ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2751/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Travellers Cheques

Is the Commission aware that, whilst euro Travellers Cheques are being promoted as a safe and sensible way of carrying one's holiday money, this is not the case in some countries, such as Germany and Majorca, where people have found that shops and businesses would not take them, claiming that they had not even seen them before? Moreover, is the Commission aware that even foreign banks demand a commission of 18-20 % on euro Travellers Cheques?

Can the Commission state what legislation and regulations are currently in place to protect citizens against such conduct on the part of business and banks and also on the part of agents such as post offices that strongly advise people to take Travellers Cheques notwithstanding? Can the Commission confirm that it will look into this matter and comment on whether it plans to take any action on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

A traveller's cheque is a private payment instrument issued by a financial institution which represents a sum of money. It can be used for purchases in shops, hotels, etc. or converted into cash at a bank or specialised agency.

It is a payment instrument which is not legal tender. This means in particular that no bank is obliged to accept a traveller's cheque. If a bank does accept it, it is free to set the level of charges for the service.

There is no specific Community legislation on cheques or traveller's cheques and the Commission does not intend to take action in this field.

The issues raised can be dealt with by means of general legislation. Advertising by issuers can be assessed in the light of the legislation on misleading advertising(1). Information on charges for using traveller's cheques comes under national legislation on advertising the price of services.

(1) 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 OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/02

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 January 2003)

Subject: EU, UN drugs conference April 2003 in Vienna and support for parents in bringing up their children

A major review of UN drugs policy, which is based on the 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN Conventions on drugs, is to take place in April 2003 in Vienna.

Will the EU continue to advocate a restrictive drugs policy and that the UN Conventions should be upheld rather than scrapped or relaxed?

Is the Council prepared to adhere to the important principle of giving parents the basic support they need in bringing up their children to avoid drug addiction, which means that legislation (and therefore society), together with the UN Conventions, should continue to criminalise and reject drug use?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

Council bodies started to prepare the position of the European Union for aforementioned conference. So far a possible amendment of UN Conventions has not been discussed. The position of the European Union will be guided by the EU Action Plan on drugs that was agreed in June 2000. Paragraph 5.2 of the Action plan states that international cooperation be developed on the base principles adopted at the United Nations General Assembly in June 1998. In paragraph 2 of the Political Declaration adopted at that occasion need for adherence to the three international conventions was affirmed.

In the mid-term evaluation of the Action Plan it is said that national drugs policies should be allowed to reflect different approaches as to tackle the drugs problem, reflecting national differences in problems, culture, resources etc.

As regards support for parents in bringing up their children, in paragraph 3.1 of the Action Plan on drugs 2000-2004 Member States are encouraged to include in school curricula the prevention of licit and illicit drugs in schools and to set up programs to assist parents.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3836/02

by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Execution of appropriations in Catalonia between 2000 and 2002

Can the Commission provide information on the execution rate for commitment and payment appropriations for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 financial years in respect of the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the Community initiatives in Catalonia?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The table below shows the implementation in Catalonia of commitment and payment appropriations from the Structural Funds (including the Community Initiatives) and the Cohesion Fund in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

>TABLE>

The Commission has no regionalised figures on the multiregional programmes and initiatives or on projects part-financed by the Cohesion Fund which were adopted in 1994-1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Competition with agricultural production in the Azores as a result of the Poseima programme

Under the terms of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001(1) the Autonomous Region of the Azores is entitled to import a large number of food products free of customs duty or with third-territory status,

in particular products identical to those produced in the Azores, such as sugar, milk and meat, provided that these products are not re-exported, with a number of exceptions, including that specified in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001.

According to this exception the re-export prohibition shall not apply to trade flows between the Azores and Madeira.

By virtue of this provision products are being sold on the Azorean market at unbeatable prices after being imported from the Autonomous Region of Madeira under the terms of the Regulation. Can the Commission therefore say whether it had this in mind when it promoted the amendment to Article 3(5) of the Poseima Regulation?

