ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 October 2001)

Subject: The anomalous situation of non-EU nationals permitted to vote in UK elections

Is the Council aware that non-EU citizens from Commonwealth countries who have for historical reasons been allowed to vote in all UK elections

(including European elections) are sometimes subject to visa requirements when visiting other EU states (e.g. Indian nationals living in the UK who wish to travel to France to visit their MEPs)? If so, and if the Council believes that it is appropriate for non-EU nationals to vote in European elections, does the Council believe that this is an anomaly which should be addressed?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

With regard to voting rights, the Council would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to the Council Decision of 20 September 1976. Article 7 of the Act of 1976 contains the following provision: Pending the entry into force of a uniform electoral procedure and subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral procedure shall be governed in each Member State by its national provisions.

As regards citizens of non-EU countries, Community law does not prevent a Member State from deciding to grant such citizens resident in that Member State the right to vote in elections. It is not for the Council to take a position on provisions that fall within the competence of Member States.

With regard to the visa situation, the Council can but remind the Honourable Member of the legal situation under the terms of the Treaty. The establishment of a list of countries whose citizens are required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the border of a Member State and of those whose citizens are exempted from such requirement is provided for by Article 62 point 2b)i) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. That list is contained in Regulation 539/2001 adopted by the Council in March this year. India is one of the countries whose citizens do need to be in possession of a visa when crossing the border of the Member States concerned by Regulation 539/2001.

Under the terms of the protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community and to the Treaty on European Union, those two Member States shall not participate in the adoption by the Council of measures falling under title IV of the EC Treaty unless they notify, within three months of a proposal being presented to the Council, that they wish to take part in the adoption of any such proposed measure. In the case of Regulation 539/2001, the United Kingdom (like Ireland) did not notify a wish to take part in the adoption of the regulation. Thus Indian and some other Commonwealth citizens are required to be in possession of a visa when entering the territory of the Schengen States, while the United Kingdom and Ireland remain free to determine their own visa regime in respect of such persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2690/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from EUROPE-AID Cooperation Office

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the EUROPE-AID Cooperation Office, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Preliminary contacts have taken place with a number of North Italian regions in connection with decentralised cooperation budget lines B.7.6430/B.7.6002. The requests received in 2000 and 2001 from the Italian regions (both those selected for financing, and those which were not selected) will be communicated directly both to the Honourable Member, and to the Parliament's secretariat.

No written requests were received from any Italian region for funding from the NGO co-financing budget line B.7.6000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2993/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Arrest of 119 terrorists instructors in Somalia

Two days ago in the south of Puntland in Somalia 119 people belonging to the Al Ittihad fundamentalist organisation were arrested. From the ongoing interrogations it would appear that the group was en route to the border with Somaliland where a terrorist training camp was to be set up (this organisation apparently has close links with the better known Al Qa'ida network of bin Laden). Given the risk of the current conflict in Afghanistan spreading to other countries which, according to US intelligence services, are providing support to Islamic terrorist organisations, is the Commission aware of the situation outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission is aware that the organisation Al Ithiad al Islamya is present in southern Somalia. The Commission was informed that this organisation is quoted as a terrorist organisation with links to Al Qaeda and persistent rumours indicate that some of its elements decided to move some time ago to Puntland. However, the Commission does not have any confirmation of the detailed information provided by the Honourable Member concerning the arrest of 119 persons linked to Al Ittiadh.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: European Union cooperation in the construction of the Malaga Trade Fair Centre

The most pessimistic forecasts regarding the contribution from European funds for work on the Trade Fair and Exhibition Centre in Malaga (Spain) have been proved correct.

The European Union has rejected Malaga Town Council's application for 2,5 billion pesetas for this major project through the Interreg III Spain-Morocco Community programme.

Given that construction of this centre is vital for the development of Community activities with North Africa, particularly Morocco, what other possibilities would the Commission recommend might be considered by the Malaga authorities with a view to securing the above funding for a project which will open African doors to all the European Union countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the selection of individual projects is a matter for the programme Monitoring Committee, which includes representatives of the national and regional authorities.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member does not seem to correspond to the type of infrastructure which could be taken into account for part-financing under the Interreg III Community Initiative. It does not appear on the indicative list of priorities and measures eligible under that Initiative(2) and it has no clearly cross-border features.

In the Commission's view, this type of project could be considered for part-financing under the Objective 1 operational programme for Andalusia, which has 7 840,4 million of Structural Funds assistance for the 2000-2006 programming period, of which 6 152,7 million is from the European Regional Development Fund.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Annex II to the Commission Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory Interreg III, OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3162/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Absenteeism in Commission staff

Although no names or identifying marks are requested in order to ensure that individual staff's privacy is protected, would the Commission provide the rates of absenteeism and sickness in the European Commission's staff? What have the rates been in previous Commissions and what are the current rates? Does the Commission believe that these rates are acceptable? Could the Commission provide the rates DG by DG?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

It is very difficult to obtain comparative figures on absence levels in national administrations. The limited data available to the Statistical Office does not, however, indicate that the sickness leave level at the Commission is any higher than the average in those administrations.

