ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Subject: The battle in Chroscicy to maintain the use of Sorbian in education and administration for the Sorbian population which has traditionally lived in Upper Lusatia, Saxony

1. Is the Commission aware that in the village of Chroscicy (Crostwitz), situated between the towns of Budyin (Bautzen), Kamjenc (Kamenz) and Wojerecy (Hoyerswerda), in the Dresden district of Saxony, 90 % of the population have always spoken Sorbian, a Slavonic language, but that, just as happened earlier in the northern part of the Sorbian language area around Chósebuz (Cottbus) in Brandenburg, the provision of secondary education in Sorbian is declining or even disappearing completely?

2. Is the Commission also aware that this state of affairs has, since 8 August 2001, led not only to daily demonstrations featuring the blue, white and red Sorbian flag, the singing of the Sorbian national anthem and the wearing of traditional costumes, but also to civil disobedience, with pupils being taken away from official schools so that they can be taught by retired Sorbian-speaking teachers?

3. What view does the Commission take of the fact that, instead of efforts being made to safeguard and maintain the rights of a traditional linguistic minority in the face of falling numbers of school-age children, pupils are being forced to continue their education at German-speaking schools, that school absenteeism is punished and that the government of Saxony takes no account of the demands made by Domovina, the Sorbian political and cultural umbrella organisation?

4. In the case of the 60 000 Sorbians, what can the Commission do to help avoid polarisation in their relations with the German-speaking population group, which dominates the fields of education and administration, and what can it do to eliminate sources of ethnic conflicts within EU Member States generally?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2519/01 and E-2520/01given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In relation to the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no information to indicate a failure to implement Community law or a serious and persistent breach within the meaning of Article 7 (ex Article F.1) of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, according to which each Member State is responsible for the organisation of its education system and for linguistic diversity. The Commission would also point to the efforts made to promote linguistic diversity, especially through the European Year of Languages, and the Community's contribution to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity, in accordance with Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty.

For further details, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-2538/01 from Mr Modrow(1) on the same subject.

(1) See page 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/01

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

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Greece

In Greece today, particularly in the North, there are a number of minorities. Some of them are ethnic minorities (Turks, Macedonians), others are cultural and linguistic minorities (Vlachs, Arvanites and Roma).

Greece refuses to recognise their existence and denies them fundamental rights. For instance, they are strictly prohibited from using their language in public and all historical inscriptions in these languages have been obliterated or destroyed, as have monuments which might evoke the existence of these minorities.

Furthermore, particularly in the case of ethnic Macedonian Greek citizens living abroad, Greece is doing everything it can to prevent them from returning to their homeland, by revoking their citizenship, alleging that they have committed anti-patriotic acts.

Is the Council aware of this situation?

As minority rights constitute one of the basic principles of the European Union today, how does the Council envisage ensuring that Greece observes these rights?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

1. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that as regards national and regional cultural diversity, the Community is charged by the Treaty with contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting that diversity. Inter alia, the Community should, if necessary, support and supplement the actions of the Member States in the areas referred to in Article 151(2) of the Treaty. At its meeting on 5 November 2001, the Council adopted a Resolution on the role of culture in the development of the European Union and conducted an open debate, broadcast live to the public, on the same subject.

2. In that Resolution, the Council invited the Member States and the Commission, guided as they are by respect for cultural diversity, the principle of subsidiarity and the determination to place culture at the heart of European integration,

- to develop cultural cooperation, European artistic creativity and cultural exchanges,

- to cooperate in order to enable the Commission to update the assessment of the implementation of Article 151(4) of the TEC and to report back to the Council.

It considered it important to start work, particularly on the basis of that assessment, on improving the implementation of Article 151(2) and (4) of the TEC, and invited future Presidencies to draw up a work programme and a timetable for that purpose

3. At the end of the open debate on the importance of cultural diversity in the development of the European Union, the Presidency concluded that there was a problem in matching the ambitions expressed in the context of European cooperation in the field of culture and the resources made available for implementing them, and that there should be a review and reflection on new and more effective instruments to be taken into account, possibly as part of the forthcoming review of the Treaties, the debate on cultural identity and its values being no mere abstraction in the present context.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3145/01

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Transposition of the evacuation directive 89/618/Euratom

1. Is the Commission aware that, as Directive 89/618/Euratom(1) has not been transposed, the French Republic has not yet provided the German authorities with any information on the emergency measures envisaged to alert, protect and assist the general public in the event of a radiological emergency involving the French nuclear power station at Cattenom?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take, especially in present circumstances?

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3124/01 and E-3145/01given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

In its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission's task is, notably, to ensure that Member States have, as required, adopted national transposing measures in accordance with Community law.

Against this background, the Commission has checked the conformity of the national measures adopted by the Member States and sent to it for the purposes of transposing Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 7 December 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

This check showed that Germany and France had only partially transposed the Directive and the Commission therefore immediately inititated infringement procedures against them. As the complaints about non-conformity continued, the Commission recently decided to start proceedings against these two Member States before the Court of Justice.

