ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3184/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Cover-ups in respect of the Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan

Following President Bush's denunciation of the Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan as a recognised terrorist cell and the epicentre of the active terrorist networks in Europe, the US weekly magazine Newsweek (5.10.2001) condemns the delays and omissions in the investigations into that centre, which had been known to the Italian authorities for many years and from which, it has now been established, terrorist attacks in Europe using chemical weapons were planned and organised.

That article quotes a statement made by an Italian official to the Washington Post according to which before September 11 there was no understanding of the extent and complexity of the problem.

Does the Council not believe that these delays and omissions have seriously damaged European security?

Does the Council not believe, in addition, that it is necessary to identify the persons responsible for those delays, at whatever level they may be, and for any political cover-ups in that respect?

Does it not also believe that it is necessary to check, perhaps through Europol, whether other similar centres currently operating in Europe are carrying out activities like those of the Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan, particularly in London, where heated propaganda in favour of Bin Laden is still being spread in many important mosques, and if this is the case, does it not believe that it would be advisable immediately to close those centres of support for terrorism?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

The Council would like to underline that it has no competence to investigate into the operations of the law enforcement or judicial authorities in the Member States.

The Council would furthermore like to remind the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that in its Conclusions adopted on 20 September 2001, the Council explicitly stated that:

The Council has decided to set up within Europol, for a renewable period of six months, a team of counter-terrorist specialists for which the Member States are invited to appoint liaison officers from police and intelligence services specialising in the fight against terrorism, without prejudice to the legislation by which they are governed.

Its remit will include the following tasks:

- to collect in a timely manner all relevant information and intelligence concerning the current threat;

- to analyse the collected information and undertake the necessary operational and strategic analysis;

- to draft a threat assessment document based on information received. This study will in particular list targets, damage, potential modi operandi and consequences for the security of the Member States (description of possible situations) and identify those areas in which preventive measures must be taken (air traffic, official buildings, VIP protection, etc.).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3623/01

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Osteoporosis

Will the Commission seek to ensure that national health authorities and health insurance agencies work to improve the availability of bone densitometry resources and pay for bone density scans for people with osteoporosis risk factors prior to the first fracture?

Will the Commission pay for proven therapies for people with osteoporosis risk factors prior to the first fracture, financially support and participate in educational awareness campaigns in partnership with the IOF-International Osteoporosis Foundation, IOF member societies and other concerned groups and professionals?

Will the Commission also work in partnership with the International Osteoporosis Foundation to bring national and European policy makers together with osteoporosis experts and concerned groups to produce practical, cost-effective strategies to prevent osteoporotic fractures and to ensure that those strategies include measurable, realistic, time-based targets for reducing fractures and create a coordinated data collection system to monitor osteoporotic fractures across Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

According to Article 152 of the EC Treaty, 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. Availability of bone densiometry measurement therefore falls under the responsibility of Member States. However, the Commission will continue to take steps in the area, as part of the Community programme for health promotion.

The Commission cannot pay for treatment of people with osteoporosis, as this is an issue covered by the above-mentioned Article, and as such falls under the responsibility of Member States as well. On the other hand, the mandate of the Commission covers health promotion and disease prevention activities. Thus, the Commission may participate in education activities regarding risk factors and preventive treatment in the field of osteoporosis.

In fact, this is what the Commission has already carried out by financing and publishing the report on osteoporosis in the Community Action for prevention in 1998, prepared by the European Foundation on osteoporosis. Also, in the 2002 work programme for the health promotion programme, the Commission's priorities in relation to osteoporosis are outlined. It is stated that following the above mentioned Commission report on the prevention of osteoporosis, it is intended to analyse how the recommendations of this report have been acted upon by the Member States.

The Commission has worked closely together with the International Osteoporosis Foundation in the past, among other issues on the Osteoporosis report in 1998. The Commission has also participated in several events arranged by the Foundation, and will continue to work closely together with the Foundation in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement (transport of medicinal products)

Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement contains a requirement that persons moving within the Schengen area, and carrying medicinal products which may be classified as narcotics, must be able to produce a certificate. How should this provision be interpreted? There are a number of views which suggest that it is not clear which authorities are able to issue such a certificate and for which medicinal products it is required.

Could the Commission propose an amendment to clarify this text, or alternatively consider abolishing the requirement for a certificate?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

Under Article 75 of the Schengen Implementing Convention, it is permissible to transport drugs and psychotropic substances needed as part of medical treatment if the person concerned has a certificate issued by a competent authority(1).

However, Schengen provisions do not lay down a list of medicines for which persons travelling in the Schengen area need a special certificate.

