ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1841/02

by Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Shallot production

The French fruit and vegetable intertrade association and shallot producers in western France are concerned at plans put forward by the Commission's Directorates-General for Agriculture and for Health and Consumer Protection which call for the standardisation of shallot and onion production on the basis of those products' trade descriptions.

This approach is worrying on a number of counts:

- it is incompatible with the European Union's stated intention to promote the European agriculture model and it seriously detracts from the multifunctionality of agriculture, in particular the aspects thereof which are concerned with the environment (biodiversity) and with product safety and quality;

- it goes against the decisions taken at the Berlin Summit, with particular reference to rural development. The purpose of this second pillar is to maintain activity in rural areas; the main European shallot production method goes a long way towards meeting that objective, despite receiving no support;

- it runs counter to the sustainable-development strategy drawn up at the 2001 Göteborg European Council;

- lastly, it is at odds with the substance of the 2000 White Paper on food safety and, in particular, with the major principles of increased product quality and safety and better provision of information to consumers.

How can the Commission account for its failure to take the major principles and rules of conduct which it has adopted into account in its study, analysis and handling of the problems relating to shallots?

What interests and what policy is it really aiming to promote? Should the European texts relating to shallots not be reconsidered?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Commission is not currently drafting any texts aimed at standardising shallot and onion production or their trade descriptions.

However, it has emerged from a complaint submitted to the Commission that French shallot producers, particularly in Brittany, are very concerned by the fact that shallot seeds have been placed on the market.

According to the complainants, the seeds in question do not meet Community standards and should not, under Community law, be placed on the market.

In addition, a complaint has been lodged with the Commission regarding the fact that French legislation allows shallots to be placed on the market only if they are grown from bulbs using vegetative propagation.

The Commission is currently examining these complaints in detail and will ensure that the points put forward by the Honourable Member in his written question are taken into account in the course of this examination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0237/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Concern over the 110 prisoners in Guantanamo

The treatment of the 110 prisoners in the American Guantanamo base in Cuba who are thought to have had links with the al-Qa'ida network has aroused world-wide indignation. Various international bodies and non-governmental organisations have protested about both the inhumane transportation and detention conditions of those in the American base, and the legal regime under which they are being held.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the conditions of transportation and detention of the prisoners in Cuba are investigated and that a competent tribunal pronounces on the legal status of the detainees and, in particular, whether they are entitled under the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention to prisoner of war status? How will it ensure that, in any case, their human rights are fully respected and they are treated humanely, in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0237/02 and E-0392/02given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

It is not for the Commission to determine whether or not an individual detainee falls within the scope of the Geneva Convention.

Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the United States announced on 7 February 2002 that the Geneva Convention will apply to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base (Camp X-Ray) classified as Taliban soldiers. However, the United States continues to view those detainees belonging to Al Qaeda as falling outside the scope of the Geneva Convention.

The Commission also notes that the United States has nevertheless undertaken to treat all detainees in conformity with the requirements of the Geneva Convention, and that the United States has accepted the majority of the recommendations made by the International Red Cross regarding the improvement of conditions for the detainees.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the British government who have visited Camp X-Ray have confirmed that detainees are being treated in conformity with international humanitarian law.

The Commission is following developments in the treatment of detainees during their transportation to and detention at Camp X-Ray, through close contacts with the authorities of Member States as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to the detention centre.

The Union also maintains a regular dialogue with the United States in the field of human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2002)

Subject: Infringements

1. Will the Commission describe the circumstances in which it is prepared to investigate an infringement of the treaties or of EU legislation by a Member State, with particular regard to competitive tendering and state aids and equivalent measures?

2. Is it prepared to afford complainants, including companies, the right of anonymity in order to protect them from the perceived or real threat of regulatory retaliation?

3. Has it done so in the past?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

The Commission would like to point out to the honourable Member that every year it deals with several hundred complaints about infringements by the Member States of Community legislation concerning the free movement of goods and public contracts.

These complaints are dealt with in accordance with the procedure for failure to fulfil an obligation under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, and in the event of disagreement with the Member State in question the matter may be referred to the Court of Justice.

The internal rules of procedure adopted by the Commission require observance of the confidentiality of complaints. This principle was recently reiterated in the Commission Communication of 20 March 2002 to the European Parliament and the European ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law(1).

Confidentiality may not be waived except with the explicit consent of the complainant. Waiving is routinely requested when it is necessary for further consideration of the case by the Commission and with a view to obtaining, in agreement with the Member State in question, a solution that is favourable to the complainant.

As for state aids which are dealt with in accordance with the procedures laid down in Articles 87-89 of the EC Treaty, the Commission when requested also observes the principle of the confidentiality of complaints.

