ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3647/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Boosting research into laparoscopic surgery in the European Union

It has become apparent within the medical sphere in recent years that laparoscopic surgery and minimally invasive surgery are especially important, both for diagnosis and treatment; they have great benefits for patients and reduced treatment costs. Considerable but mainly uncoordinated work is being done in these fields in various EU countries.

Is the Commission planning to include within the Research Programme initiatives to create a European network for laparoscopic medicine, and to encourage cooperation and coordination between specialists, scientific training, the dissemination of know-how and the use of telemedicine?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

As also discussed in Parliament on the 6th Framework Programme (2002-2006) (FP6), the strategic objectives of theme 1.1.1 Advance genomics and its application for health are to better focus, better exploit genomes knowledge and in some areas (cancer) to develop improved strategies for prevention and management of human diseases. Laparoscopic surgery and minimally invasive surgery are, as the Honourable Member points out, established procedures but not widely available.

From a research and development point of view, the Commission has supported research in this field over the last three Framework Programmes. This has resulted in the development of Minimum Standard Terminology for Endoscopy, which at present is approved all over the world.

The minimally invasive surgery and computer-assisted surgery represent both a significant change to the habits of the surgeon, a tremendous improvement to the quality of life of the patient, and an enormous worldwide market. The information technologies necessary for these applications are the core of the business, and additional research in this area will be supported during the FP6 as a part of the Information Society programme. In addition, it is the Commission's intention to encourage coordination of research activities across Member States (the 3rd axis of Commission's proposal(1): reinforcing the basis of the European Research Area).

(1) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/01

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

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Enlargement and the cattle sector

What is the current situation of the negotiations with the various candidate countries with regard to both the milk and beef cattle sectors, and what progress has been made? With regard to the milk sector, chapter I, what reference quantities are being used for the various countries, and what are the deadlines being worked on?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The accession negotiations on agriculture, including the animal products sector, were opened in June 2000 with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia and in June 2001 with Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. The negotiation chapter on agriculture has not yet been opened with Bulgaria, Malta and Romania. Romania has not yet presented its negotiation position on agriculture.

The Community's negotiation Position on agriculture states that the reference quantity for milk must be determined taking account of historical production figures during a reference period to be defined and the need to avoid adding to Community market surpluses, having regard also to World Trade Organisation (WTO) constraints. As regards the beefmeat sector it is further stated that ceilings must be determined on the basis of the actual herd as well as slaughtering and live exports, specified in the relevant age groups and cattle categories, during a reference period to be defined.

The Union has not yet taken a final position with regard to the above issues but has requested more detailed information from the candidate countries for the period 1995-1999. The Commission's Enlargement Strategy Paper of November 2000 foresees that the agricultural issues that have a major impact on the Community budget, such as direct payments or quotas, should be addressed in the first half of 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Remuneration of EIB employees

What was the total amount, inclusive of all costs and charges, which the EIB paid out to its employees in 2000? Furthermore, exactly how many persons did the EIB have in its employ on 31 December 2000?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The Commission can confirm that the European Investment Bank (EIB) employed 1 033 persons at 31 December 2000.

In the financial year 2000, as stated in the Bank's Annual Report(1), EIB expenditure on staff, including the eight members of the Management Committee, totalled 137,435 million. Of that amount, 69 % or 94,924 million related to remuneration, the balance of 42,511 million being allocated to social expenditure. Unlike other Union institutions, the EIB is directly responsible for expenditure on health insurance, pensions, the crèche and child-minding facilities, as well as subsidies for staff catering services.

As regards the remuneration arrangements for EIB staff and a comparison with the remuneration of officials and other staff of the Communities, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to his Written Question P-0486/00(2).

(1) Published on the EIB's website in all the Community languages: http://www.eib.org/report00/pdf/pdf.htm.

(2) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2855/01

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Zimbabwe

In the light of Parliament's resolution of 6 September 2001 on the situation in Zimbabwe (B5-0549, 554, 571, 581, 582 and 592/2001), will Commissioner Nielson:

- ensure that ZANU-PF activists do not misappropriate humanitarian assistance and food aid for their own use,

- halt all development cooperation assistance granted via the government of Zimbabwe and its agencies,

- initiate measures in relation to Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement,

- identify and freeze assets held by President Mugabe, his family and named close associates in EU countries and closely associated countries,

- institute a ban on entry to EU countries and closely associated countries by President Mugabe, his family and named close associates?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2001)

The General Affairs Council of 29 October 2001 decided, following a proposal from the Commission(1), to invite the Government of Zimbabwe to attend consultations in accordance with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement.

The Union expressed its concern about the deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe, in particular in respect to political violence, the preparation and organisation of free and fair elections, protection of the freedom of the media, the independence of the judiciary and an end to the illegal occupation of properties. The Union will raise these concerns in the course of the up-coming consultations, and will seek from the Government of Zimbabwe undertakings to remedy the situation.