If this was not the aim, does it not consider it should explain what its aim was, and prevent unfair competition with agricultural products from the Azores, in accordance with its powers to draw up implementing regulations?

Does the Commission not consider that using the Poseima programme to prejudice the position of the Autonomous Region of the Azores compared with what it should be if the general provisions of the Treaty were applied directly is contrary to the spirit and the letter of Article 299(2)?

(1) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 26.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 of 28 June 2001 introducing specific measures for certain agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (Poseima)(1) exempts trade between the Azores and Madeira from the prohibition on re-exporting or re-dispatching products supplied to either of these regions under the specific supply arrangements (SSA) laid down in that Regulation.

This provision(2) was introduced by the Council at Portugal's request in order to allow SSA products to be traded between the Azores and Madeira.

The Commission's information is that small quantities of these, including 50 tonnes of white sugar, were re-dispatched to the Azores from Madeira in June 2002.

The Commission is closely watching these new trade flows and in the light of Article 229(2) of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 will adopt any measures needed to ensure respect for the Council's intentions and safeguard local production in the outermost regions.

(1) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.

(2) Not included in the Regulation as proposed by the Commission OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3378/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: State aid for Dutch football clubs

The European Commission has indicated to the Netherlands Government that it is not happy with the government aid being granted to football clubs in the Netherlands.

Does the Commission share my view that, given the social significance of sport acknowledged in the Treaty of Nice a yardstick is required that is different from the manifest disapproval of aid to football clubs?

Is the Commission prepared to discuss the matter again, bearing in mind the Treaty of Nice which acknowledges the role which sport plays in society and which does not refer to sport as being a subject to be dealt with in the context of unfair competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

The Dutch government sent the Commission in June 2002 a letter stating that state aid to football clubs in whatever form is not be considered as state aid. The Commission has responded that it could not agree with this observation in general. According to jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, professional football clubs have to be regarded as undertakings. Therefore, financial support to these undertakings falls in principle under the state aid rules. The Commission added that, however, without a full examination of the details in a specific case, the Commission is not in the position to take a view on the question whether or not public support for football clubs is compatible with these rules on state aid.

The Declaration of Nice acknowledges the principle that sport as such entails social, as well as educational and cultural functions. The European Council, therefore, requests the Community institutions and the Member States to implement their policies, in compliance with the EC Treaty, in accordance with their respective powers and in the light of this principle.

In the letter mentioned above, the Commission has actually asserted that for example subsidies granted by the French authorities for the purpose of giving school education to young people combined with sports training performed by professional football clubs does not constitute aid. The Commission herewith acts in line with the principles referred to in the Declaration of Nice.

However, at the same time under certain circumstances aid to professional football clubs might involve state aid elements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Government aid for professional clubs

Many European professional sports clubs manage to survive only thanks to local authority assistance. With municipalities providing subsidies, standing surety for bank loans, funding the building of stadiums etc.

What view does the Commission take of this?

Is public funding for professional clubs covered by European rules regarding competition and government aid?

If so, what does this mean for the local authorities and professional clubs?

Are professional clubs required to inform the Commission of government aid and do they all do so?

In the Commission's view, what type of government aid falls under Community rules? For example, can subsidies for youth teams be made subject to the same rules as subsidies for professional clubs?

Can the Commission ask professional clubs to reimburse government aid?

Is government aid to Belgian professional clubs in accordance with European legislation? If not, in which cases are infringements occurring?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

According to constant jurisprudence by the Court of Justice, professional sports clubs have to be regarded as undertakings, as they perform an economic activity(1). Therefore, any type of public support to these undertakings falls in principle under the state aid rules provided that all other criteria of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are also fulfilled. For example, aid granted to professional sports clubs, which does not have an effect on trade between Member States, does not fall under the aforementioned article.

