ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0615/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Discriminatory treatment of official languages

Recent years, coinciding with the current Commission's mandate, have seen an emerging imbalance in the treatment of the various official languages in favour of English. In the specific case of the Commission, it is not known whether the College of Commissioners has taken any decision favouring English above the other languages.

This new predomination of one language runs counter to the spirit of political integration and harmonious and balanced union among the peoples of Europe. At internal level it clearly places those Commission officials who are not of Anglo-Saxon origin at a disadvantage. In certain services, someone it is not known exactly who has decided to work solely in English.

Which Commission services work exclusively in English? Who approved this decision? On what legal basis? What type of documents and materials has the Commission decided to have drawn up and distributed exclusively in English?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Commission has not taken any decision favouring English over the other official languages. Neither the Commission nor the administrative hierarchy has given instructions that its departments should use English exclusively to draft and distribute documents or materials. There is no department in which English is used exclusively.

The Commission would draw attention to its policy in this respect:

- documents intended for use outside the Commission are drawn up in the official languages of the Community in the case of instruments of general application and in the languages of those to whom they are addressed in other cases;

- documents for internal use are drafted in the languages corresponding to the actual needs of the Commission and its departments based on operational efficiency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2273/02

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

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Status of complaint No 2000/5137

With reference to complaint No 2000/5137 lodged with the Internal Market Directorate-General concerning non-fulfilment in the field of public procurement, could the Commission indicate the stage reached in the complaint proceedings?

Has the Commission received any kind of reply from the Spanish authorities in response to the formal notice issued?

What specific measures will the Commission take in order to resolve this matter and thereby ensure compliance with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

On 17 July 2002, the Commission decided to send Spain a reasoned opinion (Article 226 of the EC Treaty) adjudging that this Member State had failed to meet its obligations under Community law when awarding a public works and services concession for the construction, maintenance and exploitation of two connections of the A6 motorway with Segovia and Ávila, and for the maintenance and exploitation of the Villalba-Adanero section of the same motorway.

The Commission has in fact discovered that the concession contract contained new and important features which did not appear either in the concession notice or in the administrative specifications and which had not therefore been given adequate publicity. The infrastructure works not initially provided for concern, in particular, the construction of a new reversible lane (including a new tunnel) between San Rafael and El Valle de los Caídos, the construction of new lanes on two other sections one of them toll-free and the construction of a new tollgate area, as well as other works.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the procedure for the award of the concession in question was not conducted in compliance with the principles of transparency and equal treatment laid down by the EC Treaty and set out in the provisions of the Community Directives on public procurement.

Pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, Spain has two months after receipt of the reasoned opinion in which to respond. If there is no response, or if it is unsatisfactory, the Commission may decide to refer the case to the European Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/02

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Subject: The plight of dogs in Bucharest

Romania has applied for membership of the European Community, which is based on law and the civic sense of the population.

Stray dogs are being treated in a barbaric way in Bucharest, in that they are rounded up and transported if they survive the journey to large-scale municipal kennels, where they are brutally killed by an injection of magnesium sulphate.

The method adopted by the Basescu city council to eliminate the stray dogs living in the city by catching them and killing them, after abandoning the previous policy of sterilisation, is ineffective, since it does not tackle the root causes of the problem. Mass sterilisation could remedy or at least contain the problem.

The Basescu administration is not infringing any Romanian law, but has adopted an ethically unacceptable approach, since Romania, in the context of its accession to the EC, should comply with Community legislation on the protection of animals.

Does the European Community not intend to ascertain whether the behaviour of the Bucharest city council and Romanian law are in line with the acquis communautaire, to which Romania will soon have to adhere as a candidate for accession to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The European Union has opted for high standards of animal protection. A protocol on the protection of animals is annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and Community legislation is in force on the protection of wild animals, protection of animals used for experimental or scientific purposes, animal welfare on the farm, during transport and at slaughter.

To the extent that Community law applies, Romania must naturally comply with her obligation to take on the Community acquis in the course of her preparations for accession. However, many other questions, such as the control of stray animals, fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States and therefore the Commission is not in the position to address this issue with the Romanian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1406/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Conflict concerning Spanish clementines

Can the Council say whether the current conflict between the United States and Spain concerning Spanish clementines was discussed during the last meeting between the Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar and the US President George Bush held last week (29 April to 5 May 2002)?

If talks were held, can the Council say what the outcome was?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

Last December the United States Department of Agriculture suspended imports of Spanish clementines on plant-health grounds. Despite good technical cooperation between the two parties it has not to date been possible to solve the problem.

The European Union has raised the matter on several occasions at bilateral meetings with the United States authorities and, at the most recent EU-USA summit in particular, it has stressed the need to find a satisfactory solution so that exports may be resumed before the start of the next marketing year.

Consultations between the two parties continue to that end.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/02

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 August 2002)

Subject: Exile of 13 Palestinian militants from the West Bank

In May 2002, 13 Palestinian militants were expelled from the West Bank following their siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. These men have now been dispersed across Cyprus, Italy, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and Belgium.

Please could the Commission inform me:

- Under what conditions will these men be kept?

