ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1761/01

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Ratification of Cotonou Partnership Agreement

On 23 January last year the 15 Member States of the European Union and the 77 countries of the ACP group of nations, agreed and signed the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in Benin.

This agreement replaces the Lomé Convention and shows an unprecedented commitment on the part of the EU to developing nations in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions for the next 20 years.

The Commission and Member State governments placed great importance on the signature of this document almost twelve months ago. Can the Commission confirm that at present more than 13 ACP States have ratified the Cotonou Agreement but that, as yet, not a single EU country has ratified Cotonou?

When taking into account the importance of this agreement to the ACP, can the Commission inform members of what practical measures it has taken to speed up the process of ratification and tell us when they expect the agreement to enter into force?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The Cotonou Agreement was signed by most parties on 23 June 2000, although it remained open for signature until the end of the year during which time a further four parties signed.

The Commission can confirm that according to information received on 19 June from the Secretariat of the Council and Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, the institutions with which the instruments of ratification have to be deposited, 14 ACP States and no Member State had ratified the Agreement.

The Member of the Commission responsible for development raised the Commission's concern that ratification should not be unduly delayed at the meeting of the Development Council on 31 May 2001. He has written to all Development Ministers asking for an indication of when they expect ratification to be completed. The Commission will put up a scoreboard on its website to keep track of the process and to encourage progress.

The indications which the Commission has received to date are that one Member State Parliament has approved the Agreement and that most Member States expect to ratify by the end of 2001. However, while only two thirds of ACP States' ratifications are required for the entry into force of the Agreement, on the European side all Member States must ratify it and the Community must approve it. The agreement is not, therefore, expected to enter into force until some time in 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0533/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Italy's investigation into Balkan syndrome

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, has requested the Ghent toxicologist Aubin Heyndrickx to carry out a study of Balkan veterans who are ill or who have died. In the past Mr Heyndrickx has acted on a number of occasions as an expert in chemical warfare. However, fellow scientists accuse him of using less than scientific research methods. In 1995 Heyndrickx was given a one-year suspended jail sentence for forgery. Four years later he was in the news again because a court in South Africa suspected him of having close links with Dr Wouter Basson, better known as Dr Death. Basson was working on a vaccine for eradicating the black race.

1. When did the Commission decide to request the Ghent toxicologist Aubin Heyndrickx to carry out an Italian study of Balkan veterans who are ill or who have died?

2. At whose suggestion did the Commission decide to do this?

3. Is the Commission aware of Mr Heyndrickx' reputation, and in particular claims by fellow scientists that he uses less than scientific research methods? If so, why did the Commission nevertheless turn to Mr Heyndrickx? If not, will the Commission seek further information about Mr Heyndrickx' scientific reputation?

4. Is the Commission aware of the close links which Mr Heyndrickx is alleged, by the court in South Africa, to have had with Dr Wouter Basson? If so, why did the Commission nevertheless decide to engage Mr Heyndrickx? If not, will the Commission seek further information about the close links which Mr Heyndrickx is alleged to have had with Dr Basson?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Mr Heyndrickx on his own initiative sent several letters to the President of the Commission.

The Commission has not charged Mr Heyndrickx to undertake any studies mentioned in the Honourable Member's question nor is it aware of any other activities of his.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Condemnation of Turkey by European Court of Human Rights

In a recent judgment on 10 May 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Turkey for wide-ranging and systematic violation of 14 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in Cyprus.

This judgment follows on from the same Court's 1998 judgment in the Loïzidou case, with which Turkey has yet to comply and the Turkish Foreign Ministry has announced in regard to the new judgment that Turkey is unable to implement it.

Since the Court's judgment is binding and final, will the Commission include full and unconditional acceptance of ECHR judgments among Turkey's short-term obligations under the EU-Turkey partnership agreement?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-1599/01 by Mr Zacharakis(1).

(1) See page 198.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: White paper on youth policy

Negotiations have been under way for several years between the Commission and European youth organisations with a view to producing a white paper. The purpose of the white paper is to act as a guide when European youth policy is implemented. Why has no white paper on European youth policy been produced?

How does the Commission intend to take an active part in drawing up a uniform European youth policy?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1694/01, E-1733/01, E-1903/01, E-1904/01 and E-2050/01 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

The Commission believes that the policy of European co-operation in the youth field should be strengthened. This is why, at the end of 1999, the Commission began to draw up a White Paper on this subject at the instigation of the Member of the Commission with responsibility for Education and Culture.

The Commission wanted a hitherto unprecedented consultation process to take place beforehand: consultations with young people in each Member State in 2000, in connection with which a European-level meeting was held in Paris in October 2000; consultations with civil society organisations and academics; discussions with the Member States. This process was completed in March 2001 in Umeå, Sweden.

