ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/181

(2004/C 84 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0245/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Impact assessment of OPTA decisions

The European Telecoms package is currently being implemented in the Netherlands by means of a new Telecoms law. This new law gives OPTA, the Netherlands Telecoms regulator, greater powers.

In November 2003 the Second Chamber adopted an amendment resulting in ex-ante control of OPT A's decisions. OPTA will be required to carry out an impact assessment of any far-reaching decision, indicating the repercussions of the measure on a firm and setting out the alternatives.

Ex-post control of OPTA already exists in that any firm can challenge an OPTA decision in the courts. Furthermore, OPTA is required to submit its decisions to the other European Telecoms regulators.

1. Does the Commission consider that, given the existing controls on OPTA, the new law imposes an unnecessarily heavy burden, will delay OPTA decisions and restrict its options?

2. Does the Commission believe that such delays will make it more difficult for OPTA to act effectively and therefore be to the advantage of dominant parties by allowing them to exercise a monopoly for longer?

3. Does the Commission consider that this provision is in breach of any provisions of the Telecoms package and the objectives of the relevant guidelines that Member States are required to transpose into national law?

4. If so, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

As was the case on the occasion of the Commmission's reply to the previous question of the Honourable Member on a closely related subject (P-2753/03 (1)), the Commission has not received notification from the Dutch authorities of legislative measures transposing the new regulatory framework on electronic communications.

In addition to the information provided in the response to the above-mentioned written question, on 17 December 2003 the second stage of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty was launched against the Netherlands, among others, for non-communication of its transposition measures (2). As the Commission has not received notification of the transposition measures from the Dutch authorities, it is not yet possible to determine whether the legislation transposing the new framework in the Netherlands will be in compliance with it, including as regards the discretionary powers of the national regulatory authority (NRA).

The Commission will analyse the legislative measures transposing the new framework in the Netherlands once they have been notified and, in the event of non-compliance, may propose the opening of an infringement proceeding. In the case of persisting non-compliance with the Directive's provisions, the Commission might decide to apply to the Court of Justice after issuing a reasoned opinion. As the Honourable Member will recall, the Court has sole competence to rule on the legality or otherwise of a transposition measure.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 755.

(2) IP/03/1750 of 17.12.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/559

(2004/C 88 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1004/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject: Threat to peace and democracy in Adjara

The autonomous Georgian region of Adjara, which is self-governing in accordance with the Georgian Constitution, survived thirteen years of threats to its peace and stability from the ousted regime of Eduard Shevardnadze. Now, in 2004, Adjara, which fully acknowledges the overall authority of the central government in Tbilisi, faces renewed threats of destabilisation from the recently-elected government of President Mikhail Saakashvili. On Sunday, 14 March, armoured personnel carriers and heavily armed troops appeared at the administrative border of Adjara. It is feared that such attempts are being made with a view to undermining the due process of the forthcoming parliamentary elections (on 27 March 2004).

Would the Commission agree that regional issues should be resolved through peaceful dialogue without the threat of military force; that elections are best conducted in an atmosphere of stability and trust; and that the appearance of the Georgian National Guard on the streets of a hitherto peaceful and economically successful region, where the President's party has little support, would constitute an act of aggression against the citizens of Georgia by their own government?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union concerning the situation in the Georgian Autonomous Republic of Adjara issued on 17 March 2004. In this statement, the parties were urged to refrain from any further escalation which could result in violence. It also urged the authorities of the Georgian Autonomous Republic of Ajara to respect human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law and to allow for the orderly preparations for free and fair parliamentary elections.

The Commission also draws the Honourable Member's attention to the Declaration issued by the Presidency on behalf of the EU concerning the Georgian parliamentary elections. His attention is particularly drawn to the reference to the preliminary conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) and the concern the IEOM had over the complete lack of commitment by the authorities of Adjara to guarantee sufficient conditions for the conduct of a meaningful democratic election in that region. In this Declaration, the Georgian authorities are also encouraged to work constructively with the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, to further democratisation.

