ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3334/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE), Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE)and Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: The Eurovelo Network and Transport TransEuropean Networks (T-TENs) revision

The Commission is supposed to initiate a substantial revision of the Transport TransEuropean Networks (T-TENs) by 2004. The Eurovelo Network (http://www.ecf.com) is a TransEuropean Cycling Network of 63 505 km through the whole of Europe, with six north-south and six west-east Routes.

Does the Commission intend to take up the Eurovelo Network into the proposal for revision of the T-TENs in 2004, as this would contribute to the integration of environmental friendliness and intermodality (see Citizens' Network) into transport infrastructure policy?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3334/02 and E-3486/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The trans-European networks policy is designed to facilitate the establishment of the internal market and, to this end, focuses on infrastructure which routes traffic over long distances clearly not applicable in the case of the bicycle. Accordingly, there are no plans to include a Europe-wide network of cycle paths in the forthcoming review of Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.

On the other hand, as part of the effort to promote clean urban transport and the Civitas initiative, the Commission is backing innovatory measures to encourage urban mobility, including the promotion of the bicycle. The Commission is also currently preparing a thematic strategy on the urban environment, in accordance with the Sixth Environment Action Programme. Urban transport, which includes cycling, will be looked at in connection with this work.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/765

(2004/C 78 E/0814)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2917/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: 2 SDA, Camire, Marcom, World Systems, Ariane II Group and Sema Belgium

Can the Commission provide a record for each Directorate-General of the provision of services by the six companies 2 SDA, Camire, Marcom, World Systems, Ariane II Group and Sema Belgium, including the following information:

— a list of all the contracts concluded with these firms over the last 10 years, with details of each respective contract volume and the procedure by which the contracts were awarded to these firms;

— the volume of the individual payments to these companies?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission is compiling the information it needs to reply to the Honourable Member's question. It will report on its findings as soon as possible.
No C 232/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 9. 82 
CORRIGENDA 
Corrigendum to Written Question No 465/82 by Mr Pearce to the Commission of the European 
Communities 
(Official Journal of the European Communities No C 225 of 30 August 1982) 
Page 10, paragraph 1 of the answer, third line: 
for: '27.825 MHz', 
read '27.225 MHz'.
No C 232/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 9. 84 
Answer 
(30 July 1984) 
The work of examining the abovementioned propo­
sal for a Directive was begun within the Council as 
soon as it was submitted in January 1982. This work 
is continuing and is also taking into account the 
Commission's submission in January 1983 of an 
amended proposal for a Directive, which was conse­
quent upon the opinion delivered by the European 
Parliament. for in Article 117 of Council Decision 80/1186/ 
EEC of 16 December 1980 (')• 
(') OJ No L 361, 31. 12. 1980, p. 1. 
WRITTEN QUESTION No 448/84 
by Mr Luc Beyer de Ryke (L — B) 
to the Commission of the European Communities 
(27 June 1984) 
(84/C 232/51) 
Subject: EEC aid to Mayotte following the cyclone 
On 10 April 1984, as the Commission is aware, the 
island of Mayotte (one of the Comoro Islands) was 
devastated by a cyclone of unbelievable force. 
Mayotte has chosen, by referendum, to remain 
attached to France, and thus to the European Com­
munity. 
Does the Commission intend to grant exceptional 
aid to Mayotte, which has had all its crops des­
troyed and half of its population made homeless? 
Answer given by Mr Pisani 
on behalf of the Commission 
(10 July 1984) 
The Honourable Member is informed that, follow­
ing the devastation of the territory of Mayotte by 
cyclone Kamisy, the Commission decided on 8 May 
1984 to grant emergency aid of 270 000 ECU to 
finance the supply of essential goods, as provided WRITTEN QUESTION No 455/84 
by Mr Luc Beyer de Ryke (L - B) 
to the Council of the European Communities 
(27 June 1984) 
(84/C 232/52) 
Subject: Situation of the Romanian author, Mr 
Dumitru Tsepenag 
According to recent reports in the French press, the 
French authorities have again deferred the applica­
tion for French citizenship by a Romanian author, 
Mr Dumitru Tsepenag, who already applied pre­
viously in 1978 and 1982. 
An action committee, whose members include 
Eugene Ionesco, Pierre Emmanuel, Alain Robbe-
Grillet and Philippe Sollers, has alerted public opi­
nion about his case. 
Mr Dumitru Tsepenag, who arrived in France in 
1972, lost his Romanian nationality in 1975. This 
author has translated Robbe-Grillet's works and, in 
particular, has edited the literary revue 'Les Cahiers 
de l'Est' and written a colum in 'Liberation'. 
In the light of the Council's record with regard to 
the protection of human and civic rights, and in 
accordance with the preamble of the Treaty of 
Rome, would it not be appropriate for the Com­
munity institutions to find out from the French 
authorities what progress has been made on this 
case? 
Answer 
(30 July 1984) 
The Member States alone are responsible for deter­
mining the conditions for granting nationality. 
CORRIGENDA 
Corrigendum to the answer to Written Question No 2219/83 by Mr Dieter Rogalla 
(Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194 of 23 July 1984) 
Page 5, answer to Written Question No 2219/83 by Mr Rogalla, third paragraph: 
for: 'In addition, the Commission is not continually dealing with questions and com­
plaints ...', 
read: 'In addition, the Commission is continually dealing with questions and complaints ...'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/95 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (12 January 1996)

