ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0357/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: European Year of Mountains

The year 2002 is the European Year of Mountains and should therefore be devoted to celebrating their special beauty and also to highlighting problems in mountainous areas.

Can the Council say what specific agricultural and regional measures have been planned for this Year of Mountains?

Can the Council also say whether there is a budget for these initiatives, and if so how large?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

For years, support for agriculture in mountainous regions has been a matter of constant interest and concern for the Community. Already back in 1975 the Council adopted a Directive on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas which authorised the Member States to set up special aid schemes, inter alia for mountain areas, to promote agricultural activities. Since then, mountain areas have been an integral part of Community regulations on less-favoured areas.

More recently, in March 1999, the Berlin European Council set budgetary and policy guidelines for Agenda 2000, which created a second pillar for Common Agricultural Policy devoted to rural development. The purpose of rural development policy is to set up a coherent and sustainable framework for the future of rural areas. Second pillar principles are: multi-functionality, efficiency, decentralisation of responsibilities, flexibility and a multi-sector approach.

Regulation No 1257/1999, adopted in May 1999, therefore replaced the existing regulations on rural development. Chapter V focuses, inter alia, on less-favoured areas, including mountainous regions. Under certain conditions, farmers in those areas are eligible for compensatory allowances, for example, for applying good farming practices which are compatible with environmental protection.

It has been possible to include activities in mountain areas in the rural development programmes set up by the Member States.

The Council has not received any proposals from the Commission for specific actions relating to the International Year of Mountains.

Any initiative consisting of proposing activities or of organising seminars on mountain region economy is obviously still possible and desirable, but it would not involve the Council as an institution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0390/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Inclusion or non-inclusion of terrorist acts under the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Article 7 (Crimes against humanity) of the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists a number of acts including Murder, Extermination, Torture and Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health any one of which constitutes a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.

Article 8 (War Crimes) (e) refers to:

Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

before stating in 8(f) that:

Paragraph 2(e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organised armed groups or between such groups.

Does the Council take the view that a natural reading of these Articles would allow terrorists (if sufficiently organised) as well as rebel groups to fall within the provisions of the Statute, or does it agree with the view stated clearly by the French Government in its Declaration at the time of ratification, and held by other governments as well as a large body of legal opinion, that terrorist acts would not fall within its provisions?

A number of EU Member States have now ratified the Rome Statute. In view of the scale of the terrorist attacks on the United States last September, as well as the thousands of people who have died over the years in numerous countries around the world, including EU Member States, does the Council believe that it is any longer acceptable to treat terrorist crimes differently from crimes against humanity or war crimes committed by state authorities or rebel groups, and that ratification of an unamended Statute will send out entirely the wrong signal about the willingness of the international community to confront terrorism?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

It is not for the Council to take a position on the question raised by the Honourable Member, which relates to the interpretation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The European Union is not a contracting Party to the Rome Statute, according to which it is up to the International Criminal Court to interpret the Statute when applying it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0962/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Possible cases of favouritism in connection with EU funds in Schwerin

In response to my Written Question E-2806/01(1) the Commission informed me on 3 December 2001 that it had asked the Land Government in Schwerin by letter of 30 August 2001 for information in connection with the accusations raised by the current affairs magazine Der Spiegel. The publication had reported favouritism and irregularities in the award of contracts for the administration of EU funds, one beneficiary of which was said to be the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Has the Commission received a reply from Schwerin?

If so, will the Commission send me a copy of its correspondence with the Land Government?

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 110.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

By letter of 30 August 2001 to the European Social Fund (ESF) managing authority, the Commission requested information about the award of contracts to BBJ Servis GmbH, Schwerin, in particular regarding compliance with Community public procurement law. Furthermore, the Commission asked that managing authority to send it such audit reports as might be produced relating to those contracts.

After several telephone reminders, the ESF managing authority confirmed in a letter of 4 December 2001 that investigations were being undertaken by the Landesrechnungshof (Court of Auditors) and promised that they would send the first non-binding draft of the Landesrechnungshof's report which was expected to be produced by the second half of December 2001.

The Unverbindlicher Entwurf (non-binding draft report) was finished by the Landesrechnungshof at the end of January 2002 and was sent to the Ministry of Labour in early February 2002. This report and a statement by the Ministry of Labour were discussed by the Ministry and the Landesrechnungshof on 26 February, as a result of which the Landesrechnungshof withdrew the report. The Landesrechnungshof explained that this withdrawal was the result of additional information and new legal considerations which had to be examined before redrafting and publishing the report.