Recently, Germany and France adopted additional national provisions to transpose the Directive into their respective national legislation. In the case of Germany, the objections raised could be withdrawn in the light of the text submitted and the Commission therefore decided not to continue with the Court proceedings. As regards France, the two decrees published this year do not fully resolve the problem of the non-conformity of French law in respect of Directive 89/618/Euratom. Action before the Court of Justice is therefore still pending in the latter case, and the Commission's Legal Service is presently working on the case.

Regarding the implementation of Directive 89/618/Euratom by the French authorities in the case of the nuclear power plant at Cattenom, the Commission is not aware that there are any problems between the French and German authorities as regards the cooperation between the two countries which is essential in order to apply the Directive to the people concerned in Germany.

However, going beyond the specific case of Cattenom, the Commission wishes to point out that this matter is one of the complaints made in the proceedings initiated against France concerning Directive 89/618/Euratom, since this Member State has so far not shown that it has any legal instruments to apply the Directive to the populations concerned in neighbouring Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/01

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Meetings of the College of Commissioners

Under Article 219 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a meeting of the Commission shall be valid only if the number of Members laid down in its Rules of Procedure is present. Article 5 of the Commission's internal rules states: The Commission shall, as a general rule, meet at least once a week. It shall hold additional meetings whenever necessary. The article also says Members of the Commission shall be required to attend all meetings.

Can the Commission say how many times the College of Commissioners has met since the investiture of the present Commission and how many meetings individual Commissioners have attended?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2002)

In all but exceptional cases, and outside the holiday periods(1), the Commission meets once a week (in Brussels on a Wednesday, or during the plenary meeting of Parliament in Strasbourg on a Tuesday).

The Commission, chaired by Mr Prodi, was confirmed in office by Parliament on 15 September 1999. It held its first meeting on Saturday 18 September 1999 (No 1446). The last meeting in 2001 was held on Thursday 20 December 2001 (No 1549).

The Commission, chaired by Mr Prodi, has met 104 times since its confirmation (up to the end of 2001).

Attendance by Commissioners is as follows:

>TABLE>

(1) Last week of December and August.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3129/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Use of the golf courses in Is Arenas (Sardinia, Italy)

The Primo torneo Golf Cup Guidicato di Arborea was held on 5-7 October 2001 in Is Arenas, close to the Is Arenas Site of Community Interest (SCI code ITB 002228, Narbolia-San Vero Milis, Sardinia).

The event took place on the golf course itself, for which reason the Commission is considering opening an infringement procedure for contravention of Directive 92/43(1).

On page 20 of the 4 October 2001 edition of the La Nuova Sardegna newspaper, it was reported that the event was attended by the Regional Councillor, Pasquale Onida, the chairman of the provincial tourist board, the Archbishop of Oristano, Mgr Piergiuliano Tiddia, and 10 000 spectators. The sponsors for the event included the Sardinian regional government, the Oristano provincial tourist board, the Oristano local authorities and the Italian National Olympic Committee.

The vulnerable habitats to be found on the site are therefore once again suffering environmental damage.

Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

Can it confirm that no Community funds were spent on financing the golf tournament in question?

Will it take the above facts into account when considering the action to be taken on the reasoned opinion of 9 February 2001, in view of the fact that nothing has been done to repair the damage done to the site through the construction of the golf courses, the use of which is, on the contrary, being promoted?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission was not aware of the facts described by the Honourable Member.

Where relevant, they will be taken into consideration in the assessment of the infringement case concerning the damage done by a golf course development to priority habitats proposed by Italy for protection under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) at Is Arenas in Sardinia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3442/01

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

(21 December 2001)

Subject: The communal woodlands of Galicia and the Galician Government's environmental initiatives

Has the Galician government submitted specific environmental development plans for the communal woodlands of Galicia, to be granted European Union support for the period 2000-2006? Can these plans be made public? Will the woodlands be included in the Natura 2000 network? If so, what actual projects are there?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3442/01 and E-3445/01given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the selection of individual projects to be co-financed within each programme under the Structural Funds is the exclusive preserve of Member States. The Commission therefore contacted the Spanish authorities to obtain the information requested by the Honourable Member.

In relation to the Natura 2000 network, it is the Member States who are competent for proposing sites to be included in the network. On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex II to Council Directive 92/43/EEC(2) (hereafter Habitats Directive) and relevant scientific information, each Member State must propose a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I to the Habitats Directive and which species in Annex II to the Habitats Directive are present in the site.

Spain has so far classified 68 sites as proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI) within the region of Galicia. This classification is the result of the Xunta of Galicia proposal. This proposal identified 60 sites of Community interest for the Atlantic bio-geographical region (with an area of 301 661,50 hectares) and eight sites of Community interest (with an area of 173 789 hectares) for the Mediterranean bio-geographical region.

The Commission does not have any information on whether all these sites are classified as montes comunales according to the Spanish legislation.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3209/01

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Island of Santo Stefano

Santo Stefano, which forms part of the municipality of Ventotene, is one of the islands in the Ponziano archipelago in the province of Latina in Italy. Past inmates of the prison which stands on the island (and which was closed in the 1960s) include a number of leading political figures, such as Altiero Spinelli, who in 1941, together with others, drafted the Ventotene Manifesto, which was to lay the foundations for today's European Union. The part of the island on which the prison stands belongs to the Italian State, and is to be placed on the market along with a large number of other sites. Its market valuation has been set at 2 million.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. in view of the site's historical, political and social importance, it intends to acquire it for the European Union?

