ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1171/02

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Subject: European Union participation at international summits

Would the Commission consider it useful for a guide or protocol to be prepared for the improved participation and coordination of representatives of the European institutions (Commission, Council, Parliament) at events such as international conferences, of which an example is the March 2002 Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development, and also at other types of meeting where we attend as a European Union delegation or European Community delegation?

Does the Commission believe that such a protocol would help to maximise the efforts of all the members of the above-mentioned delegations, as well as to raise their profile?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the Union should speak with one voice on the international stage and more generally in its relations with third countries.

There is actually no difficulty with the coordination of the Community position and singleness of its representation in matters covered by the first pillar, such as the common commercial policy. As was seen at the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Doha, it is because the Community speaks with one voice that it has become an essential player in international trade.

The situation is less satisfactory, however, in the other areas of external relations, owing to the increased number of players provided for in the existing Treaties and the confusion that can ensue.

As the Commission stated in its communication of 22 May 2002 on a project for the European Union(1), we should take advantage of the future reform of the Treaties to simplify and rationalise the whole of the Union's foreign policy and thus make it more efficient, in accordance with the wishes of the European citizen.

Participation by the Community delegations in international conferences is in most cases dependent on the Community's status at the conference in question (e.g. participant without voting rights, observer with speaking rights, etc.).

For these reasons, it will be difficult to draw up a protocol for improving the participation of Community delegations.

On the other hand, there are rules of procedure for participation by the different institutions in international conferences.

(1) A project for the European Union, Commission Communication of 22 May 2002 to the European Convention (COM(2002) 247 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) and Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Religious minorities in Vietnam

Is the Commission continuing to monitor the human rights situation in Vietnam, in particular, the rights of religious minorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission Delegation in Hanoi, together with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, continues to follow closely the human rights situation in Vietnam.

Regarding religious freedom, over the last number of years, the Commission has observed considerable progress for the majority of the Vietnamese people

of faith, including a significant proportion of the population who practise freely the Christian or Buddhist religions. There remain, however, issues on which further progress is needed, as well as a number of individual cases of concern.

The Commission Delegation in Hanoi and the diplomatic missions of the Member States raise on an ongoing basis issues of concern in relation to human rights, as well as individual cases. In addition, the human rights situation was discussed during the Union-Vietnam Joint Commission in Hanoi on 6 November 2001 and again raised during the donors Consultative Group Meeting in Hanoi on 7-8 December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1909/02

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

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Guinea Bissau

With regard to Guinea Bissau, could the Commission list the projects approved for funding under the 2001 EU budget and specify the total level of investment for this year?

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-1800/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Council

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Ratification of Montreal Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air

The Member States signed the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air on 28 May 1999 and the Council has indicated that the Community would deposit the 15 ratification instruments together by the end of 2002 in order to avoid any discrepancy between Member States.

The critical mass for the entry into force of the Convention is 30 Contracting Parties of which 18 have already been registered which means that the 15 Member States could by themselves activate the new global standards on better air passenger protection by completing the ratification process.

Ratification of the Convention by all Member States is also linked to the entry into force of the Community Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 2027/97(1) on air carrier liability.

Can the Council indicate the state of progress in each Member State for the completion of the ratification process of the Montreal Convention by the end of 2002 and whether it is on target to enable this international instrument to enter into force at the end of the year?

(1) OJ L 285, 17.10.1997, p. 1.

Reply

(11 November 2002)

At its meeting in Luxembourg on 4/5 April 2001, the Council adopted the Decision on the conclusion of the Montreal Convention by the Community.

The adoption of this Decision was accompanied by Conclusions, where the Council recommends Member States to ratify the Montreal Convention as soon as their national constitutional requirements permit, with the aim of co-ordinated deposition of instruments no later than 31 December 2002.

The process of ratification has begun in all Member States and some have already completed it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: European border police force

The Presidency Conclusions from the Seville Summit make reference to a European border police force.

Is it intended that such a force would have its own organisation, structure and uniform, chain of command and jurisdiction? To whom would it be responsible and what steps are now proposed, including timeframe, in order to take this matter forward?

