ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2086/02

by Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Comprehensive treatment plan for diabetics

On Parliament's initiative, diabetes was included in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research as one of the medical conditions to be worked on. Since there are an estimated 19 million known diabetics in the EU (and probably a further 6 million undiagnosed), does the Commission not think that there is a need for a specific comprehensive priority plan (involving harmonisation of the individual Member States' regulations) relating to the disease which, in Europe, causes one death every six minutes?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Although diabetes is one of the large public health problems facing Europe, Article 152 of the EC Treaty limits the competence of the Community in the field of public health by stating that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the

Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. In the field of diabetes, the work of the Commission has therefore concentrated on policy development and measures related to the determinants of type II diabetes, namely nutrition, obesity and physical activity. The forthcoming Community public health programme will be policy driven and will aim to promote policy and activities on health determinants that will have an impact on key challenges such as diabetes type II.

Thus, the Commission, in respecting Member States' responsibility in this area, does not intend to set up a specific priority plan related to diabetes. However, as mentioned by the Honorary Member, diabetes is included in the Sixth Community Framework Programme for research and technological development in Section 1 Integrating European Research in the programme Life sciences: genomics and biotechnology for health and in Section 3 Strengthening the Foundations of the European Research Area.

In addition, foods presented as intended to satisfy the particular nutritional requirements of people with diabetes should currently comply with the requirements of Council Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses(1). However, the Commission intends to present a report to the Parliament and the Council on the desirability of special provisions for foods for people with diabetes.

(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1893/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Regional aid and enlargement

The European Union is expected to be enlarged by 10 countries in 2004. This consideration was taken into account in the Commission's first interim report on social and economic cohesion, and its communication puts forward guidelines for the future content of cohesion policy.

In comparison to the current EU, the population of the candidate countries is poor and dependent on agriculture. Calculations carried out with a view to a 25-Member State EU show that the effect of enlargement will be that, in 7 of the 15 current Member States, one or more regions will lose their Objective 1 status. The Commission is also not planning to continue with Objective 2 after enlargement. It has been stressed that policy will in future concentrate on the Union's poorest regions, which after enlargement will be situated in the new Member States.

One of the regions which would no longer have Objective 1 status is Eastern Finland, which will continue to require EU aid after enlargement. What measures does the Commission propose to take to support the poorest regions of the current Member States and preserve their viability?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2002)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that enlargement will not affect the cohesion policy until 2006, particularly where the eligibility of current Member States' regions benefiting under this policy is concerned. The Commission will be setting out its views on eligibility for Objective 1 in the post-2006 period in the Third Cohesion Report, which it hopes to adopt before the end of 2003.

In addition, as the Commission stated in its Second Cohesion Report(1) and in its first progress report(2), at this stage gross domestic product per head is the only reliable criterion for defining the regions whose development is lagging behind and so are eligible for Objective 1. The issue of how to fix the eligibility threshold is one that has yet to be settled. Furthermore, a fair solution has to be found for those regions that have not yet achieved economic convergence but which will be affected by the statistical effect of enlargement that will result in one or more regions of nine of the current Member States losing their eligibility.

Lastly, the initial results of the debate on the future of the cohesion policy indicate broad agreement on not restricting the policy solely to the regions whose development is lagging behind. Account should also be taken of conditions such as permanent natural handicaps, sparsely populated areas, urban areas or areas undergoing economic restructuring. With this in mind and in accordance with the principles of good governance, this assistance must be better directed towards Community priorities and must be implemented in a more decentralised manner.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.

(2) COM(2002) 46 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2002)

Subject: Giving to developing countries longline vessels scheduled for scrapping

Within the EU, fishermen are being offered incentives to cease using vessels in the form of scrapping premiums. These vessels could be put to use in the least developed countries to promote local food production and employment. It would be possible to select those eligible in such a way as to avoid creating any problems for the objectives of the EU's common fisheries policy or the EU market.

