ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3798/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Progress in implementation of the third CSF

The third year of implementation of the third CSF for Greece has already finished.

What is Greece's take-up to date in the CSF national operational programmes and in the regional programmes, by region?

More specifically, what is the take-up for the programmes concerning competitiveness, the information society, fisheries, the programme for the modernisation of the Greek railways and the European Social Fund (national section)?

Is the Commission satisfied with progress to date in the implementation of the third CSF by the Greek public administration? In the Commission's view, how far should the Greek Government go and what sort of action should it take to improve the implementation of the CSF?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the table being sent directly to him and also to Parliament's Secretariat. This gives precise information on the state of advance of the national and regional operational programmes of the 3rd Greek CSF.

The level of the Commission's satisfaction over progress in implementing the CSF and any proposals for improving implementation will depend on the findings of the mid-term evaluation to be made (Article 42 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1)) before the end of 2003.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3403/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE),José Mendiluce Pereiro (PSE) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Ecological disaster caused by the Prestige oil spill

On 13 November 2002 the Prestige oil tanker had an extremely serious accident off the coast of Galicia.

As a result of the oil spill which followed, and which may still continue, Spain and Europe are now facing a major ecological, social and economic disaster.

In the wake of a series of similar disasters (the accidents involving the Urquiola in 1976, the Amoco Cadiz in 1978, the Cason in 1987, the Aegean Sea in 1992, the Braer in 1993, the Sea Empress in 1996 and the ERIKA in 1999) the European Union has adopted a large number of texts in this field. Nevertheless, all the signs are that the checks imposed on the transport of oil by sea do not guarantee adequate protection.

What measures will the Council adopt in response to the Prestige disaster with regard to maritime safety and the immediate consequences of the oil spill for the environment, economy and communities affected?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3282/02, E-3403/02 and E-3438/02

(13 May 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Members that it has already taken the opportunity of the plenary part-session in Strasbourg in December 2002 and Question Time in January 2003 to give a full account of its position and intentions regarding the transport of dangerous products by sea.

The Council would therefore refer them to the conclusions adopted at its meetings on 6 and 9 December 2002 and to the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council on 12/13 December 2002.

Since then the Council has begun examining a Commission proposal for a Regulation which would bring forward the dates for phasing out single-hull oil tankers and prohibit the transport of heavy grades of oil in single-hull tankers bound for or leaving European Union ports.

The Council would mention, in addition, that the European Council welcomed the action undertaken by the Commission to confront the economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the Prestige, in the framework of the present financial perspectives, and its intention to examine the need for further specific measures. Amongst these measures it stated that questions relating to liability and the corresponding sanctions would also be examined. On the basis of a report by the Commission, the European Council undertook to address these issues at its forthcoming March meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Informal systems for transferring money

Outside the official banking sector there are informal systems for transferring money (for example hawala banking), which are used primarily for money transactions between members of ethnic communities but are also used in areas where there are no official banks.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is the use of such systems illegal in any of the Member States of the EU?

2. In which EU Member States are such systems for transferring money required to be notified or registered (requirement to be registered as a financial institution or similar)?

3. In which EU Member States are they required to be authorised?

4. In which EU Member States are they subject to supervision, in the same way as credit institutions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) adopted eight Special Recommendations (SR) on terrorist financing in October 2001(1). SR VI is concerned with alternative remittance systems and calls on countries to ensure that all money transmission services, including via informal systems or networks, are subject to a licensing or registration requirement and that failure to respect such requirements should give rise to appropriate sanctions.

The situation of the Member States as regards the implementation of SR VI is as follows:

1. The Commission is not aware of any Member State in which the use of such systems by customers is illegal. However, the failure by money transmission businesses to respect the licensing or registration requirements is subject to sanctions in all the Member States except Finland, Greece and Ireland. Those three countries have announced their intention of addressing this issue in planned legislation.

2. A registration requirement for money transmission services applies in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

3. A licensing requirement applies in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

Although no registration or licensing requirement is currently in force in Greece or Ireland, these countries have announced legislative plans in this area.

4. A banking licence for the conduct of money transmission business is required in France and Germany.

(1) Text available at www.fatf-gafi.org.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2873/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: EU financial support to the Palestinian Authority

For a number of years, the EU has provided the Palestinian Authority with financial support to enable it to carry out the tasks incumbent upon it, which have also been regarded as a prerequisite for peaceful development in the region.

A number of articles have appeared in the daily press claiming that Yasser Arafat has had personal control over most of the funds sent to the Authority and that he has appropriated much of them for his personal use. Parliament has received reports concerning the great difficulties involved in carrying out an EU-funded hospital project in the Palestinian territories. The international press frequently carries reports that the Authority's activities have been marked by corruption and a failure to carry out tasks financed by foreign aid.

There is a need for clarification as to how much money the EU has granted the Authority year by year. It is also important to know to what extent the Commission can check that the funds are used for their intended purposes.

