ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3068/01

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 October 2001)

Subject: Policy on container hub ports

What is the Commission's policy concerning the development of a container hub port for Europe?

In particular, does the Commission agree:

- that the development of container megaships will pose acute environmental and other problems for existing main ports in Europe, and

- that increased dredging costs will pose difficult problems involving state aid?

Joint answerto Written Questions P-3068/01 and P-3069/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2001)

At present, a number of container hub ports are being operated in Europe. In order to allow big container vessels, as well as feeder vessels, to operate satisfactorily and effectively, hub ports have to fulfil a number of conditions, deep water drought being a key element.

The Commission does not believe that a central body should decide which port or ports should be hub ports. The diversity of ports, current and future ones, and requirements of the market will enable future developments of the already existing hub port system in Europe which, with changing transport and trade patterns, is undergoing permanent changes.

The Commission is conscious of the environmental issues caused by a number of port developments. It believes, however, that the necessary legal instruments are in place to address these issues. In case of Natura 2000 protected areas, there is a clear procedure under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive(1) to ensure that development affecting these sites are properly evaluated and only proceed having met certain nature protection requirements.

The Commission is aware of plans to develop Scapa Flow in Orkney as a hub port for Europe. It believes that market forces will determine the choice of ports as well as the best system of hub ports and their links to feeder ports.

State aid grants to dredging activities are not foreseen within the scope of maritime transport State aid policy. Even though aid may be granted in a certain number of restricted circumstances in the form of reduced rates of contributions for the social protection and of income tax for Community seafarers working on board dredgers, such aid would normally not be related to the amount of dredging carried out. It would rather be related to a genuine support for the employment of Community seafarers, as provided for in the context of the Commission's more general maritime transport State aid policy. However, should public authorities wish to grant State aid in support of dredging activities as such, prior notification to the Commission would be required.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Free movement of persons

Can the Commission state whether it is necessary for an Irish citizen travelling to Belgium to carry a national passport or whether official identification such as an Irish driving licence is sufficient?

Could the Commission further state whether it is a matter of national law or of European law to lay down the conditions under which the right to freedom of movement may be restricted?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to Question 2506/01 by Mr Speroni(1) and to the joint answer to Written Questions P-2996/01 by Mr Speroni and P-3010/01 by Mr Gobbo(2).

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 246.

(2) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 211.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3180/01

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Killing of hunger strikers in Turkey

On 5 November, Turkish police brutally forced their way into hunger strikers' houses in the Kucuk Armutlu district of Istanbul, killing six hunger strikers and wounding another fourteen in a bid to end the 379-day long hunger strike started in protest at the new regime in Turkish prisons.

What practical steps will the Council take to make plain to Turkey that the continuous violation of fundamental human rights and the systematic use of violence by the state are not compatible with Turkey's status as a country in the process of preparing for accession to the European Union and that this process will have to be suspended?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council keeps a very close watch on all human rights developments in Turkey. The Turkish authorities' reactions to the action directed against the introduction of a new type of prison, and particularly the hunger strike which is resulting in an ever-increasing number of fatalities, are indeed a subject for major concern. This has been pointed out repeatedly to Turkey, whether in the framework of political dialogue or on other occasions.

With regard to the recent police operation in Kucuk Armutlu during which several hunger strikers died and many others were injured, the Council, through the Heads of Mission in Ankara and during the lunch given for EC-Turkey Political Directors in Brussels on 20 November last, expressed its concern to Turkey regarding a disproportionate use of force, and asked the Turkish authorities to provide explanations.

Without wanting in any way to minimise the seriousness of an incident such as that in Kucuk Armutlu and, generally speaking, the shortcomings still existing in Turkey regarding human rights, it must be acknowledged, however, as the European Commission has also done in its regular report for 2001, that Turkey has recently made considerable progress towards greater compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular by means of the constitutional reforms of last October, which are currently being implemented.