Is it foreseen that the force would only operate in Member States that are parties to the Schengen arrangements? In particular, given that the United Kingdom is outside the Schengen arrangements, can the Council confirm that no elements of this force would be deployed on the territory of the United Kingdom?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

The Honourable Member is informed that the European Council in Seville welcomed various initiatives with regard to the management of the external borders of the European Union, in particular the Commission's communication entitled Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union, the feasibility study carried out under Italy's leadership concerning the establishment of a European border police, taking account of the intention expressed by the Commission to continue examining the advisability and feasibility of such a police force, and the study concerning police and border security, carried out by Austria, Belgium and Finland under the OISIN cooperation programme.

The Council is not in a position at present to comment on the organisation, structure, tasks and responsibilities of a possible European border police.

It would, however, like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the plan for the management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union, which was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 13 June 2002 and applauded by the European Council in Seville. This plan contains a chapter on a European Border Guard where it is pointed out that the integrated management of the external borders is a dynamic process to be developed in stages. On the basis of the experience of this gradual development, further institutional steps could be considered, if appropriate, following an in-depth legal study addressing the question of the legal basis and identifying the instruments which would be necessary. Such steps could include a possible decision on the setting up of a European Corps of Border Guards, composed of joint teams, which would have the function of supporting the national services of the Member States, but not replacing them.

In the context of such a study, the implications of the fact that the United Kingdom and Ireland do not participate in the provisions of the Schengen acquis concerning the abolition of checks at internal borders and movement of persons will have to be properly addressed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2040/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Change in financial structures

In reference to the interesting figures given by the Commission for the differing financial structures in the United States and the euro area for the end of 2001 for bank deposits and other variables on page 28 of its paper(1) final on the euro area in the world economy, will the Commission please provide comparable figures for each year back to and including 1998, to provide a comparison with the structures before monetary union?

Will it also provide comparable figures for each year from 1998 to 2001 for the United Kingdom?

(1) COM(2002) 332.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission is pleased to inform the honourable Member that a comparable table to the one presented in the Commission Communication was published in the European Central Bank (ECB) Monthly Bulletin of January 2000 (Table 2 on p. 39), with data for mid-1999 (see Annex 1 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat). The entire publication is available from the ECB web site(1). The ECB table allows a comparison of the financial structure at the beginning of the monetary union with the end-2001 data in the Commission's paper.

Data for other years and for the euro area and the United States are available at the sources indicated in the Table referred to in the question of the Honourable Member (see Annex 2 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat). For the United Kingdom, data on bank deposits and loans are published by the Bank of England.

For a closer analysis of the evolution of the euro area financial structure over time, an additional useful data source are the euro area quarterly financial accounts, regularly published in the statistical section of the ECB Monthly Bulletin.

(1) http://www.ecb.int/.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1875/02

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

(28 June 2002)

Subject: The Gambia

With respect to The Gambia, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000? Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

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-2148/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Madagascar

With reference to Madagascar, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Madagascar?

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-1245/02

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Introduction of excise duty on wine

A few days ago the Commission submitted a proposal to introduce a minimum rate of excise duty on wine of EUR 0,14 per litre as from 2003 and EUR 0,15 as from 2007. The current rate of excise duty is zero in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Germany.

Given that, since 1997, the Italian wine-growing sector has had to put up with a VAT increase (now 20 %) and that the agricultural sector is already subject to the IRAP (regional tax on production):

1. Does the Commission agree that, on the agri-foodstuffs market, excise duty on wine will have an adverse effect on the wine-growing sector?

2. Does it agree that an increase in the price of wine will be harmful mainly to consumers, who will bear the burden of rising production costs?

3. Does it agree that the reform of the CAP has already adversely affected production costs by reducing Community aid to the wine-growing sector;

4. How does it view the introduction in the agricultural sector of a production tax normally applied to industrial products (traditionally referred to as excise duty)?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1245/02 and E-1262/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages(1). Under its provisions it is necessary for the excise duty rates laid down in that Directive to be reviewed periodically by the Council. This review shall be based upon a Commission report taking into account all relevant issues. At present, the Commission is preparing such a report that might be accompanied by a proposal, if appropriate.

Since the Commission has not yet taken a decision on the subject, it is not possible to comment on its content.