It would be premature to make a judgement on the outcome of the consultations with Zimbabwe before they actually take place, in particular in respect to any measures that might be taken.

The Commission is not at present providing any humanitarian assistance or food aid to Zimbabwe.

Its development co-operation assistance consists on projects on HIV/AIDS prevention and control, basic health and primary education for poorest kids. In its view, these types of projects should not be halted.

The possible application of smart sanctions is not decided solely by a Member of the Commission, but by the Community as a whole. These measures fall outside the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. The Commission is now into Article 96 consultations within that Agreement, which does not envisage this type of sanctions.

(1) COM(2001) 623.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2980/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 October 2001)

Subject: Harmonisation of Regulation (EC) 925/1999

At the recent meeting of the ICAO in Montreal, Canada (25 September-5 October 2001), an agreement was reached on noise and pollution caused by civil aircraft.

What measures will the Commission take to bring Regulation (EC) 925/1999(1) into line with this agreement? Can the Commission also say whether this ICAO decision allays the public's concern over pollution and noise caused by aircraft?

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission welcomes the consensus reached at the 33rd International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly on Resolution A 33/7 Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection. The conclusions of the Council of Transport ministers on 16 October 2001 underlined that the adoption of this Resolution opens up a prospect of replacing Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume I, Pat II, chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993), in the near future by a new legislative instrument on noise management and operating restrictions for noisy aircraft.

The Commission will submit as soon as possible a legislative Proposal which, whilst being in line with Resolution A 33/7, will establish a framework for the introduction of operating restrictions at Community airports that takes full advantage of the flexibility offered by the said Resolution and offers sufficient and necessary guarantees of protection against an increase in noise nuisance from aircraft for people living around airports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: The arrest of Mohamed Nasheed, MP, in the Maldives on 8 October 2001

Is the Commission aware of reports that Mohamed Nasheed, a Member of Parliament in Malé, Republic of Maldives, and a human rights activist, was arrested on 8 October 2001 without any clear reason being given.

Would the Commission consider asking the Maldives Government to indicate the exact reason for Mohamed Nasheed's arrest and the charges, if any, that have been brought against him?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Further to the response given to the Honourable Member on 21 December 2001, the Commission is informed through its Delegation in Colombo that, besides holding office as a Member of Parliament, Mr Nasheed is also a journalist. It appears that it was in connection with journalistic enquiries that Mr Nasheed was arrested, on charges relating to the disappearance of papers from the former President of the Maldives' office.

He was tried on these charges, found guilty, and banished to an outlying island for two years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Cars confiscated on the border between Finland and Sweden

In 1997 several Swedish citizens had their cars confiscated by the Finnish customs authorities. One of them was a Swedish citizen whose car was confiscated on the grounds that he had spent more than 185 nights in the year with his Finnish fiancée. The Swede had driven from Haparanda where he lives and works across the border to Torneå. The Finnish customs claimed that he should then be deemed to be living in Finland and required to pay vehicle tax there. They referred to EU Directive 83/1827/EEC(1).

Their interpretation was disputed in this case and the then MEP Birgitta Ahlqvist (s) in January 1998 asked the Council Presidency, the UK on that occasion, for an interpretation. The Council President referred to a practical identical case on the Danish and German border. The court in that case had ruled that a person living and working in one country may not be regarded as living in another country simply because he or she was spending their nights with a person in the other country. The Council pointed out that the Commission had to ensure that the Court of Justice ruling was complied with, and should therefore examine this particular case.

What was the outcome of the Commission's examination of this case?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 59.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of a number of controversial cases concerning the temporary use of vehicles between Sweden and Finland and between other neighbouring countries. These cases are dealt with on the basis of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another(1) and the legislation on the free movement of persons within the European Union. Infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission against Denmark in March 2001 under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty are already before the Court of Justice and the Commission is currently considering initiating infringement proceedings against Finland.

Subject to verification of the facts with the competent authorities, the Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the case he has brought to its attention (a person living and working in Sweden and going to Finland to spend the night with his fiancée), i.e. that it is similar to the Ryborg case on which the Court of Justice ruled in case C-297/89(2). The Swedish authorities will contact the Finnish authorities to seek an appropriate solution.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2) Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 1991, Rigsadvokaten v Nicolai Christian Ryborg, ECR 1991, page I-1943.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Dioxin problems in Györ (Hungary)

In the Hungarian city of Györ a hazardous waste incinerator has been operating since 1992. Heavy metals like mercury, cadmium, chrome, copper and lead have been detected outside this incinerator. Furthermore it is very worrying that reports show that the extremely dangerous toxic substance dioxin has been detected at levels 13 to even 55 times as high as the permissible Hungarian levels. A residential area is situated only 500 metres away.

The negotiations between the EU and Hungary about the environmental acquis communautaire have been successfully concluded. The Hungarian Government has promised to fulfil the EU emission standards for hazardous waste incinerators.

