ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1699/02

by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Council

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Firearms legislation in the European Union

The tragic events of 26 April 2002, when a final-year pupil shot 16 people at the Gutenberg-Gymnasium in Erfurt, led to a broad public debate in Germany and the EU concerning the approach to violence in our society. Attention has particularly focused on firearms legislation.

Would it be possible to harmonise firearms legislation in the EU in such a way as to make access to firearms subject to uniform criteria?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Commission, which exercises its right of initiative within the scope of the Community powers conferred upon it by the Treaty, has not submitted a Commission proposal to the Council with a view to harmonising the different firearms legislations in the Union in such a way as to make access to firearms subject to uniform criteria. The Council would, however, point out that, in accordance with the conclusions of the Fontainebleau European Council on 25 and 26 June 1984 and with a view to ensuring the abolition of all police and customs formalities at intra-Community frontiers by 31 December 1992 on the one hand and fostering greater mutual confidence between Member States in the field of the protection of the safety of persons on the other, it adopted Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons(1). This Directive provides in particular for the establishment of minimum criteria in the area of acquisition and possession of firearms, and gives Member States the freedom to adopt in their legislation provisions which are more stringent than those laid down in the Directive. Article 2 of the Directive excludes from its scope the acquisition or possession of weapons by the armed forces, the police, the public authorities, collectors and historical and cultural bodies, as well as commercial transfers of weapons and ammunition of war.

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that pursuant to Article 296(1)(b) of the TEC, any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Illiteracy and pupils dropping out of primary and lower secondary school in Greece

In reply to my question No E-0897/02(1), Commissioner Reding sent me a table labelled: Drop-out rates from compulsory education broken down by EU Member State, together with Iceland and Norway (percentage of young people aged between 18 and 24 who only completed the first cycle of lower secondary school education) for 2001. Unfortunately, the table does not show how many Greeks and how many Europeans in the rest of the EU dropped out of primary school and lower secondary school, nor does it define the first and second cycle of lower secondary school education which are referred to in the text of the reply.

I am forced to repeat my question: what are the compulsory education drop-out rates (in Greece: for primary school and lower secondary school) in the 15 Member States? Why are there no full and reliable statistics on the current rate of illiteracy in the 15 Member States as the Commissioner says? Where will the missing statistics on illiteracy in the European Union come from? What is the illiteracy rate in Greece, as far as the Commission is aware?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 156.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The remarks of the Honourable Member are correct. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) has traditionally collected illitteracy rates and statistics and these may be available at national level, but they have never been put together and harmonised (ie, the definitions made similar so that comparisons may reasonably be made) at European level. The Commission is aware of the importance of the issue and considers that the possibility of obtaining data about it should be explored, although it has never been signalled as a priority by Member States.

A table with the estimated number of illiterates by age in Greece in the years 1985, 1990 and 1995 according to the Unesco Institute for Statistics is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Human rights and loaned workers

Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation. Furthermore, in a decision of 4 July 2002 on temporary employment and the loaning of workers, the National (Greek) Committee on Human Rights determined that the commercial activity of temporary employment agencies is contrary to the fundamental human rights set out in Article 23 and, possibly, also Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This form of employment is a gross violation of the loaned workers personal dignity and contrary to Articles 2(1) and 22 of the Greek Constitution concerning the protection of personal dignity and work.

However, the guarantees provided by the relevant articles of Law 2956/2001 concerning the labour, insurance and trade union rights of loaned workers are in practice unenforceable owing partly to the failings of official monitoring mechanisms but mainly because of the nature of the form of employment which does not enable loaned workers to claim their legal rights as they are totally dependent on their immediate employer.

In the light of the situation described above, what measures will the Commission take to protect workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Since the beginning of the 1980s, temporary work has come to play an important part in the functioning of the labour market in Europe, as companies have sought greater flexibility in job management.

In view of the growth of this new type of employment relationship, the Commission has taken various steps since the beginning of the '80s to regulate these practices. The first Directive was adopted in 1991: Council Directive 91/383/EEC of 25 June 1991 supplementing the measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of workers with a fixed-duration employment relationship or a temporary employment relationship(1). The second important step was taken on 20 March 2002, when the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on working conditions for temporary workers(2).

This text was designed primarily to improve the quality of temporary work by providing for a mechanism to increase the safety and protection of temporary workers. The essential clause in the text aimed to ensure that temporary workers had the same working and employment conditions as workers doing the same

work in the client firm. All workers in the same workplace, doing identical or similar work and with equivalent qualifications, must be treated equally, irrespective of which company employs them.

This text is currently being discussed in the Council and Parliament and is to be adopted under the codecision procedure.

(1) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991.

(2) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Environmental education

The Environment Directorate-General will be aware of the work of the Foundation for Environmental Education and of the fact that some of its programmes have, in the past, received funding from the Commission.