Does the Commission consider that it might be possible for longline vessels whose use is to be halted in Member States to be passed on to developing countries for use in projects to foster food production and employment? What measures could be taken to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The proposal of the Honourable Member to use decommissioned longline fishing vessels for projects in developing countries is attractive at first sight.

Under the proposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, however, aid for the export of fishing vessels or establishment of joint enterprises with third countries would no longer be granted. The objective of this modification is to halt the exportation of Community fleet's overcapacity to other countries, in particular to under-developed countries. Deficiencies in control and enforcement measures, which are essential to protect the local resources in such countries, could put them at risk of over-exploitation in the short-term.

The introduction of highly productive fishing vessels at low or no cost could also have a negative impact on the development of local industries and therefore on the creation of employment. In fact, such a measure could have exactly the opposite effect on a developing country than the expected outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1227/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Linguistic minorities in the European Union

The protection of national and linguistic minorities is one of the political criteria introduced by the European Union in its negotiations with applicant countries (Copenhagen criteria). Such assessments have never been used with regard to the present Member States and there is no evidence of any verification process on the matter. What information does the Commission have in this regard, and is the protection of linguistic minorities an implicit element of the acquis communautaire, despite the lack of official requirements?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

In the Commission's view, the rights of minorities are among the principles which are common to the Member States, as listed in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). These principles, enshrined in a number of international conventions(1), were solemnly reaffirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 21(1) of the Charter prohibits any discrimination based, inter alia, on ethnic origin, language, religion or membership of a national minority; Article 22 requires the Union to respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. As stated in the explanations relating to the Charter, these provisions are based respectively on Article 13 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and on Article 151 of the EC Treaty.

The infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty and the political procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Union Treaty ensure that Member States comply with these principles. In the former case, the Commission may bring the matter before the Court of Justice if the infringement falls within the scope of Community law. In the latter case, the Commission or one third of the Member States may refer to the Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, a serious or persistent breach of the principles laid down in Article 6.

(1) For example, the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 27 of which protects the culture and language of persons belonging to minorities, has been ratified by all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1705/02

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(7 June 2002)

Subject: Euromed Train

A constituent of mine recently travelled on the Euromed train in Spain. He noted that there were signs indicating that financial support for the project had come from the European Union. He also noted that the train has poor accessibility for disabled people since the train floor is nearly one metre above the platform. My constituent would like to know why EU money was spent on this project without a requirement for better access for the disabled.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Regarding access for people of reduced mobility to facilities open to the public, the Commission can only state that in the absence of a Community legal framework on accessibility of such infrastructure it is up to the responsible national authorities to see that national requirements are respected.

On the specific case raised by the Honourable Member, i.e. the Euromed rail link between Alicante and Barcelona, assistance from the Structural and Cohesion Funds was granted for track modification, electrification and safety improvement and also for development/improvement of certain stations. For more specific information on the aspect of the project to which his question relates and on application of Spanish legislation in this area, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to contact the project managing authority: Ministerio de Hacienda, Secretaría de Estado de Presupuestos y Gastos, Dirección General de Fondos Comunitarios y Financiación Territorial, Paeseo de la Castellana 162, 28071 Madrid.

In future however, in the context of implementation of Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on interoperability of the trans-European high speed rail system(1) and Parliament and Council Directive 2001/16/EC of 19 March 2001 on interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system(2), train accessibility from the platform for people of reduced mobility will be taken into account where all new investment and development/improvement work is concerned.

Further, the Commission in its White Paper on future transport policy(3) states its intention of proposing a regulation on the rights and obligations of passengers on international trains(4). This will contain provisions on improving the accessibility of trains and stations to people of reduced mobility and on information on access. The Commission will also call on the rail sector to take action in parallel, each acting in its sphere of responsibility.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001.

(3) European transport policy for 2010: time to decide (COM(2001) 370 final).

