ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1964/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Problems concerning aid to the Galician surface fleet during biological pauses

According to recent media reports (e.g. in the 15 May 2002 issue of the newspaper La Voz de Galicia), the Commission now appears unwilling thus departing from its practice in earlier years to grant the Galician regional government (the Xunta) the funding under the FIFG which is needed to compensate fishermen and vessel owners in the surface fleet for the biological pause which that fleet had to observe in March.

In view of the fragile state of the sardine stocks, it has been necessary to adopt exceptional measures for the Galician fleet. These measures are set out in a three-year recovery plan for the species.

The above-mentioned press report also states, citing the Xunta as a source, that the Commission appears unwilling to grant compensatory aid for this year's biological pause (the third and last provided for under the plan), and that it has written to the regional administration asking for more details concerning the pause.

The numerous fishermen and vessel owners affected by this development now wish the Commission to provide reliable information.

Does the Commission intend to grant aid under the FIFG in respect of this fleet's biological pause for 2002?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the problems which have arisen over the granting of aid for this year? Can it explain why, having granted such aid for the last two years, it now appears unwilling to do so for this year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

A recovery plan for sardines to be part-financed by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance was notified to the Commission by the Spanish authorities in March 2002. The dossier is currently being studied by the Commission in accordance with the rules of procedure applying to aid granted to the sector by the Member States.

Following that notification and an initial scrutiny of the plan, a request for additional information was made to the Spanish authorities in April 2002. That information was forwarded to the Commission in mid-June. Since the plan is a recovery plan for the resource, the Commission will be submitting the information transmitted by the Spanish authorities to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries for its opinion, in accordance with Article 16(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1).

The information in question will be submitted to the Scientific Committee in the course of July 2002, and the Commission will take a decision as soon as it has received the Scientific Committee's opinion.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Trade relations (USA, Singapore and the EU)

Is the Commission aware of the state of negotiations between Singapore and the USA to establish a Free Trade Agreement between the two countries?

Has it considered whether the EU should similarly negotiate an agreement with Singapore in order to ensure equality between Europe and America with regard to access to the Singapore market?

Given the impossibility of a FTA between ASEAN and the EU, does it consider that a FTA with Singapore alone would be feasible?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The priority for Union attention and resources remains the multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) under the Doha Development Agenda.

The Commission, nevertheless, follows closely and with interest the development of various regional economic integration initiatives currently taking place within East Asia, including the Free Trade Area (FTA) negotiations which Singapore has concluded with Japan, New Zealand, and European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and is pursuing with Australia, Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Singapore has also made a proposal to enter into negotiations on an FTA with the Union which the Commission is currently examining, and on which it would be interested to know the views of all interested parties in the Union. Singapore has suggested that an Union-Singapore agreement would both further develop the Union's relationship with Singapore and promote improved relations with other countries in the region. As the Union is interested in fostering closer economic co-operation with Singapore, but also with the region as a whole, such an initiative would need to support increasing regional integration on the Asian side and improve overall Union ties with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

In examining Singapore's proposal, the Commission will also consider whether a convincing economic case can be made. A consultation will be carried out with the private sector in the Union, and with any other parties declaring an interest, in order to establish their views on the best way to develop relations with Singapore and ASEAN. Other avenues besides a Free Trade Agreement such as developing more effective co-operation on regulatory issues will also be examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Capital of Europe

Following the Council Summit meeting at Nice, Mr Prodi and Mr Verhofstadt decided to instruct a team of experts to examine the conditions under which Brussels might be designated the capital of Europe.

On what criteria was this choice based and were other European capitals taken into account in the process?

Reply given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

To avoid any misunderstandings, the Commission would like to point out that the measures taken by Mr Prodi and Mr Verhofstadt must be seen in the context of Declaration No 22 on the venue for European Councils, annexed to the Final Act of the Conference of Representatives of the Member State Governments which adopted the Treaty of Nice:

As from 2002, one European Council meeting per Presidency will be held in Brussels. When the Union comprises 18 members, all European Council meetings will be held in Brussels.

