ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3148/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Fishing

On 30 October, French fishermen blocaded the port of La Rochelle and prevented 37 Spanish fishing vessels from unloading their catch, whilst the French authorities just looked on passively.

Quite apart from being a clear infringement of Community law, this incident caused huge financial losses, since the vessels in question were obliged to return to their home ports having wasted a number of fishing days.

In view of the fact that such events are unfortunately becoming a regular occurrence, what action is the Commission planning to take in order to put a stop to them?

What sanctions are to be applied to France in view of that country's tendency to repeat such acts?

Within what period of time will the relevant sanctions be announced and applied?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The anchovy fishery in the Bay of Biscay has been a longstanding source of conflict between, on the one hand, fleets based in the Basque Country and other Spanish Atlantic ports, which use encircling nets, and, on the other hand, the French fleet, which mainly uses mid-water trawls.

In the past these problems have been settled to the satisfaction of both parties through dialogue and cooperation. The Josselin Agreement, which was concluded in Arcachon in 1992 and is still in force, introduced a code of good conduct for this fishery and could provide the basis for the search for a solution.

The Commission is aware of the events that have taken place in the French ports of La Rochelle and Saint Nazaire and is maintaining close contact in this connection with the authorities of the Member States concerned; it is working to achieve reconciliation between the two parties that may bring a lasting solution to the conflict.

In accordance with the national procedures in force, Spanish fishermen who have suffered losses as a result of demonstrations by French fishermen in those ports can always seek compensation for damages.

The Commission is monitoring events and will, if necessary, take the requisite measures to ensure compliance with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3086/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Trips by the Director-General for Fisheries

Senior figures in the Commission, both Commissioners and Directors-General, know how important it is to travel to the Community regions in which the sectors linked to their sphere of competence are based. Such trips help make the people concerned and public opinion in the Member States aware of Community initiatives and actions designed to support them, as well as enabling the Commission to size up sectoral problems and problems facing the regions on the spot.

With this in mind, how many working trips has the current Director-General for Fisheries made to each of the Member States since his appointment?

Is there any geographical criterion within the Fisheries DG on the grounds of which the Director-General travels to northern countries and some other official to southern countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

The Commission certainly agrees, that visits not only by Members of the Commission but also by civil servants of the Commission to various regions and sectors in Europe can help citizens become better aware of Community initiatives and actions that can help solve local and regional problems.

Such visits can be initiated in different ways. As far as the Directorate General for Fisheries is concerned visits organised for officials at the highest level have lately very much been dominated by the ongoing debate on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the organisation of meetings and conferences on different themes of the reform in different places in Europe. For each of the officials at the highest level in the Directorate General for Fisheries their trips during 2000 and 2001 have, therefore, very much been dominated by invitations they have received for participation and contributions to these meetings and conferences.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3640/01

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Euro Info Centres

Will the Commission reaffirm its commitment to the Euro Info Centre network, and provide assurances that the Parliament can expect both long-term funding and dedicated and responsible coordination for this vital service to European SMEs?

Furthermore, is the Commission able to confirm with confidence that its Business Feedback Mechanism, part of the Interactive Policy Making initiative, is structured and coordinated in such a manner that EICs are able to implement this project with any real chance of success?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Euro Info Centre (EIC) network was created in 1987 under the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) Multiannual Programme and has been renewed in all the ensuing Enterprise Programmes. It figures very prominently in the present Multi annual programme 2001-2005, and as such, is assured of its financing in the present conditions until the end of 2005.

What will be decided for the period following 2005 will depend on the evaluation of the present programme and on the outcome of the work engaged to bring about closer co-operation between the various European business support networks and their further rationalisation. In the present situation, the Commission sees no reason to discontinue the functions of the EIC network as they represent a constant need on the part of European companies and in particular SMEs, especially in the context of the next enlargement.