(1) OJ C 166, 12.7.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/02

by Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Subject: Proceedings to ban HADEP wave of arrests in Turkey

The proceedings to ban HADEP, instituted in 1999 by the Turkish public prosecutor, have started. HADEP is charged with wanting to destroy the unity of the country. The court delayed the proceedings for one month to allow the HADEP President, Murat Bozlak, time to prepare a defence statement. The proceedings to ban HADEP will resume on 1 March.

Resumption of the legal proceedings has sparked off a new wave of repression against Kurds. Members and staff of HADEP have been arrested. The Kurdish Institute in Istanbul was placed under official seal without a court order. 500 students at the University of Van were arrested at the beginning of January 2002 when they wanted to hand the Rector of the University a petition in connection with a country-wide campaign for voluntary Kurdish courses at universities. As a result, other students who had signed the petition were detained throughout the country. According to some leading politicians, the students were accused of terrorism and charged.

1. What is the Commission's view of the proceedings to ban the pro-Kurdish HADEP party?

2. What is the Commission's assessment of the constitutional amendments in Turkey, which are supposed to make it more difficult to ban parties in Turkey?

3. Is the Commission aware of the arrest of the students?

4. What is the Commission's assessment of the constitutional amendments on the use of the Kurdish language?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

1. Like the Parliament, the Commission is monitoring closely the developments related to the judicial proceedings against the Halkin Demokrasi Partisi (HADEP) party in the Constitutional Court. A hearing took place on 1 March 2002. During this hearing, HADEP presented its defence. In spite of several attempts it proved impossible for the Commission to attend this hearing as the session was entirely behind closed doors.

2. In 2001, the Turkish Parliament amended the constitution to strengthen human rights in Turkey. However, it left the grounds for closure of political parties unchanged. The current provisions are not in line with Union standards.

3. The Commission has been monitoring the activity of certain students about receiving education in their mother tongue. In this context, the Commission is concerned by the reaction of the Turkish authorities with respect to the exercise of the right of petition by the students, especially as the right of petition has been broadened by a recent amendment of Article 74 of the Turkish constitution.

4. As regards cultural rights, the Commission noted in its Regular Report of 13 November 2001(1) that the amendment to Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution can be considered as progress. The constitutional provisions forbidding the use of languages prohibited by law has now been abolished. As a next step, changes in restrictive legislation will be needed to ensure these rights can be enjoyed in practice.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0872/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Protected bird species

The white-cheeked goose is commonly found on the Swedish royal family's land at Drottningholm outside Stockholm. Complaints have been made that the bird causes pollution and, in certain cases, also attacks passers-by.

In 2000, the Stockholm County Administrative Board granted the royal household at Drottningholm permission to empty some 30 nests of their eggs and to shoot around 20 birds, though the latter was not carried out as an oil spill in the summer of 2000 decimated the stock.

However, the Swedish ornithological society considered that Sweden is responsible under the wild bird directive for protecting the stock. The white-cheeked goose reportedly breeds only in Sweden and Finland within the Union. The ornithologists announced in Aftonbladet on 15 October 2000 that they would draw the Commission's attention to the fact that the County Administrative Board had granted authorisation for protective hunting of white-cheeked geese, black woodpecker, goshawk, buzzard and osprey.

Has the Commission received any report concerning the abovementioned cases and has the matter been investigated? If an investigation has taken place, what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The Commission has not received complaints, either from individuals or from organisations, about the Regional Administration of Stockholm having given permissions for hunting barnacle goose, black woodpecker, goshawk, buzzard and common gull.

According to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) out of the above mentioned species only the common gull can be hunted regularly in Sweden (Annex II/2). Under Article 9 of the directive, Member States can grant derogation permitting the taking of other species for specific reasons such as to control damage to agricultural crops. The Swedish report on derogations granted in the year 2000 includes those granted by Regional Administration of Stockholm for killing barnacle goose (77 killed) and goshawk (50 killed); the report does not mention black woodpecker or buzzard. Acting upon the information supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission will ask the Swedish authorities to comment on the issues raised.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Scrutiny of Sävsjö municipality's sale of the town sanatorium

According to reports in the media (Dagens Nyheter of 27 January 2002), the Commission is to look into Sävsjö municipality's sale in 1999 of the town's former sanatorium, the surrounding park and what used to be a doctor's residence.

The sale price and local authority grants together with many other advantages a private purchaser secured to convert the sanatorium into a hotel and conference centre upset other local businesspeople. The latter considered they had been beaten with the help of taxpayers' money, and legal proceedings are still ongoing in this connection. The Administrative Court of Appeal, however, found in the municipality's favour, but the objectors are now said to have approached the Commission.

It is not certain what political decisions a municipality can take to promote business locally without affecting free competition in the internal market in the process.

