ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1745/02

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

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Participation by ship owners' and fishermen's organisations in the debate on the reform of the common fisheries policy

How will the Commission ensure the participation of these organisations in the reform of the CFP, in order to enable then to express their views on both the state of fishery resources and the social and economic problems caused by the reform and its definitive provisions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The Commission launched a large consultation process prior to the adoption of the common fisheries policy (CFP) reform proposals in which the shipowners and fishermen

organisations participated actively. The input received from the stakeholders was very useful for the Commission when preparing its proposals for the CFP reform. The Commission is now highly interested in ensuring the participation of stakeholders in the debate through the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and through the Committee on Social Dialogue. Both Committees have been created by the Commission, the first to be consulted on all questions concerning the common fisheries policy and the second to enable the dialogue between the social partners at European level. Furthermore, the Commission has undertaken a communication action to explain the reform and discuss with the sector in each Member State.

This initiative was launched immediately after the adoption of the first package of reform proposals by the Commission and includes visits to the Member States by both the Commissioner in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries and the so-called Blue Team which consists of Commission officials (mainly directors and heads of unit) from Directorate-General Fisheries. The idea behind this communication initiative is to allow for a presentation of the Commission proposals in face-to-face meetings with sector representatives, to discuss the various elements of the proposals and to listen to the concerns of the industry about the reform.

The Commissioner in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries has already visited three Member States and he will go to a number of other Member States during the second half of 2002. The Blue Team participates in meetings organised by the sector and it has so far attended a dozen events in the Member States while several other events have been scheduled. Furthermore, a considerable number of other meetings of the Blue Team will be staged in the months to come with a view to covering many of the fisheries dependent areas of the Member States and to explaining the next reform proposals that will be presented by the Commission in the second half of 2002 and 2003.

In addition to this, the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils as a mean to better involve stakeholders in the management of the resources at regional and local level is one of the issues at stake in the debate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0486/02

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

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Civil society

A number of NGOs, under the umbrella term Civil Society, will be asked to participate in the forthcoming Convention on the Future of Europe. Would the Commission please give a list of the organisations participating in the Convention and indicate which of those organisations receive Community funds and how much they have received for each of the past three years?

Furthermore, which organisations have money earmarked and from which budget line to they derive their funds?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The Laeken declaration restricted participation in the Convention to the President and two specially designated Vice-Presidents, and representatives of national Governments, national Parliaments, the European Parliament and the Commission along with observers representing the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman. Thus, with the exception of the three representatives of the social partners who enjoy observer status, no non-governmental organisation (NGO) will take part in the Convention proper.

The Laeken declaration states that In order for the debate to be broadly based and involve all citizens, a Forum will be opened for organisations representing civil society (the social partners, the business world, non-governmental organisations, academia, etc).

For reasons of principle no list of NGOs invited to take part in the Forum has been produced, as any European or national organisation wishing to take part in and make a contribution to the Forum will be able to do so. As and when NGOs make a contribution and thereby become participants in the Forum, their names and particulars will be put on a regularly up-dated list on the Forum internet site opened by the Convention(1).

As it is not known, at this stage, which NGOs will make contributions to the Forum, it cannot be said which ones receive Community grants.

(1) http://european-convention.eu.int.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1342/02

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Council

(2 May 2002)

Subject: Power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo

The closure on 19 April 2002 of the power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) without a global agreement having been signed by all parties has left the national peace and reconciliation process in suspense. A number of EU Member States have called on the representatives of the opposition groups UDPS, PALU and FONUS to give their assent to the agreement signed by the DRC government, the MLC led by Mr Bemba and other groups participating in the dialogue.

Has the Council taken a position on the matter?

Does the Spanish Presidency intend to take any initiative for the resumption of the power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo with the participation of all groups of delegates recognised under the Lusaka agreement?

Does the Council support the partial agreement reached in Sun City?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council considers that the agreement signed at the meeting of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in Sun City, South Africa between the Government of the DRC and the MLC represents a positive step towards a settlement of the conflict ravaging the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Council has noted that the agreement was endorsed by many political opposition parties and representatives of sections of civil society and regrets that some participants, in particular the RCD-Goma, would not undersign the agreement. Consequently, the Council has invited all the Congolese parties to act responsibly, show a willingness to compromise and abide by the framework established by the Lusaka Agreements and the relevant United Nations resolutions.

The Council welcomes the desire expressed by the signatories to extend the agreement to all Congolese parties and urges them to pursue negotiations without delay in a spirit of openness in order to reach an all-inclusive agreement on the transitional institutions. The Council also calls on all countries in the region, particularly Rwanda, to exert influence on all the Congolese parties, particularly the RCD-Goma, to ensure that they respect and support the desire for peace, democracy and reconciliation expressed at Sun City.

