ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/01

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Geographical classification of Armenia

Would the Commission please inform me as to what geographical region Armenia, a Member of the Council of Europe, is associated with for the purposes of the work of the European Union? It has been my understanding that Armenia was considered to be part of Europe, but conflicting sources have suggested that it is part of south-western Asia.

The source that I refer to is The World Factbook, the US Government's Complete Geographical Handbook. Is the Commission aware that certain European insurance underwriters have been using this source to determine the categorisation of various countries and that this can have adverse effects for those Europeans seeking travel insurance and who make the logical assumption that Armenia is included in Europe?

Should not EU businesses be referring to EU classifications when determining their policies?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2001)

The relations between the Union and the Republic of Armenia are defined by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, signed on 22 April 1996 and entered into force on 1 July 1999(1).

The Union and Community Treaties do not contain any provision with regard to the geographical determination of limits of Europe.

In its report on Europe and the challenge of enlargement presented to the European Council in Lisbon on 26-27 June 1992, the Commission stated that:

The term European has not been officially defined. It combines geographical, historical and cultural elements which all contribute to the European identity. The shared experience of proximity, ideas, values and historical interaction cannot be condensed into a simple formula, and it is subject to review by each succeeding generation. The Commission believes that it is neither possible or opportune to establish new frontiers of the European Union, whose contours will be shaped over many years to come.

For the purposes of the activities within the Council, issues related to the Republic of Armenia are dealt with by the Group on Eastern Europe and central Asia.

(1) OJ L 239, 9.9.1999, p. 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1332/01

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: New establishment plan for the Directorate-General for Fisheries

Information has been received to the effect that the Directorate-General for Fisheries is currently implementing a new establishment plan under which fisheries agreements with the countries of the North Atlantic and northern Europe would be the responsibility of one Directorate, whilst fisheries agreements with other third countries would be the responsibility of another.

If this is indeed the case, such a situation would be politically unsustainable since it would establish one set of criteria for fisheries agreements involving the northern EU countries and another one for those involving the southern EU countries. This would undermine the principle of equal treatment which should apply to all EU fishermen and fisheries agreements.

Would the Commission say whether or not the above information is true? If it is, what discussions have been held with organisations representing those who work in the fisheries sector and what is the basis for the Commission's decision?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2001)

The new establishment plan for Directorate general (DG) Fisheries adopted on 1 April 2001, is not intended to discriminate between southern and northern agreements. It is rather based on a policy or activity approach with Directorate A handling

Conservation policy (stocks and fleets, in particular) and Directorate B covering external relations, with multilateral and bilateral arrangements being handled by separate units.

There is no North/South divide and certainly no difference of treatment between various Member States. The new establishment plan for DG Fisheries foresees that all agreements based on a financial payment for the access to fishing grounds (such as Greenland, Mauritania, Angola and others) are dealt with in one unit in Directorate B. This in fact guarantees that they are managed in a coherent way.

Those agreements with third countries, where the exchange of fishing rights are the basic element (such as Norway, Iceland and others) are dealt with by the unit in Directorate A that also deals with the management of stocks. This is useful as the fishing rights under these agreements are part of the TAC's and Quotas that have to be divided between Member States. Especially in the case of Norway the advantage of this new system can be seen, as the Commission is currently negotiating with Norway the long term technical measures for the recovery of the Cod stocks in the North Sea.

Dialogue with organisations in the fisheries sector takes place on a continuous basis through the work of the Consultative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture. However, the internal organisation of its services is a matter on which the Commission acts independently having regard to considerations of efficient use of resources and smooth implementation of policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/01

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

(11 September 2001)

Subject: France's other languages

All European citizens should demand like those within the Spanish State who for social and family purposes use a language other than the one deemed official that those Member States which at present continue to practise discriminatory policies with regard to languages spoken by full citizens should amend such unambiguously anti-democratic behaviour and recognise the full official nature of these languages in the internal regions concerned, providing support for their use. Such demands particularly affect France. What action is the Commission taking in this respect vis-à-vis the French Government?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2462/01 and E-2464/01given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Article 151 (ex article 128) of the EC Treaty affirms the importance of the Member States' cultural diversity, emphasising that this diversity is the common heritage of all Europeans.

The joint initiative of the European Union and the Council of Europe to declare 2001 the European Year of Languages (on the basis of Articles 149 and 150 (ex articles 126 and 127) of the EC Treaty) demonstrates the same desire to celebrate Europe's linguistic diversity and raise European citizens' awareness of this common treasure.

However, it is up to the Member States themselves or their responsible authorities to determine the language regime at national level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Lake Kourna

On the island of Crete plans are afoot to build a biological purification plant in the vicinity of Georgoupoli. This project represents an important step in upgrading the environment in the region and is to receive co-funding under the Cohesion Fund. The site chosen for this plant is near to Lake Kourna which was included in Natura 2000.

