ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0694/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Earthquake in East Turkestan

According to various sources, at least 257 people were killed and more than 1 000 injured on Monday, 24 February when an earthquake, measuring 6,8 on the Richter Scale, ripped through a remote area in East Turkestan, flattening hundreds of buildings, including schools.

The earthquake rocked an area around Jiashi City in the western part of East Turkestan (Xinjiang region) at 10.03 a.m. Mr Li Qianghua, an official at the Beijing Seismological Bureau, confirmed the high death toll, blaming the poor quality of the structures in the quake-plagued area. The Xinhua press agency reported that more than 1 000 buildings had collapsed in one village in Bachu County.

The earthquake had its epicentre some forty kilometres east of Jiashi City, which lies in the county of the same name, near the East Turkestan (Xinjiang) frontier with Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan. Other areas shaken by strong tremors included Artux County and Markit County and Kashi City, located about 55 kilometres east of the historic oasis city of Kashgar, which is still mostly populated by the Uighur.

What measures has the Commission already taken to provide immediate help to the people in the Jiashi region in East Turkestan? Does it also intend to provide financial aid for reconstruction?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission manifested in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, with a press statement released on 24 February 2003, its intention of intervening in support of the victims in the province of Xingiang (China) through funding of the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

However, a closer assessment of needs showed that such intervention was not necessary, as the Chinese Government seemed to be coping well with the situation. Of the same view was the International Federation of the Red Cross, which decided not to launch an international appeal for this earthquake. In fact, more than 6 000 soldiers and an additional 200 medical staff were immediately on task. In the first days, 9 000 large quilted tents were erected by the military, while more tents, food, medical supplies and clothes were sent to the area. The medical response continues to build up and at least three mobile hospitals are already operational and the number of medical personnel on site is now impressive. The authorities are tackling, at present, the issues of disease outbreak and the provision of clean water.

It needs to be underlined that the earthquake area is one of the most militarised zones in China and the government does not want foreigners in the area.

Nevertheless, one of ECHO's partners is working in the area and, if needed, some post-disaster assistance with regard to small-scale rehabilitation of schools, clinics, water and sanitation could be envisaged.

Regarding reconstruction, the Commission has not received any requests for financial support as yet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1208/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Progress made by programmes for the development of workshops and infrastructures for technical education establishments

Technical schools in Greece, whose objective as laid down by their statutes is to equip young people professionally to enter the employment market, are suffering from a severe shortage of workshops and up-to-date equipment. This is undermining the quality of technical education and many students are therefore dropping out and becoming sidelined. According to Eurostat, youth unemployment and education drop-out rates in Greece are among the highest in the Union.

In view of the fact that Action 5.2 of the Second Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training of the Third Community Support Framework for Greece provides for the development of workshops and infrastructures for technical educational establishments and given that the programme is now in its third year of operation:

1. What progress has been made by this action?

2. Are delays occurring and if so, why?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, progress regarding the action for the development of workshops and infrastructures for technical educational establishments can be summarised as follows.

The operational programme Education and initial vocational training was adopted by the Commission on 16 March 2001, while the programme complement was confirmed by the Monitoring Committee of the programme on 29 May 2001. During the first two years of implementation of the operational programme, an amount of EUR 4 440 000 was spent on the procurement of basic workshop equipment.

During this period a number of actions were taken. A study was completed on the workshop equipment needed by sector and area of expertise. Detailed specifications were also drafted. The planning of all necessary complementary actions (including training of trainers and development of educational and training tools) was completed by 2002.

In terms of physical output, workshops have been developed in 316 technical education establishments, while 130 others are currently starting up. A further 135 etablishments are set to receive workshops on the basis of the most recent tender.

This information suggests that there have been no undue delays in the implementation of the action in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/03

by Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the C. & J. Clark footwear factory in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal)

On 10 January 2003 the multinational company C. & J. Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda, a maker of footwear located in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal), announced the closure of its factory, thus making 588 workers redundant.

