ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 January 2002)

Subject: Terrorisation of Turkish Cypriots by the Denktash regime

According to reports in the Greek press, the Ministry of Education in Denktash's pseudo-state has decided to suspend Nilgun Orhon, a history teacher, because of an article she wrote in the Avrupa newspaper, published in occupied Cyprus. Invoking laws which are only used in military dictatorships, the Denktash regime has accused Orhon of having written that Turkey, as an occupying power, has taken all their freedoms away from Turkish Cypriots and does not permit them a voice on matters which concern them. She also maintained that freedom, peace, democracy and the Parliament exist in name only in the northern part of Cyprus.

It should be noted that during demonstrations by Turkish Cypriot teachers and unionists against the Ministry of Education decision to suspend the history teacher, there were arrests by the Denktash regime's police, run by the Turkish military. The police attempted to arrest Orhon as, disregarding the decision, she was going to her school to teach, and Aydan Ersalan, the general secretary of the teachers' union, was clubbed as he tried to help her.

What is the Council's position concerning the Denktash regime's fascist decisions? What steps does it intend to take to prevent recurrences of similar incidents in the future? Will it raise the issue with Turkey, whose army has been occupying the northern part of Cyprus for 27 years, and if so, when?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

Mrs Orkhon's case has not been discussed by the Council. Nevertheless, in general and in keeping with the positions which it has always adopted on the defence of human rights, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that freedom of expression is one such right which must be protected and that any violation of those rights is reprehensible. This same position was reiterated at the recent meeting of the EC-Turkey Association Council on 16 April 2002 and is found again in the ECHR judgment of 10 May 2001 in Case No 25781/94: Cyprus v. Turkey.

Furthermore, the Council is keen to place its reply in the overall context of developments in the situation in Cyprus which led it, at its meeting on 10 December 2001, to welcome the meetings between Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides on 4 and 5 December 2001, and at its meeting on 28 January 2002, to describe the dialogue established between both communities as very encouraging.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3649/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Subject: Terrorism, Somalia and information

Recent events connected with the fight against terrorism have identified Somalia as one of the countries in which powerful groups linked to Islamic fundamentalism operate, receiving funding, weapons and instructors to organise terrorist training camps.

In view of this, consideration has been given to possible military intervention to block any attempt to carry out terrorist action based in Somalia.

In a situation such as this and in order to give the population information which may help to strengthen democracy and combat fundamentalism, can the Commission say whether:

- it does not consider it useful and appropriate to devise and bring into operation an independent information network in Somali, in order to provide the population with accurate information;

- it does not consider, in the current situation, that accurate information may help to restore peace and introduce a truly democratic system with the consensus of the population of various ethnic groups and regions?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission believes that accurate information is best provided by information professionals. Recently, the Commission contributed to the financing of specific training initiatives for Somalia in this area in close co-operation with the BBC World Service.

The main objective of the project was a journalists' training programme covering technical as well as editorial, writing and production skills. In developing and strengthening those skills, the training programme sought to enable Somali journalists to produce material which would help to build a strong pluralistic society. A total of 83 Somali print, radio and TV journalists attended the BBC training courses and workshops held in different parts of Somalia.

Should the conditions allow the development of a democratic information practice in Somalia, the Commission could envisage co-operating with recognised organisations in order to promote further actions aimed at strengthening the information capabilities in Somalia.

It has to be stressed that adequate information is not enough to allow the good functioning of a democratic political system. In the case of Somalia most of the population is illiterate and public opinion is dominated by clan-based and local interests. Traditional and religious rulers therefore play an important role as opinion leaders. Furthermore, dissemination of information throughout Somalia remains limited by high investment costs, logistic problems and war.