Does the Commission agree that environmental education has an important role to play in promoting the EU's environmental agenda?

Assuming this to be the case, which Directorate-General, DG Environment or DG Education and Culture, takes the lead in processing and supporting applications for appropriate environmental education projects in both Member States and the applicant countries?

If there is any uncertainty as to the appropriate Directorate-General in the case of a particular application, who is responsible for resolving such conflict?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

In the sixth Environmental Action Programme of the Community, the Commission has indicated five strategic approaches to meeting the environmental objectives for 2001-2010. These are all preventive instruments aimed at protecting the environment rather than to cure. One way to bring about improvements to the environment is by helping people to make environmentally friendly choices. Individual citizens, as well as business, make daily decisions that directly or indirectly impact the environment. Better quality and easily accessible information on the environment and on practical matters will help shape opinions and thus decisions. Environmental education and awareness raising activities will be essential to this process. The education systems and school curricula remains, however, the responsibility of Member States and applicant countries.

Within the framework of the Community action programmes Socrates (in the field of education) and Youth, the Commission supports a number of projects, where young people learn about the environment in the school, as volunteers or in youth projects. The theme of environment is in fact frequently dealt with and projects are implemented in both Member States and the applicant countries. Both programmes, Socrates and Youth, are administrated by Directorate General (DG) Education and Culture, which thus takes the lead in processing and supporting the applications.

In addition, the Commission gives financial support to environmental information and awareness raising projects as well as to European environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These activities fall under the responsibility of DG Environment. Also these activities are open to participation by the applicant countries. In the call for proposals of this year, 2002, environmental education and the involvement of young people is included as an element of consideration. When selecting the projects to fund, each of the two Directorates General involved must of course respect the specific eligibility clauses of Community instruments, as approved by the Parliament and by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Israel

According to Amnesty International, Israel does not recognise the right to alternative service for conscientious objectors who refuse to perform military service, as recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Israel is a party. As a result of this practice, at least 114 conscientious objectors have been imprisoned since the beginning of the intifada, 20 of whom are currently in prison for refusing to perform their military service in the occupied territories.

What steps will the Commission take to exert pressure on the Israeli Government to comply with the international conventions which it has ratified but flagrantly violates in practice?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission is keeping a close watch on the fate of Israeli reservists who are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories but cannot be described as conscientious objectors since they have not refused to perform military service as such.

According to the information available, fewer than 10 reservists are currently in prison for this reason.

The refusal by some reservists to serve in this way has been accompanied by a wider movement (petitions, demonstrations, etc.) whose aim is to obtain recognition for Israeli reservists not wishing to serve in the Occupied Territories. At the beginning of their action the reservists and their movement expressed the wish to have no contact with the press or foreign diplomats so that they could not be accused of being manipulated or supported by outsiders.

Whilst taking care not to interfere without reason in internal Israeli legislation, the Commission intends to follow these developments as it does in all situations with a human rights aspect and, if necessary, to discuss the matter with the Member States in the appropriate forum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1878/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Ghana

With respect to Ghana, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2512/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: Measures jointly financed by the ESF

Recently, the Commission has jointly funded measures under Article 6 of the ESF to promote local development by means of pilot initiatives.

An evaluation of these proposals and the selection of a number of them were carried out by external assessors.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What procedure did the Commission use to select the assessors?

2. What measures did the Commission take to ensure that the assessors were selected on merit and that they evaluated in due manner the proposals submitted?

3. Were there any complaints in the last tendering procedure that the proposals were not evaluated and selected in due manner and, if so, what action did the Commission take in response to those complaints?

What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that the resources concerned are properly managed?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

As part of the procedures for selection of innovative measures cofinanced under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (ESF)(1), the Commission, in accordance with established practice in a number of Community programmes, makes use of the expertise of external evaluators for an initial evaluation of the content of proposals received.

These evaluators are chosen from responses to a call for expressions of interest and on the basis of their expertise in the area(s) covered by the proposals to be evaluated. Their role is limited to making recommendations to the Commission, as the final decision on the proposals to be selected and on the amount of Community cofinancing to be awarded is taken by the Commission alone.

The Commission ensures that the appropriations allocated to innovative measures under the ESF are managed strictly and transparently, in line with the rules in force.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2108/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Closure of subsidised company Typopoiitiria Thivas

In its answer to my previous questions (P-3402/01(1), P-1011/02(2)) concerning the probable closure of the Typopoiitiria Thivas company, which was subsidised under Regulations (EEC) 355/77(3) and 866/90(4), the Commission states that it has not received a reply from the Greek authorities, that the Commission is particularly concerned that the schemes part-financed by the Structural Funds should be

operational and not dormant and that, once it has received an answer, the Commission will decide whether to apply Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93(5) of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88(6) laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88(7) as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments dealing with the recovery of sums unduly received.

Has the Commission received an answer from the Greek authorities? If not, what does it propose to do?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 167.

