ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2802/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Imprisonment of Leyla Zana and Turkey's accession to the EU

According to Amnesty International, Mrs Leyla Zana is currently in a Turkish prison for having dared to speak in Kurdish at her inauguration as a member of the Turkish parliament.

Has the Commission been informed of this situation?

Should these reports prove accurate, does it believe that a State practising repression of this kind can accede to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

The Commission is fully informed of the case of Ms Leyla Zana. This case was subject to a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights(1) as well as to an interim resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe(2). The interim resolution urged the Turkish authorities to respond to the Committee's repeated demands that the situation of former Member of Parliament Leyla Zana be remedied.

As a candidate country for membership in the European Union, Turkey should strive to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. The Accession Partnership between the Union and Turkey requires a short-term priority that Turkey address the situation of those people in prison for expressing non-violent opinion.

The Commission raised this issue in the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy of the European Parliament in Brussels on 4 November 2002.

This case is raised in the Commission's Regular Report of 9 October 2002, which states that the situation of persons imprisoned for having expressed non-violent opinions has not been adequately addressed.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and to raise it with the Turkish authorities.

(1) Ref. Judgment of 17 July 2001 in the case Sadah, Zana, Diele, Dogan.

(2) Ref. 30.4.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/02

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Council

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Development of relations between the European Union and Mongolia

In recent years, Mongolia has experienced a series of major difficulties which have largely been due to the harsh weather conditions that have affected the country.

Despite the consequences in economic, health and social terms which this situation has had for the population, Mongolia has continued to nurture the rule of law and a multi-party system, as was noted by the delegation from the European Parliament when it visited that country in July 2002 for the IVth EU-Mongolia Interparliamentary Meeting.

In view of this, and as a sign of the value of enhancing cooperation with Mongolia and extending this cooperation into new areas not covered by the current arrangements and of its readiness to do so, will the Council empower the Commission to conclude a partnership and cooperation agreement with the Mongolian authorities comparable to those already implemented with other Central Asian countries, which would replace the 1993 trade and cooperation agreement between the two parties.

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that partnership and cooperation agreements are intended only for the former Soviet republics. Against this background, the Council does not envisage empowering the Commission to negotiate a partnership and cooperation agreement with Mongolia.

The Council would point out that the 1993 Trade and Cooperation Agreement is an ideal legal framework for developing cooperation between the EU and Mongolia. Relations between the EU and Mongolia have also been consolidated over the past few years, in particular by means of assistance/action programmes (EUR 11 million in 1999; EUR 6 million in 2000) and in the framework of ECHO (EUR 2 905 million in 2000/2001). The European Union is currently Mongolia's sixth-largest trading partner, just behind its closest neighbours and Switzerland. Eastward enlargement offers the prospect of increased investment and trading opportunities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Crisis in Venezuela

Venezuela, a Latin-American Republic with a great democratic tradition, which is home to hundreds of thousands of Community citizens, enjoys extremely cordial relations with the European Union and its Member States, for a variety of reasons.

As the Council is aware, on 11 April 2002, Venezuela experienced an extraordinary socio-political crisis, involving bloodshed, which turned the lives of Venezuela's citizens upside down to the point where there was an ephemeral change of President of the Republic due to a singular combination of socio-political circumstances which many of us were surprised by and are concerned about.

In the context of Article 32 of the TEU, which deals with relations between the European Parliament and Council in foreign policy and security matters, what is the Council's evaluation of this crisis, and what measures does it intend to adopt, if appropriate, in the near future with regard to the situation which has arisen in Venezuela?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

1. The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to its earlier reply to question P-1263/02 put by Mihail Papayannakis on the same topic.

The Council has followed closely the evolution of the political and social events that led to the violence on 11 April and the breach in constitutionality in Venezuela.