Given that this is a necessary and particularly useful project, can the Commission confirm that locating the biological purification plant on this site will not affect the quality of the water of the lake or damage the environment? Have alternative regions been considered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Greek authorities asked the Commission for a Cohesion Fund contribution of about 8,6 million for a waste-water treatment plant in the Georgioupoli region.

The Commission decided when examining the case-file that the project could not be considered a priority within the meaning of Council Directive 91/271/CEE of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1). Moreover, it did not offer the guarantees needed to protect Lake Kournas, which is close to this area and included under code number GR4340010 in the list proposed by Greece for the Natura 2000 European ecological network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). The Commission has accordingly rejected this application for assistance.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Banning of the Party of Virtue in Turkey

On 22 June the Turkish Constitutional Court decided to ban the activities of the Party of Virtue, confiscate its assets and deprive some of its members of their civil rights for five years.

1. Is such a decision in an applicant country compatible with the acquis communautaire, the Copenhagen criteria and the commitments deriving from the partnership?

2. What steps will the Commission take in order to send Turkey a clear message that its commitment to fulfilling its binding obligations as an applicant country must not remain a dead letter?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

While noting that the decision of the Constitutional Court ordering the banning of the Fazilet party is in accordance with the Turkish Constitution, the Commission is concerned about the implications of this ruling for democratic pluralism and freedom of expression.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the declaration issued in June 2001 by the Presidency on behalf of the Union which stressed that the decision of the Court highlights the need for Turkey to move ahead with political reforms in order to implement priorities of the Accession Partnership.

The Commission is currently monitoring, in light of the Copenhagen political criteria, the current developments connected with the constitutional reform debated by the Turkish Parliament inter alia with respect to the provisions on the banning of political parties. In this context, it pays particular attention to the need to comply with European standards, in particular the Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogous measures adopted in December 1999 by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2893/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Annual number of votes in the Council

How many votes have been held in the Council every year?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

As a preliminary remark, the Council would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the General Secretariat of the Council draws up monthly summaries of Council acts which contain lists of legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity within the meaning of Article 207(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of its Rules of Procedure

As from January 2001 these monthly summaries also include references to the voting procedure followed for the adoption of the acts by the Council (unanimity, qualified or simple majority). The summaries can be obtained directly from the Council's website (http://ue. eu. int, under Transparency and Summary of Council acts). Furthermore, the results of votes on legislative acts are published in the press releases which are issued after Council meetings and which may also be downloaded from the Council's website (under Press Office/Newsroom and Council).

As for the Honourable Member's specific question concerning the number of votes taking place in the Council every year, statistics are available on votes taken when the Council acts in its legislative capacity. In other cases, the results of votes are only made public by Council decision taken at the request of one of its members, under Article 9(3), subparagraph (c) of its Rules of Procedure. The following statistics of abstentions and negative votes cast by delegations on the adoption of legislative acts by the Council were compiled for the period from 1996 until 2000:

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Finally, in the year 2000 the Council adopted 136 legislative acts by qualified majority and 55 by unanimity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Definition of vegetarianism and vegetarian

In Germany, products are sold with a declaration that they are vegetarian even though they contain ingredients of animal origin.

1. Is it true that this is legal because there is no legal definition of vegetarianism?

2. If so, what is the Commission doing to prevent consumers being misinformed in this way?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

There is no harmonised definition of vegetarian or vegetarianism at Community or international level.

Within the framework of the Codex alimentarius, discussions aimed at laying down such a definition were discontinued after a number of years without any conclusions having been reached owing to differences of approach and a lack of consensus.

According to some, the term vegetarian implies only that no meat products are consumed, whereas others believe that all products of animal origin should be excluded; there are also a number of different approaches between these two extremes.

In order to avoid consumers being misled, the Commission takes the view that they should be placed in a position to check the composition of foodstuffs labelled as vegetarian in order to satisfy themselves that this corresponds to their own conception of vegetarianism.

Manufacturers using the product designation in question should therefore indicate precisely on the label all the ingredients that a product contains.

The Commission's recent proposal to Parliament and the Council(1) providing for the listing of all foodstuff ingredients on labels will eliminate any uncertainties about labelling of the products under consideration here.

(1) COM(2001) 433 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3114/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 November 2001)

Subject: Health spending

1. Could the Council please indicate, as a proportion of GDP, expenditure on healthcare in each EU Member State by:

(a) governments,

(b) individuals?

2. Could it also please indicate average EU expenditure on healthcare as a proportion of GDP, using the most recent figures available?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

The Council does not receive data on health care expenditure in EU Member States and therefore is not in a position to reply to the Honourable Member's questions.

Until now, these figures were published by the OECD. However, in the future, Eurostat and the OECD will cooperate to collect and update such data for publication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3355/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Appalling hygiene in the Rendi central meat market in Greece

In reply to question E-2566/01(1) the Commission states that it is looking into hygiene at the Rendi central meat market in Greece.

What conclusions has the Commission drawn from its inquiry, and what steps does it intend to take to ensure that hygiene is improved in this meat market?

(1) See page 122.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office has scheduled a specific inspection mission to the central market in Rendi in January 2002.