Subject: Articles in Spanish and Portuguese Treaties of Accession on pharmaceuticals

Article 47 of the Spanish Treaty of Accession and Article 209 of the Portuguese Treaty of Accession were transitional measures taken in regard to pharmaceutical imports. The articles prevented importers outside of Spain and Portugal from marketing lower-cost pharmaceuticals from these two countries. The two measures expired this year.

Following the expiry of the transitional provisions contained in Article 47 and Article 209, there arose a few matters of concern. Can the Commission answer the following questions.

1. Is the Commission aware that supplies of certain products of multinational pharmaceutical companies are now becoming more difficult to obtain in Spain or Portugal?

2. Does the Commission believe that these products are being deliberately withheld or kept in limited supply?

3. Does the Commission propose to take action against any attempt to manipulate, distort and control individual national markets in order to block the operation of the single European market in the pharmaceutical sector?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (21 March 1996)

1. By decision of 20 December 1995, the Commission rejected the requests of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Austria and the United Kingdom for an extension of the transitional measures in Article 47 of the Spanish Treaty of Accession and 209 of the Portuguese Treaty of Accession. These requests were based on Article 379 of the Accession treaties.

Following this rejection, the Commission has received information from certain parallel importers of pharmaceuticals, who allege that, although parallel trade should be possible since the expiry of the transitional measures, they are experiencing difficulties in obtaining supplies of certain products in Spain and Portugal for export to other Member States.

2. The Commission is checking whether or not these difficulties of supply are the result of restrictive practices which are prohibited by Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.

3. To the extent that there is sufficient evidence to justify intervention, the Commission will, by virtue of the EC Treaty, take the appropriate action in order to eliminate unjustified obstacles to the free movement of pharmaceutical products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3538/95 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission (3 January 1996)

Subject: Panama Declaration

On 4 October 1995 the Governments of France and Spain, together with those of a number of third countries, expressed their support for the Panama Declaration. It appears that this agreement might lead to a number of countries, including the United States, lifting the ban on importing tuna caught in tuna fishing grounds with surrounding nets, a method which kills dolphins. Given that France and Spain have made signing of the Declaration conditional on Community fisheries legislation, what is the Commission's official position on the Panama Declaration?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (19 February 1996)

The Commission is aware that fishing for tuna with purse-seine carries a risk of incidental catches of dolphins. For this reason, the Commission proposed in 1992 an amendment of Regulation 3094/86 ((Council Regulation (EEC) n° 3094/86 of 7 October 1986 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources - OJ L 288, 11.10.1986. )) to prohibit Community vessels from carrying out encirclements where groups of dolphins are present (Article 9.17 of the above mentioned regulation).

The Panama Declaration was agreed within the Inter-American tropical tuna commission (IATTC) of which France is a full member and Spain is an observer. The Community is not a member.

So far as the signature of the Panama Declaration is concerned, the Commission considers that there is no incompatibility between the IATTC rules concerning incidental catches of dolphins and Article 9.17 of the regulation.

The Commission has however addressed itself to the Member States concerned asking for further information, taking into account the Community's competence in trade and fisheries matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/95 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (15 November 1995)

Subject: Source or fissile materials in Commission ownership at the time of the accession of Ireland

What quantities of ores, source materials or special fissile materials were allocated to Commission ownership under Euratom Treaty Article 86, or declared as applicable to safeguards under Euratom Treaty Articles 77 (et seq), on the accession of Ireland to the Treaty of Rome in 1972?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (1 March 1996)

Further to the Commission's answer of 12 January 1996 ((OJ C 109 of 15.4.1996, p. 20. )), according to information submitted by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) under the Irish freedom of information legislation, the current inventory of ores, source materials and special fissile materials in Ireland is as follows:

- plutonium-beryllium neutron source at University College Dublin: 16 gram plutonium-239

- sub-critical reactor assembly containing natural uranium and a plutonium-beryllium neutron-source at University College Cork: 2,5 ton natural uranium and 0,286 gram plutonium-238

- enriched uranium at University College Cork: 1,81 gram enriched uranium (93%).

The RPII states as well that the quantities above are unchanged from those present at the accession of Ireland in 1972, except for the changes due to radioactive decay. The declarations submitted to the Commission by the Irish government do not conflict with the information published by the RPII.

The material is subject to Euratom safeguards under Euratom Treaty Articles 77 et seq. Regular inspections are carried out to verify that the declared nuclear material is not diverted from its intended use.

