ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1488/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Burma

What impact does the Commission consider that Burma's membership of ASEAN has had on progress towards the development of democracy and respect for human rights in Burma?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Commission believes that the human rights situation in Burma/Myanmar remains of great concern.

It would appear that Burma/Myanmar's membership of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has helped to focus the attention of other ASEAN member countries on the situation, and a number of these countries have sought to encourage the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to make progress on the issues of human rights and democratisation. This process has been reinforced by the strong position taken by the Union, which has refused to accept the accession of Burma/Myanmar under its present regime to the European Union-ASEAN cooperation agreement or its active participation in the programmes executed under that agreement or even discussion of those programmes.

The Union attaches great importance to its relations with ASEAN and has therefore proposed to hold an European Union-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Asia before the end of 2000. The Union has also made clear its readiness to initiate a meaningful political dialogue with Burma/Myanmar and intends to send an official-level Troika mission to Rangoon/Yangon with a view to the establishment of such a dialogue. In these contacts, the Union will make further efforts to explain the concerns already spelled out in the Union common position with regard to the lack of progress towards democratisation and the continuing violations of human rights and to encourage Burma/Myanmar to take concrete and visible actions to meet these concerns.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2283/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Legal certainty

Has the Commission apologised to the Nordvestjydsk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energi now that the Danish Public Prosecutor has found that there were no grounds for prosecution for fraud involving EU resources?

Will the Commission impress it on OLAF that a person has to be treated as innocent until prosecution or conviction?

Does the Commission believe that legal certainty is served if the withdrawal of charges by the Public Prosecutor is followed by civil proceedings, bringing fresh uncertainty to the Nordvestjydsk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energi to follow the three years it has already suffered?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The fact that criminal proceedings have not been the outcome of the investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office is a matter for the judicial authority alone; neither the Office nor the Commission has any say in the matter. Consequently, there is no reason for the Commission to apologise.

Community law recognises important fundamental principles, and the arrangements connected with the setting up of the Office(1) provide that its investigations must be conducted in accordance with the Treaty and with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The very nature of the Office's work (administrative investigations) means that it cannot infringe the presumption of innocence, since it is not empowered to undertake judicial proceedings.

The civil proceedings aimed at recovering sums wrongly paid are being carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in the contracts and the relevant legislation. They are independent of any criminal prosecution, though they can, if necessary, be joined to such proceedings.

In this case, it should be noted that the Commission has cancelled the specific contract with Folkecenter and asked for full repayment of all the money that has been paid under this contract since the summer of 1997.

(1) See Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Lack of information from European railway operators in international train timetables

1. Cross-border passenger train connections between European Union countries are often underused. The sharp increase in traffic on such journeys is accounted for mainly by car and air travel, not by trains. The reasons include the premiums charged by railway operators over and above their standard fares on cross-border services and the poor availability of timetabling information from railway operators in countries other than their own. Does the Commission agree that it would be desirable for as many as possible of the existing obstacles to cross-border passenger travel by train to be removed?

2. French, Spanish, Italian and British railways were unable to forward their new timetabling information to railway operators in other European countries in good time for the introduction of the new timetables on 28 May 2000, with the result that no train services to the above four countries could be included in the international timetables issued in those other countries. What action will the Commission take to put a definite end to that situation not later than 9 June 2001 (the next date for introducing new timetables) and to ensure that principal rail connections between European Union countries will be included in good time in each country's timetable of international services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the information policy of railway undertakings as well as co-ordination among them has not proved effective in many cases. This is in particular true for questions related to timetables, train operations and other operational rules. The Commission is however not in a position to force undertakings, on the basis of current legislation, to adopt a certain policy in view of their customers and other undertakings. The Commission would like to recall that railway undertakings have been given management independence by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways(1).

Referring to the obstacles to cross-border rail transport, be they technical or organisational, the Commission would like to point out that it proposed in November 1999 measures to raise the interoperability of conventional (i.e. all non-high-speed) rail transport(2).

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) COM(1999) 617 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1987/00

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: The status of religious minorities in Pakistan

General Musharraf is coming under increasing pressure from religious parties to back down on his pledges to introduce key reforms aimed at improving the status of religious minorities in Pakistan. The Chief Executive has already succumbed to pressure to backtrack on his reform of the administrative procedure for registering blasphemy cases. This was announced on 16 May 2000, just two weeks after a new blasphemy case was registered against Kungri Masih, a 27 year-old Christian from Faisalabad. Also in early May, 35-year prison sentences for blasphemy were handed down to Rasheed and Saleem Masih, two Christian brothers from Pasrur. These three men are the latest in a long line of victims of Pakistan's much-abused blasphemy laws.

Is the Council aware of these cases; and has it made any representations on behalf of these men? Does the Council intend to offer General Musharraf encouragement as he seeks to press ahead with other reforms, such as the restoration of the joint electoral system and the reform of the madrassahs (Koranic schools)?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The Council is aware of the general problems mentioned in the honourable MEP's question, and in particular of Chief Executive Musharraf's reluctance to reform Pakistan's blasphemy law. However, the Council has not, so far, discussed the individual cases of Rasheed and Saleem Masih.