As regards the question of double taxation, it has to be stated that the supply of excisable products is, as a rule, also subject to VAT. Moreover, excise duties are part of the basis of calculation of VAT.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/02

by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Management of the European Schools

The European Schools were set up with the aim of providing the children of European officials living abroad with an education compatible with the school curriculum in their own countries.

Precisely because they are living away from their roots, it is important that officials should be able to ensure their children normal schooling, with continuity in teaching and psychological and emotional security.

Recently about 300 families the children of whom attend one of the three schools in Brussels were faced with a decision taken by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, according to which their children will change school as of September 2002.

This decision was taken quite arbitrarily, without any respect for the choice made by the parents on the basis of the educational interests of their children and their own professional obligations.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. to what extent the European Schools, in particular those in Brussels, satisfy the needs of the officials and other servants of the EU institutions;

2. to what extent respect for the principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 24(2) and 41, is ensured;

3. how the European Schools are managed?

- how they are funded and what percentage is paid by each participant?

- what role is played by the European Commission in the Board of Governors? How many votes the Commission has on the Board?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

In order to obtain general background to the issue which is of interest to him the Honourable Member should refer to the information given by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0980/02 from Mr Stavros Xarchakos(1).

On 1 and 3, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-0944/02 from Ms Ilda Figueiredo(2).

On question 2, the European Schools are not bodies of the Union in the sense of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The legal basis for the European Schools is the 1957 intergovernmental Statute of the European School. The fundamental rights mentioned by the Honourable Member are, consequently, ensured by provisions of national law and international agreements such as the 1989 New York Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the Commission indicated in its answer to written question E-0944/02 from Ms Ilda Figueiredo, the Board of Governors of the European Schools took steps to ensure that any transfer of pupils between schools in Brussels respected the fundamental rights mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has a representative Member on the Board of Governors and, consequently, one vote. The Board is an intergovernmental body that is otherwise made up of representatives of each of the Member States who usually come from the Education ministries of those countries.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 119.

(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 112.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2758/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Execution of Mr Yoshiteru Hamada and Mr Tatsuya Haruta

On Prime Minister Koizumi's return from his trip to North Korea yesterday the Japanese authorities in all likelihood executed two people Mr Yoshiteru Hamada and Tatsuya Haruta. In response to an earlier question on the death penalty in Japan (E-2421/02(1)), Mr Patten, on behalf of the Commission, stated in particular that a Union troika démarche, addressed to the Japanese Minister of Justice, was carried out on 18 February 2002 with a full explanation of the Union's position on the death penalty and also that the subject is kept under review by the Heads of Mission with a view to further initiatives .

What has been the Commission's reaction to this double execution? Will it undertake joint initiatives with the Council of Europe, of which Japan is an observer state, as regards abolishing the death penalty? Moreover, in general, what initiatives has the Commission undertaken, or will it undertake, in order to inform the Japanese authorities that the abolition of the death penalty in the democratic states of Asia, and in particular Japan, India, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan, is of particular importance, precisely because they are democratic countries, which have special relations with the European Union?

(1) See page 167.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

The Commission participated in an Union Troika démarche to Minister of Justice Moriyama on 4 October 2002 expressing deep regret at the executions and the recent imposition of further death sentences and setting out the basis for the Union's opposition to the application of the death penalty.

In its opposition to the death penalty the Union does not distinguish between countries which are democracies and those which are not: the goal is universal abolition. The Guidelines to the EU Policy towards third countries on the death penalty(1) adopted in 1998 set out the basis for the Union's policy and indicate the actions including general and specific démarches which the Union will undertake with respect to third countries. In addition to voicing its general opposition to the death penalty in fora such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and the UN General Assembly Third Committee (including the tabling of the annual resolution in the UNCHR) the Union has also set out its views on the death penalty in specific countries for example, in its Human Rights in the World speech at the UNCHR this year, the Union stated that it regretted the increase in the application of the death penalty in Thailand.

The Commission is currently evaluating the proposals received under the recent Call for Proposals on abolition of the death penalty under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). This will provide EUR 7 million for projects to promote abolition in countries which retain the death penalty.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/adp/guide_en.htm.