If, however, all the criteria of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled, the same rules apply as if aid is granted to any other kind of undertaking. This implies an obligation to the Member State to notify aid to the Commission. The aid may only be granted to the undertaking upon approval of the Commission. In case the aid is incompatible, the Commission may order the Member State to recover the aid from the beneficiary, if it has been illegally paid out in breach of the above mentioned prohibition.

The assessment of financial support to professional sports clubs will vary depending on the characteristics. It might, for example, be considered not to be aid for an economic activity, as in the case of compensation for the education of young players(2). Under certain strict conditions, financial support for stadiums may also be considered as funding for infrastructure and not constitute aid.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot state in general terms whether state aid, within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, has been granted to Belgian professional sports clubs. It needs to be assessed on a case by case basis whether forms of public support constitute State aid and whether they are compatible with the EC Treaty.

(1) Cases C-415/93, Bosman and C-41/90, Höfner.

(2) Commission Decision N 118/2000, France, state aid for professional sports clubs OJ C 333, 28.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3440/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Transfer of personal data between Europe and the USA

During a visit by the European Parliament Delegation for relations with the United States, representatives of the Europol Washington office indicated that Europol had, on a number of occasions, approved transfers of personal data with the US authorities but only in cases of life and death, on the responsibility of the Europol Director and under the supervision of the Board.

Can the Council provide detailed information concerning such procedures and, in particular, the legal basis on which they are carried out? In how many cases has this occurred involving how many people (of what nationality) and what data? What reasons of exceptional and vital importance have in the past been put forward in this connection? Why is that, according to Europol representatives in the USA, there has been no supply of data in the opposite direction, i.e. from the United States authorities to Europol?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 4 of the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting the rules governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to third States and third bodies(1) provides the legal basis for the exceptional transmission of personal data to the US where that is absolutely necessary in order to safeguard the essential interest of the Member States or to prevent imminent danger associated with crime. The Management Board and Joint Supervisory Body are informed of any such transmission.

The Council is not in a position to provide information regarding the nature of the data transmitted to the USA nor regarding the reasons for the transmission.

In addition, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that at its meeting on 19 December 2002 it authorised the Director of Europol to conclude the draft Supplemental Agreement between the United States of America and Europol on the exchange of personal data and related information and to exchange the Letters relating to the Supplemental Agreement.

(1) OJ C 88, 30.3.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3815/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Council

(9 January 2003)

Subject: State of affairs regarding the ratification of the Montreal Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air

The Member States signed the Montreal Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air on 28 May 1999, and the Council announced that the Community would deposit the 15 ratification instruments together by the end of 2002 in order to avoid any discrepancy between Member States.

In reply to my earlier question, the Council stated that the ratification process had begun in all of the Member States and had already been completed in some of them.

1. Can the Council give assurances that the Montreal Convention will be able to enter into force by the end of 2002?

2. If not, could the Council indicate which states have yet to ratify the Convention?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

As stated in the reply to Written Question E-1800/02, the Council recommended that Member States ratify the Montreal Convention in accordance with their national constitutional rules. It is planned that the instruments of ratification of both the Member States and the Community should be deposited in coordinated fashion.

A majority of Member States have already completed the ratification process; the other Member States intend to do so in 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3903/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Council

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Very unpleasant experience of my constituent at Brussels Midi railway station

At the end of October the wife (who is from Belarus) of one of my British constituents decided to return to her home for a visit by train. She took the Eurostar train from London to Brussels and did not realise unwisely that she needed a transit visa for Belgium.

Despite having a valid passport and rail tickets for the full return journey to Minsk, my constituent's wife was arrested at Midi Station and two policemen marched her to a police station. She was placed in a filthy cell with several people who had been arrested for other crimes. The room had an open toilet and human excrement was smeared on the walls. After more than two hours she was taken out and shouted at in French, of which she cannot speak a word. One policeman (tall, slim, with red hair) insulted her nationality, laughed at her passport and called her an insulting word in front of his sniggering colleague. She was in tears and terrified. She asked to make a phone call and this was refused. She asked for an interpreter and a lawyer and this was refused. She was ordered to sign a document in Dutch which she did not understand, being told she could either sign or stay in the filthy cell. She was escorted back to a Eurostar train and held in its security room until she reached London.