The Commission continues to urge the central government in Tbilisi and the authorities in Batumi to work towards finding a peaceful solution acceptable to all and in the interest of Georgia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: EU assistance for the democratization of Morocco

In response to the expectations aroused by his government, the new Prime Minister of Morocco said that the government's success will benefit not only the country's international partners but also Moroccan and foreign investors, since the objective is to create a new political climate, consolidate the rule of law and promote democracy.

He therefore called on two Community countries, France and Spain, to reduce the pressure of foreign debt threatening all the social and economic projects currently in the pipeline.

In view of the fact that the desire that the Kingdom of Morocco should achieve a well-established level of democratization must not be prejudicial to the two aforementioned Community countries, does the Commission not consider that it should devise a joint formula to ensure that all the countries of the Union help to strengthen Moroccan democracy, without detriment to the two countries which have provided the greatest financial assistance to Morocco, namely France and Spain?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1998)

The Commission is taking a close interest in the progress of democracy and the rule of law in Morocco and supports it by all the means at its disposal.

The most obvious instrument available for this purpose is the Meda-Democracy programme, which from 1996 to 1998 funded 15 projects in Morocco worth almost ECU 2 million plus some twenty regional projects involving other countries as well, worth a further ECU 4 million. Over and above this specific form of assistance, however, most of the ECU 580 million worth of projects financed under the Meda indicative programme over the same period make an indirect contribution to the democratisation process by backing economic reform or social provision.

The Honourable Member suggests that Member States should make a common contribution to cooperation with Morocco. This has in fact long been the case, in the form of aid financed out of the Community budget, to which all Member States contribute. The latest OECD statistics (1990-96) show that the Community was Morocco's second largest aid donor, behind France but ahead of Italy, Spain, Japan and Germany, in that order. During that period the Commission administered almost a quarter of the Member States' aid to Morocco and the proportion is set to rise sharply under the Meda programme, which will result in a threefold increase in EC aid to Morocco.

The Honourable Member also alludes to the pressure of foreign debt on the Moroccan economy. The Commission would point out that any reduction of such pressure is a matter for the Member States as bilateral creditors. It does keep track of their initiatives in this sphere, and believes these should form part of a coherent overall approach by the international financial community aimed at speeding up the structural adjustment process in Morocco, which the Community supports by means of its own instruments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3272/98

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Designation of Natura 2000 areas in Finland

The Finnish Government has adopted a decision on the areas to be notified to the Commission under the Natura 2000 programme. Many of them are controversial, and appeals against the government's decision are therefore pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Does the Commission intend to consider and confirm the designation of the areas for inclusion in the Natura 2000 programme for Finland - including even those areas concerning which appeals have been lodged - before the Supreme Administrative Court hands down its decision? To put it another way, does the Commission care whether the people of Finland have been treated lawfully in this regard or not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

The list of selected sites of Community importance for Natura 2000 is set up in a step-by-step procedure, under which each Member State first proposes a national list of sites on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1). This list should have been transmitted to the Commission by 10 June 1995. The Commission then had three years, i.e. up to 10 June 1998 to establish a Community list based on the national lists. It follows from the Directive that the Commission can adopt the final Community list only after receiving the final version of the national list of a Member State.

The Commission will take into account all the sites proposed by Finland as soon as they are officially notified.

It can be noted that infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty are in progress against several Member States including Finland.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3624/98

by Stanislaw Tillich (PPE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Calls for tender issued by the Commission on 18 July 1998: No 98/S 137-92959, No 98/S 137-92298, No 98/S 137-92958, No 98/S 138-91477

Can the Commission explain why the above calls for tender, which had extremely short deadlines, were published during the peak holiday period and at a time when the medium of publication of calls for tender was being changed from paper to CD-ROM, with the result that a large number of persons and organisations were not able to respond within the specified deadlines?