The Commission, now sure of the support of young people and the Member States, has since then been in the process of drawing up the White Paper, which should be published before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Commission communications about the environmental hazards of depleted uranium

What contacts has the Commission established with the British Defence Radiological Protection Service and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) about the environmental hazards posed by depleted uranium?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0885/01, E-0977/01, E-0978/01 and E-0982/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The Commission invited international organisations (World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)) to a round-table discussion on the issue of depleted uranium on 31 January 2001. There has been no correspondence other than the letter of invitation. In addition, the Commission informed the other organisations on the release of the Opinion of the Group of Experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty on 6 March 2001 and the Commission was informed of the release of the UNEP report on 14 March 2001.

The Commission had no contact with the other organisations referred to by the Honourable Member. Among the material provided by different organisations, NATO in particular, there are American documents referring to the Office of Environmental and Health Sciences of the Department of Defence.

The flow of information on depleted uranium is considerable (in the form of documents and internet-based material for example). The Group of Experts has looked into much of this material and has spent considerable effort in identifying which are original, validated sources of information. The main references to such sources are included in the published Opinion.

The Commission believes that it is in the interest of all organisations to exchange information to the largest possible extent, while preserving full independence in evaluating the information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0780/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(15 March 2001)

Subject: Government coalitions with extreme right-wing parties

If Silvio Berlusconi, chairman of Forza Italia and a member of the EPP group in the European Parliament, is elected prime minister of Italy, this will show whether the European Union is consistent in its attitude towards Member States. The EU is at risk of applying double standards and it is beginning to look as if there is one set of rules for the large Member States and another set for the small Member States. The next few months will show whether this is so.

Forza Italia can only come to power with two coalition partners which both have much in common with the Austrian FPÖ of Jörg Haider. His leading ally, and probable deputy prime minister, Gianfranco Fini of the Alleanza Nazionale, has built his party on the ruins of the old Fascist movement. Although the Alleanza Nazionale has been at pains to distance itself from its extremist origins, the party still cherishes the legacy of the Mussolini era. The similarity with Haider's Nazi sympathies is striking.

Hence, Europe will shortly be faced with a political dilemma: is the Union prepared to apply the same criteria to the larger Member States? Last tear the Austrian FPÖ formed a coalition with the conservative ÖVP. The fact that a populist party with a xenophobic reputation was able to come to power in an EU Member State caused an upheaval amongst the other fourteen Member States.

If an extreme right-wing party, the Alleanza Nazionale, forms part of the government after the next elections in Italy, will the Council apply the same measures that were applied on the formation of the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition in Austria? If not, why is the Council applying double standards to the formation of a government coalition with an extreme right-wing party in Austria (FPÖ), on the one hand, and Italy (Alleanza Nazionale), on the other?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0780/01 and E-0819/01

(13 July 2001)

The Council reminds the Honourable Member that the measures concerning Austria to which he refers were decided by the governments of 14 Member States and not by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1344/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Trade in cigarettes

The Commission's legal action against two American tobacco manufacturers has placed the import and export of cigarettes back in the centre of attention. The extent of the trade in (and smuggling of) cigarettes is not clear.

In its reply to Question E-3720/00(1) of 3 November 2000 the Commission stated on 18 January that it is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It should disclose the results of its investigation as soon as possible.

I should therefore be glad if the Commission would answer the following questions:

1. How many cigarettes were confiscated in the various EU Member States in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

2. Which were the five most confiscated brands of cigarettes in the EU, in order of importance, in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

3. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Cyprus in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

4. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Yugoslavia in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

5. From which countries were cigarettes imported into the EU in 1997-1999 through the port of Antwerp? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

6. To which countries outside the EU were cigarettes exported from the Belgian Federation in 1997-1999? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 204.

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3720/00 and E-1344/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission would first point out, on the basis of the available statistics which are not binding on it that:

- several billion cigarettes are seized each year;

- from 1997 to 1999, Italy appears in each of these years to be the Member State with the highest number of cigarettes seized (in 1999, almost 35 % of the total of cigarettes seized within the Community);

- between 1997 and 1999, the increase in the number of cigarettes seized within the Community is 215 %. However, the importance of this global increase varies in the different Member States. During this short period, Belgium had a rate of increase of 2 701 %, followed by the Netherlands (1 899 %) and Finland (1 570 %).

Amongst the brands of cigarettes produced in the Member States, the highest number of cigarettes seized in 1999 was, by order of importance, Regal, Superkings, West and Benson & Hedges. Amongst the brands of cigarettes produced outside the European Community, the highest number of cigarettes seized, also in 1999, was Marlboro.

Finally, the Commission would underline the fact that Antwerp is one of the biggest ports handling consignments of cigarettes in the world.

In view of the size of the figures produced to answer more specific questions linked to cigarettes exports, the Commission is sending them direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. These figures obtained through databases may not be exhaustive and should not be interpreted as binding on the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0958/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Making a distinction on grounds of nationality when governments apply tariffs and fines

1. Does the Commission feel it is reasonable for states to apply different tariffs and fines to persons who do not have the nationality of those states?

2. Are Member States within the European Union allowed, when setting the level of tariffs and fines, to make a distinction between persons having the nationality of the Member State in question and others?

