ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/489

(2004/C 84 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Bullfrogs

According to nature conservation associations, large colonies of bullfrogs are threatening the fauna in Belgium. Given that the import of these animals has been prohibited since 1997, it is highly likely that they are being imported under another name. According to nature conservation organisations, sellers use the term ‘giant frog larvae’ and other names in order to smuggle bullfrogs into Europe and to sell them at garden centres and markets. These frogs are driving out native species.

Is the European Commission aware that, despite the EU ban, bullfrogs are still being imported into Europe?

What measures is the European Commission taking in order to tackle this illegal trade?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware that bullfrogs are being smuggled into Europe under other names where they are sold to garden centres and markets. A recent study carried out for the Commission on the application of Union wildlife trade regulations in relation to species which form an ecological threat to Union fauna and flora concludes that American bullfrogs ‘appear to be no longer sold for garden ponds’. The Commission has not received any information on illegal imports of bullfrogs from other sources either.

Combating the smuggling of animals is mainly the responsibility of Member States. However, if the Commission receives relevant information on illegal trade in a species listed on the annexes of Council Regulation 338/97 (1), it can draw Member States' attention to matters whose investigation it considers necessary.

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for this information and will transmit it to the competent Belgian authorities.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/28

(2004/C 78 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Human rights abuses in Laos

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses, notably the treatment of Christians, which continue in Laos.

Has the Commission:

1. made representations to the Laotian Government?

2. other plans, to try to improve the situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in Laos, including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained on grounds of their religious affiliation.

This is done despite the fact that the Constitution stipulates ‘the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion’. The level of tolerance of religious practice varies between regions. There have been reports of arrest and detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. Some Christians have been sentenced for gathering ‘to create social turmoil’. Some reports also mention difficulties for religious groups seeking to establish new places of worship in particular provinces. In other parts of the country both Catholic and Protestant followers are able to worship openly.

The Commission follows this and other matters relating to human rights in Laos closely and concerns are frequently raised in bilateral meetings between the Community and Laos. The Commission also participates fully in all Union démarches to convey our concerns to the Laotian authorities.

The Commission is fully committed to emphasising the need to strengthen respect for civil and political rights in Laos, including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion. During this spring, the Commission will be opening a Delegation in Vientiane, Laos. This will increase opportunities to engage in a more profound and constructive dialogue on human rights issues with the Lao Government.
2.

From a general point of view the Council underlines that Women's rights and the issue of violence against women are matters of particular concern to the EU. In line with international human rights standards and based on the ethical and constitutional principles common to all EU Member States, the EU consistently calls on governments of third countries to commit themselves to the resolutions and decisions of UN fora and to apply legislation, measures and programmes aiming at the full enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women on an equal footing with men. At the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (‘CHR’), towards the end of April this year, all EU Member States co-sponsored a resolution tabled by Canada entitled ‘Elimination of violence against women’. Moreover, the Presidency made a speech on behalf of the EU under CHR agenda item 12 in which it highlighted the need to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls, and in this regard drew particular attention to the work of the UN's Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. At the time of answering this question, another resolution on the issue of violence against women has been tabled, this time by the Netherlands in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which it is hoped will gain widespread support.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/373

(2004/C 78 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture

The Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1) does not impose any restrictions on the use, production, marketing and sales within the internal market of the equipment and products concerned.

Given that capital punishment is banned under EU Treaties, why did the Commission not include proposals to outlaw the production of equipment that can be used for such purposes in the EU in this proposed regulation?

(1) COM(2002)770.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/783

(2004/C 78 E/0833)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Right to apply for asylum

Does the Council believe that, in its present form, the amended proposal for a directive COM(2002) 326 final (1) on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status is compatible with the Member States' obligations arising from international conventions on refugees and asylum seekers? In particular, can the Council explain how it is guaranteeing the right to apply for asylum for all asylum seekers, including their access to the territory of the Member States? How is it guaranteeing their access to fair procedures for considering their applications and the right to appeal where asylum seekers are sent back to their country of origin while publication of the judicial decision granting asylum is pending?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council's activities as regards the right to asylum are focused at present on the proposal for a Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

The Council will take care to ensure that any future Community regulations in this area respect the rights and guarantees established by the international law instruments concerned, in particular the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(1) OJ C 291, 26.11.2002, p. 143.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/93

(2004/C 88 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2542/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia

Knowing that:

— on 15 May 2000 the authorities in Kostroma refused the ‘Family of God’ and another Pentecostal church authorisation to profess their faith because they allegedly practise hypnotism;

— in November 2000 the Kostroma regional justice department requested the closure of two churches, but did not manage to prove, as required under the 1997 Russian law on religion, that people had suffered moral or physical harm as a result of hypnosis; According to the law, the harm caused by hypnosis, rather than the hypnosis itself, must be proven before a religious organisation may be closed down;

— last summer five American citizens working with the Evangelical Christian Church in Kostroma and an American citizen working in the town with the Christian humanitarian organisation ‘Children's Hope Chest’ were refused visas, the pastor Bill Norton, who used to visit the Kostroma ‘Family of God’ church, was refused entry three times,

— and in June the justice department of Kostroma near Moscow ordered a check on the ‘Family of God’ church.