My constituent's wife was wrong not to have a transit visa. But was this a correct way to treat her?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council is not in a position to comment on personal reports about the way in which individuals are treated by the authorities of the Member States acting in the exercise of powers which fall entirely within the system of competence and under the responsibility of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/02

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Statute and financing of European political parties

Since the European Parliament opinion of 17 May 2001, the Council regulation on the statute and financing of European political parties has been the subject of a so far fruitless discussion in the Council of Ministers. On account of criticism from the European Court of Auditors, this regulation is intended to be a transitional measure until the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, which establishes an autonomous legal basis.

Any new Commission proposal in accordance with the legal basis established by the Treaty of Nice will be debated with the European Parliament under the codecision procedure. How does the Council intend to come to a workable solution for this transitional period that also stands up to criticism from the Court of Auditors?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Treaty of Nice, which creates a new legal basis for the Regulation referred to in the question, entered into force on 1 February 2003. There is thus no longer a transitional period in the sense meant by the Honourable Member in her question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3761/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Spanish proposal to the UN

Articles in the press report that Spain proposes to submit a proposal to the UN General Assembly under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to amend the provisions governing safety on vessels and the prevention of pollution of the sea. In particular, the Spanish proposal calls for a shorter phasing-out period for single-hull tankers.

Has Spain put forward a similar point of view in the Council and, if so, does it reflect the unanimous view of the Member States?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3563/02, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02,E-3584/02, E-3587/02, E-3589/02, E-3625/02 and E-3761/02

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Members to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of the Council on all the points raised in their questions during the plenary session of the European Parliament in December 2002, and to its replies to Questions H-833/02, H-839/02, H-847/02 and H-871/02 put by Messrs Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Manuel Medina Ortega, Camilo Nogueira Román and John Cushnahan respectively at Question Time on 15 January 2003 in Strasbourg.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3505/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Continued imprisonment of Ngawang Sangdrol

Is the Council aware of the continued detention (since 1992) and ill treatment of Ngawang Sangdrol?

Her sentences were based on her peaceful exercise of her right to freedom of expression.

Has the Council taken any further action to improve her conditions of confinement and ultimately to secure her release?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

On 18 October 2002, the Chinese authorities informed the EU that Ngawang Sangdrol had been released the previous day on good behaviour parole from the Tibet Autonomous Region prison Number One. They also pointed out that the Court's decision to grant her parole due to good behaviour had been influenced by the fact that she had been convicted before the age of 18.

Prior to her release, the EU had repeatedly expressed concern to the Chinese authorities about the situation of Ngawang Sangdrol, and had requested her immediate release.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3825/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Veterinary Medicine Directive

Will the Agricultural Council of Ministers be dealing with the Veterinary Medicine Directive?

If not, could the Council state which Council will be dealing with this most important issue?

What priority will be given to tabling this Directive on the relevant Council agenda?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

1. The Commission proposed a package of measures to reform the Community's pharmaceutical legislation in November 2001. This package comprises a proposal for a new Regulation laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for both human and veterinary use as well as proposed amendments to the existing Directives on medicinal products for human and veterinary use.

2. The Council has given high priority to the work on these proposals. Discussions have essentially taken place within a single forum, because of the close links between the three elements of the package.

To date, they have principally focused on the proposed Regulation. An exchange of views took place within the Council formation involving Health Ministers at the end of June and of December 2002.

3. However, at preparatory levels, separate discussions have also taken place on some key issues that are specific to the Directive on veterinary medicinal products: the problem of the availability of such products, and the problem of ensuring that horses not intended for food production can be treated with necessary pharmaceuticals. The Council will give appropriate treatment with a view to reaching a satisfactory conclusion of the package as a whole, involving all the necessary technicalities concerned. No precise calendar for adoption has yet been scheduled.