ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0452/03

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Council

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Participation of Robert Mugabe at the EU-Africa summit on 3 April

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's dictator, was received by President Chirac at the start of this month despite the international sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the European Union in February last year. The sanctions will end on 18 February 2003 but are expected to be extended because Mugabe has failed to make any effort to improve the human rights situation in his country. The United Kingdom is refusing to receive the dictator.

Mugabe is also reported to be attending the EU-Africa summit on 3 April.

Can the Council confirm that Robert Mugabe will be attending the summit?

Does the Council not consider that his participation is incompatible with the sanctions imposed by the Union against Zimbabwe?

Does the Council support the decision by the French diplomatic service to receive Mugabe when London is refusing to do so?

How will the Council ensure that the legal situation of the expropriated white farmers in Zimbabwe is put right in the future?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

When adopting the targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe in February 2002, the Council stated that a certain number of conditions had to be met before the sanctions could be lifted. Since these conditions had still not been met, the Council reaffirmed them when it decided to extend the targeted sanctions on 18 February 2003(1). The Council continues to be concerned about the plight of the Zimbabwean people and remains convinced that the fast-track land reform programme has aggravated the already precarious food situation in the country. In response to the illegal occupation of farms in Zimbabwe, the EU already made a

clear appeal to the government in March 2000 to ensure respect for the law and to maintain public order and civil security. At the same time, the EU reaffirmed its support for orderly and transparent agrarian reform, which respects the rights of all citizens and is compatible with the requirements of Zimbabwe's economic development.

As far as the Lisbon Summit is concerned, it was concluded that it was in the best interests of EU-Africa relations to postpone the summit, which was to be held in Lisbon on 5 April 2003.

As for the organisation of the France-Africa Summit, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that France stated its intention to issue a visa to President Mugabe so that he could attend this summit in accordance with the procedure set out in Common Position 2002/145/CFSP; it was noted that there were no obstacles within the Council to his participation.

(1) OJ L 46, 20.2.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Sovereign rights of the EU

Can the Commission confirm that the sovereign rights of the European Union are derived from the sovereign rights transferred to the EU by the Member States?

Are there any EU sovereign rights which are not derived from the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

The European Union does not have any sovereign rights. It exercises the powers which have been conferred upon it by the Treaties (in particular Treaty on the European Union, EC Treaty and Euratom Treaty) in conformity with the rules laid down in the said Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0818/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Return of Mrs Petacci's private letters to her heirs by the Italian State

For some ten years, the heirs of Mrs Claretta Petacci, who died tragically in 1945 along with Benito Mussolini, have been petitioning the Italian State Central Archives and other competent bodies in vain for the return of Mrs Petacci's personal writings, in particular her private letters and personal diaries.

The Italian State's continuing refusal to meet this request represents a serious breach of human rights, since it has no legitimate interest in retaining these private letters, which the family of Claretta Petacci wish to conserve and protect out of due respect for the personal and private feelings of a completely innocent woman, who was barbarously murdered together with Benito Mussolini.

Will the Commission call on the competent Italian authorities to respect the human rights that have clearly been breached in this case?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission does not have a general competence as regards the fundamental rights under the terms of the treaties on European Union and establishing the European Community. It could intervene only in the event of violation of the fundamental rights in the field of application of Community legislation, which does not seem to be the case related to the property of the letters of the late Mrs Petacci. Indeed the regulation of property comes under the responsibility of the Member States. In fact, Article 295 of the EC Treaty provides that: This Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.

It should be noted that a person who considers that her or his fundamental rights were violated has possibility to apply to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting domestic remedies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Council

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Statement by the Texas authorities that they intend to disregard the judgment of the International Court of Justice concerning the execution of three Mexicans

1. Is the Council aware of the judgment of the UN International Court of Justice that the execution of three Mexicans in the US State of Texas should not take place and of the reaction of the Texas authorities who intend to disregard that judgment?

2. Is the Council aware that this involves multiple breaches of the Vienna Convention and, in particular, failure to provide consular assistance to foreign nationals?

3. Can the Council indicate its reaction to the judgment of the International Court of Justice and state what action the Greek Council Presidency will take to prevent the executions?

4. Does the Council realise that the breaches of the Vienna Convention involved may have implications for citizens of the Member States of the European Union currently detained in the US or for such citizens who are arrested in the United States in the future?

5. Is the Council prepared to draw the attention of the United States' authorities to the fact that commitments entered into under the Vienna Convention, including consular assistance, are fully applicable to citizens of the Member States of the European Union?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council is aware of the Order for Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dated 5 February 2003 in the case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico-v-United States of America).