It was in this context that the Commission President and the Belgian Prime Minister called on a group of intellectuals to discuss, at two meetings, the needs and functions of a European capital and how Brussels might best fulfil them. The final report, presented to the press on 26 April 2002 by Mr Prodi and Mr Verhofstadt, summarises the main ideas and proposals resulting from these meetings.

There were thus no criteria for the choice of city to be discussed, as this was not the group's remit.

This means that the second question is not applicable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2128/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Business Impact Assessment for the Food Supplements Directive

Has the Commission carried out and published a business impact assessment on the Food Supplements Directive (2002/46/EC(1))? If so, where is it to be found in the public domain?

(1) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission did not carry out a business impact assessment on the Proposal for the Food Supplements Directive(1). It was generally felt that harmonizing existing national rules, most of them quite restrictive, would have a positive effect on business by eliminating unnecessary barriers to the free movement of goods, avoiding often onerous and lengthy authorisation procedures in several Member States, and offering food supplement producers the benefits of the Single Market.

(1) Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1429/02

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Depleted uranium weapons

Over the last few days in Italy seven new cases have been confirmed of children with serious neurological disorders born to Italian soldiers who had taken part in operations in Bosnia and Somalia. The same symptoms were found in hundreds of children of US veterans who fought in the Gulf War.

According to numerous studies, the disorders are attributable to the coating of depleted uranium on some NATO medium- and large-calibre shells, which are also used by Italian soldiers, as can be seen from an Italian army internal communication dated 12 January 2001, which shows that uranium shells were already being acquired as early as 1985.

A discussion of the so-called Balkan syndrome took place at the January 2001 European Parliament part-session in Strasbourg, during which both Javier Solana, High Representative for the CFSP, and the Swedish minister Lars Danielsson, President-in-Office of the Council, announced that the issue was of top priority.

1. Is the Commission aware of the serious symptoms affecting numerous soldiers returning from operations in Bosnia?

2. Is the Commission in possession of the results of studies carried out into the effects on humans of depleted uranium weapons?

3. Does the Commission not consider it necessary for an immediate ban to be imposed on such weapons, which are still in use in military exercises and pose a serious health risk to military personnel?

4. Does the High Representative for the CFSP not consider NATO's reluctance to provide information on the use of depleted uranium weapons as unacceptable?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The concerns raised by the use of depleted uranium in munitions during the conflicts in the Balkans were analysed by the Group of Experts established under the Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty. Its Opinion, issued on 6 March 2001, concluded that radiological exposure to depleted uranium did not result in a detectable effect on human health.

Reports issued by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (13 March 2001), the World Health Organisation (WHO) (1 May 2002), and the British Royal Society (12 March 2002) arrived at similar conclusions. The latter two reports also address the chemical toxicity of the uranium, concluding that it is not expected that adverse effects on the kidney and any other organ would occur.

Much experience exists in the handling, storage and use of depleted uranium, which has never led to demonstrated health effects for the workers.

The Commission has no legal competence to preclude the use of such munitions. Nor does it have arguments based on scientific grounds which justify its advocating such a moratorium.

The Commission recommends that questions for the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) be addressed to him directly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2002)

Subject: Local dimension of the European employment strategy

On Thursday, 4 July, the European Parliament adopted a report on strengthening the local dimension of the European employment strategy, which was unanimously supported by all parliamentary groups.

Inter alia, the report stresses that one third of the total European labour market qualifies for the description local market.

What specific proposals and action plans does the Commission intend to implement as part of the recent joint decision to step up incentives to improve local employment strategies?

In major cities, the labour market is more diversified and more integrated with its surroundings. More and more urban districts are segregating in terms of their particular labour market characteristics (high unemployment level, little specialisation, low quality jobs). What role could local employment strategies play in these markets?

Answer given by Mrs. Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Taking into account the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, which are particularly relevant in the field of local development, notably by fully respecting the national administrative and constitutional arrangements of the Member States, the Commission endeavours to provide a favourable framework for local employment. Local action strategies and programmes submitted by the national authorities within the Structural Funds programmes receive Community financial support.