To date the Landesrechnungshof has not yet published its final report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0333/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Resources for enforcing Laeken decisions on nuclear energy

What extra financial and personnel resources will be committed and over what period of time to putting into practice the decisions on nuclear energy at paragraph 59 of the European Council at the Laeken summit in December 2001 in respect of (1) analysis of the safety and security reports to be delivered to the Commission by Member States' own atomic energy experts; and (2) the presentation of reports by accession states on the safety status of their respective nuclear programmes?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council, as a preliminary remark, would like to point out that the safety of nuclear power plants is not of Community but of national competence, as the EAEC Treaty does not contain specific provisions giving powers to the Community in this respect.

Regarding the implementation of paragraph 59 of the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council meeting in Laeken, the Honourable Parliamentarian should therefore address her question directly to the Member States.

Regarding in particular the second part of the question of the Honourable Parliamentarian, the European Council calls for regular reports from Member States' atomic energy experts, who will maintain close contact with the Commission. Accession States do not, at this stage, fall within the category of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/02

by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Subject: Food products containing free gifts

Various European child safety organisations have been loud in their condemnation of accidents involving children swallowing non-comestible objects contained in chocolate eggs, cereal packets, etc., Statistics indicate 2000 accidents of this kind a year throughout Europe with numerous instances of children dying from suffocation.

Does the Commission possess any sort of study or statistics which would corroborate these accident figures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

As far as the collection of information in general is concerned, the Commission co-finances within the Injury Prevention Programme national data collection projects in the field of home and leisure accidents. The data are usually collected by the contractors in the Member States in outpatient departments of hospitals and contain the product involved in the injury and a description of the process leading to the injury. This description allows also for the identification of hazardous products.

One contractor under the injury Prevention Programme has prepared it's own Summary of studies and incidents, which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat together with a further critique of these and other studies.

As far as the safety of non-food products accompanying food products in a separate packaging in particular is concerned, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-504/02 by Mrs Karamanou(1), E-548/02 by Mr Alavanos(3) and E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva(2), E-2631/00 by Mrs Damião(4) and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(5).

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 153.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(3) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 153.

(4) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(5) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0280/02 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council. Customs and excise.



Official Journal 229 E , 26/09/2002 P. 0068 - 0068



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0280/02 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council (8 February 2002) Subject: Customs and excise Are members of the public and Members of the European Parliament allowed to obtain copies, from the Council, of the Letter of Formal Notice issued in late October to HM Treasury (UK) from Commissioner Bolkestein, concerning Customs and Excise policies and possible infringements of the freedom to move goods across borders resulting from those policies? If not, why not? Reply (25 June 2002) The Council would ask the Honourable Member to address his question directly to the institution concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0748/02

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR) to the Council

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Anti-Europe statements Lega Nord Congress

In 2000, statements by Mr Haider, a representative of the governing majority but not an actual member of the Austrian Government, provoked such strong reactions from the other EU Member States that the Austrian Head of State and Chancellor had to issue formal confirmation of their belief in European integration and in the values upon which it is based.

Statements by a member of the Italian Government (namely, the minister responsible for institutional reform, Mr Bossi) concerning the Stalinist nature of the European Union are further examples of the kind of insulting view expressed earlier, such as: The European Charter of Rights was drawn up by an alliance of Masons, fascists, Nazis and communists;Europe is a new embodiment of fascism, since it takes power away from the people'; They want a soviet Europe which denies the rights of the people.

However, the seriousness of the most recent statements lies specifically in the fact that they were voiced at the Congress of the governing party (the Lega Nord), which was attended in person by the President of the Italian Council, Silvio Berlusconi, who was unwilling on that occasion to distinguish between his own views (or those of the government) and the ones which had just been expressed, thereby confirming them as indicative of his coalition's policy.

This could cast doubt on Italy's willingness to facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks and to abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty (Article 10 of the EC Treaty). Under the Treaties the Member States are required to cooperate fairly in European integration and that obligation is all the more incumbent on government members who, as such, are also members of the EU Council of Ministers.

In the light of the extremely serious anti-European statements issued at the Lega Nord congress, what action does the Council intend to take in order to seek clarification from the appropriate sources regarding the Italian Government's current situation, if only to prevent further unwelcome developments?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-0748/02, P-0756/02, P-0757/02 and P-0779/02

(26 June 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it is not in the habit of commenting on statements made by political figures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0928/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Price increases resulting from the introduction of the euro

On the front page of Infuro, the European Commission's newsletter, Number 20/EN 2001, Commissioner Solbes denied that any significant increase in prices was to be expected when the euro was introduced. An inflation-free changeover should be ensured by a combination of competitive pressures on manufacturers and retailers, legal regulations in all Member States on how to convert sums into euro and close scrutiny of traders by consumer organisations and the media. We are working to keep [unscrupulous trading] to a minimum. Consumer protection is one of the top priorities for the Commission and the Member States. Now, however, just a few months after the introduction of the euro, the media and consumer organisations are regularly reporting price increases.