In view of the excellent cooperation relationship between the European Union and Russia,

can the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts outlined above?

and what measures, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective means of inducing Russia to respect religious freedom, as envisaged in the Constitution and the Federal law on religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission is aware that the position in Russia of churches other than the Russian Orthodox Church is sometimes difficult.

The Commission frequently raises its concerns about the need for Russia to guarantee the full respect of human rights in the context of Union/Russia political dialogue and will continue to stress to the Russian authorities that the pattern of developments regarding freedom of religion is not compatible with the major international and European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified, which include reference to freedom of religion or belief.

It should be recalled that the Commission actively promotes human rights via the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme. Furthermore, provision of assistance to Russia through the TACIS programme is explicitly conditional on respect of democratic principles and human rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/583

(2004/C 78 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3549/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Cohesion Fund — Portugal

The Commission has stated that the suspension of the Cohesion Fund in relation to Portugal ceased at the beginning of this year. However, to date this normalisation of the Cohesion Fund has had few or no effects. The Portuguese Government is making an immense effort to consolidate the budget so as to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact. For geographical reasons, and particularly in view of the current enlargement, Portugal is suffering a severe economic backlash from its peripheral location. Action in the transport infrastructure sector is therefore of particular importance.

On the other hand, there is fortunately — since the Gothenburg 1999 and Lisbon 2000 Summits — the reassuring consideration that the goals of economic and material development in the European Union should only be pursued in obedience to sustainability criteria, i.e. the so-called environmental dimension. For example, an ‘eco-conditionality’ criterion was introduced for the carrying out of various activities which fell within the scope of EU powers.

In other words, transport infrastructure and the environment are two areas of prime importance for the longed-for Portuguese convergence and the much desired social cohesion of the EU and, for that very reason, come under the Cohesion Fund.

The Commission:

1. Can it tell me where exactly we are right now with the application of the Cohesion Fund in Portugal, both in procedural and quantitative terms?

2. Are public reports that Portugal is in danger of losing these funds justified?

3. How many cases have been approved, to date, relative to the Commission's expectations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The indicative Cohesion Fund allocation to Portugal for 2003 is EUR 478 million. To this must be added EUR 169 million not committed by Portugal in 2002. Thus for 2003 an indicative amount of EUR 647 million was available for part-financing of transport and environment projects.

Of this amount the Commission committed EUR 645 million in December 2003, EUR 139 million for 12 projects accepted in previous years and EUR 506 million for 23 new projects.

We consider therefore that Portugal's take-up of Cohesion Fund commitment appropriations is satisfactory given that the leeway from 2002 has been made up.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/817

(2004/C 78 E/0868)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3507/03

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Protection of loggerhead turtles in Greece

It has been clearly shown that there has been no progress in the development of the Maríne Park on Zakynthos and the measures to protect the loggerhead turtle, negotiated and funded by the Commission, and that they have, on the contrary, met with opposition, both at local level and from the Greek Government.

Can the Commission confirm this information? What was the outcome of the recent on-site inspections carried out by the Commission?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/111

(2004/C 78 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Watching an LCD screen whilst driving a motor vehicle

According to a report in the 28 June 2003 edition of the Flemish-language newspaper ‘Het Belang van Limburg’, more and more drivers are installing in their vehicles LCD screens on which DVDs and video games may be played. This does not always involve ‘operational’ information, such as route maps, or the entertainment of passengers; in many cases, the screen is also used for the driver's own amusement. Although some types of the equipment involved have a built-in safety device — which ensures that the screen may be used only when the handbrake is on — that device is often overridden.

In many European countries, using a telephone whilst driving is forbidden unless the car is equipped with a hands-free set. Since, on the one hand, watching a screen of this nature and, on the other, paying due attention to the traffic situation are mutually exclusive, the Netherlands Government recently decided to prohibit the installation of LCD screens which the driver may watch whilst driving.

Is the Commission aware of the fashion for installing LCD screens for drivers, and, in line with the Netherlands, is it thinking of introducing a Europe-wide ban on such products which distract drivers when they are driving?

If so, what specific measures will it take, and will the ban apply to both ‘operational’ and ‘entertainment’ use?

If not, why will it not follow the example of the Netherlands Government?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/59

(2004/C 88 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Violation of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan

There are serious, continual and systematic violations of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan.