It should be noted that the Laeken European Council on 14 and 15 December 2001 established that Turkey has made progress towards complying with the political criteria established for accession, in particular through the recent amendment of its constitution, and that this has brought forward the prospect of the opening of accession negotiations. It would seem in these circumstances that it cannot be concluded, as the Honourable Member does, that the process of Turkey's accession must be suspended.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3542/01

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Council

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Nursery school education for five-year olds

At a time when Europe is debating its future and its future institutions, the teaching of European integration in the education systems of the Member States of the Union is becoming crucial to developing a genuine European citizenship.

The subject should be introduced in nursery schools as from the age of five, in appropriate forms, and continue into higher education in all disciplines.

Above all, it should also be made a compulsory and permanent part of the curriculum at the different stages of each education system with a programme that is developed and adjusted to the level of education provided.

Could the Council begin by carrying out a survey on this issue in the Member States and candidate countries?

Once this analysis has been done, would the next step not be to draw the consequences and invite the governments to introduce the measures required to achieve the desired results?

Does the Council not see this as a crucial challenge for the democratic future of the Union, namely to give real substance at last to European citizenship for the younger generations of today and tomorrow?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

In relation to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that, pursuant to Article 149(1) of the Treaty, the European Community is required to respect fully the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems . It should also be borne in mind that nursery school education is not officially recognised in all Member States as forming part of the national education system.

With respect to the appropriateness of a survey in the different Member States on the teaching of European integration, it is not for the Council to carry out a survey of this kind. It would perhaps be more appropriate for the Honourable Member to address his question to the European Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3406/01

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Unexploded cluster bomblets in Afghanistan

According to evidence provided by experts, since the end of the war in the Balkans over 150 civilians have been killed by the detonation of cluster bomb units which did not detonate on impact. These bomblets have extremely sensitive detonators which can be set off by the slightest touch, and still kill people 50 years after they were dropped.

Cluster bomb units are now also being used by the US in Afghanistan. It has been estimated that about 10 % of the bombs dropped do not explode, with unforeseeable consequences.

Is the Council aware of this problem?

What action can the Council take to avert this risk that innocent civilians' lives will also be at risk from unexploded cluster bomb units in Afghanistan for years after the end of the conflict?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

1. In its conclusions on promoting the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons adopted on 19 November 2001, the Council of the European Union stated that it was particularly concerned by the problems caused by the explosive remnants of war. It considered the topic as having the highest priority for the Review Conference of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (Geneva, 11 to 21 December 2001). In that connection the European Union supports the setting up by the Review Conference of a working party on the explosive remnants of war with a view to negotiations on a legal instrument on this issue.

2. The situation in Afghanistan, in particular the problem raised in the Honourable Member's question, was discussed at a meeting between a high-level EU delegation and the ICRC in Islamabad on 24 November 2001. With regard to humanitarian mine clearance in Afghanistan, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to Regulation No 1724/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2001 concerning action against anti-personnel landmines in developing countries, which also covers the explosive remnants of war. Under Article 12 of the Regulation, a Strategy Paper is to be drawn up comprising priorities for Community mine action. The Strategy Paper is to be transmitted to the European Parliament for information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2494/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: TRIPS Council

Would the Commission outline its response to the proposal currently under discussion in the WTO TRIPS Council for a moratorium or due restraint on dispute settlement mechanisms, i.e. that developed countries would refrain from challenging cases involving access to medicines under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism?

Is it the case that at the TRIPS Council meeting on 25 July 2001 the EU opposed this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The proposal for a moratorium or due restraint on recourse to dispute settlement procedures in regard to measures for the protection of public health is one of many proposals which came out of the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Council's Special Discussion on Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines, which took place in Geneva on 20 June 2001. The TRIPs Council is now systematically examining all the provisions and issues which were raised with a view to clarifying the flexibility available under the TRIPs Agreement.

At an informal meeting of the TRIPs Council on 25 July 2001, the Commission confined itself to pointing out that the mandate of the TRIPs Council is limited and does not extend to the imposition of a moratorium, which would necessitate an amendment to Article 64 of the TRIPs Agreement.