Moreover, the Commission will endeavour to raise awareness of the European Employment Strategy at all levels, in particular at local level. All actors at local level, such as local and regional authorities, and in the social economy, are encouraged to support the economic and social development of their territory by setting up local employment partnerships.

In this context, a European Forum on Local Employment Development, to be held in May 2003, will provide the opportunity for Community institutions, national, regional and local authorities and other key actors at local level to promote the employment strategy and exchange good practice.

The Commission is also developing a number of analytical and methodological tools with a view to improving the understanding and enhancing the efficiency of local employment strategies.

The Commission agrees with the view that particular big cities face segregated and diverse labour markets. Therefore, the Commission supports, notably through Community Initiatives, strategies to tackle the local differences at the appropriate level where the needs and problems are best known and solutions can be found, in agreement between the levels concerned. The partnership and the territorial approaches in developing local employment strategies have proved to be among the most efficient means of tackling urban deprivation, maximising the impact of intervention and reinforcing the mutual benefits of the various employment schemes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0386/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Subject: Accession of Slovenia and Estonia to the EU

1. Is it true that Slovenia and Estonia have virtually satisfied the accession criteria and that they are therefore in the waiting room until other countries to comply with the criteria?

2. Is the same true of other applicant countries?

3. Why can these countries not have priority for accession, or why have they not already joined the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

1. Following the principles of the enlargement process each candidate country is judged on its own merrits, in accordance with the principle of differentiation. As the European Council from Laaken concluded last December, both countries belong to the group of 10 countries that could by ready to conclude negotiations by the end of 2002 and to become a member of the Union in 2004 provided that the present rate of progress of the negotiations and reforms is maintained. Consequently, it is not true that Estonia and Slovenia have already virtually satisfied the accession criteria and kept ina waiting room.

2. In its last Regular Reports, the Commission also concluded that the conditions for accession were not yet fulfilled by any of the candidate countries. A new assessment regarding the fulfilment of all accession criteria by the candidate countries will be made in the next Regular Reports, which are expected to become available in October 2002. On the basis of these reports, the Commission should be able to make recommendations on those candidate countries ready for accession.

3. See above answers to questions 1 and 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1525/02

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

(3 June 2002)

Subject: European Union information campaign on introducing the euro in the UK, Sweden and Denmark

The great majority of citizens in the three EU countries which do not belong to the euro zone (United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden) are convinced that the single currency will eventually be adopted in their respective countries.

They therefore require as much information as possible on the experience of introducing the single currency in the other European Union Member States, and comprehensive information which will help them become fully aware of what action their countries need to take.

Can the Commission indicate what initiatives it has undertaken to make the above countries aware of the consequences of introducing the euro in the other EU countries, and what campaign is it thinking of conducting to make the populations of UK, Sweden and Denmark more receptive in order to facilitate their entry into the euro zone?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The three Member States outside the euro zone showed great interest in the euro throughout the information campaigns. For instance, representatives from the relevant ministries in the three Member States attended coordination meetings held regularly by the Commission. Moreover, Sweden has followed the twelve Member States belonging to the euro zone in signing partnership agreements with the Commission to inform particular groups about the euro.

Press reviews indicate that, in the period after the introduction of euro notes and coins, media interest in the three Member States outside the euro zone was strong and that the citizens of the three countries showed considerable interest.

In accordance with the wishes of the national authorities and the advice of its Representations, the Commission has not organised any special campaigns in the Member States concerned.

At the appropriate time which will be decided together with the authorities of the Member States concerned the Commission will provide the same support and partnership in information campaigns as it did in the twelve euro zone Member States.

The Commission does, of course, respond with written documentation to all requests for information from individuals or organisations in Denmark, Sweden or the United Kingdom.

It believes that the summer holidays will offer the citizens of these Member States an opportunity to familiarise themselves with and actually use euro coins and notes in the euro zone countries.