Will the Commission provide details of the amount of aid granted and how it has been spent, and will it say whether it considers the Palestinian Authority capable of managing aid in accordance with the criteria normally applicable to Member States' bilateral aid?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Union has provided over EUR 1,6 billion in grant assistance and loans to the Palestinians over the period 1994-September 2002. The Community financial aid is delivered through development assistance projects, humanitarian assistance (via the Humanitarian Aid Office ECHO), budgetary support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and direct budgetary assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

A summary table of the Community's financial assistance provided to the Palestinians since the conclusion of the Oslo agreements in 1993 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The attention of the honourable Parliamentary is also drawn on the outcomes of the meeting held on 4 November 2002 between MEP representatives (Cocobu, COBU, AFET) and Commission officials on the EU aid to the Palestinians. A serie of documents on the management of EU funds to the Palestinians were handed to the MEP on this occasion, notably a document on the role of the IMF within the framework of the Direct Budgetary Assistance to the PA that will be also sent to you.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3589/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Specific measures by the Council to prevent or tackle the consequences of maritime disasters in the major sea corridor bordering the Galician coast

What specific measures have been taken by the Council to prevent or tackle the consequences of maritime disasters in the major sea corridor that borders the Galician coast, in the wake of the successive tragic disasters which have affected Galicia over recent years?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3563/02, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02,E-3584/02, E-3587/02, E-3589/02, E-3625/02 and E-3761/02

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Members to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the Council on all the points raised in their questions during the plenary session of the European Parliament in December 2002, and to its replies to Questions H-833/02, H-839/02, H-847/02 and H-871/02 put by Messrs Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Manuel Medina Ortega, Camilo Nogueira Román and John Cushnahan respectively at Question Time on 15 January 2003 in Strasbourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Development of a worldwide system of Internet filters and other forms of data mining under the authority of the US Department of Defence

1. Has the Council noted the statement in The Washington Post of 12 November 2002 by the former US National Security Adviser John Poindexter, who heads up the Information Awareness Office researching into a system of data mining by the US Department of Defence in order, throughout the world, to be able to examine and analyse databases and information flows, such as those involving airlines, immigration services, banks and telecommunications (Internet traffic)?

2. Prior to publication of the statement, was the Council aware that the US is working on such a system, which will influence telecommunications not only in the US, but also in the rest of the world, including the territory of the EU Member States?

3. To what extent will this expand eavesdropping capabilities over those of the US-directed Echelon system which have existed for much longer?

4. What are the implications of this for present-day privacy protection and mail service inviolability, which has been recognised for more than a century and a half in democratic states based on the rule of law?

5. What are the implications of this in terms of potential industrial espionage carried out from the US on European firms?

6. What are the implications of this for the ability of other government authorities, including the EU and its Member States, to operate independently, i.e. away from US monitoring and improper influence?

7. Is the Council willing to declare that the EU will not share data with the US, for the new system, which is held as a result of any obligation to store electronic communications data? Does it have ways and means of refusing to cooperate in this way and, if so, what are they?

8. Has the Council now objected to the US plans or does it intend to do so?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3384/02 and E-3401/02

(8 May 2003)

The Council never comments on press statements and underlines that the work on a prototype system of the so-called Total Information Awareness (TIA) system was available from open sources before the said statement appeared in The Washington Post on 12 November 2002.

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the statement it made on this subject to the plenary part-session of the European Parliament on 23 October 2002.

From a more general point of view the Council maintains a constant dialogue with the United States Government, particularly within the framework of the Transatlantic Dialogue, where information is exchanged about matters of mutual interest and concern.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3843/02

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Expulsion from Italy of the Al-Shari family

The Italian police have handed over to the Syrian police the engineer Muhammad Al-Shari (who was sentenced to death some years ago in Syria on the grounds of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), together with his wife and four children, after holding them in detention for five days at Malpensa airport (Milan), during which time they were not allowed contact with third persons, in circumstances amounting to a deliberate breach of the international conventions on asylum and the much-lauded Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Al-Shari family had arrived from Iraq, and at the very least they should have been sent back to that country. Instead, they were handed back to the Syrian dictatorship.

The author of this question hereby declares his intention to take this case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and meanwhile asks the Council what steps it will take to ascertain whether the death sentence decreed against Muhammad Al-Shari in Syria has been carried out or not, to state what action it will take with a view to safeguarding the physical integrity of the Al-Shari family, and to call on the Italian government to abide by its international commitments.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-3822/02 and E-3843/02

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council has no information regarding the case raised by the Honourable Members.

In this field the Council is continuing its examination of the proposals for Directives on the qualification of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection, and on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

The purpose of those proposals is to establish minimum standards to be applied in circumstances raised by the Honourable Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Antonio Russo affair

Mr G.G. has provided a reconstruction of the murder of the Italian journalist Antonio Russo, correspondent of the Italian radio station Radio Radicale, which occurred on 16 October 2000 in Tbilisi, Georgia (date and place probable but not certain). In his written statement, Mr G.G. asserts that: The ambush was organised and carried out by FSB staff, all of them from the Caucasian republics (CIS and autonomous republics), in collusion with a number of members of prominent mafia-type families of Chechen, Georgian, Azeri and Armenian stock. They carried out the killing at the instigation of agents provocateurs working for Russia. The Russian citizen Fedo, Sergijejevic Petov, who not only enjoys the trust of Dr Arlacchi but has also, thanks to his protection, been able to establish a network of contacts in order to engage in a flourishing money laundering trade with the proceeds of illicit activities conducted mainly in the CIS, paid into Austrian and Hungarian, as well as Croatian and Greek, bank accounts, is not totally unrelated to this decision. This statement will be forwarded as soon as possible to the Georgian and Italian authorities currently investigating the murder of Antonio Russo. Moreover, in its reply to Question P-2110/01(1), the Council stated that representatives of EU Member States in Tbilisi, as well as the Commission Delegation there, maintain a constant watch on events connected to the death of Antonio Russo.