Can the Commission indicate the average increase in prices compared with the period before the euro was introduced and how it intends to combat the inflation resulting therefrom?

Furthermore, does the Commission deem it appropriate to entrust consumer organisations and the media with the job of scrutinising price rises, all the more so since many of the print media have themselves increased their prices in response to the introduction of the euro?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The figures published by Eurostat on 28 February 2002 confirmed that the changeover to the euro had not resulted in across-the-board price increases: the impact of the changeover on monthly inflation is estimated at between 0 % and 0,16 %. The few increases linked to the euro generally occurred in the service sector. Although annual inflation increased from 2 % to 2,7 % between December 2001 and January 2002, this is almost wholly due to a combination of oil price rises, the higher cost of fruit and vegetables as a result of bad weather conditions and a number of tax hikes.

Primary responsibility for scrutinising price rises lies with the relevant official bodies, but consumer organisations can usefully help raise public awareness by highlighting any excessive increases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: 1991 Nitrates Directive

What has been the Commission's experience of the 1991 Nitrates Directive with regard to compliance with and the success of the measure? Has any new scientific evidence emerged? Does the Commission intend to review and, perhaps amend, the provisions thereof?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The experience of the Commission with regard to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(1), has been addressed in a number of documents including:

- A synthetic report (in two parts) to the Parliament and Council, published in 1998(2);

- The Commission's response to the Resolution of the Parliament (2000/2110/INI) adopted on 17 January 2001 on this subject.

In addition, a second Commission report synthesising the results of the second water quality monitoring period (1996-1998), the issue of vulnerable zones designation (up to 2001), a review of the first national action programmes contents and the actions of the Commission for a better implementation, will be presented officially to the Parliament and Council in the course of 2002.

A general statement can be made that, the first Action Programmes were published too late by Member States and that their mandatory measures were generally insufficient. A significant improvement can be noticed in the second Action Programmes and in the extent of designated vulnerable zones (which now cover 40 % of the Community area).

Some measures have already given positive results in different Community regions, although a delay of several years is necessary between application of measures at soil level and real impact in neighbouring waters. It is clear from the progress made by some Member States such as Denmark that it is perfectly achievable to reconcile intensive livestock production with respect of the Nitrates Directive. The Commission intends to continue working with the Member States to promote best practice and to ensure the effective implementation of the Directive across the Community. At present, the Commission does not consider it necessary or appropriate to bring forward proposals for amending the directive.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2) COM(98) 16 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1203/02

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Dog and cat fur

Given the interest shown by a number of Member States in enacting national provisions to prohibit the abhorrent trade in domestic dog and cat fur, will the Commission seek to bring forth proposals at a European level to ban the import, export and trade of these products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Since a complete ban on the production, use, trade and import of those furs as imposed by certain Member States would apply regardless of the conditions under which the animals are kept and killed, it is evident that such measures are not motivated by solely animal welfare concerns. The motivation is primarily an ethical question, whether to use products derived from animals which are mainly regarded as companion animals.

This specific motivation raises the question as to whether the Community is limited to act by the principle of subsidiarity. A measure, which aims mainly to protect public morality, could indeed be seen as lying within the competence of the Member States.

The necessity of any regulation in this matter depends on the appreciation of dogs and cats in society which might vary in the Member States. A restriction of trade is only justified when the use of products derived from such animals are regarded as an breach of public morality.

Possible animal welfare concerns related to the production of fur in the Union is already covered by Community legislation. The Community adopted Council Directives 98/58/EC(1) and 93/119/EEC(2), which apply to all animals reared for commercial purposes, including the production of fur. Furthermore, in the framework of the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, recommendations concerning fur animals were adopted in 1999. However, the applicability of these measures to third countries outside the Union and the Council of Europe is clearly limited. Therefore, the Commission does not intend to propose regulations on the trade in dog and cat furs, leaving the decision to take measures to the individual Member States.

(1) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2) Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing, OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Proposal on the COM in rice

Various sources indicate that the Commission may be about to submit a proposal on the COM in rice to coincide with the mid-term review, during the Spanish Presidency.

The proposal submitted almost a year ago on the need to review the relevant intervention mechanism has been widely rejected.

Does the Commission actually intend to submit a fresh proposal in June?

Have the consequences of the possible elimination of the intervention price been adequately assessed?

Are the consequences and repercussions which the everything but weapons initiative would have in this sector being evaluated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission has the intention to include the rice sector in the mid-term review.

In the context of the new proposal the questions about possible elimination of the intervention price, as well as the consequences of the Everything But Arms initiative will be addressed.

In February 2001 the Commission published an initial study concerning the possible impact of the Everything But Arms proposal on the agricultural sector (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/pdf/eba_ias.pdf).