Given the role of the EIC network in helping enterprises to operate effectively in the Internal Market, the Commission is pleased to confirm that it is making every effort to ensure that the Interactive Policy Making (IPM) initiative is implemented successfully, in cooperation with the EICs. The very promising first results of the pilot project on the Business Feedback Mechanism led to its extension in 2001 from 41 pilot EICs to the whole EIC network. The experience gained in the pilot project will form a solid basis for improved implementation of the feedback aspect of the IPM initiative. This will broaden the scope of this new form of business feedback using the Internet from 2002 onwards as well as ensuring continuity, to the mutual advantage of EICs and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2932/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Danish feta export fraud

The Court of Auditors' Special Report 7/2001 reveals that the cases of fraud investigated by OLAF included the 1998 export to North Korea of some 3 200 tonnes of Danish feta manufactured from cow's milk. Export refunds of 2,23 million euro were paid despite the fact that the feta was more than 12 months past its sell-by date and the refunds amounted to more than double the selling price.

In addition to the case of fraud, there is also the matter of discrediting the name feta, which in 1998 was a Greek product with protected designation of origin and which Denmark could use only for a transitional period. Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How will it respond to the discrediting of the name feta caused by the export of the Danish product?

2. Will the above case of fraud be taken into account in reconsidering the proposal to secure the status of feta as a product with protected designation of origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the case concerning an export of some 3 200 tons of Danish feta cheese to North Korea with the payment of some 2,23 million in export refunds. The Court of Auditors referred this case to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for investigation. OLAF has indicated that this investigation has been closed. The Danish authorities and the Commission have been informed of the OLAF conclusions according to which irregularities occurred.

The Commission has in any case not in mind to respond to any possible discredit of the designation feta, which, as your Honourable Member states, was a Protected Designation of Origin in 1998. Actually, and independently of the outcome of the above-mentioned investigation, Denmark had at that time also the right to use the name feta for a transitional period.

With regard to the reconsideration of a proposal to secure the status of feta as a Protected Designation of Origin, the outcome of OLAF's investigation is irrelevant and consequently the Commission won't take it into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3152/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council

(15 November 2001)

Subject: Biometric passport

Netherlands recently introduced a new passport, offering the possibility in two to three years of recording of biometric data, for example using fingerprinting or iris scanning. This will mean proof of identity which is far more reliable than current evidence. The minister responsible, Mr Van Boxtel, has indicated that he is very willing to share this advanced Netherlands technology with other EU Member States.

1. Does the Council take the view that standardisation or harmonisation in line with the highest standard for evidence of identity in Europe can increase security, without citizens' freedoms being sacrificed as a result?

2. Is the Council willing to place this matter on the agenda for the JHA Council or the next European Council summit?

3. In the light of recent endeavours to introduce new measures to reduce the terrorist threat in Europe, is the Council willing to treat discussion of this matter as a priority?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Union has taken particular interest in innovative security features for identity documents such as passports, identity cards, visas, residence permits, etc. since the Visa 2000 Symposium in Nuremberg in June 1999, where new technologies were discussed and a number of biometric techniques presented. The events of 11 September 2001 gave a stark reminder of the need to step up document security. At its meeting on 20 September 2001 the Council recognised the importance of document security as a means of fighting terrorism and placed emphasis on greater use of biometrics. Following that Council meeting, the Commission submitted a new proposal for a Regulation amending the 1995 Regulation on the uniform format for visas to include a digital photograph on the visa. The Council has reached broad agreement on that proposal, subject to the Opinion of the European Parliament. A similar solution will also be adopted under the Commission proposal laying down the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals.

As regards passports, the Council would point to the Resolution of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the security characteristics of passports and other travel documents(1). The Resolution calls on Member States to introduce at the earliest opportunity, and at the latest on 1 January 2005 (for passports) or 1 January 2006 (for identity cards and short-term passports with more than six months' validity), the minimum security standards for the production and issue of new travel documents set out in the Annex to the Resolution. It also leaves open the possibility of setting even more stringent security requirements.

(1) OJ C 310, 28.10.2000, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/01

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 September 2001)

Subject: European mushroom sector

Mushroom production in the EU stands at 1 million tonnes per year. The situation in the sector is marked by relative stability but high fragility, mainly owing to imports of the genus Agaricus (cultivated mushrooms) at a price which is 50 % lower, despite the quota of 29 290 t per year (22 750 being allocated to China under Regulation (EC) 2858/2000(1)). There are also instances of fraud whereby mushrooms are imported in excess of the quota under different customs headings.