2. On Friday 12 April, Spain, as Presidency of the Council of the European Union, issued a declaration on the situation in Venezuela strongly condemning the loss of human lives and conveying its condolences to the relatives of the victims. The Presidency also expressed its full support and solidarity to the people of Venezuela and appealed for an end to all violent actions. Finally it called for the transitional government to respect democratic values and institutions with a view to overcoming the crisis in a framework of national concord and in full respect for basic rights and freedoms.

3. Since then, the EU has taken the opportunities offered in the framework of its relations with Venezuela to convey its satisfaction with the re-establishment of democratic institutions and supports President Chavez's moves towards reconciliation and dialogue so that the Venezuelan people may fully develop its democracy.

4. The Council has repeatedly underlined the importance it attaches to the development of the rule of law and for the full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

5. The Council hopes that all players on the Venezuelan political and social scene, as well as the media, will act in a responsible manner in order to maintain stability and look to resolve any differences through peaceful and constructive dialogue.

6. Ministers discussed the events in Venezuela over lunch during the Council meeting on 15 April 2002. They stressed the importance of preserving democratic principles in particular under the Charter of the Organisation of American States. The Council would also refer the Honourable Member to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on 9 October 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Child protection in sport

Are there any EU policies that ensure that individuals with child abuse records are prohibited from working as volunteers or coaches in sport?

What exchange of information takes place between Member States, Europol, and Interpol to safeguard the interests of children taught by overseas coaches with child abuse records?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2002)

The Council is currently discussing a Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornograph(1) which provides common definitions and sanctions with a view to facilitating law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The discussion includes the issue of criminalisation of the behaviour to engage a child in sexual activities where abuse has been made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence. It also includes the issue of prohibiting natural persons from exercising activities related to the supervision of children when they have been convicted of sexual exploitation of children or child pornography.

Furhermore, the Danish Presidency of the Union has recently submitted a proposal for a Council Decision increasing cooperation between Member States with regard to disqualifications which are imposed on natural persons as part of a judgment or as a corollary of a criminal conviction and which restrict the convicted persons's access to employment, with the exception of driving disqualifications The proposal requires Member States to establish a national contact point for exchange of information on disqualifications, and to inform any other Member State of disqualifications in respect of the latter Member State's nationals. Being the Danish proposal intended to provide for all sorts of decisions on disqualifications, it would also include disqualifications which restrict convicted persons for sexual exploitation of children or child pornography from exercising activities related to the supervision of children.

Europol has the competence to address crimes relating to the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Successful operations under the co-ordination of Europol, involving the Member States and Interpol, have taken place. Europol has also signed a co-operation agreement with Interpol.

The Commission is not aware of the existence of any exchange information systems between Member States, Europol and Interpol on the subject matter.

(1) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3562/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Food Supplements Directive.



Official Journal 137 E , 12/06/2003 P. 0226 - 0227



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3562/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (12 December 2002) Subject: Food Supplements Directive In view of concerns by some that the stimulus behind recent directives has come from large pharmaceutical companies intent on increasing their market share, will the Commission explain the extent of involvement of drugs companies in the drafting of the directive on Food Supplements (2002/46/EC(1)) and name the companies involved? (1) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (23 January 2003) No pharmaceutical or other company was involved in the drafting of the Directive 2002/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Members States relating to food supplements(1). (1) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/02

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Maltese wine and enlargement negotiations

How does the Commission intend to deal with the Special Market Policy Programme for Maltese Agriculture (SMPPMA) aiming at introducing derogations to the acquis communautaire in respect of wine production?

Specifically, how does the Commission view the Maltese Government's wish to:

- subsidise the importation of grape-must (in particular from Italy)?

- allow indefinitely Maltese vintners to add sugar to meet minimum international alcohol specifications?

- interpret on a less strict basis the rule on designation of origin of Quality Wines Produced in the Specific Region of Malta so as to extend it to wine made from a combination of imported grape-must, grapes, sugar, etc?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2002)

In the course of the accession negotiations, the Commission has constantly recalled its general negotiating position that transitional arrangements should be exceptional and limited in time and scope. The Commission seeks to ensure that such transitional arrangements do not involve amendments to the rules or policies of the Union, disrupt their proper functioning, or lead to significant distortions of competition.

