ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3484/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Contracting awards

By what process does the Commission make purchases of equipment? Do the Commission staff have the authority to make such purchases, or does the Commission use an external buyer? What percentage of money has been recovered when the supplier does not uphold their end of the contract? Does the Commission feel that this is an acceptable rate of recovery? If not, what steps are being taken to ensure that taxpayers' money is being spent efficiently?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission purchases equipment through external supply contracts.

Contracts are awarded in accordance with public tendering procedures set down in the Financial Regulation. The specific administrative procedures applied depend upon the amount of the order or contract to be awarded. Calls for tender are published in the Official Journal and followed by a technical and financial evaluation process. Contracts above 50 000 are finalised only after formal notification of the Commission's Advisory Committee on Procurements and Contracts which is presided over by the Deputy Director-General of Directorate-General for Budget (DG BUDG) and consists of representatives of nine other services including Directorate-general for Personnel and Administration (DG ADMIN), the Legal Service and Financial Control.

Purchases are made by the administration and never by individual initiative.

If a supplier does not comply with his or her contractual obligations, up to 10 % of the total estimated amount of the contract can be recovered (covered under the Letter of Guarantee) in accordance with the specific provisions, and depending on the type of contract. The exact percentage is set before the tendering procedure and adapted in function of the importance of the contract or order. Beyond this guarantee, specific penalty clauses are included for each type of contract, depending on the use of the product being purchased.

During the last five years, the central purchasing unit of DG ADMIN has had no case in which a supplier did not comply with his contractual obligations to supply equipment.

In order to further increase the efficiency of operations, the Commission is at present developing a framework e-commerce system. Such a system is currently used for office supplies and, in the near future, should also be used for furniture and technical equipment.

Apart from the issue of supply contracts, the Honourable Member may be interested to know that the establishment of a central contracts database proposed in Action 74 of the Reform Strategy White Paper (March 2000) is now being undertaken in DG BUDG. It will bring together all contracting and financing agreements concluded by the Commission, including all supply contracts. This will allow a more systematic and centralised monitoring than has hitherto been possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Alqueva artificial lake, Portugal

Is it correct that the European Union is contributing half of the EUR 1,25 billion required to finance Europe's largest dam project in the Alqueva region of Portugal?

Is it correct that the World Bank rejected an application for funding for this project because of economic misgivings as long ago as 1975?

Is this investment guaranteed to be economically and ecologically sustainable?

Is it true that more than a million trees have been felled for this artificial lake and that populations of many native species are endangered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Alentejo region is one of the most disadvantaged in Portugal and in the European Union as a whole. It is an agricultural region subject to frequent droughts, resulting in a weak economic fabric and a population with a poor level of skills.

In order to support the sustainable development of this region, during the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming periods the Structural Funds are part-financing both the Alqueva multi-purpose project and a whole series of measures designed to diversify the productive fabric and upgrade human resources, while minimising the impact on the environment. The specific integrated development programme for the Alqueva for 1994-1999 contains 193 133 000 and the Alentejo regional Operational Programme for 2000-2006 1 088 000 for this purpose.

With regard to the Alqueva multi-purpose project, the dam on the Guadiana river aims to create a strategic reserve of drinking water for supply to the people of the Alentejo and to ensure energy production and irrigation in this region. Before the part-financing decision was taken, several studies were carried out to analyse this project from the economic and environmental points of view. These studies were carried out either at the request of the Portuguese authorities or at the request of the Commission or jointly and all agreed on the importance of this project for the development of the Alentejo.

These studies proposed a number of measures to minimise and offset the impact of the project on the environment. To this end, an environmental management plan was worked out which includes all these measures as well as those designed to reduce as far as possible the number of trees to be felled in the area to be flooded. Implementation of this plan, which is now in progress, is monitored by a committee on which non-governmental environmental organisations are represented.

At the time the part-financing decision was taken, the Commission ensured that this project, and in particular the measures listed above, complied with Community policy and law on the environment, and it is continuing to do so throughout the implementation process.

Lastly, the Commission would point out that it is not in a position to comment on the decisions of the World Bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3589/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Internal market

Checks on imports of fresh fish from third countries at the various FIPs (frontier inspection posts) vary enormously from one EU country to another in terms of requirements regarding microbiological standards.

The result is that European importers systematically choose airports in EU countries with less stringent health requirements as the port of entry, with the goods then being transported by land to their final destination.

This indirectly produces a clear distortion in the internal air cargo market, given that flights are directed to certain airports for reasons other than competitiveness, geographical proximity to relevant installations etc., which paradoxically leads to heavy losses for air cargo centres in countries which are more assiduous in protecting the health of their consumers.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What steps will be taken to resolve this issue? On what timescale?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Checks on imports of products of animal origin are harmonised and clearly laid down in Community legislation which specifies the documentary, identity, and physical checks that must be carried out in any border inspection post.

Details of the microbiological testing required for particular high risk products, which are the subject of safeguard Decisions, including fish, are normally specified in the Decision itself. Member States are required to carry out microbiological testing according to national rules for all other products of animal origin not subject to safeguard measures and routinely examined in border inspection posts.