Nevertheless, part of the population does benefit from more diverse information: the collapse of the state favoured the multiplication of information sources, both written and audio-visual, and foreign programmes in Somali are already being broadcast on a daily basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3621/01

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE), Carmen Fraga Estevez (PPE-DE)and José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Temporary suspension of imports of Spanish clementines into the USA

This week it has been reported that imports of Spanish clementines into the USA have been temporarily suspended and/or banned on the grounds that the US plant-health authorities have allegedly discovered one live and several dead fruit fly (Ceratitis lapitata) larvae in imports from Spain. Following various confused reports and a temporary re-opening lasting one hour, the US authorities decided to suspend such imports sine die. Spanish producers reject the explanations given by the USA, which they believe to be largely prompted by pressure from US farmers, who are experiencing direct competition from increased European citrus-fruit exports.

In view of the fact that this illegal means may be used by other countries and in respect of other European products, would the Commission answer the following questions:

- Is it aware of the above threat to European exports?

- What action is it intending to take in order to ensure that the rules laid down in agreements with third countries are strictly observed?

- If it proves to be the case that the grounds put forward by the US authorities are actually trade barriers, how and by whom is compensation to be paid to European farmers in order to make good the losses they have suffered in terms both of product value and of market share lost?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Commission is aware of this case and officials have been closely monitoring the situation. The conditions for the exportation of clementines from Spain to the United States are subject to United States import rules and the Commission's initial responsibility is to verify that these rules and their application comply with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures.

The apparent disproportionality of the United States ban and potential illegality with the WTO provisions have been raised separately by the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade and the Member of the Commission responsible for Health and Consumer Protection when they met Mr Zoellick, United States Trade Representative (USTR) in December 2001 and by the Commission Delegation in Washington.

Technical discussions are ongoing between the United States and Spanish officials which hopefully will clarify the factual and technical aspects of the case and possibly resolve the problem. In the event that the issue is not resolved rapidly and satisfactorily, the Commission could consider the possibility of appropriate action within the framework of the WTO, in particular the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures.

Exporters who at this stage seek to recover the losses arising from the United States ban should consider pursuing this on their own behalf in the United States' domestic courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/578

(2004/C 88 E/0590)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Subject: The case concerning State aid for the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park (Alicante)

The Parque Temático de Alicante SA (SPTA), a public company owned by the Valencian regional government, has signed a number of agreements with two subsidiaries of the US multi-national Viacom, called Paramount Parks and Paramount Pictures. Under the agreement signed with the first of these companies, Paramount Parks undertakes to run the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park for four years. At the same time, Paramount Pictures signed a contract for collaboration on the ‘Ciudad de la Luz’ theme park in Alicante. The Valencian regional government has granted a bank guarantee of up to USD 6 million to the SPTA for this contract.

Despite the pretence that the State guarantee is not for ‘Terra Mitica’, there is the following evidence that it is:

— the contracts were signed on the same day, 2 October 2001, as can be seen from the photograph showing the managers of Terra Mitica, the SPTA, Paramount Parks and Paramount Pictures congratulating one another on the agreements;

— it is evident that the contract between the SPTA and Paramount Pictures was signed on 5 September, although it was not announced until 2 October. The contract was given a guarantee by the Valencian government on 5 September but, strangely enough, notification was not published in its Official Journal until 5 October;

— nobody can understand what obligations Paramount Pictures has with regard to the Ciudad de la Luz, which is still in the early stages and is unlikely to need the sum guaranteed at present, all the more so since the guarantee expires on 31 December 2002;

— Paramount Parks has asked the Regional Government for an additional bank guarantee of USD 13 million to run Terra Mitica' (according to the Valencian press on 18 October 2001), which has been interpreted as being linked to the loan from the Regional Government.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that the guarantee given to the SPTA is designed to evade Commission scrutiny in connection with State aid to ‘Terra Mitica’, but in actual fact will benefit that park;

2. whether it considers that there is evidence to justify investigating whether the guarantee granted to SPTA by the Valencian government is being exploited and that the ultimate purpose is to help ‘Terra Mítica’;

3. whether these facts have a bearing on the case brought in connection with State aid to ‘Terra Mítica’?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information he has provided. It will approach the Spanish authorities for more details in order to view the facts in the light of the rules on State aid, in particular with regard to the Terra Mitica file (1). It will make its findings known.

