit formal plans on the manner in which stocks of meat-and-bone meal are currently being handled, transported and stored and the plans for their disposal. The data was requested for 30 August 2002. The Commission intends in due course to report on the responses to this questionnaire and its implications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/709

(2004/C 84 E/0796)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Netherlands Student Grants Act

In the Netherlands, grants are awarded to students aged over 18. That applies to all forms of education. Child benefit is not paid in respect of students aged over 18.

If the students concerned pursue their studies in Belgium or Germany, student grants are awarded in respect of higher education and university courses but not in respect of secondary, basic or intermediate vocational training courses.

The Netherlands authorities recognise periods of study in Belgium and Germany in connection with the Compulsory Education Act, and degrees taken in Germany and Belgium are recognised as full degrees.

1. Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of the principle of ‘free movement of services’ (following a recognised training course abroad) and/or the ‘free movement of persons’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/18

(2004/C 65 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3608/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: NATO enlargement and EU defence policy

The summit of the 19 NATO heads of state and government, held in Prague on 21/22 November in the presence of the leaders of the 27 associate countries of the Atlantic Alliance and meeting in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, tackled two fundamental issues among others: the updating of NATO's strategic capacity and its enlargement, three years before the entry of the first three former Soviet bloc countries.

The Alliance's political and strategic profile had to be redefined as a result of the diversification of the sources of instability and insecurity (rather than the previous predominant Soviet threat) and the extension of the tasks entrusted to NATO by the 1991 and 1999 Strategic Concept, which envisaged opposition to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against international terrorism and organised crime. The results achieved in Prague seem to suggest that the Alliance is still the political and military lynchpin of the new European security framework, even though the summit did not manage to resolve all the Alliance's political and institutional problems.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it still considers NATO to be an alliance in the traditional sense of the word, or as the beginning of a new and more efficient collective security system;

2. in what sense relations between the European Union and the United States are established and developed within it;

3. in the military context, what the position of the Union's Rapid Reaction Force will be vis-à-vis the NATO Reaction Force, since 17 of the 19 NATO countries are European;

4. what role is played by the WEU in this context;

5. whether it is conceivable that the ‘enhanced cooperation’ formula may provide the required effectiveness for the member countries and ensure an autonomous defence policy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The questions asked by the Honourable Member fall outside the Commission's competence and it would therefore be inappropriate for the Commission to reply.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/293

(2004/C 88 E/0300)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3331/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Community Information Society Programme

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in implementing the programme concerning the ‘Information Society’ in the light of reports in the Greek press that the ministries responsible for implementation are dragging their heels and are having difficulty issuing calls for tenders owing to a lack of coordination? Is it possible that these delays will result in a loss of funding for the 3rd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Operational Programme (OP) ‘Information Society’ was approved by the Commission Decision C(2001)551, on 14 March 2001. A table summarising the progress of this OP since the first actions were ‘activated’ (1) in July 2001, according to information (2) received from the Managing Authority of the programme is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. More recent information suggests that the public spending of the programme so far is EUR 73,8 million, or 3,3 % of the public spending foreseen by the programme.

It can be concluded from this information that the OP ‘Information Society’ is one of the slower programmes to be implemented in Greece as far as expenditure figures are concerned. The main explanation is that, with the partial exception of e-government actions, this programme consists of new actions, which due to their technological nature require careful planning and thus take time to start.

In view of the limited success of previous attempts to promote the information society in Greece, a considerable effort is being made by the authorities in charge of the programme to explain what kind of projects would be funded and how these projects should be implemented. A significant part of the programme is linked to the progress in the liberalisation of the telecommunications market. Although the current communications services regulatory framework in Greece is in compliance with Community legislation and the new EU regulatory framework in this area is expected to be adopted by the Greek authorities in the first quarter of 2003, the full impact of the liberalisation is yet to be felt in the market. This has caused an additional delay in the implementation of the programme.

The Commission is currently examining the situation with the Greek authorities and in particular whether there is a risk to lose credits at the end of the year 2003 (‘n+2’ rule). At this moment in time, there does not seem to be a risk for 2003.

