ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1042/02

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: Euronews and Gara: the only Spanish media which fail to call ETA a terrorist group

In its bulletin of 26 March 2002, Euronews once again referred to ETA as a separatist organisation rather than a terrorist group.

Objectivity and neutrality in the news media demand that in a report of a rape the word rapist should be used. If an armed robbery is reported, the authors should be termed robbers. What matters from the information viewpoint is the offence committed in itself and not the reasons for the robbery or rape. Nonetheless, certain Spanish media, when reporting terrorist attacks perpetrated by ETA, prefer to refer to the motives put forward by the criminals themselves to justify their actions.

The media concerned are:

- Gara, a newspaper with a small audience which is openly pro-ETA; and

- Euronews, a television channel with a large audience which many Spanish people perceive as officially representing the voice of the EU.

On 10 December 2001 the author of the present question tabled a question to the Commission on the same subject (P-3466/01)(1). The Commission's reply suggested that the President of the Commission is clearly opposed to this unethical attitude on the part of Euronews, which has, however, persisted despite this warning.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Euronews ceases to refer to ETA as a separatist organisation, and carries out its reporting on the same basis as the other media committed to freedom and democracy?

It is possible that those responsible for these news bulletins are acting out of fear of ETA, which has already killed numerous journalists in Spain. However, if this is the case, does the Commission not believe that the persons concerned should resign?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 184.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

As mentioned in its reply to Written Question P-3466/01(1), while respecting the editorial freedom of Euronews, the Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the fact that Euronews continues to refer to the terrorist group ETA as a separatist organisation.

The Commission has, as indicated in the previous reply, drawn the attention of Euronews to the disquiet and offence provoked by the use of this terminology.

As a consequence, Euronews has issued a press release on 15 February 2002 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

It would be inappropriate for the Commission to comment on personnel issues as well as on the individuals stance against terrorist threats.

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 184.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0271/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Preparation for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked the Commission, the Council and the Member States, each in accordance with their respective powers, to set out by 2001 a strategy for further coordinated action to simplify the regulatory environment, including the performance of public administration, at both national and Community level. Could the Commission give some specific examples of how this goal has been met in the UK, France and Germany?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The Honourable Member wishes to have examples of measures taken by Germany, France and the United Kingdom in response to the request made by the Lisbon European Council on 23 and 24 March 2000 that the Commission, the Council and the Member States draw up a coordinated strategy to simplify the regulatory environment.

The Commission can provide the following information at this time:

- under this coordinated strategy, the Member States do indeed take much of the responsibility, since 90 % of the legislation is national,

- in the Community legislative process, Member States' responsibility is exercised especially in the negotiations within the Council, and then more directly in the transposition and implementation of the Community legislation,

- in this context it should be pointed out that Germany, France and the United Kingdom have, along with the other Member States, taken part in the High-level Group (Mandelkern Group) set up in November 2000 to look into this matter. In November 2001 the Group issued an important and high-quality report which was annexed to the conclusions of the Laeken European Council of 14 and 15 December 2001. The Member States give a number of undertakings for rationalising the legislative process and improving the transposition and application of Community instruments.

At the same time all the Member States gave an undertaking at Lisbon to raise their transposition rates to at least 98,5 % by the time of the Barcelona European Council in March 2002. While the scoreboard shows that some progress has been made, the rates of non-transposition for Germany, France and the United Kingdom in October 2001 were 2,6 %, 2,8 % and 3 % respectively.

The Honourable Member will find more information in the Commission's report of 6 February 2002 on implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/charter/charter2002.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1894/02

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

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Deaths of young people in traffic accidents in Finland

The number of young motorists (aged 21-25) involved in fatal road accidents increased dramatically in Finland in 2001. The number of fatal accidents in 2001 was 38, whereas the corresponding figure for 2000 was 21.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to reduce the number of road accidents leading to the death of young drivers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The provisional estimates available to the Commission indicate the Union average to be 104 persons killed on the road per million inhabitants in 2001.