Might the Commission consider extending the deadline for these calls for tender, since complaints have already been submitted in this respect and, if it did so, the Commission might avoid the impression that only insiders had been able to abide by these deadlines in this case, which involves DG XXIII?

Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

Calls for tender 98/S137-92959, 98/S137-90298 and 98/S137-92958 were published in the Official Journal of 18 July 1998 and were open until 8 September 1998. Some 295 organisations requested the documents for these calls, despite the specialised nature of the work involved.

The time limit for the receipt of tenders complied with Article 18 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(1). This article in fact states that the time limit for the receipt of tenders shall not be less than 52 days from the date of dispatch of the notice.

As for call for tender 98/S138-91477, it was published on 21 July 1998 (with a deadline of 10 September 1998). The Commission received 24 bids, which is a considerable number for this kind of contract.

These calls were published at these dates in order to meet the deadlines for making the financial commitments in 1998. While the Commission is aware that the dates of publication were not ideal, every effort was made to publicise the calls by other means, for instance by passing the information to the Euro Info Centres for local transmission.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Russia's continuing failure to fulfil its promises

Is the Council aware of Russia's failure to create a National Commission of Inquiry as required by last year's resolution on Chechnya? What action does it now intend to take to pursue this matter?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

At its 56th session, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) adopted its resolution number 2000/58. In this, it called upon the Government of the Russian Federation to establish urgently, according to recognised international standards, a national, broad-based and independent commission of inquiry to investigate promptly alleged violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law committed in the Republic of Chechnya in order to establish the truth and identify those responsible, with a view to bringing them to justice and preventing impunity.

On 20 February 2001, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report on the situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation. The government of the Russian Federation provided written communications to the Office of the High Commissioner in contribution to the preparation of this report. In these, it reported that a National Public Commission for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations and Observance of Human Rights in the Chechen Republic had been established, and was presided over by Mr P V Krasheninnikov, a member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

At its 57th session, the UNCHR adopted its resolution number 2001/24. In this, it noted the establishment of the National Public Commission on Investigation of Violations and Respect for Human Rights in the Northern Caucasus (the Krasheninnikov Commission).

It is perhaps worth recalling that it was the EU which presented resolution 2000/58 to the UNCHR. Again, this year, it was the EU which sponsored resolution 2001/24. Indeed, the EU has spoken out steadfastly against all attacks on human rights and dignity in Chechnya, whoever may be the authors. Time and again, the EU has used every available forum to raise this issue at the very highest level with the Russian authorities. The EU expects that these will live up fully to their commitments. It looks forward to receiving the first report of the Krasheninnikov Commission, which it helped to bring into existence.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2364/01

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Council

(3 August 2001)

Subject: G8 in Genoa and EU data bases

The Schengen Information System (SIS) was set up to store data concerning persons reported or wanted for arrest, such data being directly supplied by the competent

authorities of the Member States. On the occasion of the G8 in Genoa, Italy suspended the Schengen Convention and re-introduced checks at the Italian borders. However, despite those checks, many people, including people from outside Italy, caused physical injuries to persons and damage to property in Genoa. Various sources have confirmed that some of the perpetrators were already known to the police, evidently because they were reported on Community data bases on grounds of public policy or public safety.

Would the Council clarify the following points:

- Was the SIS data base consulted by the Italian authorities when the border checks were carried out for the G8? If so, how many people were refused entry at the border on the basis of data supplied by the SIS?

- Were some of the people arrested during the G8 already entered on the SIS data base or other Community data bases because they had a criminal record of crimes of violence? If so, on what grounds were they allowed to enter Italian territory?

- Were the data concerning persons arrested or reported during the Göteborg European Council and other demonstrations entered in the SIS or other Community data bases?

Reply

(29 November 2001)

The question of the Honourable Member refers to the use of the SIS database by the Italian public authorities in connection with the G8 in Genoa.