More specifically, the Commission believes that careful examination of all the possible implications of such a proposal is required first. The weakness of a moratorium is that it does not address the real issue, which is to ensure that the TRIPs Agreement is implemented in a way which allows developing countries to set up an intellectual property regime that meets their policy needs and is capable of responding to public health concerns. For this reason, the Commission considers that it is more constructive to attempt to clarify issues of substance than to paper them over with a procedural expedient. If, as is to be hoped, the discussions in the TRIPs Council give rise to a consensus on these issues, then arguments as to the merits or otherwise of a moratorium will no longer be relevant. In the meantime, the position of the least-developed WTO Member countries will not be affected since they do not have to apply the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement until 1 January 2006.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1912/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: The unwillingness of the Indonesian government to condemn human rights violations in the Moluccas

Moluccan Church leaders have appealed to the Indonesian authorities to evacuate Christians forced to convert to Islam on the islands, but have so far received no assistance from that quarter. Does the Commission accept that the Indonesian government has been involved with supplying equipment and training to the Laskar Jihad group in the Moluccas which has been accused of numerous human rights violations against Christians in the region. If so, what action does the Commission intend to take to persuade the Indonesian government to stop cooperating with the Jihad?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the conflict in the Moluccas. Through its Delegation in Jakarta and other appropriate channels, the Commission continues to gather information about the situation in the area.

While it is clear that the overall responsibility for resolving the situation lies with the Indonesian government, it is also clear that the underlying causes for the conflict are not necessarily attributable to the present government. The Commission is not in a position to confirm whether the government has given assistance to Laskar Jihad or other groups.

The Commission has consistently offered humanitarian assistance, and is prepared to continue this support, as well as to consider a suitable intervention to help with rehabilitation and community reconciliation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: UK Customs action on alcohol and tobacco

The UK Government has interpreted the guidelines laid down in Directive 92/12/EEC(1) on excise duties as allowing them to prevent the import of cigarettes and alcohol in any quantities greater than the minimum levels set out in that Directive, even where the cigarettes and/or alcohol are for private use. Not only have travellers had legal purchases of alcohol and tobacco impounded, they have even, on occasions, had their vehicles confiscated.

Given this outrageous behaviour, can the Commission indicate the scope and content of its inquiry? Will it say what the consequences will be if it is shown that the British authorities have acted disproportionately in this matter and without regard to the free movement of goods within the Union? What punitive measures are available to the Commission if it finds that the Customs and Excise Service has acted ultra vires?

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

On 23 October 2001 the Commission decided to issue a letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom, thereby taking the first step in an infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is seeking to determine whether British authorities apply the rules of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products

subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products properly when they establish whether private individuals entering the United Kingdom with excised goods purchased in other Member States are holding these goods for commercial purposes (in which case excise duties on the goods are due in the United Kingdom). The Commission is also concerned that the sanctions applied by the United Kingdom when individuals are deemed to be holding excised goods for commercial purposes in breach of national excise duty law may be contrary to the principle of proportionality, a general principle of Community law.

The Commission received a response to its letter of formal notice on 18 December 2001, which will be analyzed as quickly as possible. In the light of this analysis, the Commission will determine whether or not in its view, the United Kingdom is acting in conformity with Community law, and will decide whether it is appropriate to proceed to the second stage of the infringement procedure, which is a formal request for the United Kingdom to change its practices, in the form of a reasoned opinion. The Commission can refer a Member State to the Court of Justice for failure to apply Community law properly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3507/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Food aid to Tajikistan

Tajikistan in Central Asia, with its population of some six million, is suffering acute food shortages as a result of a drought during the growing season. The country has long been riven by civil war which has ruined its economy. The Red Cross has set up an aid operation but does not have the means to fund the amounts needed.