In Finland, where the corresponding rate is 85, the absolute figure (total number of road deaths) has since 1995 fluctuated between 400 and 440. The poor figure for 2001, which not only involved young drivers, does not reveal any significant statistical trend.

Over the last ten years, the mortality of young people in road accidents in the Union as a whole has followed the same trend as that of other age groups. The Commission nonetheless shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding young people, who die on the roads in particularly high numbers.

In addition to planned or existing measures not aimed at specific groups, the Commission is currently providing financial support for several measures aimed specially at young drivers, including drink-driving campaigns (Euro-Bob) and a campaign to improve behaviour, coordinated among all the Red Cross organisations of the Member States.

In addition, the Commission is pursuing an on-going in-depth discussion of the training of novice drivers after they have obtained their licence. This includes the ANDREA and DAN projects (now completed) and ADVANCED (still under way), designed to assess the impact of educational measures on the behaviour of young drivers (compulsory training after obtaining the driving licence and re-education courses for offenders). ANDREA looked in particular at measures for drink-driving offenders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0193/02

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Discrimination on grounds of nationality

In several of the candidate countries, laws concerning the restitution of property expropriated after the war are in effect in which nationality is stipulated as a condition for returning confiscated property.

In the Council's view, does this constitute discrimination on the grounds of nationality and should such laws be repealed before accession?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the question whether any laws on the restitution of property expropriated after the war might be compatible with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: The euro

When exchanging money into euros from other currencies, EU citizens are often attracted to organisations which advertise commission-free transactions, however a poor exchange rate means that people can be misled and charged more than they should be.

How does the European Commission intend to warn EU citizens from outside the euro-zone, such as the UK, about poor exchange rates and potentially misleading claims when exchanging other EU currencies into the euro particularly in holiday resorts in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

There is no specific Community legislation on the conversion of non-euro zone banknotes.

However, it is important that consumers are clearly informed of the cost of transactions so that they can compare and choose. Several Member States have drawn up rules enabling consumers to be aware of the amount of commission prior to the transaction, for instance by displaying the relevant rates. At this stage, the Commission does not see any need for approximation of the rules governing information for consumers in this field, but it would refer the Honourable Member to the provisions transposing Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising into national law(1). This text, which is designed to eliminate or prohibit misleading advertising (defined as any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor) could well apply in the particular instance referred to by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1494/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Problems associated with a jointly funded building project at Perivolia, prefecture of Rethymnon, Greece

Under the 1986-1993 Integrated Mediterranean Programme for Crete, a day nursery was built at Perivolia in the prefecture of Rethymnon, which began operation in 1993. The building is now closed as it has twice been affected by subsidence and is not considered to be safe for the children. The authorities claim that the subsidence is due to the presence of water in the subsoil. However, serious doubts have been raised about shoddy workmanship and whether the necessary works inspections were carried out.

1. Is the Commission familiar with the problems which have arisen with the above project?

2. If so, what are the causes of the problems created and what steps will the Commission take to identify where responsibility lies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The Commission had not been informed of the problem to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is not empowered to determine responsibility in this case. Resolution of the problem is a matter for the national authorities acting under the relevant national legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Funding of projects on the Italian island of Ischia

In September 1999, I asked when building work would start on the island of Ischia for three projects (2 projects for Ischia harbour and one for the natural spring of Nitrodi). The building project has now finished.

1. Have a general progress report for these projects and their final accounts already been drawn up?

2. If so, what results do the general reports show?

3. Could the Commission send me the general reports and the final accounts?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

Structural Funds programmes have for some years been managed directly by the central and regional authorities of the Member State which are directly responsible for the monitoring of the projects co-financed. Similarly, the authorities of the Member State are in charge of payments and the keeping of all invoices pertaining to projects.