Changes in the informatics and management systems for recording absences, particularly the decentralisation to the level of individual Directorates General decided upon in 1997 and implemented in 1999, make it very difficult to compare the rates of absenteeism in previous periods with the figures available for 2000. However, to the extent that the figures are available and comparable they do not suggest any deterioration over time and there are no indications that the level of sickness leave at the Commission is unusually high.

A Commission report sent to Parliament in June 2001 states that, with an absenteeism level of 3,6 % in 2000, the Commission is below the average for all the European Institutions (5,8 % for the European Parliament, 5,5 % for the Council, 5,9 % for the Economic and Social Committee, 3,9 % for the Court of Justice, 3,4 % for the Court of Auditors, and 3,3 % for the Committee of the Regions).

That full report is, naturally, available to the Honourable Member in Parliament. Relevant extracts from it with tables showing absences by duration, by staff category, and by Directorate General are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/01

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: 'Skip a day' feeding for broiler chicken parent stock

'Skip-a-day' feeding is the poultry industry's term for a limited ration of feed being given to poultry breeding stock only every other day. This restriction is often too severe and therefore cruel. Can the Commission confirm whether Council Directive 98/58/EC(1) concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes prohibited such a practice and, if so, what measures have been taken to ensure that farmers throughout all the Member States are no longer restricting feed through this cruel method.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, provides that All animals must have access to feed at intervals appropriate to their physiological needs (Annex, point 15) and that animals are fed with a sufficient quantity to maintain them in good health and satisfy their nutritional needs.

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) adopted, on 21 March 2000, an opinion on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production. The Scientific Committee points out that severe feed restrictions result in unacceptable welfare problems. However, it also indicates that allowing breeding birds to reach a high body weight, through free access to feed, leads to other serious welfare problems with the current breeds.

It is therefore not possible to conclude that every form of restricted access to food constitutes a contravention of the Directive without taking into account possible detrimental impacts of ad-libitum-feeding on the welfare of the animals. Whether a particular feeding system is in fact contrary to the requirements of point 15 of the Annex to the Directive is thus a question of fact, to be judged in the first instance by Member States when enforcing the Directive.

Where a Member State finds that a feeding system contravenes the requirements of the Annex, then, by virtue of having transposed the Directive, it should have available to it appropriate powers to take specific measures, as appropriate for the welfare of the animals.

It should be mentioned that, in the light of the opinion from the SCAHAW referred to above, the Commission has planned to present during the second half of 2002 a proposal to the Council aiming at establishing standards for the protection of broilers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Damage to the cultural heritage in Cyprus

According to information recently forthcoming (between 25 June and 29 July 2001), illegal excavations are taking place near the ancient site of Salamina in the occupied area of Cyprus.

This is also referred to by the European Court of Human Rights in its resolution (10 May 2001) regarding the Fourth Inter-State Application by the Republic of Cyprus against Turkey, indicating that Turkey is responsible for these illegal excavations.

Given the irrefutable evidence of systematic attempts to destroy and damage the cultural heritage and character of the Turkish-occupied sector from 1974 to the present date, including the destruction and looting of places of worship and the illegal export of priceless ancient artefacts for sale abroad:

1. What action will the Commission take to bring an end to the illegal excavations near the ancient site of Salamina?

2. Has the Commission taken or will it take any measures to protect the historic monuments and, more generally, the cultural heritage of the Turkish-occupied area of Cyprus?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2001)

1. The Commission is aware of the excavations being carried out at the Salamis site in the northern part of the island as are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) and other international organizations. Unfortunately the de facto division of the island creates problems of this nature and makes it difficult to take any immediate action. However, the Commission's delegation in Nicosia is monitoring as far as it can what is happening at the Salamis site.

2. The Commission is funding through the 2000 and 2001 pre-accession budgets the restoration of the old town of Nicosia, as part of the Nicosia Master Plan (in the area of Omeriye and of the Selimiye mosque, and in the Phaneromeni and Samanbahce areas) on both sides of the green line. This bi-communal project is thus bringing together members of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities working jointly in the revitalisation of the ancient walled City of Nicosia and the conservation of its architectural and cultural heritage. The 2000 phase of the project has started on 1 October 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Funding from Research DG

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects which, in 2000 and 2001, were submitted by the Italian Regions of Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont and Valle d'Aosta for financing from the funds administered by the Research Directorate-General, and the names of those which were subsequently approved?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

A statistical overview, reflecting the participation of the Italian regions Liguria, Lombardia, Piemont and Val d'Aosta in the Fifth Framework Programme, is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.