(1) OJ C 300, 26.10.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0216/02

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

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Botswana

In relation to Botswana can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Variation of prices

Will the Commission provide figures for the euro-area on a comparable basis to those given for the European Union (from 1990 to 2000) on the coefficient of variation of prices (private consumption including indirect taxes) for each Member State in the report from the Commission Economic Reform: Report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets(1)?

Will the Commission also provide comparable figures for the Member States outside the euro-area?

(1) COM(2001) 736 final.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Table 1 showing the co-efficient of variation for the Union as a whole and for the 12 Member States participating in the European Monetary Union (EMU) for private final consumption in the period from 1992 to 2000(1) is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The co-efficient of variation for the 12 Member States has been calculated for the whole period although, the third stage of EMU did not start until 1 January 1999 (1 January 2001 for Greece).

Since 1992 prices have converged for both the 15 Member States and 12 Member States. However, most of the convergence took place in the first half of the nineties and in recent years, convergence seems to have come to a halt.

The convergence among the 15 Member States seems to have been slightly stronger than for the 12 Member States, but price differences are still greater in the Union as a whole. Currently, the co-efficient of variation is around 15 percent for the whole of the Union and 12 percent for the 12 Member States.

Table 2 showing the price level in the three countries not participating in the EMU with respect to the 15 Member States average in the period since 1990, is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Price convergence to the Union average has been relatively strong in Denmark and Sweden, while the United Kingdom has moved from below to above the Union-average(2). The strong convergence in Denmark and Sweden explain a large part of the price convergence among the 15 Member States.

(1) The co-efficient of variation measures the average variation in the price levels around the mean and is a measure of the price dispersion across Member States. It has been identified by the Ecofin Council as one of the Structural indicators of economic reform, to measure price convergence. For instance, a co-efficient of variation equal to 0,15 means that on average prices varies with ± 15 percent around the mean. Thus, if the coefficient of variation of the relative price levels for the Union decreases (increases) over time, the national price levels in the Member States are converging (diverging).

(2) It should be recalled here that for comparison purposes, prices are expressed in the same currency (i.e. euros) and therefore, these prices are sensitive to exchange rate variations between the euro and national currencies outside the euro area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0269/02

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Preparation for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked the Commission, the Council and the Member States, each in accordance with their respective powers, to take the necessary steps to ensure that it is possible by 2003 for Community and government procurement to take place on-line. Does the Commission believe this target will be met, and what evidence can it point to to support its view?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

As part of the e-Europe initiative, which was confirmed by the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, the Commission has undertaken to work to put in place a legal framework designed for on-line public procurement.

On 10 May 2000 the Commission adopted two proposals for Directives(1), one of the aims of which is to enable public procurement to be carried out electronically. Discussion of these proposals is under way in the Council and in Parliament, which presented its amendments at first reading on 16 January 2002.

The Commission has also taken initiatives to reinforce the legal framework for carrying out public procurement electronically, by adopting the Directive on the use of standard forms in the publication of public contract notices (Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001)(2), and the proposal for a Regulation on the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV)(3).

The Commission, for its part, is doing all it can to ensure that the 2003 deadline is met.

(1) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.

(2) Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 93/36/EEC, Annexes IV, V and VI to Council Directive 93/37/EEC, Annexes III and IV to Council Directive 92/50/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/52/EC, and Annexes XII to XV, XVII and XVIII to Council Directive 93/38/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/4/EC (Directive on the use of standard forms in the publication of public contract notices), OJ L 285, 29.10.2001.

(3) OJ C 25 E, 29.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Safety of irradiated foodstuffs

When foodstuffs and condiments are irradiated, a group of chemicals known as cyclobutanones is produced. They are not found in food which has not been irradiated and do not even occur in nature. This fact has been known for 30 years now.

Recent experiments conducted by German scientists working for the German government have shown that one of the cyclobutanones, 2-dodecylcyclobutanone (2-DCB), can cause genetic damage in rats and to human cells. One of the researchers is Henry Delincée of the Federal Nutrition Research Institute in Karlsruhe.