(1) According to the Greek authorities, the chain of the implementation of a programme is defined as follows: ‘Activation’ of a measure: Invitation to the Final Beneficiary (-ies) (= the implementing body, see definition in Regul. 1260/99) of the measure to submit their project proposal to the Managing Authority for evaluation.

(2) See also web site (www.infosoc.gr).
1.

Under article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, migrant workers have the right to equal treatment in ‘tax and social advantages’ as workers of the host Member State. The European Court of Justice has defined these as: ‘all the advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract, are generally granted to national workers primarily because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory and whose extension to workers who are nationals of other Member States therefore seems likely to facilitate the mobility of such workers within the Community (2).’ Grundzulage and the supplement Kinderzulage are to be regarded as such advantages, since they are linked to contributions to occupational pension schemes. According to consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, a frontier worker is entitled to the benefit of social advantages (3).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0134/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Angola international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Angola international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Angola?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

1. Article 3 of the current Protocol to the fisheries agreement between the Community and the Republic of Angola(1) fixes the level of financial compensation at EUR 15 500 000 per year. Of this, EUR 5 525 000 is used for the measures in support of the Angolan fisheries sector specified in Article 4 of the Protocol.

2. The financial compensation of EUR 15 500 000 per year represents the amount that is paid in exchange for the fishing opportunities made available to the Community fleet.

3. The amounts paid by the vessel owners are fixed in the Annex A to the Protocol. The licence fee for vessels fishing for shrimps is EUR 52 per month per gross registered tonnage (GRT) and that for vessels fishing for demersal species is EUR 220 per year per GRT. Fees for half-year licences shall be 3 % higher and fees for quarterly licences 5 % higher. The licence fee for vessels fishing for pelagic species is EUR 3 per month per GRT. For tuna vessels and surface longliners the licence fees are EUR 25 per tonne caught within Angolan waters. The licences are delivered after advance payments of EUR 4 500 for freezer tuna seiners and EUR 2 500 for surface longliners. The amounts of the advances are deducted from the total amount due on the basis of the catches during the preceding year, but if the amount due is less than the advance the balance is not recoverable.

(1) OJ L 351, 28.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: The status of pension entitlements

It has recently been brought to my attention that, in the UK, pensioners have a proportion of their pension withdrawn from them for every week over 6 weeks that they spend in hospital. As a result of pressure from various groups, that period will be increased to 11 weeks in October 2003.

This creates problems for many pensioners, since time spent in hospital does not necessarily reduce monthly outgoings (e.g. rent payments).

It appears to me that, since pensions constitute social security payments, and are thus an entitlement based on a percentage of wages paid in over the years rather than a social welfare benefit which is awarded according to need, there is no justification for reducing pension payments during time spent in hospital.

Does the Commission agree that pensions are entitlements based on contributions made to the social security system rather than social welfare benefits?

Does the Commission agree that stopping pensions payments during time spent in hospital penalises pensioners in this position and may therefore be deemed to be discriminatory?

Can the Commission give its view on this UK practice?

Is the Commission aware of any similar rules in place in other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

In most Member States, the link between contributory benefits and the total amount of contributions is not fully actuarial and there are elements of solidarity built into contributory social protection schemes. These solidarity elements may operate both on the contribution (e.g. no upper limit to contributions even though earnings-related benefits are capped) and on the benefit side (e.g. taking into account individual needs). The United Kingdom state pension is a flat-rate pension benefit financed from earnings-related contributions. A supplement is paid for dependents. Both the basic state pension and the supplement for dependents can be reduced in the event of a hospital stay.

Member States are free to define which social security benefits are available and under which conditions (subject to certain anti-discrimination requirements laid down by Community legislation). The Commission does not consider that the reduction of the basic state pension in the event of a hospital stay is contrary to Community law. Moreover, the amount of the reduction in the United Kingdom is comparable in its amount to daily fees that are charged to patients in various Member States as a contribution to the cost of a hospital stay.

For details on such charges, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc/2002/index_en.htm (Table II Health Care: Benefits 2.2. Hospitalisation: Patient's participation).