It is recalled that the EU has already allocated EUR 3,2 million to the mediation efforts of the facilitator Ketumile Masire, former President of Botswana as well as the organisation of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1758/02

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

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Statements made by the Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute during the 12th meeting of fisheries research organisations in Baiona, Galicia, on 5 June this year

When the 12th meeting of fisheries research organisations was being held in Baiona, Galicia, on 5 June this year, the Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute, Álvaro Fernández, said, in connection with the European Commission's proposal to reform the common fisheries policy, that it was pointless to propose an across-the-board reduction in catches, as envisaged by the Commission when talking about cuts of between 30 % and 60 %, but that the situation should be analysed for each fish stock in order to see what reduction was needed for each species and in each fishing ground, whilst in any case taking measures compatible with fishing activity. The Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute stressed that no fish stocks in Community waters require a 40 % reduction and considered that any reduction of more than 20 % was excessive, since such a policy would be enough to allow recovery of stocks and fleet activity.

Has the Commission taken into account in its studies on the CFP reform scientific opinions such as those expressed in Baiona by the Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute, a person of considerable authority?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

The Commission uses scientists' recommendations as the basis for its proposals on conservation and management of fish stocks. However, in doing so, the Commission takes into account, in particular, the scientific advice provided officially by the relevant scientific bodies, namely the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). These bodies represent the views of different scientists from across Europe, in a way which ensures the highest possible degree of consensus among all the participating scientists.

Mr Álvaro Fernandez is a well known, highly respected scientist. The Commission, however, cannot use as its scientific basis individual opinions by individual scientists, even less so those published in the media.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Environmental damage to the Neda river valley in Greece

In the Figaleia-Platania area on the boundary between the prefectures of Ilia and Messinia in Greece, works are being carried out on construction of a road linking the two prefectures which are having a serious environmental impact on the Neda river valley, as evidenced in the past by a survey carried out by the Ministry of the Environmental, Regional Planning and Public Works, the findings of which are contained in its report to the Peloponnisos regional authorities (No 119900/3.11.2000). Unfortunately no measures have been taken to date to protect the environment of this area and construction work is continuing to endanger the river ecosystem.

What measures will the Commission take to protect the environment in this area?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1808/02 and E-1809/02given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The competent national or regional authorities are responsible for choosing projects under the programmes part-financed by the Structural Funds.

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, when the project in question was included in the Peloponnese Operational Programme under the second Community support framework (1994-1999), the Greek Ministry of the Environment exempted the prefecture of Messinia from the requirement to conduct an environmental impact study. This exemption was subject to a number of binding conditions on environmental protection that were clearly notified to the final beneficiary.

During project implementation, both the above Ministry and the regional authorities undertook a series of checks and on-the-spot visits to ensure that these conditions were being complied with, among other things.

The checks found that the conditions had not been satisfactorily met. So, in January 2001 the authority responsible for implementing the programme had the works in question stopped and asked the contractor to conduct a number of additional studies that would serve as a technical basis for completing the work and restoring the site.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2332/02

by William Abitbol (EDD) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Self-determination

Does the Commission recognise the principle of self-determination as expressed by the UNHCHR The right to self-determination of peoples (Article 1): 13/03/84 CCPR General comment 12.

1. In accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises that all peoples have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is of particular importance because its realisation is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights.

and the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966,

entry into force 23 March 1976,

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

The Union respects the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and its complementary International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. The Union's activities are also based on the main international and regional instruments for the protection of human rights, including the European Convention on Human Rights. These instruments enshrine common values regarding fundamental freedoms and democratic principles, which are universal, indivisible and interdependent. Respect for these values is a condition for efficient development in any society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1361/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Negotiations with the applicant countries in the area of justice and home affairs

1. With which applicant countries have negotiations on the chapter on justice and home affairs been concluded, and with which applicant countries are negotiations still open?

2. Have any applicant countries requested transitional periods for the chapter on justice and home affairs?

3. If so, for which areas were transitional periods requested?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Justice and Home Affairs chapter has been provisionally closed with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

None of the countries requested transitional periods.

Negotiations are still open with Bulgaria, Poland and Romania.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0571/02

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 March 2002)

Subject: Free movement of patients in the Union countries

The Spanish Health Minister has spoken about the possibility of patients from the 15 Member States being free to undergo medical treatment in other Member States.

The President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, has mooted the future introduction of a European health pass.