(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 247.

(3) OJ L 51, 23.2.1977, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 20.

(6) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.

(7) OJ L 185, 15.7.1988, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission has unfortunately not yet received an official reply from the Greek authorities and cannot therefore confirm whether or not proceedings have been initiated for the purpose of enabling Tipopiitiria Thivas to continue operating. We are however in regular contact with the Greek Agriculture Ministry concerning the matter and its top officials have undertaken to explore every possibility of resolving it.

In the meantime the complaint of 23 February 2002 made to the Commission by Mr Barakakos, the head of the firm, and his petition No 1075/2001 continue to be dealt with under the procedures in force. In any event it rests with the Greek courts to rule in the dispute referred to them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0538/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Persecution of Greek-speakers in Turkey

The Turkish press reports that a book by the Turkish author Omer Asan entitled The Civilisation of the Pontos has been seized by the Turkish authorities and the author put on trial. The author, who was awarded the Ipekci Prize two years ago, gives an account of the language, the culinary traditions and anecdotes of the 300 Greek-speaking villages of the Pontos. The Turkish police have already seized thousands of copies of Mr Asan's book.

There is great apprehension in these villages, which are the remains of the once flourishing Greek civilisation of the Black Sea region, which was almost completely eradicated after 1922, while those who stayed (such as the author) belong to the so-called crypto-Christians who were compelled to pretend that they had converted to Islam in order to escape persecution by the Turkish authorities.

What is the Commission's reaction to this new wave of persecution? How is the seizure of a book by an award-winning Turkish author compatible with the protection of freedom of expression guaranteed in the Member States of the Union? In which instances over the last two years has the Commission raised the question of the repression of freedom of expression in Turkey? In which instances did Turkey remedy the

adverse consequences of its actions? Will the Commission guarantee the safety of the population of the 300 Greek-speaking villages of the Pontos, who are justifiably apprehensive given that the Brigadier-General of Kerasous, Baki Onurlubas, also talks of secret Greek plans for the secession of the Pontos and training of guerrillas from the Black Sea in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning the book of Mr Asan. According to the information available to the Commission, Mr Asan has been prosecuted by an Istanbul State Security Court on charges of separatist propaganda. In light of the Copenhagen political criteria and more specifically freedom of expression, this case is a matter of serious concern.

The Commission has raised the issue of freedom of expression with Turkey on various occasions such as the Community-Turkey Association Council and Association Committee meetings as well as during high-level meetings including the visit of the Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement to Turkey held on 14/15 February 2002. The Commission's assessment of freedom of expression in Turkey is given in the regular reports on Turkey's progress towards accession. Restrictions in relation to the exercise of this freedom continue, including the seizure of books and other publications.

Although the Commission understands the concerns of the Honourable Member regarding the safety of the population in question, it is not in a position to provide the requested guarantees. These can only be provided by the Turkish authorities themselves.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2510/02

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(3 September 2002)

Subject: Election campaign in an important Member State

On 22 September 2002, elections will be held in the Federal Republic of Germany, one of the most important Member States of the European Union.

In what areas and in what way is the current vigorous election campaign affecting the work of the Council?

What outstanding negotiations and decisions is the campaign delaying and/or hampering?

Are not in particular the negotiations for the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union being affected, especially the agricultural sector?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

As the Honourable Member's question suggests, the work of the Council, like that of any political institution, does not take place in a vacuum and can indeed be affected by political events taking place in a Member State. However, it does not seem possible to establish any precise causal link between an electoral campaign in progress in one State and the outcome of a specific discussion in the Council.

In any event, as regards the example mentioned by the Honourable Member, it should be recalled that the European Council undertook to conclude the enlargement negotiations by the time of the European Council in Copenhagen, in order to make it possible for the Accession Treaty to be signed in spring 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2694/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Simplification of the import and export licensing system for defence equipment within the EU

According to a report of 28 April 1999 by the Belgische Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers (Belgian Chamber of Parliamentarians) (doc. 614/4 95/96), the Commission was at that time planning to organise a simplified system of import and export licences for defence equipment within (!) the EU.

Can the Commission say whether the information in this report is correct and what the present state of affairs is as regards the development of this licensing system? Can the Commission tell me if it has not yet taken any steps in this direction that it is still intending to do this? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The Commission has always been in favour of any method which allows progress to be made in simplifying intra-Community transfers of defence equipment which would, in particular, involve a more precise definition of this equipment and an easing of the formalities surrounding their movement, regardless of the instruments used.

Given the particularly sensitive nature of the problems associated with this issue, which also touch on many aspects of European integration, including the Common Foreign and Security Policy, a broad consensus is highly desirable so that any initiative in this field can provide real added value.

It is therefore important for the Commission to have a clear understanding of what the added value of a legislative initiative might be, its chances of success, and any risks involved. This evaluation could be conducted by the Commission and discussed by competent working groups.