The Council is aware of the implications of this case for the application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). However, since the above-mentioned Order is only an interim judgement, pending final judgement in the proceedings, the Council considers it premature to anticipate which breaches of the VCCR, if any, the ICJ may find in its final judgement.

The Council recalls that, pursuant to Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, the obligation of compliance with a judgement of the ICJ falls on the Parties to that decision (in this case, Mexico and the US). Moreover, Article 94(2) of the UN Charter provides that in case of failure by a Party to a case to perform its obligations under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other Party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may make recommendations or decide upon measures to give effect to the judgement.

The Council has long been concerned about the implications of breaches of the VCCR, both for EU and non-EU citizens alike, and its position on this issue is published in the EU guidelines on the death penalty, Section III, Minimum Standards, paragraph (v). Indeed, such is its concern about this issue in death penalty cases in the US that the possibility of draft amicus curiae brief is being considered on the subject of breach of the right to consular access, for submission in future cases in the US.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0801/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Freedom of expression

Euskaldunon Egunkaria, the only daily the newspaper of the world in Euskara (Basque language) was closed last week by order of the Audiencia Nacional, a special court in Madrid which deals with cases related to big crimes. According to the court Egunkaria belongs to or collaborates with ETA.

Egunkaria was founded in 1990 after PTAS 150 million (EUR 900 000) were raised in a popular campaign. On Saturday, 22 February, a massive demonstration took place in the streets of Donostia (San Sebastian). Marchers were brandishing a new newspaper called Egunero published by the journalists of Egunkaria. The first day they sold 50 000 issues, next day 75 000. Both the demonstration and the Egunero issues' success prove the social concern and clear solidarity of the Basques with the newspaper.

Does the Commission consider that this action of the Spanish authorities against the Basque newspaper respects the basic principles of a democratic state?

Will the Commission urge the Spanish authorities to re-open the newspaper immediately?

Does the Commission consider that the solitary confinement of the arrested journalists and the seizure of their documents are in line with full respect for human rights and press freedom?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0641/03, E-0672/03 and E-0801/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The Egunkaria newspaper was closed down by court order. In our democratic States based on respect for the law, the judicial power is independent of the executive and the decisions of the courts cannot be overruled by political pressure. The Commission cannot comment on decisions given by a judicial authority.

All the judicial systems of the Member States of the Union provide the procedural guarantees for legal or natural persons prosecuted or sued in the courts as required by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been breached can bring an action in the European Court of Human Rights after all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1048/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Carrara

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Carrara, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Pisa

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pisa, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Cetacean by-catch

Can the Commission assure us that it will make every effort to ensure that measures proposed in the Commission's Working Document on by-catch will be in place by winter 2003-2004? The proposals concern important areas such as restriction on the use of certain fishing gears; the mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices for certain gill and set net fisheries; on-board cetacean by-catch observer schemes to be organised by Member States for all flagged or registered vessels and; overall monitoring of cetacean incidental catches.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Commission will make every effort to propose, as soon as possible, regulatory measures in order to protect cetaceans from being taken as bycatch by fishing vessels. It expects to have the proposals ready before the summer break 2003.

However, the final adoption of such Community legislation rests with the Council of Ministers, after consultation of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0991/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1851/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Measures to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome Textiles

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is causing alarm among those who work for textile companies which manufacture cotton articles from textile raw materials such as fibres, yarns, and fabrics originating in China and Hong Kong. Nothing is known about the virus's capacity to survive in and be transmitted via materials such as fibres, fabrics, or underwear.

Can the Commission shed light on the health risks that might be posed to the workers who handle imported goods and the consumers who use them?

Could it also say what steps it is taking as regards the textile products covered by Section XI of the Common Customs Tariff and the gauze articles and dressings falling under heading 3005.90.31?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The Commission has taken a proactive and leading role in responding to the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), together with the Member States.

This has been undertaken through the Union Network for the Epidemiological Surveillance and Control of Communicable Diseases in the Community working under the Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(1), and it has provided a very effective basis for the rapid exchange of information within the Union and for a co-ordinated response, in which the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and Candidate Countries have fully participated in collaboration with World Health Organisation (WHO). The success of this methodology was endorsed by the extraordinary Council on SARS (6 May 2003) and confirmed by the Health Council (2 June 2003).

According to the information available from WHO (11 April 2003: Information to Member States regarding goods and animals arriving from SARS-affected areas; on: http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en) to date there is no epidemiological information to suggest that contact with goods, products or animals shipped from SARS-affected areas has been the source of SARS infection in humans. At present the Commission is not aware that goods arriving from SARS-affected areas pose a risk for public health.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.