The decision to close this factory is justified by the company itself on grounds relating to imports of vamps from India and Romania and the objective of maintaining a competitive price structure (cf. press release issued by the Clark management on 10 January 2003).

Clark set up operations in Castelo de Paiva in 1988, with both national and Community aid. In May 2000 the company signed a protocol with the local municipal council in which it undertook to continue operations up to at least 2007, in return for a significant level of investment from the municipality.

Castelo de Paiva is a municipality located in the Portuguese interior, with a very fragile economy. The closure of this undertaking will bring in its wake disastrous economic and social consequences.

Given that this decision to close runs totally counter to the notion of corporate social responsibility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What sums were granted from Community funds, and when, to the company Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda in Castelo de Paiva?

- What conditions were required from this company in relation to the above Community funding?

- Should it be established that Clark is in breach of its obligations regarding its receipt of Community support, what action will the Commission take to prevent the factory's closure and ensure the continuation of its activities in Castelo Paiva, guaranteeing the workers' jobs?

- What political measures will the Commission take in order to prevent, and, ultimately, penalise actions of this nature, as frequently perpetrated by companies which establish themselves in the EU, receive Community funding and then, having exhausted its advantages and benefits (above all on the human level), relocate their operations?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0286/03, E-0287/03,E-0288/03, E-0289/03, E-0290/03, E-0301/03 and E-0441/03given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Members are kindly asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1).

(1) See page 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: The role of certificates in preferential and non-preferential rules of origin

1. Can the Commission explain why, on the basis of the non-preferential rules of origin, the production of a certificate of origin is not a condition for acceptance of the declaration by the customs and why there is no possibility of appeal?

2. Can the Commission say how far businesses are disrupted by possible errors in the issuing of certificates of origin from other Member States?

3. Can the Commission say how the problem that businesses and other persons concerned cannot appeal on such certificates is being tackled?

4. Does the Commission realise that the fact that certificates of origin are recognised in one Member State, and not in another, is hindering the proper functioning of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

1. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to Articles 26, 62 and 68 of the Community Customs Code(1) and to all specific Community rules introducing special measures or treatment for products originating in certain non-Community countries.

Some special rules introducing mandatory measures to ban or limit imports of products from particular non-Community countries require a certificate of origin to be presented before such products can be released for free circulation.

If it is required, the person concerned may rely on it but Community customs authorities do of course have the right to demand additional proof that the stated origin is correct.

If no Community rules require an origin certificate to be lodged, it is only of commercial value and the person concerned cannot rely on it. The origin indicated in the declaration will then be taken into account but may be checked in accordance with Article 68 of the Comunity Customs Code.

2. and 3. The Commission does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a result of errors by Member State authorities which issue certificates of origin or about difficulties encountered by traders or other persons in being able to use such certificates.

4. The Commission is well aware of the importance for the internal market of ensuring uniform decisions to accept or reject origin certificates in all Member States. The fact that the issue and acceptance of such documents is governed by Community legislation which is directly applicable by the Member States is a guarantee. Furthermore, any questions arising from the interpretation and implementation of this legislation are regularly dealt with by the relevant committees on which Member States and the Commission are represented.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC)No 2913/92 of 12 0ctober 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Cadmium in fertilisers

The cadmium content of fertilisers is limited more strictly in the Nordic countries and Austria than in other EU countries. Cadmium is known to be harmful to the environment, and the EU should consequently endeavour to reduce the cadmium content of fertilisers.

The phosphates imported into the EU, mainly from Morocco, contain a significant amount of cadmium. Alternatives could be found and, moreover, are available in the EU itself. The substantial phosphate deposit in Sokli, in northern Finland, is free of cadmium.

Is the Commission proposing to tighten the cadmium limits in the EU as a whole so as to make them at least as strict as in the Nordic countries and Austria? Can it provide any form of encouragement to ensure that the phosphates to be used in the EU would come from the EU area, since this would create new jobs and new economic activity in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission is aware that cadmium is harmful to human health and to the environment, and that cadmium contained in phosphate fertilisers now represents one of the main inputs of cadmium to the environment.