The Commission therefore plans to hold a Eurobarometer survey in September 2002 in the three Member States outside the euro zone, to gauge public opinion on the euro after the holidays, when many people will have come into contact with the single currency.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2459/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Water purity

Is the Commission satisfied that the standards used in testing bathing beaches for the cleanliness of sea water are stringent enough in the light of recent evidence?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2459/02 and E-2460/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2002)

The 1976 Bathing Water Directive (Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1)) reflects the state of knowledge and experience of the early 1970s, both as regards the technical-scientific basis, the managerial approach and the involvement of the public. This is one of the reasons why the Commission is scheduled to make a proposal to revise the Directive.

The water quality standards which will be brought forward in the new Directive are based on recent World Health Organisation (WHO) research and represent the latest scientific/technical knowledge.

Every year before the start of the bathing season, the Commission publishes a report on the quality of 19 000 bathing waters in the EU. The report publishes the degree of compliance of bathing waters with respect to two standards: the legally binding and imperative standard and the stricter guide standard, both defined by the above-mentioned 1976 Bathing Water Directive. The report is published in document form(2) and can also be found on the Internet(3).

Over the last five years, compliance figures for coastal and fresh water were as follows:

>TABLE>

The Commission refers to the report for more detailed figures and for a technical explanation of the imperative and guide values.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

(2) ISBN 92-894-3193-8, available from OPOCE.

(3) http://www.europa.eu.int/water/cgi-bin/bw.pl and http://www.europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report/eu.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India)

Fifteen Spanish families (and others from the USA, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium) are involved in the process of adopting children from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, in which connection UNICEF has drawn up reports condemning the precarious physical and psychological conditions in which children available for adoption find themselves.

Cooperation on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Department (which is responsible for adoptions) is not yet forthcoming, even though Spanish and Indian law relating to international adoptions has been complied with. In the meantime, India and its neighbour Pakistan have placed themselves on a war footing. In these circumstances, could the EU make representations to the Indian Prime Minister (and, where appropriate, to the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh) with a view to speeding up the adoption process?

Reply

(11 November 2002)

The Council does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the ongoing adoption process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 July 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Algeria

On the eve of the European troika's visit to Algeria, the Director of Amnesty International's Brussels office, Dick Oosting, addressed an open letter to EU representatives Javier Solana, Josep Pique and Chris Patten, calling for greater transparency in talks held with countries such as Algeria where serious violations of human rights, including killings, torture and secret detentions, continue. The letter addresses specific questions concerning human rights in Algeria to the EU's representatives for them to put to their Algerian interlocutors. Having discussed the human rights issues, does the Council consider the answers which it received from the Algerian authorities to be satisfactory?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council is keeping a close watch on matters concerning respect for human rights in Algeria. In this context and in the framework of the meetings for regular political dialogue which have been held with Algeria since 1997, the Council has pointed out repeatedly that it is concerned by the reports on arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial arrests, the use of torture and the fate of missing persons. It invites Algeria, as it did in the letter to which the Honourable Member refers, to cooperate with relevant UN and NGO mechanisms and to provide information on the fate of several missing persons. A list of certain missing persons has been sent to the Algerian authorities for the purpose.

The Algerian authorities replied concerning certain specific cases in a note verbale dated March 2000. Since the response was not considered satisfactory, the Council has brought up these cases again (along with some other cases) at the political dialogue meetings. Algeria does not deny the possibility of slippage on the part of certain elements in the security forces, but states that it is conducting investigations into the matter and that it has already processed more than 4 000 missing persons cases, a majority of which have been closed. It states that it opens a preliminary inquiry for each case. At a meeting in December 2001, Mr Belkhadem, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, noted that the inquiries had shown that the persons concerned were dead or had emigrated or had perhaps joined the terrorists, their whereabouts remaining unknown. The EU does not consider this response to be satisfactory and will continue to raise the cases of missing persons and to emphasise strongly that any slippage and abuses must in all cases be avoided and that combating terrorism does not justify human rights violations.

As long as respect for human rights continues to pose a problem in Algeria, questions on respect for human rights will remain on the agenda for political dialogue.