Commission staff conduct regular inspections of all border inspection posts in the Member States to verify that correct Community standards of facilities, staffing and procedures are maintained. Should any serious discrepancies in application of Community legislation be brought to the attention of the Commission, this would be investigated and further action taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(15 January 2002)

Subject: Execution of hunger-striking prisoners in Turkey

In a raid by security forces in a suburb of Istanbul, six hunger strikers were killed and, according to a forensic report discovered by the Turkish press, their bodies showed signs of beatings and bullet wounds. 80 hunger-strikers have died over the last year, 36 of whom have been killed in security force operations, and the International Press Agency reports that the Turkish Government is drafting a law providing for prison sentences for anyone inciting, encouraging or supporting (!) hunger strikers. Will the Council therefore say what practical steps it has taken in response to the murders?

Will discussions between the EU and Turkey as an applicant country be suspended until the competent Turkish Minister takes responsibility and resigns, and the conditions are created whereby the human rights, the life and dignity of political prisoners in Turkish jails are respected? According to a Council statement, improving conditions in Turkish prisons is one of the short-term priorities of the partnership. By when must these short-term obligations be met?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

Regarding the police operation in a district of Istanbul on 5 November 2001 against hunger strikers opposing the introduction of a new type of prison, the Council, through the Heads of Mission in Ankara and more recently at the meeting of the troika of EU-Turkey Political Directors in Madrid on 8 January 2002, expressed its concern to Turkey regarding a disproportionate use of force, and asked the Turkish authorities to provide explanations regarding the deaths that occurred.

On detention conditions in Turkish prisons, their improvement is a medium-term priority of the accession partnership with Turkey, which came into effect in March 2001. The accession partnership allows for more than one year for the achievement of medium-term priorities. The Council also recalls that the European Council which met at Laeken on 14 and 15 December 2001 encouraged Turkey to continue its progress towards complying with both economic and political criteria, notably with regard to human rights.

Regarding other matters relevant to the question raised, the Honourable Member is urged to refer to the reply given by the Council to Written Question E-3180/01 put by Mr Christos Zacharakis, which also concerns the police operation against hunger strikers on 5 November 2001 in Istanbul.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: NoVa-standard consumption levy

In Austria there is a standard consumption levy (NoVa) which has to be paid when a vehicle is imported into Austria.

Are any such levies payable in other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Austrian tax to which the Honourable Member is referring, is a tax which can be characterised as a registration tax. Under Austrian law, the tax is chargeable when a new car is delivered and when a car, which is not yet registered nationally, is registered. Cars transferred from other Member States and cars imported from third countries are thus subject to this tax.

Ten Member States are currently applying a registration tax. Germany, France, Luxembourg, Sweden and the United Kingdom do not apply a registration tax.

It should be added that the Commission considers that aspects of the Austrian NoVa discriminate between cars from Austria and cars from other Member States in a way that is contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty. The Commission has therefore decided to challenge this tax before the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Protection of Hellenistic cultural treasures in Afghanistan

Before the civil war broke out in Afghanistan, Greek archaeologists had discovered priceless articles from the Hellenistic period dating back over 2500 years. Many of these finds, whose fate is unknown at the present time, were stored in the vaults of the Bank of Afghanistan and the Kabul museum.

Now that hostilities are coming to an end and rumour has it that many of the finds have already been taken out of the country to be sold, will the Commission support an investigation to find, save and protect these antiquities wherever they may be?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

As suggested by the Honourable Member in his question, it does appear, sadly, that many of the historical artefacts which were stored either in the Bank of Afghanistan or the Kabul museum have been looted or destroyed during the extended period of civil war in Afghanistan.

The Commission, in collaboration with Member States and the international community, pledged funds at the Tokyo conference of the Afghan Reconstruction Steering Group (January 21-22, 2002) for the reconstruction of the country. The Commission's contribution for 2002, announced at this conference, was 200 million.

These funds will be directed at priorities such as support for the Interim Authority, rural redevelopment, urban regeneration, demining, efforts to halt poppy cultivation, and support to the media. The Commission will propose to the Budgetary Authority that funding at a comparable level should be approved annually for a further four years.

As indicated in response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0878/01(1), the budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the Afghan cultural heritage.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3321/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Targeted demolition of buildings belonging to Greeks in Albania

According to complaints by the Greek community of Cheimarra on 22 November 2001 the selective demolition of buildings and homes belonging to members of the internationally recognised Greek ethnic minority of southern Albania is scheduled to commence. The buildings concerned are properties returned to their rightful owners by the local authorities immediately following the fall of Hoxha's communist regime and include houses, taverns, cafes and offices belonging to Greek organisations together with a Greek language tuition centre.

The new mayor of Cheimarra, who belongs to the Socialist party, sent fifteen selective letters of notification of demolition to members of the Greek ethnic minority on the grounds that the buildings concerned, which have been standing for many years and were returned to their rightful owners following revocation of the provisions confiscating them decreed by the previous Communist regime were unauthorised.

What view does the Commission take of this? Are such racist tactics by the Albanian authorities against ethnic Greeks in Albania consistent with officially accepted principles in the EU Member States? What immediate measures can be taken to halt the measures thus decided and end the persecution by the Albania of members of the ethnic Greek minority which is recognised not only internationally but also by Albania itself?