The United States banned imports of Chinese mushrooms for five years following legal proceedings for dumping, which ended two years ago.

In this light, and bearing in mind the significant role played in certain local areas by mushroom-growing, which is extremely labour-intensive:

- what is the Commission's assessment of the impact which application of the customs quota for mushrooms of the genus Agaricus has had on the European mushroom-producing sector since its introduction in 1992?

- What consequences does the Commission expect China's imminent accession to the WTO to have for customs quotas for mushrooms of the genus Agaricus in the EU?

- Have any assessments been made of the social and economic impact on European producers of Agaricus mushrooms in the event of substantial variations in the current customs quota? What measures are in place to offset any negative impact?

- What action is being taken to ensure that Chinese imports under chapter 07 designated as Calocybe or Psaillota are not in fact imports of Agaricus? How many checks have been made, and with what results?

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 59.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties facing the Community mushroom sector, and in particular the vulnerable position in which it now finds itself as a result of the structural fall in demand for preserved mushrooms in Europe and the serious competition represented by imports. It has no, however, uncovered any instances of fraud or unlawfulness when the product is being imported.

Furthermore, the existence of quotas for mushrooms under WTO(1) arrangements since 1995, by keeping imports at a steady level, has helped stabilise the sector and steered it towards greater quantitative and qualitative control of the finished product, both upstream and downstream. The quotas are consolidated within GATT(2) and comply in full with the provisions in force and the rules governing them.

China's accession to the WTO cannot undermine the existence of these quotas or the arrangements governing them.

It is the responsibility of the Member States' customs authorities to see to it that Community law concerning imports is properly applied.

(1) World Trade Organisation.

(2) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Montagnard tribes in Vietnam

In February 2001 the Vietnamese Government deployed tanks, helicopters and over 13 regiments of soldiers into the Central Highlands of Vietnam to quell demonstrations by Christian Montagnard hill tribes. These indigenous hill tribes were protesting over the arrests of two of their church leaders as well as years of religious persecution and confiscation of their ancestral lands. The International Commission of Jurists (Australian section) distributed a report in February 2001 concluding that since 1975, Vietnam has committed gross human rights abuses against the Montagnards namely: torture, arbitrary arrest, sterilisation policies that violate women's rights, forced relocations from and expropriations of their traditional lands and the increased repression of religious freedom.

Reports indicate that the indigenous Montagnard population are now being terrorised by security forces. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Montagnard refugees are fleeing to Cambodia, with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees calling for urgent action to protection them, as Vietnam has offered bounties for their capture and return. In June 2001, martial law and a media blackout in the region continues. Vietnam has further cordoned off the region in an attempt to halt refugees.

Has the Council already investigated the reports of human rights violations facing the Montagnard population inside Vietnam's Central Highlands and the potential for a humanitarian crisis if more Montagnards are forced to flee as refugees? Has the Council made a provision of aid and trade to Vietnam continent on the Vietnamese government complying with international human rights law?

Reply

(17 December 2001)

The Union regularly raises the human rights situation in its talks with the Vietnamese Government. The Troika of EU missions in Hanoi expressed its concern at the situation in the mountains of central Vietnam during a recent meeting on the subject of human rights. The 1995 Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and Vietnam contains a human rights clause reflecting the importance which the Union attaches to the promotion of human rights in the context of its relations with third countries and human rights were discussed at the meeting of the EU/Vietnam Joint Committee on 6 November 2001. The Council considers that dialogue is the best way to improve the human rights situation and, at present, has no intention of imposing conditions either on its cooperation with Vietnam or on trade between Europe and Vietnam.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3340/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Closure of the Wärtsilä plant

The Finnish company, Wärtsilä, has decided to close its plant in Zwolle in the Netherlands. That decision will entail the immediate dismissal

of 700 employees and indirectly threaten the jobs of a further 1 000 people. Wärtsilä justifies its decision on the grounds that it wants to concentrate production in, among other places, Trieste, Italy, where, it is claimed, production conditions are better, despite the fact that the company recently invested several million in its Zwolle plant.