2. if it does so, it intends to develop the site both as a monument to the history of the European Union and as a venue for cultural and/or social and/or political activities?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Commission is aware of the historic importance of the island of Santo Stefano, a former prison where several anti-fascist activists were detained, including Altiero Spinelli and other pioneers of European integration. It was on the island of Ventotene, close to the small island of Santo Stefano, that the Ventotene Manifesto was drafted in 1943. This was one of the formative elements in the development of a European consciousness after the Second World War.

Any decision to convert the former prison into a cultural centre with a European orientation would be extremely welcome and highly symbolic, in view of the work of Altiero Spinelli as European Commissioner and Member of the European Parliament, where he played an active role in framing the draft Treaty on European Union adopted by the European Parliament on 14 February 1984. However, the Commission has neither the powers nor the funds needed to take such an initiative. If the Italian authorities decide to undertake such a project the Commission will consider with great interest the possibility of taking an active part.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/01

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

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Meeting of 4 November 2001 in London

On 4 November 2001 a meeting was held, on the invitation of the British Prime Minister, bringing together the French President, the Prime Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland, the Belgian Prime Minister and President-in-Office of the European Council, and the EU's High Representative for the CFSP. The declared aim of this meeting was to define the contribution of each of the Member States concerned to the US effort against international terrorism, as now concretised in the

war against Afghanistan. At this meeting, the Member States concerned attended as such and did not formally represent the EU. However, this formal differentiation could not conceal the fact that the government representatives were there by reason of their countries' EU membership. This entailed discrimination against other Member States and a de facto takeover of the functions of the Union institutions.

Has the Council taken any position on this deplorable action by certain of the EU Member States? Is the Council aware that the special character of the strategic alliance linking the UK with the US is not only tending to substitute the EU's relations with that country but is endangering the very independent existence of the EU's foreign policy?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

As it has already had occasion to explain, in its reply to Question H-0900/01 put by Anna Karamanou for Question Time at the European Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg in December 2001, the Council has never had to specifically discuss the meeting mentioned by the Honourable Member and so it is unable to state any position on the matter.

Having been invited to the meeting, the Presidency for its part contacted the members of the European Council who had not been invited to ask whether they thought it should attend. These contacts made clear that there was broad encouragement for it to do so.

At the Presidency's request, the Council's subordinate bodies were briefed the next day on the substance of the discussions by the Secretary-General/High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Solana, who had been invited to take part alongside the Presidency.

The Council would point out that, following the guidelines issued by the European Council which has met to discuss this subject on two occasions the Union has made every effort to give a coordinated overall response to the 11 September attacks by adopting a detailed action plan against terrorism and by unequivocally declaring its full support for the action taken against all aspects of terrorism and its total solidarity with the United States. The European Council has also reaffirmed its firm determination to act in concert in all circumstances.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Money laundering convictions

1. Does the Commission have any statistics on the number of convictions for money laundering in EU Member States?

2. If so, can the Commission please state how many convictions there have been in total across the EU and in each individual Member State, during the last ten years?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council does not have in its possession any information concerning the question asked by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Aid for the airline industry

The recent failure of the Belgian airline Sabena has painfully demonstrated the weak market conditions under which the European airline industry is suffering.

Questions may be raised in connection with the decision by the Commission to ban the Belgian government from stepping in to provide financial aid to the company. The issue of distortion of competition by governments is clearly being very narrowly interpreted by the Commission. The fact that, in the case of Sabena, some 12 000 jobs are at risk justifies the wish to look for alternative solutions with a view to avoiding such catastrophes in social terms in future.

Does the Commission not consider that there is an urgent need to revise the directives on competition to make it possible for governments to step in to provide financial aid when crises of this kind occur in national industries?

Is the Commission considering other ways of helping industries in difficulties come through slumps and periods of recession?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The Commission decided on 17 October 2001 to authorise the Belgian authorities to grant a rescue aid, in the form of a short term loan, to Sabena. On 9 November 2001, following Sabena's bankruptcy, the Commission confirmed that it would not object to the use of this loan for the benefit of the Sabena subsidiary DAT.

The EC Treaty imposes a general ban on state aid with certain exceptions. One exception which the Commission has allowed is to rescue and restructure companies in difficulty. However, the Commission believes that restructuring aid should be necessary at most once for a single beneficiary. Sabena has already benefited from such an aid.

The Commission believes that there can be no doubt of the severe distortion of competition that can be caused by repeated State aid to rescue and restructure failing companies. Such aid prevents the market from operating efficiently because it rewards commercial failure rather than commercial success. It also tends to delay necessary adjustment and worsen the impact when the beneficiary company's problems are finally confronted.

The Commission therefore believes that state aid is not the appropriate response to the less favourable economic conditions facing the Community. Other responses, such as general measures affecting the economy in general, and structural adjustments, seem more appropriate. The majority of such steps are in the competence of Member States.