The Commission awaits from the Member States for 30 June 2002 the final statements of expenditure and the final reports of implementation of the programmes for the 1994-1999 period which will contain a list of projects co-financed and include the total cost and Structural Fund contribution. However, with regard to the Honourable Member's request for detailed information on the conclusion of the three projects and related financial invoices, the Commission would suggest that he contacts the Ministero delle Attività Produttive, Direzione Generale per il Turismo which is competent for the Italian tourism programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a Directive on environmental liability impact on SMUs

Would the Commission kindly answer the following questions concerning the proposal for a directive on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage(1)?

Has it investigated the impact that the operation of the future market in environmental liability insurance under this directive will have on the competitive position of SMUs vis-à-vis large undertakings?

To what conclusions did the investigations come?

If the operation of the future market in environmental liability insurance results in a comparative disadvantage for SMUs vis-à-vis large undertakings, does the Commission take the view that measures would need to be taken in order to restrict that negative impact to a minimum? What measures would need to be taken to that end?

(1) COM(2002) 17, OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002, p. 132.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

The Commission has assessed the economic impact of the proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on enviromnental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage(1). The Honourable Member is referred in particular to section 4, entitled The economic assessment of the proposal, its benefits and costs, of the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal, and to the Impact Assessment Form attached to the proposal.

No impact assessment has been specifically made for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) since environmental damage might be caused irrespective of the size of a business.

It does not seem that the operation of any future market in environmental liability insurance would result in a comparative disadvantage for SMEs vis-à-vis large undertakings. The level of the premium to be paid by the operator would depend on the level of risk presented by each undertaking. This level of risk should be assessed by the insurer on an individual basis. This assessment is likely to take into account the quality and efficiency of the risk aversion and prevention policy measures implemented by each operator. In other words, all efforts taken by an operator to prevent or at least minimise the risks of occurrence of accidents capable of causing environmental damage should reduce the amount of the premium to be paid. It should also be noted that it is common practice in the insurance industry to fix the premium as a function of the turnover of the insured undertaking. Such a practice appears to be in the interest of the SMEs.

On the basis of the above-mentioned considerations, the Commission is not of the opinion for the time being that particular measures specifically designed for SMEs are needed.

(1) COM(2002) 17 final, OJ C 151, 25.6.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1506/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Production of vinegar from dried grapes

From ancient times vinegar has been made in Greece from sun-dried grapes (mainly the Corinthian variety); in the Greek Food Code it is described as genuine vinegar and is exported very successfully throughout the world.

In the regulation on wine, (EC) No 1493/1999(1), in spite of the fact that there is a reference to wine vinegar, there is no clear stipulation that vinegar made from dried grapes is wine vinegar, although the regulation states that dried grape alcohol is equivalent to vinous alcohol.

Since the production of vinegar from dried grapes is an activity which supports producers, particularly those from an especially backward and poor region such as the Peloponnese, can the Commission say whether it will make the requisite amendments to Regulation No 1493/99, in order to clearly stipulate that vinegar from sun-dried grapes is wine vinegar, as is in fact the case, and to bring it into line with dried grape alcohol?

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

Dried grape alcohol is not defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on common organisation of the market in wine but is treated as a like product to wine alcohol when used in production of liqueur wine as defined in the Annex to that Regulation. But Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks(1) defines wine spirit and raisin spirit quite differently (Article 1(4)(d) and (h)).

A distinction must also be drawn in the case of vinegar. Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 defines wine vinegar as vinegar obtained exclusively by acetous fermentation of wine.

Wine is defined in the Community rules as the product obtained exclusively from total or partial alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must. Thus alcoholic fermentation of dried grapes cannot produce wine and the Commission considers that dried grape vinegar, not being produced from wine, is not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.

The Commission therefore has no plans for addition to the Regulation of definitions or specific provisions relating to that product.