As the use of the SIS database by these public authorities is a matter of national responsibility, the Council is not able to inform whether and how the Italian authorities consulted the SIS database at the border checks carried out for the G8 and what the possible results of these checks were regarding the refusal of entry onto Italian territory. However, the Council wishes to clarify that a suspension of the Schengen Convention on the basis of Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention only concerns the re-introduction of border checks at internal borders and does not have an impact on the availability and/or functioning of the SIS.

The Council is equally unable to answer the second question as it has no information on what persons were arrested during the G8.

As to the question whether data concerning persons arrested or reported in Göteborg were entered in SIS, it is recalled that this is a responsibility of the Swedish authorities and, moreover, it should be kept in mind that according to Article 94 of the Schengen Convention(1), data can only be entered as required for the purposes laid down in Articles 95 to 100.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2064/01

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Air traffic delays

What consultations has the Commission had with the British and Spanish Governments about the Gibraltar Airport Agreement 1987?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2064/01, E-2065/01 and E-2066/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission has explained the background of its Single Sky initiative in its replies to Written Questions P-312/011(1) and P-2062/012(2) of the Honourable Member.

Conscious of the need to propose measures quickly in order to alleviate delays and address the problems of the current air traffic management organisation, the Commission started work even before the completion of the High Level Group report referred to in its previous replies, in order to prepare the technical background for any legislative proposals.

In this context, several studies were commissioned, the results of which are published on http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/themes/air/english/single_eur_sky_en.html and which were discussed at a public workshop late May 2001.

The Commission now expects to bring forward legislative proposals shortly after the summer.

Therefore the Commission is not of the opinion that there has up to now been any delay in the preparation of the Single Sky proposals.

In view of its general experience in the field of air transport, where several of its proposals have been held up in the Council because of difficulties concerning their application to Gibraltar airport, the Commission hopes that the United Kingdom and Spain can give it assurances that these difficulties will not arise in connection with the single sky proposals.

The Commission notes that contacts are under way between the relevant Member States on this question, expressing the hope that these contacts will produce early agreement. However, since the Commission is not party to these discussions, it is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member as to their progress and contents.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(2) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 237.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2875/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Illegal government support for the FN weapons factory

It has recently come to light that Delcredere, the Belgian export credit insurer, has issued a government guarantee within the framework of the agreement concluded between FN Herstal and the government of Nepal to supply 5 500 Minimi machine guns. This was not only a breach of the Code of Conduct on the Arms Trade but the purchase sum of EUR 15,4 million will also be paid even if the weapons are not actually delivered.

The decision was taken on 5 August 2002 in the absence of a quorum, after which the policy was sent out and the decision submitted for confirmation.

It is clear that FN Herstal would be entitled to obtain the money for the 5 500 Minimi machine guns even if the Belgian government were to withdraw the export licence.

Consequently, the arrangement must constitute the granting of State aid to an enterprise.

Will the Commission investigate whether this State aid complies with the relevant European directives?

If so, can the Commission indicate the grounds on which that conclusion was based?

If not, can the Commission explain what measures will be taken to call the Belgian government to order?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

As far as export aid is concerned, the Commission has no knowledge to date of any state aid granted to FN Herstal. It has no information to suggest that the Belgian agency Ducroire/Delcredere acted differently from a private insurance company, since it does not have precise information on the terms and content of the contract concluded between Ducroire/Delcredere and FN Herstal.

At this stage, the Commission would none the less stress that the interventions referred to by the Honourable Member relate exclusively to compliance with the terms of the export credit insurance contract. These terms are in line with Council Directive 98/29/EC of 7 May 1998 on harmonisation of the main provisions concerning export credit insurance for transactions with medium and long-term cover(1). The Directive explicitly allows this type of guarantee and requires Member States to set up in their countries a private or public export insurance scheme that covers, among others, political risks. Among the risks to be covered by the export credit insurer, the Directive cites a decision to ban exports taken by the Government of the country of the insurer. It can thus be concluded that the intervention granted by Ducroire/Delcredere is in accordance with the Directive.

(1) OJ L 148, 19.5.1998.