Does the Commission intend to deliver an opinion on this matter? How many times a year does it make inquiries of the various Member States' governments concerning similar decisions that have been taken by local and regional political bodies, on the grounds that they could adversely affect free competition in the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The Commission welcomes the decentralisation process which takes place in several Member States and whereby local authorities are entrusted with the task to conduct economic policy and promote business.

However, local as well as central authorities are subject to the EC Treaty competition rules. In particular, aid granted by regional and local bodies of the Member States, whatever their status and description, must be scrutinized to determine whether it complies with Article 87 §1 of the Treaty(1).

Thus, the Commission should be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid put forward by the local authorities. The proposed measures should not be put into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

It has to be reminded in that respect that the prohibition of State aids laid down in Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty concerns only selective advantages to entities having an economic activity and which distort or threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States.

According to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(2), aid measures are deemed not to meet all the criteria of Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty, if they don't exceed EUR 100 000 over a period of three years.

The Commission does not dispose currently of any statistical data concerning inquiries on similar decisions that have been taken by local and regional political bodies.

(1) Judgment of the Court of 14 October 1987, Federal Republic of Germany v Commission, Case 248/84, ECR (1987) p. 4013).

(2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2118/02

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Imposition by some airlines of age-limits in connection with the recruitment of stewards

Airlines such as Austrian Airlines and Lufthansa are reportedly imposing age-limits in connection with the recruitment of stewards, refusing to take on applicants aged, in these specific cases, over 35 or 40 respectively.

Can the Commission state whether such age discrimination is compatible with the provisions of Directive 2000/78/EC(1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation? Are such disparities in treatment on age grounds justified on the basis of Article 6 of that directive, and if so, why? Has the Court of Justice handed down any judgments on this issue?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission recalls that the Council adopted on 2 December 2000 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equality in employment and occupation(1). This Directive prohibits discrimination on grounds of, inter alia, age, including the use of age limits which are not objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are not appropriate and necessary.

The Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose the requirements of the Directive into national law. In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Any Member State which chooses to use this option shall inform the Commission forthwith and shall report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation.

Since the deadline for transposition of the Directive has not yet been reached, there have as yet, been no cases on this issue before the European Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1048/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Commission action on shark finning

On 14 March 2002 the European Parliament approved a resolution calling on the European Commission to propose the prohibition of shark finning by all vessels registered to EU Member States and the landing of severed shark fins at all EU ports, and the implementation of measures to comply with the UN International Plan of Action for Sharks (B5-0031/2002, included in report A5-0063/2002).

What action does the Commission intend to take?

Is it true that initiatives to prevent shark finning are being delayed by lengthy discussions in the Commission regarding which species should be included and the need to specify precise conversion rates from whole sharks to fins for every species taken?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Community supported actively the technical meetings that prepared the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) International Plan of Actions for Sharks, and its adoption at global level in 1999.

As follow up, the Commission already presented a Community draft plan of action to the FAO Committee on Fisheries (FAO-COFI) in February 2001. A further implementation and revision of the FAO international plan for sharks is scheduled for the next FAO-COFI meeting in 2003.

The Commission is at present working on a proposal to prohibit shark finning at Community level. It is untrue that such an initiative is being unduly delayed in the Commission by lengthy discussions on the concerned species or other related parameters.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0234/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Future cost of medicines

Medicinal products are a considerable item of spending in the Member States and the cost is even higher in the case of patented drugs, the only competition for which comes from parallel imports. It is therefore important for there to be no restrictions to free movement in the market for medicinal products.

It has been reported that exceptions from this principle have been made for the medicinal products market in the accession negotiations preceding the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. The outcome is said to be to bar parallel imports of medicinal products from new Member States in many cases for transitional periods of up to eleven years.

What is the reasoning behind these exceptions? What analyses have been made of the increase in the bill for medicinal products in the Member States of the EU as a result of these exceptions, by comparison with the situation if they had not been made?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Candidate Countries have introduced patent protection for pharmaceutical products between 1991 and 1995 apart from Cyprus and Malta which introduced patent protection in the 1920's and 1900's respectively. Since the new patent laws have no generalised retroactive effects, all medicinal products which were marketed in the applicant countries before the change in the legislation took place, will remain unprotected there while they are still under patent in the Union.

In order to minimise potential problems resulting from this situation, the Union has proposed a mechanism which will only apply to patented products; the legally produced generic products will continue to circulate freely within the enlarged Union. According to this mechanism the patent holder may prevent, after accession, the import into the Union of a product patented in a Member State at the time when a product patent could not be obtained in candidate countries for that product. It will therefore avoid parallel imports and thus the detrimental effect these practices could have for the research and development industry.