Reply given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the selective demolition of buildings and homes belonging to the ethnic Greek minority in Albania.

According to the information available illegal buildings have been demolished all over the country during 2001, including in its Southern part (Himara region). However, according to the available data, there has not been any kind of targeted demolition against properties belonging to the Greek minority, and demolition has only concerned illegal constructions. Ethnic Albanian owners have also been the object of these drastic measures.

The Commission is closely following the position of minorities in Albania, and is particularly attentive to the issue raised by the Honourable Members. However, the Commission considers that Albania has, in general, a constructive attitude as regards its national minorities, and has not observed either racist tactics nor persecution against the Greek minority in Albania.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3536/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Killing of migratory birds on Cyprus

When did the Commission last raise with the Cypriot authorities the issue of the capture in nets and subsequent killing of migratory birds, and what was the response? When will the Commission next be raising this issue?

Was the matter discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention of 26-30 November? If so, what representations were made by the Commission, and what was the outcome of the meeting?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Under the terms of the chapter of the enlargement negotiations relating to the environment, Cyprus has undertaken to implement the environmental acquis relating to nature protection and this includes the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1).

The issue of the capture in nets and subsequent killing of migratory birds has been raised with the Cypriot authorities on a number of occasions over the last year, notably at the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention in November 2001 as well as at an international congress on wildlife game management held in Cyprus in September 2001. There has also been written communication with the Cyprus authorities on the issue.

The Cyprus authorities have informed the Commission that they recognise the problem referred to by the Honourable Member as an issue of major concern and agree the need for more stringent enforcement measures. They have informed the Commission that they are also taking action regarding restaurants and places where these protected species are illegally sold. The Commission has been informed that the authorities will be making further efforts in 2002 in an attempt to fully eliminate this activity and especially to influence the attitude of citizens. In the new legislation that will harmonise Cypriot law with the environmental acquis there are provisions on hunter education. The Commission will continue to monitor developments on this issue.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2001)

Subject: Fingerprinting

One issue which recurs in the debate on external and internal security is the fingerprinting of immigrants or even of all Union citizens. It is claimed that fingerprinting would be an affront to human dignity. I would point out in this connection that all Italian nationals subject to military service have their fingerprints taken in the course of their medical examination, without this causing any debate in Italy over the last decades on affronts to human dignity.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly found, especially in the case of immigrants, that criminals have extended their stay in Union territory by changing their names or forging their papers, although they had already been deported or sentenced to imprisonment. This would be easier to prevent if the use of fingerprinting put a stop to changes of identity and facilitated identification after crimes.

With this in mind, what is the Commission's indicate its attitude towards the introduction of the fingerprinting of immigrants from non-Community countries, and what action has it already taken in this connection?

Will the Commission also state whether it is considering recording the fingerprints of all Union citizens on security grounds?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission is at the time being focused on the implementation of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000(1) concerning the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention(2). For this purpose the Eurodac Central Unit collects and/or compares the fingerprints

of asylum applicants and certain other categories of third country nationals submitted by the Member States. These other categories refer on the one hand to aliens who were apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of the border of a Member State having come from a third country and who were not turned back and on the other hand to aliens found illegally present in a Member State. In all cases the fingerprints are taken and submitted for the sole purpose of helping the Member States to determine which one is competent for dealing with an asylum application according to the Dublin Convention.

In more general terms there is an ongoing debate on the use of biometrics, that covers also fingerprints and which, for instance, could be used for securing identity and travel documents. However, the Commission has not envisaged any proposal for taking and recording of fingerprints of immigrants or Union citizens.

(1) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000.

(2) Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities, OJ C 254, 19.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/01

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Subject: Budgetary status of the northern dimension in 2002

The northern dimension is an important political initiative.

What steps has the Commission taken with a view to creating a special heading for the northern dimension in the EU budget for 2003?

How will it cover the northern dimension when it draws up the 2003 budget?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission strongly supports the Northern Dimension initiative. It aims at enhancing cooperation between the Union and the countries of Europe's northern region through, inter alia, better coordination of the Community programmes operating in the region. It has been clear from the beginning that the Northern Dimension initiative would not involve creation of new specific sources of Community funding.

The Commission believes that more is to be gained by improved coordination of existing programmes than could be made available by another small budget line and, therefore, the Commission does not foresee proposing a separate heading for the Northern Dimension. The Commission is in general against the creation of small thematic or specialised small budget lines, which hinder effective management of the Community budget.

Activities within the Northern Dimension continue to benefit from the existing budget lines, the TACIS programme for actions in Russia, from the PHARE and ISPA programmes for the candidate countries and from Interreg in the Member States concerned. For example, the budget line (B7-521) for Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) is used predominantly in the Northern Dimension area; its subsidiary line for the Baltic Sea (B7-5211) is of course entirely aimed at the Northern Dimension area. This is also the case as regards the PHARE CBC programme in the region (B7-0311). In addition, the Commission intends to be a major contributor to the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership Support Fund once this Fund is set up.