As regards the accession negotiations with Malta on the agriculture chapter, the Commission has applied the same principles. It is therefore analysing all requests of Malta on a case by case basis, to assess whether the specific conditions of Malta justify a special arrangement, and if this is the case, to find a solution compatible with the acquis and the good functioning of the internal market.

In doing so, the Commission must also take into account the exceptional small scale of Malta's agriculture, the specific natural constraints of the island and the existing differences between producer prices for local produce and Union produce. In view of these conditions, the Commission does not exclude some temporary measures, with the aim to ensure a successful restructuring of the Maltese agriculture and its sustainability in the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy.

As regards the wine sector in Malta, the Commission is considering Malta's specific requests within the same general guidelines. However negotiations are ongoing and it is still too early to assess their outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3289/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2002)

Subject: Saving the André Breton and Surrealism archives from auction sale

It has been officially announced that the vast collection of artworks, paintings, books and photographs, as well as all the archives of the surrealist movement, kept in André Breton's house (42 rue Fontaine, Paris) since his death in 1966, are to be sold at an auction in April 2003 at the Hôtel Drouot, in Paris.

It would be extremely regrettable if this very important cultural treasure were to be dismembered through a public sale.

Does the Commission not consider that this quite outstanding, and indeed unique, collection of surrealist art should be kept together and remain open to researchers and the general public, given its importance in documenting 20th-century European culture?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

While the Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member, it must be pointed out that there is no legal basis at Community level for an action such as the one referred to in the issue raised.

Article 151 of the EC Treaty lays down that it is within the scope of the Community to:

- encourage cultural cooperation between Member States;

- support and supplement (with financial backing if necessary) the action of the Member States in the following areas:

(a) improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

(b) conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

(c) non-commercial cultural exchanges;

(d) artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

Consequently, the issue raised by the Honourable Member is a matter for the Member State and not for the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3442/02

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Negotiations and use of languages

The press, and specifically La Quinzaine Européenne (No 27 of 18 November 1 December 2002) claims that President Romano Prodi and Commissioner Günter Verheugen have apparently given orders that all the accession negotiations are to take place in English.

Is this claim wholly or partially correct?

If so, what are the reasons for such orders?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that neither the President of the Commission nor the Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement have ever given orders that all the accession negotiations are to take place in English.

Accession conferences are intergovernmental conferences. As a consequence, the language regime for these conferences is determined by the participating States and not by the Commission.

In the experience of the Commission since the beginning of the Accession Negotiations and at the different levels, there has been no restriction of the language regime to English or indeed to another official language of the Union and all official languages of the Union have been available for use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1461/02

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

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Arrest of 10 journalists in Eritrea

Background information:

- Yosef Mohamed Ali (m), editor in chief, Tsigenay;

- Amanuel Asrat (m), editor in chief, Zemen;

- Seyoum Tsehaye (m), freelance editor/photographer, former director of Eritrean state television;

- Temesgen Gebreyesus (m), reporter, Keste Debena;

- Mattewos Habteab (m), editor, Meqaleh;

- Dawit Habtemichael (m), assistant editor in chief, Meqaleh;

- Medhanie Haile (m), assistant editor in chief, Keste Debena;

- Dawit Isaac (m), reporter, Setit (Swedish citizen);

- Fessahaye Yohannes (Joshua) (m), reporter, Setit;

- Said Abdulkadir (m), editor in chief, Admas.

Is the Commission aware of the arrest of the 10 journalists referred to above?

Is the Commission prepared to ask for an explanation from the Government of Eritrea concerning these arrests?

What steps can the Commission take to obtain the release of these journalists and prevent arrests of this kind in future?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission is aware of the arrest of the journalists referred to. The political developments in Eritrea since September 2001 are of grave concern to the Commission. The Commission considers the arrest of political dissidents as well as of journalists, the banning of the free press, and the postponement of the parliamentary elections as a serious setback to political development in Eritrea.