- Will they be held in security facilities in the various locations in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question on the conditions under which Palestinian militants expelled from the West Bank following the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem are being held in a number of Member States.

Since this matter does not come within the Commission's remit, it does not have the information required to answer this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1013/02

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Mergers vetted in 2001

Every year, the Commission vets mergers in Europe. The number of vettings is evidently rising every year: still well under 300 in 1999, but well above that figure in 2000.

Can the Commission provide an overview of the mergers it has vetted in recent years, indicating both the number of vettings and the number of mergers accepted plus a detailed breakdown of the firms vetted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2002)

After seven years of rapid growth in merger activity, the number of merger notifications to the Commission declined slightly in 2001, to 335 from 345 in the previous year. In 1999 there had been 292 notifications.

In 2001, the Commission took 332 decisions on the compatibility of the proposed concentrations with the Common Market, 20 of which followed in depth investigations (five prohibition, five clearances without conditions and 10 conditional clearance decisions) and 13 of which were conditional clearances at the end of an initial investigation (Phase 1). The Commission cleared 312 cases in Phase 1. 140 decisions (45 %) of the first-Phase clearance decisions were taken in accordance to the simplified procedures introduced in September 2000. In addition to these 332 decisions, the Commission took seven referral decisions pursuant to Article 9 of the Merger Regulation(1) referring the assessment of the cases to the jurisdiction of individual Member States. The Commission opened in depth investigations in 22 cases, three of which were outstanding at the year end of the year.

A list of all the cases which were cleared conditionally at Phase 1 in 2001, together with those cases into which the Commission undertook an in-depth investigation is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Further anlysis of these cases will be presented to the Parliament when the Commission presents its Annual Report for 2001.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989 whole text republished in OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2622/02

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Dyke-strengthening projects in the district of Sliedrecht following further postponement of a decision and the Commission's reply to oral question

In its reply of 3 September 2002 to my oral question H-0578/02(1) concerning dyke sections in Sliedrecht, the Commission does not give any plausible reason for the very slow processing of this case.

It merely repeats that at present it is still studying the detailed reply from the Government of the Netherlands to the Commission's reasoned opinion of 26 July 2001. I would point out that the Commission received this detailed reply as long ago as 11 October 2001.

Is the Commission aware that this matter concerns decision-making on the strengthening of a dyke which has already been postponed several times because of intervention by the Commission?

Is the Commission aware that any further delay in the decision-making on the dyke-strengthening could result in a dangerous situation?

Is the Commission aware that the confidence of members of the public, who had been relying on active intervention by the Commission, is proving seriously misplaced in view of the delay in dealing with this matter?

(1) Written reply of 3.9.2002.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that its original concerns in this matter principally related to the adequacy of Dutch legislation on the need for an environmental impact assessment of dyke projects pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1). In the course of the ongoing infringement procedure, the Netherlands adopted new legislation in this area. According to the Commission, this new legislation constitutes a more satisfactory basis for determining the need for an environmental impact assessment for dyke projects.

The Commission is of the opinion that this legislative progress has to be taken into account in the specific case of the Sliedrecht dykes. The Commission hopes to come to final conclusions regarding this specific dyke project shortly.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1977, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2068/02

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Import of live animals from Central and East European countries

Would the Commission please tell me how many (i) calves aged less than 6 months, and (ii) lambs, were imported into the European Union from the Central and East European countries in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001, and how many of each of these species went to each specific Member State of destination in these two years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission has no information on the age of the imported calves.

However, based upon the weight criterion of live bovine animals, the following break-down appears for the years 2000 and 2001 on Community imports from Central and East European countries:

>TABLE>

The import data from Central and East European countries for lambs are as follows:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Development plan for Campo de Gibraltar

Is the Commission aware of the level and progress of negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain on Gibraltar's sovereignty?

In the event that these negotiations do not bear fruit, would the Commission still consider a plan to develop the Campo de Gibraltar region financed through the Structural and Cohesion Funds?

Would the Commission link this economic and social development plan to the outcome of sovereignty negotiations?

Does the Commission not consider that an ambitious development plan for the Campo de Gibraltar region, which would resolve the serious problems facing it, would finally succeed in allaying the suspicions on both sides of the dividing line?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar are a bilateral matter for those two Member States.

That said, the European Council in Barcelona asked the Commission to look at ways of contributing to any agreement that might be reached. Once an agreement is reached, the Commission will make the necessary proposals to this end.

The Campo de Gibraltar region already benefits from Community assistance in the 2000-2006 period under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.

In the case of Community funding under Objective 1, the Campo de Gibraltar region already receives joint funding under the Operational Programme for Andalusia (Community contribution = EUR 7,8 billion). It receives joint funding under the Cohesion Fund for infrastructure to treat solid urban waste and to improve the port infrastructure at San Roque, one of the region's seven municipalities.