Will the European Commission ask the Hungarian authorities whether this incinerator in Györ fulfils the EU environmental standards?

And will the European Commission make sure, if this is not the case, that at the latest by the time that Hungary enters the European Union this incinerator will comply with EU standards?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

It is assumed that reference is made to the hazardous liquid waste incinerator operated by Köszol Ltd. in Györ (Hungary).

This incinerator has been notified by Hungary in the accession negotiations as not satisfying the requirements of Council Directives 94/67/E of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste(1) and 2000/76/E of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste(2) as regards the emission limit values for particulate matter and as regards emission monitoring requirements.

In the context of the provisional closure of the accession negotiations on the environment chapter, a transitional period has been granted to Hungary until 30 June 2005 for bringing this incinerator into compliance as regards these two particular aspects. The incinerator will therefore comply with the strict requirements of Directive 2000/76/EC six months earlier than stipulated in the Directive, because existing incinerators have to comply with the requirements of this Directive as from 28 December 2005. Already by the time of accession, the incinerator has to comply with all other requirements of Directive 94/67/EC.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3185/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: The north of Cyprus a terrorist haven: Europe should intercede with Turkey

The northern part of the island of Cyprus, under military occupation by Turkey, is one of the most important bases for Bin Laden's operational and financial network. According to Roland Jacquard, a UN Security Council expert and Director of the International Observatory on Terrorism and of the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Threats, the sheik carried out financial transactions there with the cooperation of businessmen very close to the local government, including a member of the President's family. Capital (Wall Street Journal, 1.11.2001) valued in a CIA report at between $ 500 million and $700 million is said to have been moved by Al Qa'ida to the Balkans via Cyprus between 1992 and 1998.

In addition, Jamal Al-Fadl, the Government witness in the case relating to the Embassy attacks (La Repubblica, 5.11.2001), revealed that the uranium used to make dirty bombs was tested in 1994 by terrorists belonging to the Sudanese National Islamic Front in the town of Hilat Koko in Northern Cyprus.

Finally, it emerges from a report being investigated by the Foreign Office that the fundamentalist groups operating in the north of Cyprus are funded by the Islamic Relief Organisation and can count on the support, in Kyrilia, of a Chechen group led by Eryan Arikli, who is alleged to have given the orders to the Chechen commando which hijacked the Tupolev flight from Istanbul to Moscow. In other places there are very active Islamic schools attended by Moroccans, Lebanese, Saudis and Pakistanis.

Does the Council intend, in the context of the enlargement process, to call on the Turkish Government to explain what measures it intends to take with regard to the situation in the north of Cyprus, which has become a dangerous no-man's-land in the middle of the Mediterranean where Islamic terrorists and Pan-Ottoman extremists have complete freedom of action and pro-Bin Laden financial transactions are carried out? Will the Council also call on that Government to say whether it means to undertake immediately to seal off this important transit channel for terrorists and their movements of capital to the Balkans, since it represents a serious threat to European stability and security?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council has no information with which to ascertain the validity of the reports quoted by the Honourable Member in support of the assertion that the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus is a terrorist haven.

Taking account of the situation which is described in the UN Secretary-General's reports, and which exists in the northern part of Cyprus, as well as the role played there by Turkey, every aspect of the fight against terrorism is discussed with Turkey in the appropriate fora in the context of the implementation of the action plan adopted by the European Council on 21 September 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/01

by Jutta Haug (PSE) to the Council

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Referendum on dates of school holidays in Europe

On 14 October 2001 the German newspaper Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a meeting of the Council of Ministers for Tourism. According to the article the Council is planning to hold a referendum on dates for school holidays in the 15 Member States. Apparently this is supposed to relieve the burden on transport networks, spread the use of hotel capacity more evenly and generate higher revenue in holiday regions. No mention was made of the education and teaching policy aspects of school holiday planning.

Does the Council really intend to hold a referendum on school holiday dates in Europe? If so, why is the well-being of those who should actually benefit from the holidays namely children not being taken into account? Are holidays geared to the optimum use of hotel bed capacity more important to the Council than favourable circumstances and conditions for a knowledge-based society?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council informs the Honourable Member that it never comments on statements made in the press. The meeting to which the Honourable Member refers was the Council meeting held in Brussels on 27 September 2001, at which the question of Better management of holiday periods in Europe was examined under Other business. At that meeting, the Council took cognisance of an information note from the Austrian delegation on the question of better seasonal distribution of tourist activities in Europe by means of measures to make tourist flows more flexible. Further to the Austrian initiative, which was welcomed by several delegations, the Commission was invited despite the very limited Community competence in this area to study the subject and brief the Council as soon as possible.

The Commission subsequently sent a letter to the Member States asking them about their experiences in this area, the changes that might be necessary and the nature of the desired coordination.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that Article 149(1) of the Treaty states that the organisation of educational systems is the responsibility of Member States. Consequently, the harmonisation of school holidays does not as such fall within the sphere of Community competence.