The Commission is therefore preparing a proposal for a Regulation on cadmium in fertilisers that will address this problem by setting upper limits for the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers, thereby ensuring the free circulation of phosphate fertilisers in the Internal Market. The upper limits for cadmium in the proposal will be set at a level sufficient to prevent further accumulation of cadmium in agricultural soil and to ensure that possible uptake into foods would not compromise food safety standards.

It is planned to present the proposal for adoption by the Commission before the end of 2003. The proposal will set standards based on science, and, in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, will permit the use of phosphate which can meet these standards, whatever the country of origin.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1420/03

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 April 2003)

Subject: Violation by the Polish Government of international conventions on the custody of children

In August 1999 Mrs Karolina Paetz Pozza (Polish), the wife of Mr Paolo Pozza (Italian), on the pretext of taking the couple's children, Valentina and Federica (aged 2 and 7), to Poland on holiday, illegally kept them in the country and subsequently prevented them from going to school and meeting their father. These facts are borne out by a motion tabled by Senator Mauro Fabris which was adopted by the Italian Senate.

Despite rulings by Italian and Polish courts giving custody of the two children to Mr Pozza, the latter has been unable to bring the children back to Italy, although the Poznan police had the wherewithal to repatriate to the two girls.

The failure to return the girls is attributable to the Polish police's inability to enforce on its own territory a custody order issued by Italy and based on the principles laid down in two international conventions to which both Poland and Italy are signatories, namely the Luxembourg Convention of 20 May 1980 on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Child Abduction.

Given the above, would the Council state:

1. what steps it intends to take with a view to ensuring effective judicial cooperation with Poland in custody and international child abduction matters in the run-up to the country's now imminent accession to the European Union as a full Member State;

2. how it intends to go about ensuring that existing international agreements on the custody of children are fully complied with by the relevant judicial authorities, both in Poland and in the Member States;

3. whether it would not agree that it should exert some pressure on the Polish Government with a view to rapidly resolving this distressing and regrettable family problem?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council does not comment on specific cases before the courts in the Member States or in the acceding countries. However, the Council is able to tell the Honourable Member that its subsidiary bodies are currently examining a proposal for a Council Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility.

One of the salient features of the Regulation concerns the wrongful removal of children in a Community context. Provisions are to be laid down to determine the court which will have jurisdiction in a case where a child has been wrongfully removed from one Member State and taken to another, as are measures relating to the return of the child to its habitual residence. As has been stated on a number of occasions, the Council considers that this Regulation should be approved as swiftly as possible.

As far as the international conventions referred to by the Honourable Member are concerned, it is not for the Council to ensure that they are applied by national courts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Erasmus World programme

The Council recently reached a political agreement concerning the implementation of the Erasmus World programme. The aim of this programme is to create a quality framework with a view to attracting greater numbers of postgraduate students from all parts of the world.

It has been suggested in various milieux that this programme should be viewed as an opportunity to boost competitiveness and further the objectives laid down by the Lisbon European Council in March 2000 with the aim of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

Under the programme, it is planned to create grants for Masters-level courses, subject to the condition that the courses should be offered in at least two of the EU's official languages. This would have the effect of marginalising the Catalan language in the teaching of Masters and other courses. Catalan, despite being the native tongue of more than 7 million people and an official language in Catalonia, the Valencia region and the Balearic islands, has still not been granted official status at EU level. The Catalan language will, therefore, not be eligible for the above-mentioned aids. This amounts to yet another blow against the long-established Catalan language and culture even more so considering that Barcelona, in which university-level teaching is carried out mainly in Catalan, receives more Erasmus students than any other university town in the Spanish state.

1. Does the Council intend to take action to correct the adverse effects of this policy on the teaching of Catalan (and other European languages) at university level?