(1) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0969/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Disability rights

Preparations are currently under way for a new proposal for an EU regulation on cooperation aid to Asia and Latin America. Will the European Commission give specific reference to the rights of disabled people in this proposal?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0969/02 and E-0970/02given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

This proposal for a new regulation on co-operation with Asian and Latin American countries does not intend to provide political or strategic orientations. Rather it provides the rules and procedures necessary to programme and decide effectively on co-operation between the Community and partner countries.

The objectives of co-operation are therefore defined in a very broad way, to make it possible to intervene in all areas of co-operation, which are envisaged in the agreements between the Community and the beneficiary countries and under the policy and co-operation guidelines which are adopted in the appropriate fora.

Accordingly, the proposal which the Commission is preparing does not include specific reference to the rights of disabled people, though these are contained in the human right and fundamental freedom article on which the proposal is based. Yet, as human rights are progressively mainstreamed into development co-operation, it is anticipated that cross-cutting issues, like the rights of disabled, will feature more regularly and comprehensively in Community-supported actions.

The Communication from the Commission Europe and Asia: a strategic framework for enhanced partnerships(1), while making no explicit reference to disabled people, makes clear that poverty reduction is one of the key aims of co-operation.

It aims to achieve this by supporting sector programmes in social areas; strengthening dialogue on policy issues and sharing Europe's own experience. It makes the respect of human rights a central objective of Community action in line with the Commission Communication The European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries(2).

It is in the context of the dialogue with partner countries and in the programming of its assistance that the Commission will ensure that human rights, and disabled people's rights amongst them, will be appropriately addressed.

(1) COM(2001) 469 final.

(2) COM(2001) 252 fnal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1025/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Events in the Middle East

The tragic events unfolding in the Middle East and their repercussions affect the vital interests of the European Union and call for its active involvement in the search for a settlement.

What action has the Council already taken and what further steps does it plan to take to go beyond its role of main provider of funding in the region and to propose political solutions which are so urgently needed not only by the Middle East but by the Union itself?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council continues to be actively involved in the search for peace in the Middle East, on the basis of the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. Ministers discussed the issue when they met on 3 April in Luxembourg and again in the margins of the Vth Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Valencia. The question of the Middle East was also on the agenda for the General Affairs Council on 15 April and subsequently on 13 May. It again appeared on the agenda for the General Affairs Council meeting on 17 June 2002. The Secretary-General/High Representative, Javier Solana, has recently again visited the region, meeting both the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Arafat, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Sharon, and participated alongside the President of the Council in the Quartet meeting at ministerial level in Washington on 2 May. The Council shares the view of the Honourable Member that a political solution is essential to bring lasting peace and security in the region.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1097/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Inclusion of Hungary in the list of non-cooperative countries and territories (NCCT) in connection with the fight against money laundering

In its report of 22 June 2001 (most recent update: February 2002) the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering classifies Hungary as a non-cooperative country.

As a member of the Financial Action Task Force, could the European Commission answer the following questions:

- On what grounds has Hungary been classified as a non-cooperative country?

- What view does the Commission take of this step in the light of the accession negotiations and the third pillar?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

In June 2001 the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) added Hungary to the list of non-cooperative countries and territories (NCCTs) whose anti-money laundering defences were judged to be inadequate.

The main reason for the inclusion of Hungary on the list was the continuing practice of issuing bearer savings passbooks anonymously. In the context of the accession negotiations Hungary had already undertaken to discontinue this practice as from its accession to the Union. The FATF was of the view that this action should be taken sooner.

Since its listing, Hungary has taken resolute action to satisfy the FATF. In its press release of 1 February 2002 (available on the FATF website at http://www.fatf-gafi.org), the FATF notes with particular satisfaction the rapid and significant progress made by Hungary to eliminate the deficiencies previously identified.

Assuming that the FATF continues to be satisfied with the ongoing implementation of these reforms, Hungary can hope to be removed from the NCCT list in the relatively near future.

The Commission is thus confident that this matter will be fully resolved well ahead of accession.