Under Article 86 of the Euratom Treaty, special fissile material, including plutonium-239 and uranium enriched in uranium-235, is the property of the Community. However under Article 87 Member States, people or undertakings have the unlimited right of use and consumption of special fissile material which has properly come into their possession.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/95 by Carole Tongue (PSE) to the Council (3 January 1996)

Subject: Transfer of sentenced persons

Is the Council aware that people imprisoned in France for drug offences are unable to have their sentences transferred to their home country until the payment of the outstanding customs fine? Is this normal practice and how many other Member States, under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, will not agree to transfers where customs debts are outstanding?

Joint Reply to Written Questions E-1817/95, E-1818/95 and E-3532/95 (10 October 1996)

1. The Council has not been called upon to comment on the application by the Member States in certain specific cases, including the one raised by the Honourable Member, of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which was concluded at the Council of Europe in 1983.

The Council therefore has no information enabling it to say to what extent Member States might or might not have refused the transfer of sentenced persons in certain particular circumstances.

2. The Council is, however, considering the possibility of examining and adjusting the instruments that exist with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including those concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of information technologies and telecommunications, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of information technologies and telecommunications were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0664/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of customs and indirect taxation, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of customs and indirect taxation were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3024/95 by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE) to the Council (31 October 1995)

Subject: Availability of draft conventions in all official languages

In pursuance of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union, the President of the Council forwarded four draft conventions by letter of 14 June 1995 to the chairman of Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs. The conventions concerned:

- A customs duty information system

- Europol

- A European information system

- Crossing of the European Union's external frontiers.

These drafts (the first two dated 26 July 1995) were available only in French. Despite repeated requests the Council has so far refused to forward other language versions.

Will the Council remedy this situation and forward the other two draft conventions to Parliament in all the official Union languages as soon as possible?

Answer (6 August 1997)

Under Article K.6, the Presidency and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of discussions in the areas covered by the Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.

In the case to which the Honourable Member refers, the Presidency had the documents forwarded in the language of the Presidency, as they were not available in time in all the languages. Those language versions which were not supplied at the time of the original communication were supplied subsequently, as soon as they became available.

Practical questions such as this particular situation, involving the transmission of documents in different languages, are usually resolved between the two Secretariats.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of consumer affairs, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of consumer affairs were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0435/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Imprisonment on account of financial considerations

Denmark concluded an agreement with Greenland on the detention of mentally handicapped persons who have committed crimes. Persons (murderers) from Greenland are sentenced to imprisonment in closed institutions in Denmark. One person, for instance, received a 20-year sentence and has since been transferred from a closed to an open institution on the basis of a doctor's opinion to the effect that he is no longer dangerous and can look after himself.

The essential point is, however, that the person concerned cannot be sent home to Greenland, as Greenland says that it does not have adequate financial resources. Greenland has a special relationship with Denmark, and Denmark therefore has a responsibility.

Will the Commission state, as a matter of urgency, whether a Member State can deprive a person of his rights and detain him indefinitely on account of financial considerations?

In its resolution A3-0231/92 ((OJ C 284, 2.11.1992, p. 49. )), Parliament:

'Calls for the mentally handicapped... to be detained during criminal proceedings only where there is a danger to the general public and where other, less extreme measures cannot be taken',

and

'Calls for legal incapacitation to be made reversible in those Member States where it is not and for the mentally handicapped to have access to the courts at all times'.

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1996)

The detention of those who have been convicted of criminal offences is a matter for national governments and the Commission has no competence in the matter.

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is a matter of common interest under Article K.1(7) of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union and while the Commission is fully associated with the work in this area, in accordance with Article K.3, it does not have a right of initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0458/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Council (29 February 1996)

Subject: Excessively long court cases in Italy

Mr Guerrino Friso, who was born in Padua on 14 April 1913, has been waiting for more than 15 years to be granted his lawful share of the estate of his brother who died in Trento on 6 September 1980. An initial dispute with his brother's wife, Mrs Iris Friso-Sandroni, over the possessions which constituted the estate prompted Mr Friso to ask for a ruling from the Trento Court, which handed down two judgments in his favour on 18 November 1982 and 22 November 1988.

Mrs Friso-Sandroni appealed against them on 28 November 1989, and on 29 December 1993 the Trento Court of Appeal handed down a judgment more favourable to her with a separate order governing the subsequent course of the case, which is still pending (the last hearing was on 29 September 1995).

The European Court of Justice has repeatedly rebuked Italy for its excessively long court cases.

Does the Council think that there are proper grounds for it to intervene vis-à-vis the Italian legal authorities to bring this case to a rapid conclusion? Two people have been waiting for a decision for more than 15 years, and Mr Friso is now 83 years old.

Does the Council consider that in general it should intervene when cases drag on indefinitely in the Member States?

Reply (20 May 1996)

The Council has no powers in this area.