What means does the Commission have at its disposal to contribute to the aid operation in Tajikistan? What does the Commission intend to do to relieve the disaster Tajkistan is facing?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission is aware of the difficult situation in Tajikistan and is addressing the problems in the context both of TACIS and the food aid/food security programme, which provides longer-term economic assistance, and of humanitarian aid.

TACIS and food aid/food security programme

The Commission has been active in the food security field since 1996 with a 8 million budget support programme.

This programme was suspended in 1997 because of security problems and will resume in January 2002 with the support of technical assistance on the ground (a 1 million financial allocation was approved for this purpose).

Alongside this direct aid to the Government, a 2001 allocation of 3,7 million has been approved for vulnerable population groups targeted by the World Food Programme. This allocation of food products consists of 10 000 tonnes of maize and 500 tonnes of oil.

In response to selective needs identified by non-governmental organisations and on the basis of the projects presented, further allocations of food products, tools and seeds may be made under the Euronaid global allocation.

In response more specifically to the overall needs of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), an allocation of 8 million has been reserved from the Food aid/Food security 2002 budget.

Humanitarian Assistance

The Commission, through its Humanitarian Assistance Office (ECHO), has contributed 125 million of humanitarian assistance to Tajikistan since 1992, making it by far the largest donor of humanitarian aid to the country. Much of this assistance has been in the form of food aid.

In 2001, the Commission took two funding decisions worth 12 million for humanitarian work in Tajikistan ( 10 million Global Plan in July 2001 and 2 million special emergency drought decision in August 2001). Almost 6 million is for food aid or food security operations.

The Red Cross is currently implementing ECHO-funded projects worth 1,85 million in Tajikistan, of which 1,1 million is for supplementary feeding and food security operations.

ECHO intends to continue its support for the most vulnerable sectors of Tajik society by launching a new 12-month funding programme in April 2002. In the meantime it is continuing to monitor the drought situation closely and will consider further emergency assistance if necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3125/01

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Eighty-five per cent funding of a new line for the Madrid underground

According to reports in the Spanish press, 85 % of the funding for work on a new line linking the Nuevos Ministerios and Mar de Cristal stations on the Madrid underground is to come from the Cohesion Fund. I have been told that hitherto no such funding has been requested.

Furthermore, residents' associations in the area along the route of the new underground line have complained that the President of the Community of Madrid opposes building another station on the line between Nuevos Ministerios and Mar de Cristal on the grounds that funding for work on the line cannot be obtained from the Cohesion Fund unless it can be shown that the line is to serve as a link between the city and Barajas airport.

Given that projects eligible for funding under the Cohesion Fund can be submitted at any stage, will the Commission say whether or not Spain or the Community of Madrid has presented a request for funding for work on the Nuevos Ministerios-Mar de Cristal line?

If not, could the work already undertaken possibly become eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund upon submission of the relevant request? Or, on the contrary, would it be considered ineligible for funding?

Is it indeed the case that, pursuant to the criteria governing funding under the Cohesion Fund, funding for work on the line would not be forthcoming unless the line itself were to serve as an airport link?

According to the criteria established by the Commission and the Cohesion Fund Regulation, could building another station along the line prevent the latter from being considered overall as an airport link?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Commission has not yet received any request for part-financing from the Cohesion Fund for the extension of the underground railway line between Mar de Cristal and Nuevos Ministerios and so has no views about an intermediate station. Moreover, under the

Cohesion Fund's rules on eligibility(1), expenditure incurred before the Commission has received an application for aid cannot be taken into consideration for Community part-financing.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 establishing a Cohesion Fund, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Toxicological tests

Has the Commission ever carried out or funded any toxicological testing to ascertain the safety of the silicofluorides used in artificial water fluoridation schemes? If so, when were they carried out and what are the results of the tests?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission has not carried out or funded toxicological testing on silicofluorides.

Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption(1) has fixed a maximum level for fluoride at 1,5 miligramm per liter; this level has been established in line with the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines to protect human health.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.