In this connection, can the Council say:

- what kind of papers have been approved;

- whether a deadline has been set for the project to become operational;

- whether a budget has been drawn up for the execution of the initiative;

- what stage has been reached in the work on the subject and how it is intended to involve the individual countries, both institutionally and financially?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1. The European Council, in Barcelona on 15/16 March 2002, in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Presidency's conclusions, welcomed the content of the Commission Communication setting out an Action Plan for Skills and Mobility and, in particular, and in concrete decided that a European Health Insurance Card will replace the current paper forms needed for health treatment in another Member State. The Commission will present a proposal to that effect before the Spring European Council in 2003. Such a card will simplify procedures, but will not change existing rights and obligations. The Council is not yet in situation to answer to all the request for details as, this proposal has still to be presented.

Furthermore, the European Council asked for work to be continued as a matter of urgency on the reform of Regulation 1408/71, so that the new regulation can be adopted before the end of 2003.

2. The Honourable Member will be aware that Member States' ministers met in Malaga on 8 February 2002 for a Ministerial Seminar on Health, during which a preliminary discussion was held on the subject of the free movement of patients in Europe. In order to improve information and co-ordinate action among all Member States, the Spanish Presidency has organised a further informal meeting on Health in Europe: Movement of Patients in Menorca on 31 May to 1 June 2002, the agenda of which included specific topics such as, inter alia, the proposed European health card.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2107/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Clearance of the EAGGF accounts for 2001

Pursuant to Commission Decision 2002/461/EC(1) of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the accounts of Member States' expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for the 2001 financial year, the accounts submitted by the paying agency for Greece (Gdidagep/Opekepe) were not cleared but disjoined subject to further scrutiny and verification.

1. For what specific reasons were the Greek accounts for 2001 not cleared? Where are the shortcomings to be found in the accounts forwarded by Greece in terms of their completeness, accuracy and veracity?

2. Did the problems in the organisation of Opekepe and in the overall control system (Commission answer to question E-0466/2002(2)) influence the decision not to clear the accounts and to impose financial corrections?

(1) OJ L 160, 18.6.2002, p. 28.

(2) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 200.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Article 1 and 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 set out the form and content of accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section accounts(1) (X-table data) and the way it is to be forwarded.

The Member States must forward this information, in form of computer records, to the Commission by the 10th February 2002, along with the annual accounts of the paying agencies.

In the case of Greece, the information was not received by the deadline, and data received later was incomplete.

The Commission considers that it is vital to receive adequate accounting information and will not clear the accounts of any paying agency that does not provide this information. As Greece has not provided the information, the Commission is not yet in a position to propose to clear the accounts of the Greek paying agency for the EAGGF financial year 2001. Consequently, for the 2001 financial year, the accounts of the Greek paying agency are disjoined from the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2002 on the clearance of the accounts of Member States' expenditure financing by the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the 2001 financial year and shall be the subject of a future clearance Decision.

From the above, it is clear that the disjunction of the accounts of the Greek paying agency is unrelated to the corrections that may be applied for problems in the overall control system. Problems with the general organisation in Greece are clearly behind the failure to deliver the computer data required, but these problems pre-dated the existence of Opekepe.

(1) OJ L 295, 16.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1833/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Commission aid for the creation of the European General Council for Youth

The objective on the part of European youth movements of creating a European General Youth Council is a response to the perceived need for an instrument which would bring together the youth movements of the countries of Europe, thus making it possible to express positions on matters of particular interest to young people on a Community-wide basis, and to put forward, on a consultative basis, proposals for dealing with young people's problems and realising their aspirations.

The proposal to create such a European General Youth Council deserves strong encouragement from the Community authorities, given its potential for moving beyond purely local and national interests and breaking down physical and psychological barriers.

Does the Commission consider that it should contribute to consolidating the idea of a European General Youth Council, which would serve as a forum enabling young people in the Member States to seek solutions to the problems confronting them and propose responses to the challenges thrown up by European integration?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the importance of promoting a framework for listening to the young people of Europe.

It was with this in mind that the Commission produced the White Paper entitled A New Impetus for European Youth(1), whose adoption in November 2001 was preceded by wide-ranging consultations of young people. These consultations revealed inter alia a wish among young people to get more involved in society, thus making participation one of the priorities of the White Paper.

It is with a view to promoting such participation that one of the proposals contained in the White Paper aims to consolidate a European youth consultation structure.

With this in mind, rather than support the creation of a new structure, as proposed by the Honourable Member, the Commission proposes in its White Paper that the European Youth Forum, which it has been funding since 1979 and whose membership consists of National Youth Councils and non-governmental youth organisations, should form the basis of a European youth consultation structure, while asking it to become more accessible to young people who are not members of youth organisations and without excluding direct youth consultations.

(1) COM(2001) 681 final.