The overview comprises a table with numbers of submitted proposals and signed contracts by specific programme and a list with more detailed information on signed contracts. Lists with details of submitted proposals cannot be made public, as the Commission is commited to strict confidentiality towards all proposers.

More information about contracts, including abstracts and details on partners can be found in the Cordis database accessible on Internet (http://www.cordis.lu or http://dbs.cordis.lu/search/en/simple/EN_PROJ_simple.html).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2726/01

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Report of the National Commission on Terrorism to the United States' Congress, submitted on 5 June 2000

The above-mentioned report names Greece, along with Pakistan, as a state which does not cooperate fully with US authorities on counter terrorism and which, accordingly, should be subjected to sanctions.

The Commission:

1. Since when has it had knowledge of that report, and what conclusions has the Commission drawn from it?

2. What is it's assessment of the accusations made against Greece?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

1. The Commission has had knowledge of this report since June 2000. The Commission does not agree with the conclusions included within it since Greece has signed all the United Nations (UN) Conventions on combating terrorism and actively pursues all the terrorist activities carried out within or outside its terroritory. Furthermore, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in Greece have been substantially reshaped following the recent adoption of lawNo2928 of 27 June 2001 on terrorism. Finally, in 2000, Greece and the United States ratified a mutual legal assistance treaty and signed a police cooperation memorandum to enhance bilateral cooperation on law enforcement, including terrorism.

2. The Commission takes the view that Greece is a full partner in the Union's policy in the fight against terrorism and that in this context it also cooperates appropriately with countries outside the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3212/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE),Martin Callanan (PPE-DE), Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE),Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE),Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Business Impact Assessment for the Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive

Has the Commission carried-out a Business Impact Assessment for the Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive, and, if so, what are the expected annual costs to business following its implementation in each of the Member States?

In order to ensure that the European Parliament is aware of the costs to business of the directives which it votes for, and in order to reduce costs, will the Commission undertake to deposit in the Library of the Parliament its Business Impact Assessments for each piece of legislation which imposes costs on business so that any Member of the Parliament may make use of the information as the Commission's directives are being considered either in committee or before the vote in plenary?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

When submitting its Proposal for a Council Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents(1), the Commission drew up an impact assessment, based on a specific impact study for each physical agent included in the Proposal, on the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises, and this included the estimated costs which would arise from implementing the Directive. These costs are likely to be reduced in accordance with the limit values to be adopted.

The provision of this information is part of a long-standing practice within the Commission. Indeed, since 1986, the Commission has undertaken to provide a Business Impact Assessment on proposals with a significant impact on business. The business impact assessments are carried out on a decentralised basis by the service responsible, and are included in the official COM document in order to provide information to the final decision-makers, and the interested public, on the estimated business impact of the proposal.

(1) OJ C 77, 18.3.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/01

by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Cape Verde

Paragraph 15 of Parliament's resolution on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the development of the external service, adopted in plenary on 14 June 2001, refers to the need to maintain delegations in those countries which play a positive role in encouraging democracy and respect for human rights in the regional context concerned. The Commission communication on the development of the external service of 3 July 2001 nevertheless refers to the possibility of converting the delegation in Cape Verde into an information office.

What are the Commission's plans regarding its delegation in Cape Verde?

Is the Commission aware that, if it makes its representation in Cape Verde dependent on the delegation in Senegal, this will have political significance in the region and will be a negative development for Cape Verde?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2001)

In the Communication of 4 July 2001 on the development of the External Service(1) the Commission set out its programme of priorities for the opening of new Delegations. It also set out its plans concerning the closure or streamlining of a number of existing Delegations which are necessary to enable the new openings to take place in view of the limited financial resources available for administration of the External Service.

While the 2001 Communication indeed makes reference to the Delegation to Cape Verde, the decision to streamline the Delegation in Praia and to appoint a non-resident Head of Delegation had been taken previously in the framework of the Commission's Communication on the development of the External Service of 18 July 2000(2).

Following this decision, the Head of Delegation to Cape Verde was not replaced when he left the country on retirement at the end of February 2001.

The decision to place the Delegation to Cape Verde under the responsibility of the existing regional Delegation to Senegal, which is also responsible for the Delegation to Gambia, was taken purely on the basis of administrative and logistical considerations. Under the deconcentration exercise the Delegation to Senegal will be allocated additional staff to enable it to provide reinforced support to the other countries for which it is responsible. The staffing in Cape Verde will also be reinforced under the same exercise.

It is therefore foreseen that, with this increased support, the Commission decision will not adversely affect the programme of cooperation with Cape Verde.

(1) COM(2001) 381 final.

(2) COM(2000) 456 final.