3. What is the Commission's view of the fact that Belgium has a category of Tariffs for foreigners, laid down by Royal Decree of 24 October 1997 which entered into force on 1 January 1998, that the police invoke this list when they stop people for traffic offences and that these tariffs can be found on the websites http://www.infocorner.org/verkeer/divers/index.htm and http://www.infocorner.org/verkeer/divers/boetes2.htm?

4. Should this situation be changed, in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is based on the equality of human beings, or in the light of European Union rules?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-0830/01 by Mrs Peijs(1).

(1) See p. 129.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/01

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Capital investment

Further to my previous Question E-1417/00(1), is the Commission yet in a position to provide the figures requested, i.e. would the Commission list capital investment, since 1988, within each Member State in the following categories:

- oil and gas extraction;

- manufacturing; distribution;

- hotels and catering;

- financial business services;

- transport and communications;

- private dwellings?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

In statistics the Capital investment is usually measured through a macroeconomic aggregate called Gross fixed capital formation.

Its latest data are listed in the two attachments, which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The first of the attachment sent is based on the current Methodology ESA 95, the second on the former one ESA 79 (The ESA is the European System of Accounts, the standard Methodology in this field).

As the data under ESA 95 are not yet fully available, the data under ESA 79 are attached as well, these are available only up to 1997.

The increase in level between ESA 95 and ESA 79 is due to an extension of coverage, in particular the inclusion of certain intangible investments (software, data bases, art ), mineral exploration (successful or not), civil equipment used by military (airports, hospitals, ), etc.

The matching between the branches of the Honourable Member's request and the available ones is as follows:

1. Under ESA 95 (Nomenclature NACE rev. 1 Level A31):

- mining and quarrying of energy producing materials;

- manufacturing;

- construction;

- wholesale and retail trade (includes repairing);

- hotels and restaurants;

- transport, storage and communication;

- financial intermediation.

2. Under ESA 79 (Nomenclature NACE-CLIO, Level R25):

- fuel and power products;

- manufactured products;

- building and construction;

- recovery and repair services, wholesale and retail trade services;

- lodging and catering services;

- inland transport services;

- maritime and air transport services;

- auxiliary transport services;

- communication services;

- total transport services and communications [in italics above];

- services of credit and insurance institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Surveys of environmental radioactivity

What surveys of environmental radioactivity are currently being conducted by the Commission or its agents?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0884/01, E-0979/01, E-0980/01 and E-0981/01 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Test ranges of depleted uranium munitions may be either terrestrial or in a marine environment.

In the case of marine test ranges, the Commission stated on several occasions - most recently in its reply to Oral Question H-0055/01 by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou during question time at Parliament's February 2001 part-session(1) - that no contamination of the marine environment which could be distinguished from naturally occurring uranium concentrations would result from this activity. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue has so far not been addressed under the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention.

As far as terrestrial test ranges are concerned, under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has a right of access to the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the air, water and soil, hence in the environment, for verification purposes. The Commission has thus no access to nuclear or military sites as such, and the Commission would request access only in so far as on-site monitoring facilities are necessary for the assessment of the impact on the environment beyond the site perimeter.

The Commission maintains a watching brief on the situation with regard to levels of radioactivity in the environment on the basis of the information received under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, site specific data provided by Member States authorities, and other sources of information brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission was not aware of the British study with regard to the Solway Firth, nor of a similar study conducted by France.

On the basis of the existing Community legislation, mechanisms ensuring monitoring of radioactivity in the environment already exist. The implementation of such provisions does not highlight a particular need for these to be augmented by the Commission conducting environmental sampling for depleted uranium.

(1) Oral reply of 13.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1520/01

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: BP Trent tragedy third-country obligations to co-operation with the European judicial system

In June 1993, nine British sailors were killed when the Panamanian registered vessel The Western Winner collided with the British fuel tanker the BP British Trent near the Belgian port of Ostend.

Maritime investigations have shown that the Korean captain and crew of The Western Winner were to blame, having failed to comply with essential maritime safety laws. The ship's master, crew and owners of The Western Winner have failed to co-operate with the judicial process through failing to attend the hearings organised by the prosecutor's office in Bruges. They also declined to assist the UK's Maritime Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) which conducted an enquiry on behalf of the Bermudan authorities shortly after the incident.

As a result the case is still, almost eight years on, pending before the criminal court in Bruges. The Commission does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute the captain, crew or owners of the ship, neither can the Belgian authorities interfere with the judicial process.

What are the powers of the Commission in such legal cases where liable bodies from a third country fail to co-operate with the European judicial system, thus inhibiting the legal proceedings?

Could the Commission not put pressure on the relevant governmental authorities to demand that those responsible for the tragedy co-operate with the European judicial system?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it does not have any legal competence over individual criminal proceedings in Member States, which fall within the responsibilities of the relevant national authorities.

However, the European Commission Vice-President responsible for Transport, responding to numerous letters by the Honourable Member, wrote to the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport informing her of the importance that he attaches to this question.