As the honourable MEP is well aware, the regular political dialogue between the European Union and Pakistan, together with the signature of the EC-Pakistan Co-operation Agreement, has been suspended in the wake of General Musharraf's military coup which overthrew Pakistan's democratically elected government in October 1999. Nonetheless, the Council will continue to raise the issue of tolerance, religious freedom and the rights of minorities in Pakistan on an ad hoc basis, whenever an appropriate opportunity arises. Similarly, the EU Heads of Mission in Islamabad have in the past raised individual human rights problems directly with the Pakistani authorities and will continue to do so in the future. The Council hopes that General Musharraf's recent appeal to Islamic religious leaders, issued on the occasion of his speech at the Seerat conference in mid-June, to pay more attention to human rights and to end sectarian violence in the country will yield better results.

The Union pursues also at a multilateral level its efforts aimed to counter intolerance and violence based on religion or belief. In this context, Member States recently co-sponsored the resolution Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, introduced by Ireland and adopted by consensus at the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (20 March-28 April 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Ownership structure of the company Energie AG

The Land of Upper Austria owns 100 % of the electricity supply undertaking Energie AG. The liberalisation of the electricity market is forcing electricity suppliers to form larger units in order to cut costs and increase market penetration and thereby retain customers.

The Parliament of Upper Austria has therefore decided to sell 25,1 % of the undertaking Energie AG. At the same time, it was decided to exclude suppliers who produce energy using nuclear power from submitting a bid. As a consequence, only Austrian electricity undertakings are able to submit bids for the 25,1 % share, with electricity undertakings in the remaining EU states being excluded from the procedure.

Does such a procedure comply with European law, and are contracts concluded under such conditions valid under EU law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2182/00(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See p. 168.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2098/00

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Amnesic Shellfish Poison

At a meeting on 15 December 1999, the European Commission Standing Veterinary Committee decided to create a working group to examine testing methods for the detection of Amnesic Shellfish Poison (ASP) in scallops.

Has the working group concluded its examination of the issue, and if so, will its findings place the Standing Veterinary Committee in a position to make swift recommendations for a modification of Directive 97/61(1) on ASP testing in order to clarify the provisions of this Directive, in particular by laying down a precise definition of standard practice across all Member States for the testing of scallops?

Does the Commission accept that practice in this area currently differs from Member State to Member State, and that this constitutes a serious threat to the single market in scallops?

(1) OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 35.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The standing veterinary committee decided at the meeting of 15 December 1999 to create a group of experts and to consult the Community and the national reference laboratories for marine biotoxins about the presence of amnesic shellfish poison (ASP) in shellfish, particularly in scallops, and the anatomical distribution of this toxin in the edible parts of the molluscs. The experts group met in Brussels on 17 February 2000 and prepared draft conclusions to be presented for discussions to the plenary meeting of the Community national reference laboratories.

The meeting of the laboratories held on 15-17 March 2000 welcomed the draft conclusions of the expert group, but considered that, in the light of the available data on inter-animal variability, a further assessment should be made by the working group taking account of the outcome of ongoing scientific studies on the matter. The group will meet again when this scientific data is available, which the Commission hopes will be this autumn.

The Commission is aware of the difference between Member States in the application of the analytical tests. Nevertheless the Commission is also aware of the incomplete science on the subject. This is why over the last two years, different experts have been working on the subject, co-ordinated by the Community reference laboratory for marine biotoxins.

Once the final conclusions are available, the Commission will consider whether a legislative proposal is necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/00

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Distance marketing of financial services and electronic commerce: consistency of information requirement in Commission proposals

The Commission's proposals for the above directives include provisions on the information to be provided by suppliers to consumers.

Will the Commission clarify, with particular regard to on-line providers of financial services, the exact nature of information requirements which would need to be met? In addition, what measures has the Commission taken to ensure that the information requirements in these two directives are consistent?

When finally adopted, which of the directives, if any, would take precedence for a supplier of financial services over the Internet, should the information requirements in the two directives be inconsistent?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

In the case of an on-line financial service contract provided to a consumer, the information requirements contained in any future directive(1) on the distance marketing of consumer financial services would apply.

The information requirements contained in the e-commerce directive(2) are either general (Article 5 on the provider) or specific (Article 6 and 7 §1 on commercial communications and 10 on contracts). These requirements are to be applied only when information society services are provided and, in order to avoid inconsistencies, are in addition to other information requirements established by Community law.

(1) COM(98) 468 final.