2. Does the Council believe this policy to be compatible with the Commission's efforts to promote multilingualism and the learning of non-majority languages in the Member States?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would like to emphasise the fact that neither the original Commission proposal on the Erasmus Mundus programme, nor the common position adopted by the Council on 16 June 2003, lay down conditions as regards the languages of instruction for Erasmus Mundus Masters programmes. Moreover, compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and the basic principle of the autonomy of higher education establishments involved in such progammes preclude any such requirement.

Furthermore, recital 7 of the common position highlights the importance of the principle of the linguistic diversity in the Union's relations with third countries and the annex states that such Masters are without prejudice to the language of instruction, provide for the use of at least two European languages spoken in the Member States where the higher education institutions involved in the Erasmus Mundus Masters Course are situated and, as appropriate, for language preparation and assistance for students. (Action 1: Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses, paragraph 2(i)).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Death of 62 Spanish soldiers in an accident in Turkey on their return from Afghanistan

According to media reports, the aircraft involved in the appalling accident in which 62 Spanish soldiers died as they returned from Afghanistan had been chartered from a Ukrainian company UM Air by a British contractor, Chapman Freeborn, commissioned by NATO to carry troops from the Member States. Does the Council know why a company such as UM Air could be given responsibility for transporting the troops of a Member State and NATO? Did the company provide all the necessary guarantees for carrying out this task? Why do the Member States not have means of transport of their own? Is the Council aware that the families of soldiers who died in the accident are lodging complaints about the fact that the aircraft was in poor condition, on the basis of statements made by soldiers who had travelled in the same aircraft?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Honourable Member of Parliament is certainly aware that the EU Council is not involved in the military operations in Afghanistan. Therefore the Council has no specific information on the planning or conduct of the operation, including logistical aspects such as deployments and other movements of troops, including the possible chartering of civilian assets by participants from third parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Turkey's denial that it is engaged in genocide against the Armenian people

Over the last few months the Turkish authorities' policy of denying that they are engaged in genocide against the Armenian people is becoming increasingly aggressive. According to the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy the Turkish Government (through its Education Ministry) is conducting a campaign to counter accusations that it is engaged in genocide against the Armenians. The Ministry is organising indoctrination seminars for teachers and civil servants with a view to ensuring that, in the nation's classrooms, teachers deny that genocide is taking place (even if, in so doing, they restrict their freedom of speech). Furthermore, in a decree of 14 April, the Ministry called upon primary and secondary schools to organise lectures conveying the message that, in Turkey, neither Armenians nor any other peoples against whom genocide has been perpetrated have ever suffered persecution of any nature. Teachers have also been called upon to encourage their pupils to write essays on the topic of fighting the genocide accusations.

The distortion of historical truth in the classroom is a practice which runs counter to European education standards. Furthermore, a genocide-denial policy goes against European values relating to the protection of human rights and of minorities (and, therefore, against the Copenhagen political criteria).

Does the Council consider the Turkish authorities' policy of denial to be compatible with the principles laid down in the Cooperation Agreement and with Turkey's acceptance as a candidate for EU membership?

Does the Council not think that public acknowledgement by the current Turkish authorities of the genocide being perpetrated against the Armenian people (as recognised by the European Parliament in June 1987 in its resolution A2-0033/87(1) and in various subsequent resolutions) should be an essential requirement to be met prior to the start of any accession negotiations with Turkey in the near future?

(1) OJ C 190, 20.7.1987, p. 119.

Reply

(13 October 2003)

1. The Council is fully aware of the sensitivity of the questions concerning the treatment of the Armenian people under the Ottoman empire and is conversant with the resolutions of the European Parliament on the subject of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

2. The requirements to be met by Turkey in order to enable a decision to open accession negotiations are specified in the political part of the revised Turkey accession partnership, which the Council adopted in May this year. The genocide issue is not addressed there.

3. The Council welcomes, however, contacts between Armenia and Turkey with a view to improving understanding on both sides. Under the Association agreements both with Turkey and with Armenia and in the framework of enhanced political dialogue, the Council is encouraging Turkey to work towards establishing good neighbourly relations with Armenia.