The Commission deplores that no decision has been taken on issues such as when the detainees will be brought to justice or freed and that the formation of political parties has been postponed. It is hoped that the Committee that was created to look at the future of the press in Eritrea will soon allow lifting the suspension of the private press.

The Commission is working with the Presidency and the Member States towards a firm response to the present crisis and believes that the dialogue should be maintained in the framework of Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement.

On 5 April 2002, the Troika in Asmara discussed the situation of the journalists and pressed the government to start legal procedures against them or to release them.

A high level Troika visit is envisaged to address the present impasse. The objective of that mission is to discuss the internal situation in Eritrea as well as the full potential of benefits from the Cotonou Agreement and the underlying reasons behind its essential elements and values. The consequences of a further lack of progress on internal issues for Union-Eritrea relations will be also explained to the Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1824/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Need to go on purchasing new and more expensive Microsoft products because of restrictions on the use of old software

1. Is the Commission aware that Microsoft's old PC operating systems Windows 95, 98 and the Millennium Edition used for professional purposes, as well as the more recent Windows NT3, NT4 and 2000 Professional were replaced the end of 2001 by Windows XP Home Edition, and the only slightly different but one and a half times more expensive professional version Windows XP Professional, that the cheaper operating systems have disappeared from price lists for firms with several licences and that with Windows XP Home Edition it is no longer possible to be included in business domains, so that organisations that had already opted for domain security are now unexpectedly being forced to convert to a product line that is one and a half to two times as expensive; in addition, because of technical incompatibility between older and newer versions and the withdrawal of technical support for older versions, users are being put under continuous pressure to purchase the latest versions?

2. Can the Commission confirm the claim by NGN, the Dutch user group network, that the prices of Microsoft software are continuing to rise excessively even without the changes in the licence programme and are disproportionate to price trends for hardware, while these major price rises bear no relation to higher development or distribution costs for the software given that the number and type of improvements between two successive versions are becoming smaller and smaller?

3. What can the Commission do to combat unnecessary price increases, bundled sales and sales pressure, particularly in the light of the letter of 22 May 2002 from the Dutch Competition Authority to NGN and the answer given by the Netherlands Government to parliamentary questions by members of the national assembly on 2 November 2001 (TK No 198), in which it suggested that the matter be referred to the Commission because of its transfrontier nature?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

1. The Commission is aware that Microsoft launched its Windows XP operating system in October 2001. The Commission is also aware that Microsoft is keen to ensure that users of older versions of the Windows operating system switch towards Windows XP.

2. The Commission has not yet formally investigated this issue. The Commission is therefore not in a position to confirm or deny such claims.

3. As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has expressed concerns in its ongoing investigation that Microsoft has, inter alia, restricted interoperability and engaged in tying in ways which are contrary to the Community's competition rules. In the context of its investigation, it is the Commission's aim to ensure that Microsoft does not use its market power in such a way that it can unlawfully engage in the types of practices outlined by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2899/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Violations of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

We have recently heard that the Belgian Delcredere service has granted a State guarantee for the contract concluded between FN and the Government of Nepal to supply 5 500 mini-machine guns.

First and foremost, this violated the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, as the German Government had not permitted this transaction, but the Belgian Government did. Moreover, the purchase price of EUR 15,4 million will be paid even if the delivery does not go ahead.

Does this not constitute unfair preferential treatment of a private business and distortion of competition?

Does it not also undermine the agreements made in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The particular case raised by the Honourable Member has not been raised in the Council, but decisions related to the granting of export licences are taken by each Member State individually taking full account of the Code of Conduct and the criteria set out in it. The Code of Conduct does not provide for Member States to give any information about the grounds on which export licences are granted or refused nor it does not lie in the Council's purview to pass judgement on any particular transaction. However, Member States are required every year to inform the Council about their arms exports, on the basis of which an annual report is produced. This allows for common assessment of the functioning of the Code.