Lastly, the Campo de Gibraltar region is also part of the Interreg IIA Community Initiative through the Spain-Morocco programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Costs of the Convention on institutional reform

What is known of the estimated total cost under various budget headings for the Convention on the future of Europe and what proportions will be funded by the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Member States?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0139/02, E-0337/02 and E-0419/02given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Parliament, the Council and the Commission have concluded on 28 February 2002 an inter-institutional agreement organising their contribution to the financing of the Convention on the future of Europe. This agreement is based on estimates for the Convention's budget amounting to EUR 4 million for the first budgetary year, running from March to December 2002.

This amount will be transferred from the general budget of the Union to a specific Fund outside the Community general budget, and will be shared as follows:

- EUR 1 million from section I (Parliament);

- EUR 0,4 million from section II (Council);

- EUR 2,6 million from section III (Commission) Part A.

These amounts represent 0,1 % of the administrative expenditure of each institution, excluding pensions.

An amending budget has been adopted on 28 February 2002 by the budgetary authority, creating the necessary lines and transferring the necessary appropriations to allow the implementation of these contributions.

According to the rules agreed by the three institutions, the Convention's budget should be adopted on the proposal of the Secretary-General of the Convention and with the agreement of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

In principle, the Convention's budget does not include the costs of travels and accomodation of members of the Convention (other than its Praesidium), covered by the Parliament, Member States and candidate countries where the members come from, the salaries of members of the Convention's Secretariat when they are seconded from Union institutions and some infrastructure costs (including interpretation, translation, buildings and personnel) covered by the three institutions hosting the Convention's meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/02 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission. List of officials.



Official Journal 028 E , 06/02/2003 P. 0130 - 0130



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/02 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission (13 June 2002) Subject: List of officials Further to Question E-3033/01(1), also tabled by the author of the present question, can the Commission supply a list of all officials employed by it, with particular reference to categories A and B and broken down by subcategories and nationalities? (1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 216. Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 July 2002) A table showing the breakdown of staff working in the Commission by nationality, category and grade, as defined in the Staff Regulations and limited to categories A and B on June 1st 2002, is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's General Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1936/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Georgia.



Official Journal 028 E , 06/02/2003 P. 0158 - 0158



WRITTEN QUESTION P-1936/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission (26 June 2002) Subject: Georgia In its reply to Question H-0372/02(1), the Commission sets out a long list of severe difficulties with which Georgia is faced. Would it not agree that, if the current applicant countries had not been offered firm prospects of accession and negotiations had not been opened with them, problems that were equally, if not more, severe would have occurred in those countries too? Accordingly, would it not agree that, as things stand, its warnings are likely to be seen as mere rhetoric or an easy way out, and that the only possible political response to the situation in Georgia, and one which takes due account of the interests of both Georgia itself and of the Union, is to include Georgia in the list of applicant countries immediately and to draw up, on the basis of close cooperation between the Georgian and EU authorities, a schedule of reforms that will enable Georgia to join the EU at the earliest opportunity? (1) Written reply of 11.6.2002. Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (22 July 2002) For the reasons indicated in the reply to oral question H-0372/02 during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session, the Commission believes that under present circumstances it is not appropriate to address, even theoretically, the question of eventual Union membership or candidate status for Georgia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1372/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(14 May 2002)

Subject: EU-Burma relations

The EU's common position on Burma is due for review by 29 April.

The situation in Burma is still giving cause for concern: no attention whatsoever is being paid to the fundamental requirements of human rights and democracy. No substantial progress has been made in the past few months in the secret talks between the military junta (SPDC) and the NLD opposition party. At least 1 500 political prisoners are still behind bars, while forced labour is still practised in many parts of Burma. And the many ethnic minorities in Burma have still not been brought into the normalisation process.

1. Does the Council share the view that as long as the situation in Burma as regards human rights and the abovementioned areas does not improve, the European Union must maintain its current common position? If not, why not?

2. Is the Council prepared to recommend excluding Burma from the ASEM meeting in September? If not, why not? If so, how?

3. In the autumn of 2001 the ILO called on all countries, employers' organisations and labour organisations to reconsider their relations with Burma in view of the large-scale and unconcealed practice of forced labour in that country. Is the Council prepared to take action forthwith to prevent the ILO stance on Burma from possibly being toned down by other Asian countries? If so, how?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

As the Honourable Member may be aware, the Council extended its Common Position on Burma/Myanmar for a further six months on 22 April. It has since welcomed the release from house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 6 May. The Council

believes that her release will prove to be of significance only if it results in faster and more substantive progress towards national reconciliation, respect for human rights including the release of political prisoners, the end of minority abuse and the return of democracy in Burma/Myanmar. When renewing the EU Common Position in October 2001, the Council agreed to reconsider the EU Common Position at any time, should developments in Burma/Myanmar so require. That continues to be the case.

At the June 2002 meeting of the ILO, the Spanish delegate, on behalf of the EU and Associate Members, welcomed the appointment of an Interim ILO Liaison Officer to Burma/Myanmar. However, concern was expressed over the many reforms still required if forced labour is to be permanently ended. In view of the only limited progress made, the EU noted that any possible consideration of removing the ILO measures in place against Burma remains some way off.

Burma/Myanmar is not a member of ASEM and will not therefore be attending the ASEM Summit in September.