Article 75 refers to the medicinal products mentioned in international conventions on drugs (1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances) or which contain substances referred to in these conventions which are also governed by the national law on drugs. Under these Conventions, additional substances can be subjected to the checks laid down by national law on drugs. Consequently, lists of products which constitute or contain narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances may vary from one Member State to another.

Under Article 75 the Member States designate the authorities responsible for issuing or authenticating the certificate. A list of these authorities is published in the Official Journal for the 10 countries which applied Schengen provisions by 25 March 2001(2). The list of the relevant authorities in the five Nordic countries which have implemented these provisions since 25 March 2001 has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission has no intention at present of proposing any amendments to the legislation in force.

(1) The standard certificate was published in OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(2) The standard certificate was published in OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Checks at airports

The recent serious terrorist attacks using aircraft as missiles piloted by the hijackers themselves have drawn attention to security measures, especially as regards checks on passengers and baggage before embarkation. For some time now this kind of check has been carried out mainly by private companies using unskilled and poorly paid staff, with the police intervening only secondarily and on request. Does the Commission intend to draw up new procedures to ensure that staff are more specialised and that those responsible for airport security take on greater responsibility for the certification of the standards adopted and their practical implementation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2001)

On 10 October 2001 the Commission adopted on a proposal for a regulation of the Parliament and the Council on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security. The incorporation of these rules into Community law will enable them to be applied in an effective manner and this process will be subject to continuous control by the Commission, using a peer review inspection mechanism.

The common rules contained in the proposal are based on the current best practices in the Member States and will aim at increased control of both international and domestic flights.

They will chiefly be concerned with:

- control of access to sensitive areas of airports and aircraft;

- control of passengers and their hand luggage;

- control and monitoring of hold luggage;

- control of cargo and mail;

- training of ground staff;

- definition of specifications for the equipment for the above controls;

- classification of weapons and other items which are prohibited to bring on to aircraft or into the sensitive areas of airports.

When adopted this Regulation will indeed respond to the request of the Honourable Member. The procedure for implementation at national level will largely rely on the measures taken by the Member States themselves in accordance with their national practices, so that the execution of training can vary from one state to another. Such training can indeed be done in some Member States by national officials while in others it would be done by private companies under the supervision of governmental staff.

Moreover the Commission and the Presidency have decided, as agreed on 14 September 2001, to create a multidisciplinary ad-hoc group to examine what other steps should be taken to enhance the current security measures and respond to the new types of threat. The group will report to the Council for consideration at its next meeting on 7 December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Protracted settlement procedures following (road) accidents in Switzerland

In answer to question E-1080/01(1) the Council says that it is not aware of the substance of the discussions which, according to the honourable Member, took place on 16 February between the Presidency and the President of Switzerland. The initiative taken by the then Presidency of the EU was part of an attempt to reach a solution to protracted settlement procedures for claims between EU victims and Swiss insurance companies because the fourth directive on motor vehicle insurance did not provide a solution to the problem.

Loop-holes in Swiss legislation enable insurance companies to withhold for a very long time the payment of damages resulting from civil liability. This source of legal uncertainty affects EU citizens who are victims of (road) accidents in Switzerland. They become caught up in a legalistic procedural wrangle with no prospect of compensation within a reasonable period of time.

Can the Council now provide full details of the discussions that took place on 16 February between the EU Presidency and the President of Switzerland concerning the speedy, equitable and fair settlement of claims made by European victims of road accidents in Switzerland? If not, why is the Council refusing to provide full details of these discussions?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 41.

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Council wishes to refer to its reply to the question (E-1080/01) from the Honourable Member on the same subject, explaining that the Council has not been informed of any contacts on the subject at hand between the Presidency of the EU and the President of Switzerland in February of this year. As far as the Council has been able to establish the matter was not discussed on the occasion referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3505/01

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

(8 January 2002)

Subject: France's other languages

In reply to my question on the action taken by the Commission regarding the institutional and budgetary difficulties encountered in France in using languages of that state other than French (E-2464/01(1)), the Culture Commissioner, Vivianne Reding, stated that the matter fell within the competence of the Member States and did not concern the Commission.

Bearing in mind that the right to use the languages of European countries, including languages which are not an official language of the state concerned, is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights approved at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference, what institution is responsible for enforcing this right if the Commission considers that it does not have the power to do so, even though, on the other hand, it rightly considers itself empowered to take action of such paramount significance as, for example, preventing the merger of powerful companies operating on European territory if such a merger would contravene competition rules?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Article 51 of the same instrument specifies that: The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. On the face of it, the case referred to by the Honourable Member does not appear to concern actions susceptible to fall within the ambit of Article 51 of the Charter.