(2) COM(98) 586 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1997/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Individual EIB loans in the Canaries

What is the sum total of the individual loans granted by the European Investment Bank in the Canaries over the period 1994-1999, and, where applicable, to what fields and what institutions has this funding been channelled?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The European Investment Bank (EIB) informs the Commission that over the period 1994-1999, it granted individual loans in the Canary Islands for a total amount of 363,41 million, in the fields of telecommunications, water management and to upgrade the islands' four airports. These loans aimed at assuring the territorial continuity between the mainland and the islands, as well as improving infrastructure benefiting both the islands' population and the tourism sector, of great importance for the islands' economy. The loans break down as as follows:

>TABLE>

Furthermore, the EIB states that during the same period and under its global loan scheme, 158 small and medium-sized enterprises and local authorities benefited from funding for their investments, for a total amount of 133,04 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/00

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Assessment of the hazards posed to neighbouring EU states by the storage of radioactive liquid waste at Sellafield in the United Kingdom

What assessment has been made of the hazards posed to EU states adjacent to the United Kingdom by the build-up and storage of high-activity radioactive liquid wastes at Sellafield in Cumbria, UK, resulting from the reprocessing of spent irradiated nuclear fuel?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1726/00 and E-1727/00 given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

The high active liquor (HAL) storage facility at Sellafield has been in place since 1955. In connection with the incorporation of high level waste concentrate into glass in the Windscale vitrification plan (WVP) in 1990, a submission of general data under

Article 37 Euratom treaty for this plant was made in January 1990 and the Commission gave an opinion on this submission. The general data provided information on a reference accident which was the loss of cooling to the HAL feed vessel. It was concluded that in the event of an unplanned release of this type and magnitude the doses likely to be received by the population in Ireland, or any other Member State, would not be significant from the point of view of health. The updated review of safety of the storage of liquid high level waste at British Nuclear Fuel Limited (BNFL) Sellafield (HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, February 2000) does not provide information that would be cause for reconsideration of this assessment.

It is the responsibility of the respective Member States to require similar assessments to be carried out for the storage tanks in operation at United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Dounreay, Compagnie générale des matières nucléaires La Hague, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique Marcoule, and Forschungscentrum Karlsruhe, with regard to the potential exposure of members of the public and resulting health effects.

Bearing in mind that there are multiple containment layers, a breach of containment could nevertheless lead to significant levels of radioactivity in rivers or in the marine environment. It is thus appropriate to look into a possible detriment to the environment, in addition to man. The Commission has undertaken a research programme on effects on animal and plant life in the region and corresponding ecological detriment, and on the development of a rationale and methodology for setting standards of protection, with a view to establishing environmental quality standards. Such standards could then be applied to the assessment of the consequences of a major spillage of liquid radioactive wastes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1812/00

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Studies of the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield

Will the Commission ask the relevant British, Northern Ireland and Irish safety authorities for copies of all studies undertaken since 1980 on the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield, and will it establish a review panel to assess the reliability and current relevance of these reports?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

While Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty allows the Commission to give an opinion on whether the planned disposal of radioactive waste is liable to have an effect on other Member States, Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty requires Member States to communicate to the Commission information on actual levels of radioactivity in the air, water and soil resulting from the continuous monitoring carried out under Article 35 of the Treaty. Such information is received on a regular basis.

Additional studies undertaken by national authorities, e.g. on the radiological effects on Ireland of the operation of Sellafield, are not required under the Euratom Treaty or its derived legislation. Hence the Commission has no responsibility to review and assess such studies with regard to their reliability and contemporary relevance.

The Commission will nevertheless ask the authorities of Ireland and of the United Kingdom whether such studies are available and how the reports can be obtained. In addition, the Commission is launching a comprehensive two year study to assess levels of radioactivity in North European waters, on the basis of all available information. This study will update a similar assessment (Marína) concluded around 15 years ago. The results of national studies and assessments will be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2372/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Repayment of interest-free loans

Is the Commission aware of the practice by certain disreputable finance companies of offering interest-free loans for the purchase of consumer goods over twelve months or so, but then insisting that an agreement is signed to repay the loan over two or three years and making it as difficult as possible to set up arrangements to repay the loan within the time concerned?

Will they propose legislation to outlaw this practice?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Commission has not been informed of the practice mentioned by the Honourable Member. Apparently this would be a problem of misleading timetables linked with offers for an interest free loan in credit advertisements, the agreement finally proposed not maintaining the promised timetable.

Various elements could be considered to examine the problem.

Article 3 of Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 concerning consumer credit(1) refers in turn explicitly to Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to misleading advertising(2) and to the rules and principles applicable to unfair advertising.

Directive 87/102/EEC, in its Article 4, section 2, foresees a written statement of the timetable and Article 8 provides the consumer with a right to discharge his obligations before the time fixed by the agreement. However, Article 2, section 1, (c) and (g), allows the exclusion of credit granted or made available without payment of interest or any other charge and of credit agreements under which the consumer is required to repay the credit by a maximum number of payments within a period not exceeding 12 months from the scope of the Directive, but practically no Member State has used these exemptions.

The specific problem should be submitted to the authorities of the Member State competent for the supervising and control of the national provisions on consumer credit and unfair advertising.

(1) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987.

(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.