The latest of countless attacks against the Protestant church in the country happened on 31 May. Five members of the church in the city of Abadam, Nuri Berdiev, Nabat Niyazova, Guzelya Syraeva, Lyudmila Galkina and Akgulya Niyazova were taken from their homes by the local police and interrogated at length at the police station. The police also confiscated books and threatened to seize their apartment if they continued to meet there for the purposes of worship.

This attack was only the latest in a long series of acts of repression and intimidation on the part of the Turkmenistan authorities against Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, none of whom are authorised to be registered with the government authorities, and their activities are considered illegal.

Furthermore, the OCSE office in the Turkmen capital has refused to comment on the reports of raids and violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan, and Dieter Matthei, an OCSE official in Ashgabad, states that he has no information on the attacks against Protestants and that for any information about freedom of religion in Turkmenistan one should apply to the OCSE head office in Vienna.

In view of the above, can the Commission say whether it is aware of the serious, persistent and systematic violation of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and the events mentioned?

What steps will it take or request in order to exert pressure on the Turkmenistan authorities to ensure that religious freedom is guaranteed in the country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is very concerned about the difficulties faced by religious groups which wish to establish themselves in Turkmenistan.

While the Constitution of Turkmenistan ensures religious freedom, the law implementing the Constitution requires all religious groups to register officially and do so with the support of 500 signatures of citizens over 18 years old. The law effectively restricts all religious activity other than Sunni Islam and the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is at present no formal bilateral framework for discussing these matters between EU institutions and Turkmen authorities since our Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not cover issues of human rights.

However, the Commission is working actively with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions on promoting human rights in Turkmenistan.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/908

(2004/C 78 E/0960)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4063/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject: Workers on one-day contracts

The Greek organisations OPAP and ODIE have employed workers for a great many years on ‘one-day contracts’, i.e. they have renewed their contracts every day for between 5 and 20 years. The outcome of this strategy is that the workers are unable to enjoy their basic labour and social security rights, such as maternity leave and benefit, on the grounds given by the social security organisations that they are working on one-day contracts. These employment contracts are in flagrant violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Community legislation such as Directives 1999/70/EC (1), 76/207/EEC (2), 86/613/EEC (3) and 92/85/EEC (4), and of the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Does the Commission consider such employment contracts to be acceptable? What measures will it take to enable the above workers to enjoy all their labour rights? Can the provisions of Directive 1999/70/EC be applied to those workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP is applicable to fixed-term workers as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State.

Thus, if the persons with daily fixed-term contracts are considered to be workers in Greece, the Directive is applicable. If instead they are considered to be providers of services, they are not covered by the Directive.

According to Clause 5 of the Directive, the Member States must introduce measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts, either by requiring objective reasons for renewing the contracts, providing for a maximum duration or providing for a maximum number of renewals. The measures introduced must be sufficient to prevent abuse. If there are fixed-term workers with contracts which are renewed daily during several years, this does not seem to be compatible with Clause 5 of the Directive.

The Commission is currently in active contact with the Greek authorities to ensure the correct transposition of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

(2) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 359, 19.12.1986, p. 56.

(4) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/406

(2004/C 88 E/0412)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2370/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Gang rape of women by British troops in Kenya

It was recently reported that 650 women from the town of Isiolo in eastern Kenya have complained that they have been subjected to rape, in many cases gang rape, by British solders. There is a British army base in the region where exercises are held every year. According to their complaints, the rapes began in 1977; although the British Ministry of Defence was informed, it failed to intervene. As a result of these rapes, many women have given birth to half-cast babies and are marginalized, having been driven out by their families. Most of these women, acting with financial assistance from the Kenyan authorities, have filed law suits and are seeking compensation.

In view of:

— the anger and indignation caused by the sexual abuse of these women by European citizens as a form of entertainment;

— the total lack of respect for their physical and psychological integrity; and

— the price they and their children have to pay, in terms of marginalization and expulsion by their families, for events for which they bear no responsibility.

Does the Commission intend to intervene to shed light on this affair and ensure that these Kenyan women receive moral and financial compensation and that the culprits receive exemplary punishment? Furthermore, what measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent such incidents of sexual violence and abuse of women in future which constitute flagrant violations of their human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission has received information on the alleged gang rape of women committed by British troops in Kenya. The Commission considers this issue one to be pursued by the Government of the Member State concerned, and for them to take appropriate measures. In this context the Commission would like to draw attention to the report of Amnesty International entitled ‘Decades of Impunity: Serious allegations of Rape of Kenyan Women by UK Army Personnel’ which notes that in April 2003 the British Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (RMP-SIB) opened an investigation into a number of rape allegations.