It has also been shown that two other chemical substances in the cyclobutanone family, 2-TCB and 2-TDCD, can cause genetic damage and damage human cells.

Is the Commission aware that such research is being carried out?

Is it prepared to have research carried out into the potential risks these cyclobutanones pose to human health?

Is it prepared to abandon proposals for legalising the irradiation of foodstuffs in the European Union until comprehensive research has been carried out into the probability that cyclobutanones damage human health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of the new toxicological studies on cyclobutanones. Upon request of the Commission, the authors have submitted their report on these studies to the Scientific Committee on Food.

On 8 August 2001, the Commission adopted a Communication on food irradiation addressed to the Parliament and the Council in order to launch an open debate about the foods which should be authorised for treatment by ionising radiation. The above-mentioned report on cyclobutanones was finalised in November 2001. The Commission will wait for the evaluation of the Scientific Committee on Food and for the conclusion of the debate following its Communication before considering any further action.

Information about food irradiation is available on the following web site of DG Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sfp/sfp_index_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0148/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Restrictions on the application of European public procurement regulations as a result of public-private partnerships

1. Is the Commission aware of the cooperation agreement concluded on 18 January 2002 by the elected council of the Dutch province of Noord-Brabant with the Noord-Brabant Christelijke Boerenbond (NBC) (Christian Farmers' Union) to jointly set up a horticultural development company (TOM) in the form of a public-private partnership?

2. In the Commission's opinion, do the current European regulations on public procurement which aim to ensure equal opportunities for competing firms when awarding contracts also apply if the authority is not acting independently but in the form of a joint legal entity in which one or more permanent private partners participate alongside the public authorities?

3. What scope does the public-private partnership referred to in paragraph 2 above allow for awarding contracts directly to one of the undertakings paraticipating in the cooperative venture, without any public invitation to tender involving third parties, thereby increasing the attractiveness of public-private partnerships as a way of circumventing European regulations? Does it make a difference whether or more or less than 50 % of the public-private partnership is in public hands?

4. Is the public-private partnership structure also used by public authorities in Member States other than the Netherlands as a means of increasing their own freedom of choice? Are they used to a greater or lesser extent than in the Netherlands?

5. On the question of whether or not the notion of public institution in the public-private partnership is a decisive factor, a point that remained unanswered in a note drafted by external consultants regarding the setting-up of the horticultural development company, can the Commission clarify which general rules apply and to what extent they are relevant to this particular case?

6. Does the Commission consider that the horticultural development company referred to in this question should award contracts in compliance with European directives or is the organisation completely free to determine its own operating methods?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the co-operation agreement concluded on 18 January 2002 by the elected council of the Dutch Province of Noord-Brabant with the Noord-Brabant Christian Farmer's Union to jointly set up a horticultural development company in the form of a public-private partnership.

The European public procurement directives do not require such agreements to be notified to the Commission.

The answers to the different questions formulated by the Honourable Member depend on the exact content of this co-operation agreement.

The Commission will therefore ask the Dutch authorities to provide a copy of the agreement in order to make an assessment of the legal situation in the light of the Community public procurement directives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0101/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Population change in Oxfordshire

Will the Commission recognise that in recent figures produced for the county of Oxfordshire, Eurostat has suggested a decline in population when this was in fact mistaken?

Will it confirm that the correct figures show that Oxfordshire has indeed continued to grow in population and remains one of the most dynamic parts of the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Eurostat publication Regions: Statistical yearbook 2001, released at the end of October 2001, wrongly included the region Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (NUTS2) among the top five regions in the Community losing population due to migration and gave an incorrect net migration rate of - 76 % population. This was notified in a Eurostat Statement of 12 November 2001 Error on net migration rates of five United Kingdom (UK) regions. The correct net migration rate for that region, + 2,9 %, was also given in this Statement. The error was a result of an information breakdown between the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Eurostat.

It should be noted that this publication did not contain any information concerning the single county of Oxfordshire (NUTS3).

The Commission can confirm that, according to the latest available estimates (average figure for 1999), the population of Oxfordshire continues to show clear positive growth.