What measures does the Council intend to take to check the reliability of Mr G.G.'s reconstruction of the killing of Antonio Russo? What information does the Council have regarding investigations into the Antonio Russo affair? What action has the Council taken since its reply of 21 October 2001 and what further action does it intend to take, including measures in cooperation with the Georgian, French and Italian authorities, to elucidate the circumstances in which Antonio Russo was murdered?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 109.

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

As stated in answer to the previous question on this subject, the Council is not in a position to comment on, or enter into, allegations concerning a criminal case. The Council has not received any detailed information concerning the progress of enquiries. The Council places its faith in the Italian, French and Georgian authorities to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Antonio Russo. Questions concerning the investigation should be addressed to the relevant authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3526/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Travel ban imposed on Mr Sadri Khiari

Since the beginning of October 2002, Mrs Radhia Nasraoui, lawyer at the bar of Tunis, has twice appeared before the senior member of the investigating judges in the hope of obtaining clarification on court proceedings relating to the events of March 1997 and March 2000 concerning her client Mr Sadri Khiari, a painter and member of RAID/Attac Tunisie (Rally for an International Alternative for Development) and CNLT (National Council on Liberties in Tunisia). As before, Mrs Nasraoui was given no response. However, representatives of the interior ministry invoked these exact same alleged incidents as a justification for forbidding Sadri Khiari to leave Tunisian territory when they finally returned his passport to him on 16 June 2001, a year after he requested it be renewed. Since that time, Mr Khairi has been to Tunis-Carthage airport six times and on each occasion has been prevented from leaving the country.

Is the Commission aware of the travel ban on Sadri Khiari? Does the Commission not consider that the legal authorities' refusal to provide any information about the reasons why the travel ban was imposed, and their repeated refusal to allow Sadri Khiari to travel freely, constitute a further example of the arbitraryconduct of the Tunisian police and additional proof of the Tunisian authorities' contempt for the principle of judicial independence, and of theexisting laws and international conventions ratified by Tunisia? What measures has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, under the terms of the association agreement between the European Union and Tunisia, to ensure that the latter ends the persecution of Mr Khiari and on a more general levelfully complies with Article 2 of the agreement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is aware that Mr Khiari is forbidden to leave Tunisian territory and that he wishes to travel to France to defend his doctoral thesis for his Ph.D. However, the Commission does not know the exact reason for the ban, nor the legal grounds cited by the Tunisian authorities to justify it.

With regard to the second point raised by the Honourable Member, once the Commission has more complete information, it will be able to assess the nature of the Tunisian arguments and examine whether they comply with the association agreement.

The Commission will use all available channels, in particular political dialogue coordinated by the EU presidency, to raise specific instances of human rights abuse with the Tunisian authorities.

The Commission would like to be informed of the outcome of any additional measures that the Honourable Member may take through the inter-parliamentary dialogue with Tunisia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Application of national competition law in Slovakia in accordance with EU law

As part of the EU accession process, Slovakia has undertaken to bring its laws gradually into line with the acquis communautaire. This applies in particular to competition law.

A few weeks ago, Slovakia's Supreme Court quashed a decision on a merger between several breweries and referred it to the competition authority (Protimonopolny Urad). The stated reason was apparently that market shares had not been calculated correctly. Even before the original decision, concern had repeatedly been expressed about the substantial degree of concentration within the Slovakian beer market.

How does the Commission intend to provide the support required to ensure that Slovakia applies all relevant national competition law provisions and procedures in accordance with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission is monitoring the alignment with and implementation of Community competition rules in Slovakia, both in the context of the Europe Agreement and in relation to the on-going Union accession process. As far as legislation is concerned, the Slovak Act on the Protection of Competition covers the main principles of Community antitrust rules regarding restrictive agreements, abuse of dominant position and merger control. This Act was substantially amended in February 2001, after consultations with the Commission. The Act in its amended form makes the Slovak legislative framework for anti-trust, including mergers, to a large extent compatible with the substantive competition provisions of the acquis.

As for administrative capacity, the Anti-Monopoly Office is the competition authority responsible in Slovakia for the application of the national competition law provisions and procedures in accordance with Community law. The Commission finds that this office is functioning well, with a good track record and a continued high level of staff training. In order to support the Slovak authorities in properly applying the relevant competition rules, the Commission frequently provides the Slovak authorities with technical assistance on an ad hoc basis.