A mission report will be drafted and transmitted to the Greek authorities in accordance with the procedures set out in Commission Decision 98/139/EC of 4 February 1998 laying down certain detailed rules concerning on-the-spot checks carried out in the veterinary field by Commission experts in the Member States(1). The consolidated report will also be transmitted to Parliament and finally published on the Internet at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/index_en.html.

The final report will be examined by the relevant departments of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, which will decide on the most appropriate measures needed in the light of the situation encountered.

(1) OJ L 38, 12.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Luis Elvas company and the textile and clothing sector in Portugal

The Luis Elvas LDA company (confecçoes Montebela), based in Belmonte, in an inland area of Portugal where there are few jobs, even in industry, is going through a difficult period. It currently has a workforce of 200 workers, compared to an earlier figure of 300.

Following a major investment about five years ago, the company went through a difficult period as a result of significant bad debts, amounting to ESC 150 m, after clients in France and the United Kingdom went bankrupt.

The tough competition from third countries in the sensitive textile and clothing sector is making the situation even worse and jeopardising the company's future, with all the consequences this can have for employment, mainly among women and the development of this inland area of Portugal.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- What support has the Community given the Luis Elvas company?

- What aid does the Commission intend to provide for companies in the textile and clothing sector affected by the bilateral agreements between the European Union and third countries?

- How does it intend to support SMEs, especially in such sensitive sectors as the clothing trade, which are affected by bad debts in other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3315/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Tourist arbitration in the EU

Numerous tourists in the EU are resorting to the tactic of citing grounds of complaint with the intention of obtaining refunds on the costs of their holidays after the event.

For this reason, and to prevent hotels suffering from tourists' claims for refunds from tour operators which are then passed on to the hotels, a number of tourist centres in the Community have set up tourist arbitration departments in the hope that this type of structure will be generalised at Union level.

Will the Commission consider the possibility of cooperating with a view to establishing, at Community level, a Community Tourist Arbitration Centre, whose brief would be to find solutions to disputes of whatever type arising between tourist entities and users in the different Member States, with a view to avoiding unnecessary prejudice to hotels and tourist entities in general?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The question asked by the Honourable Member falls within the area of responsibility of the Member States, which is why, in its Communication of 13 November 2001(1), the Commission did not identify the establishment of a Community Tourist Arbitration Centre as one of the priorities and actions to be taken by the various public and private operators in the sector.

However, as regards consumer policy, the Commission, in collaboration with Member States, has established the European Extra-Judicial Network (the EEJ-Net) in order to help consumers resolve their cross border disputes with traders more effectively by using out-of-court dispute resolution schemes. National contact points(2) have been established by each Member State as well as Norway and Iceland to provide a communication and support structure to facilitate the working of national out-of-court settlement bodies cross border. The purpose of the network is to address the practical obstacles which consumers' face if using an out-of-court settlement body in a country other than their own. Primarily those barriers involve lack of information about foreign bodies as well as linguistic and geographical barriers that make it difficult for the consumer to make a complaint in the first instance. The national contact points will help the dissatisfied consumer with information and support in making a claim to the out-of-court settlement body in the country where the business from which the products or services were acquired is located. The pilot phase was launched on 16 October 2001 and will run for 1 year.

(1) Commission Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Working together for the future of European tourism, COM(2001) 655 final.

(2) For further information see: http://europa. eu. int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just14_en. pdf.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3117/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: The aviation industry following 11 September 2001

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 have exacerbated the crisis in the aviation industry in the USA and Europe. The US authorities have responded by granting their industry an aid package worth some $ 15 billion. The crisis has also entailed a reduction in the number of departures for many airlines both in the USA and Europe.

- What steps will the Commission take to monitor the US authorities' aid package and its impact on the market in passenger transport, and how will it ensure that the aid package is consistent with international trade agreements?

- In the light of the Commission's recent proposal on the allocation of slots at airports, what steps will it take to ensure that airlines based in the country of departure are not given preferential treatment in that respect, and what consequences does the Commission foresee if the proposal is adopted in its present form?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission is concerned that compensation may have given American airlines the financial means to compete unfairly on the transatlantic routes with their European counterparts.

Unfortunately, the refusal of the Council to agree a mandate permitting formal negotiations at European level with the United States in the air transport field has hindered so far a more vigorous response by the Commission.

Nonetheless, the Commission was able to take some action at the highest level by communicating its concern about the provision of this state aid through a letter to the American Secretary of State for Transportation. Further high level contact between the Director-General for Energy and Transport and the Deputy Secretary of Transportation in Washington permitted the Commission to propose for the development of improved information exchange and cooperation procedures. This proposal could at least ensure greater transparency on the issue.

The Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993, on the allocation of slots at Community airports(1) provides for neutral and non-discriminatory rules for the allocation of slots. The modifications proposed by the Commission further reenforce the independence of the slot co-ordinator, clarify the rules and introduce sanctions to ensure better enforcement of the rules.

(1) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.