Is the Commission aware of any direct or indirect State aid being given by the regional or national authorities in Italy to the Wärtsilä plant in Trieste, and is it prepared to conduct an in-depth investigation into the matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission has no information on state aid planned or given by the Italian authorities to Wärtsilä.

But the company's Italian subsidiary has establishments in an area eligible for regional aid under the derogation provided for by Article 87(3)(c) (San Dorligo della Valle Trieste).

By Decision of 20 June 2001 on the Italian regional aid map, the Commission authorised aids of up to 8 % of investment in net grant equivalent (NGE)(1).

It is accordingly legitimate for Italy to give regional aid of an intensity of no more than 8 % expressed in terms of net grant equivalent on the basis of one of its schemes, and there is no need for prior authorisation. The condition for such aid is that the amount or the investment financed must not exceed 50 million, which means that the Italian authorities must give the Commission prior notification under the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects(2).

The Commission will check with the Italian authorities whether the firm has received illegal aid in excess of the maximum allowed.

(1) Net grant equivalent is defined in the Guidelines on national regional aid (OJ C 74, 10.3.1998).

(2) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3271/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Barriers to the export of blood oranges

The Australian and Japanese markets are displaying a growing interest in blood oranges, produced exclusively in Sicily, but certain legal provisions in force in the phytosanitary area governing the handling of citrus products during transport currently make it impossible for Italy to export its famous blood oranges. With the assistance of their government, however, Spanish orange producers have entered into an agreement with the Australian authorities, and their dominance of that overseas market as a consequence almost amounts to a monopoly.

Could the Commission say what steps it can take to avoid the Italian blood orange sector being further penalised in the international distribution network?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

It is the right of importing countries to set their own level of phytosanitary protection, within the constraints laid down by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). It is the responsability of the individual Member State to give the phytosanitary guarantees requested by the third country. The Commission is involved where it appears that international rules are not being adhered to or the provisions of the SPS Agreement or other relevant agreements such as the International Plant Protection Convention have been breached. At present, the Commission is seeking further information necessary to assess the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1788/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Ban on music and singing in Afghanistan

The low esteem in which the Taliban regime holds the arts is no secret. Recently the British musicologist John Bailey announced that the Taliban had recently imposed a ban on music and gone so far as to rule that dancing, singing and television were anti-Islamic activities which should be banned.

Mr Bailey who has been studying Afghan music for the last thirty years also indicated that the Taliban regime has also banned the playing of musical instruments, which is quite inconceivable since it means the death of musical creativity, the disappearance of the country's professional musicians and the consignment to oblivion of its musical tradition.

No international organisation or body (including the EU) has yet managed to bring any influence to bear over the obscurantist Taliban Islamic fundamentalists, doing no more than express disapproval.

What specific action will the Commission take (including extremely severe economic and other sanctions) in order finally to bring to a halt the relentless destruction of the riches constituted by Afghanistan's cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2001)

The Commission wishes to draw the attention to the Council's common position of 22 January 2001 which purposes notably to support the peace efforts and the respect of human rights in Afghanistan(1) including an appeal to respect the Afghan cultural heritage. With regard to specific economic and political sanctions the Council imposed certain restrictive measures against the Taliban regime(2). Moreover, the Council condemned the destruction of the two giant statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan by the Taliban.

Following the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999 and 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000 the Council adopted on the basis of a proposal of the Commission, additional measures against the Taliban regime(3).

When imposing sanctions of the kind referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission believes that it is important to avoid bringing further misery and hardship to the population of Afghanistan, which is already suffering from the effects of more than twenty years of war in the country and from the effect of the worst drought to affect the region in living memory.

Many observers believe that a severe famine may afflict the country this coming winter. In these circumstances further extremely severe economic and other sanctions may be considered inappropriate.

(1) Common position 2001/56/CFSP, OJ L 21, 23.1.2001.

(2) Common position 96/746/CFSP, OJ L 342, 31.12.1996, Common position 1999/727/CFSP, OJ L 294, 16.11.1999, Common position 2001/154/CFSP, OJ L 57, 26.2.2001.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001, OJ L 67, 9.3.2001.