(4) COM(2002) 18 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1746/02

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

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Consequences of the conclusion, on 31 December 2002, of the transitional period restricting access to Community waters for the Spanish and Portuguese fleets

What consequences will the conclusion of this transitional period have on the TACs granted to the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

In accordance with the Act of Accession of 1985, the two Member States' fleets will have access to all Community waters on a non-discriminatory basis, subject to the general access limitations which apply in some areas such as the Shetland box. From 1 January 2003 access to resources beyond the 12 miles will be based on Council decisions in conformity with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Detention conditions for asylum seekers in Fuerteventura and Lanzarote

Could the Spanish Presidency please explain why asylum seekers detained in old airport facilities in Fuerteventura have had some of their basic human rights compromised, according to reports by Human Rights Watch and including evidence from the Spanish Red Cross?

Can the Spanish Presidency confirm that those residing within the old airport facility have been:

- denied access to lawyers;

- denied the right to make telephone calls;

- living with 200-400 people within a space of 20m2;

- managing without government provided medical care or assistance, and instead relying on the voluntary efforts of NGOs to provide such basic services;

- living without a proper ventilation system; and

- sharing four toilets and three showers for up to 500 men in the male part of the detention facility?

Can the Spanish Presidency also clarify what will be done to improve these conditions whilst the construction of new detention centres is taking place, and what it is doing to ensure that all those detained can exercise the rights they are entitled to?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

At its meeting on 25 and 26 April 2002, the Council arrived at a general approach, subject to scrutiny of the Opinion of the European Parliament and the withdrawal of two parliamentary scrutiny reservations, on a proposal for a Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States. The Directive will be formally adopted by the Council at one of its forthcoming meetings.

The Directive lays down minimum standards, considered sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living, for the reception conditions of applicants for asylum in the European Union. It contains specific provisions on residence and freedom of movement, family unity, schooling and education of minors, employment and access to vocational training. It also defines cases of exclusion, reduction and review.

The Directive is applicable to all third country national and stateless persons who make an application for asylum at the border or on the territory of a Member State for as long as they are authorised to remain in the country, and to certain members of their families.

The Member States may adopt or maintain more favourable provisions on reception conditions to the extent that they are compatible with the Directive.

With regard to present practice in the Member States, the Council would ask the Honourable Member to address himself directly to the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Persecution of Christians in China

Is the Commission aware that, in southern China, members of the South Chinese church have very recently been persecuted and that at least five of its members, namely Gong Shengliang, Hu Yong (Hu Ling-wei), Xu Fuming (Xu Tong-lao), Li Ying (Li En hui) and Gong Bankun, have been sentenced to death and at least three members, namely Sun Minghua, Xiao Yanli (Xia Tong Ran) and Yi Chan-fu, have received long prison sentences?

Is the Commission aware that the arrest and interrogation of members of the South Chinese church were accompanied by violence and torture?

How will the Commission draw these human rights violations to the attention of the Chinese Government?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission shares the concern expressed about the situation of Christians in China, including, notably, the case of Pastor Gong Shengliang, which has been raised with China in the context of the Union's human rights dialogue.

The Union is committed to strengthening respect for human rights everywhere in the world. They represent a central issue in the Union's relations with third countries. The Commission is following closely the human rights situation in China. Religious freedom forms an important part of the Union's general concern about human rights in China.

A bilateral dialogue on human rights was established between the Union and China in 1996. The Union has frank discussions with China in this framework and religious freedom is a key issue. The main concerns in addition to religious freedom include freedom of expression, freedom of association, repression of political dissidence, death penalty, ratification and implementation of United Nations Covenants (including the one on Political and Civil Rights), co-operation with United Nations (Memorandum of Understanding signed with United Nations now to be implemented), ethnic minorities, and arbitrary detention conditions.

The human rights situation in China is raised at all levels, including at Summit and Ministerial meetings. The Commissioner for External Relations raised it with Chinese Ministers on his recent visit.