Article 81 of the EC Treaty confers competence on the Community in the area of competition policy: The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market (Article 81 of the EC Treaty). Article 85 of the EC Treaty establishes the responsibility of the Commission for the implementation of this policy. No comparable powers are conferred upon the Community or the Commission in the area of language policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/01

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Belgian system for dealing with the free movement of labour

1. Is the Council President aware of the problems EU citizens encounter with the Belgian administration when registering their arrival to take up residence and in obtaining ID papers, and in particular the long waiting times, the need to send several reminders to obtain answers from the authorities of the municipalities to which they have moved, and the issue of one temporary ID card after another before an ID card proper is finally issued?

2. Does the Council consider such a system to be appropriate for a country like Belgium, which is host to international organisations such as NATO and the European Union?

3. Will Belgium take steps to improve this system?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council has no authority to reply to the Honourable Member's questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Commission relations with the ERT

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) is an important interest group in the Union.

Does the Commission have any idea how often various Members of the Commission took part in official meetings with the ERT during 2001?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Within the framework of its preparation of proposals and actions, the Commission's policy is to consult all its interlocutors. In the area of enterprise policy, the ERT is amongst these interlocutors.

Members of the Commission have had a number of meetings with representatives of the European Round Table (ERT) of Industrialists as part of the Commission's general process of consultation with civil society.

Discussions with ERT representatives have generally concentrated on issues related to enterprise and competitiveness issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3609/01

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: New buildings in an area subject to a total ban on building and European funds in Sicily

On 4 December 2001 the Sicilian regional executive tabled a bill seeking, inter alia, to regularise the status of illegal buildings on the coast, of which there are estimated to be 170 000. The bill would effectively repeal the only law protecting the coastline currently in force in Sicily, which provides for a ban on building within 150 metres of the sea (Regional Law 78 of 12 June 1976). The bill also provides for the building of new hotels providing a total of 4 000 beds on the strip of coastline subject to a total ban on building.

The projects already submitted will most probably be eligible for territorial pact, Prusst (urban renewal and sustainable spatial planning programmes) and Agenda 2000 funding.

These projects quite obviously run counter not just to the spirit of regional policies seeking to ensure the sustainable development of less advanced areas but also to environmental protection laws and the specific coastline rehabilitation and redevelopment measures supported by the European Union.

Is the Commission aware of the action taken by the Sicilian regional executive? Can it ensure that Structural Fund resources are not used to fund these projects? Can it make sure that Community legislation on environmental impact assessments is complied with? Lastly, how does it intend to protect Natura 2000 sites in which illegal building is taking place?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the proposed law mentioned by the Honourable Member. It will nevertheless ensure that the implementation of the programmes it part-finances under the Structural Funds is consistent with the objectives of those programmes and compatible with all Community policies, including that on environmental protection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3166/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Sellafield and the Irish Government

Bearing in mind the Irish Government's invariable opposition to and regular and consistent attempts to forestall developments at the nuclear establishment in Sellafield, what evidential weight does the Commission give to actions and submissions of the Irish Government, and does it consider the latter's activities to be consistent with accepting the Acquis Communautaire?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission services are following the on-going developments concerning the actions and submissions of the Irish authorities relating to the operations in Sellafield.

The Commission services are aware of the action of Ireland against the United Kingdom before the UN Tribunal of Law of the Sea and the action against the United Kingdom referred by Ireland to an arbitral tribunal under the OSPAR Convention. In this respect, the Commission would like to recall that under articles 292 (EC) and 193 (Euratom) any dispute between two Member States concerning the application of interpretation of the Treaties should not be submitted to any method of settlement other than those provided by the Treaties.

The Commission has also written to the United Kingdom authorities to request clarification on the various issues raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2530/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Restriction of duty paid goods entering the UK

What is the Commission's current view of the UK Government's policy of restricting the quantity of duty paid goods which can be imported into the UK by individual travellers?

Is the Commission aware of the increasing practice by UK Customs and Excise of seizure of the personal assets (normally motor vehicles) of travellers who do no more than exercise their freedoms under EU law?

What courses of action are open to the Commission to uphold the freedom of travellers to import the abovementioned goods into the UK?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The Commission has received a number of complaints concerning the way the United Kingdom applies the Community rules on excise duties to travellers entering the United Kingdom with excisable goods purchased in other Member States. The complaints have concerned both the aspect of the quantities of goods and the seizures of goods and vehicles. The Commission is at present actively looking into these complaints, and will examine the United Kingdom's policy in the light of the findings of this investigation.

If the Commission considers that a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, it may initiate a so-called infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. This procedure, designed to ensure that the Member States conform with Community law, can ultimately lead to a trial before the Court of Justice.