The Commission will continue to follow closely, and raise with China, the situation of religious freedom in China, including the situation of individuals such as Pastor Gong.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/02

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE)and Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Restitution of property to Istrian and Dalmatian exiles

The stabilisation and association agreement with Croatia makes no mention of the restitution of property confiscated at the end of the Second World War despite the fact that, from the point of view of any future enlargement, this issue must be one of the priorities for accession in terms of safeguarding the rights of minorities in Croatia.

Recently the parliament in Zagreb also debated this issue and in particular approved a specific denationalisation law which in fact removed Istrian and Dalmatian exiles' last hopes of having their property returned to them.

Is the Council taking any measures apart from agreements at bilateral level, and if so what are they, on the question of the restitution of property to Istrian and Dalmatian exiles in Croatia, and more generally, compliance with the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment of ethnic minorities, in order to establish the latter as preconditions for any future accession of Croatia to the European Union?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the question whether any laws on the restitution of property expropriated after the war might be compatible with Community law. If, in the future, the question of opening negotiations on Croatia's accession were to arise, it would be with full regard to the first paragraph of Article 49 of the EU Treaty
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1760/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Cattle import licences

The prospect of a change in the method of allocating licences for breeding calves for fattening has caused intense speculation and great concern among Greek stock farmers.

Is there any such prospect and, if so, how does the Commission intend to safeguard the future of small importers who have invested in recent years in modernising their operations but will be unable to compete as the financial conditions intended to apply to imported cattle will favour only large-scale stock farmers in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2002 of 27 June 2002 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for young male bovine animals for fattening (1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003)(1) has established the detailed rules for the quota year 2002/2003 with regard to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) import quota of live male animals for fattening.

The basic method of allocation of import rights has not been modified compared with the corresponding Regulation of 2001(2). This means that the Greek importers still have a guaranteed access to a specific part of the quota with unchanged criteria of participation. However, the specific part reserved for Greek importers was slightly reduced from 11,5 % (=19 500 animals) to 10,7 % (=18 100 animals) in line with recent developments of import needs.

The Regulation has introduced reinforced provisions on the actual use of import certificates. The main objective is to avoid speculation and trade in licences which, if achieved, would benefit all genuine importers irrespective of their trading volumes.

(1) OJ L 169, 28.6.2002.

(2) OJ L 150, 6.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2044/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Problems with Microsoft Office XP for visually impaired people

Given the EU's commitment to visually impaired people, please could the Commission explain how Microsoft was not steered in a positive direction before the release of Microsoft Office XP?

What plans does the Commission have to encourage Microsoft to take into account the needs of customers who are visually impaired?

Given the large number of visually impaired people employed by public sector organisations in the Member States, what official IT policy will the EU have to ensure only accessible IT software is purchased by these organisations?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission is not aware of particular problems experienced by visually impaired people with Microsoft Office XP. The Commission notes that Microsoft is required to take into consideration US government regulations, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, when developing products such as Microsoft Office XP. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires US federal agencies to consider accessibility before they purchase, procure and maintain new electronic and information technologies.

The eAccessibility target of the Action Plan for 2002 in the eEurope initiative aims to promote Design for all approaches in the use of information technologies and in particular the adoption of the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines for public websites.

The Commission Communication(1) and the Council Resolution 7087/02(2) encourage the Member States to implement measures to achieve the objective of accessibility of public web sites. This may include the use of suitable software to create accessible content, to improve existing web sites and to monitor compliance as well as software used to access the web.

The Council Resolution 292/02 on eInclusion calls on the Member States to remove barriers in the information society by tackling technical barriers for people with different disabilities in terms of ICT equipment and by promoting the development of specific software adapted to the particular needs of disadvantaged groups.

(1) COM(2001) 529 final.

(2) Council Resolution 7087/02 of 20th March 2002 on: the eEurope Action Plan 2002: Accessibility of public web sites and their content; OJ C 86, 10.4.2002.