ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1071/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Fisheries agreements in the Pacific

Would the Commission outline how it intends to ensure consistency between the EU's development objectives and the fisheries agreement currently being negotiated with Kiribati?

How does the Commission imagine that fisheries agreements will contribute to the reduction of poverty in the Pacific?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Any future Community/Kiribati fishery agreement will ensure that the activity of Community vessels is compatible with the long-term sustainability of tuna fishery in the Pacific region, as well as with all technical fishing and conservation rules applicable in the region.

During the negotiations with Kiribati the Commission is taking into consideration development aspects aiming in particular at poverty reduction and economic benefits for the local economy.

Apart from the usual payment of a financial contribution to the state Treasury, social clauses concerning the employment of Kiribati nationals on Community vessels and training of seamen may be taken into account. Furthermore, important transhipment activity should be carried out by Community vessels in Kiribati ports.

The Commission also intends to encourage Kiribati to achieve complementarity and synergies between its National Indicative Programme (NIP) and the Regional Indicative Programme (RIP) for the Pacific with the financing of fishery related programmes that should be defined in the context of a possible future Community/Kiribati fishery agreement.

The Commission also supports Kiribati to extend the search for complementarity and synergies to take into account other financing and business opportunities made available through institutions and bodies such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2122/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Fisheries Hague Preferences

The principle of relative stability which seeks to distribute fishing opportunities based on traditional fishing rights and the maintenance of fisheries-dependent communities, has been elaborated by virtue of the Hague Preference system which, for its part, seeks to address the special needs of Ireland and the northern parts of the United Kingdom.

Can the Commission provide assurances that these special needs will continue to be recognised and that the Hague Preferences system will not be undermined in the reform of the common fisheries policy which is currently under review?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

The Commission has made it clear in Section 3.3 of its Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy(1) that it wishes to maintain relative stability and within this concept to take account of Hague Preferences, thereby removing any uncertainty about how relative stability is to be applied.

(1) COM(2002) 181 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0568/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Fraud in respect of dairy-product exports to Andorra

At the end of last year the EU's anti-fraud office (OLAF) carried out an investigation in cooperation with the Spanish authorities in order to ascertain whether or not any fraud had been committed in respect of certain dairy-product exports to third countries (specifically Andorra), and whether or not refunds had been paid to Community companies.

Would the Commission say what stage has been reached in the investigation and whether or not Spanish or Andorran companies are involved in the alleged fraud?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was informed in March 2000 by the competent Belgian authorities of problems involving butter marketed in Andorra exported by a Spanish firm which had collected the accompanying export refunds.

In effect the product sold was margarine fraudulently presented as butter.

OLAF notified the Spanish authorities, which started an investigation in order to determine the scale of the fraud and to take appropriate action against the persons involved.

According to the information in OLAF's possession, legal proceedings are under way in Spain and nine people have been charged.

The necessary measures to protect the Communities' financial interests have been set in train by the Spanish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1489/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: TINA, ISPA and environmental directives in the candidate countries

In 1996 the Commission decided on a process of assessing transport infrastructure needs (TINA), approved the following year, the aim of which was to coordinate, in the light of ongoing environmental concern, transport network integration in an enlarged Union in both conceptual and development terms.

The Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA), proposed as part of Agenda 2000, is a financial instrument designed to facilitate incorporation of the Community acquis in the environment and transport fields which focuses on the principle of rectifying environmental damage at source.

Concerns have been raised as to the potential impact, when EU enlargement takes place, of the transport infrastructure network (TINA) on areas of central and eastern Europe protected by the birds and habitats directives.

What is the Commission's assessment of the environmental impact of using funds from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and ISPA allocated for such large-scale regional development projects in central and eastern Europe? Can the Commission give assurances that those funds are not financing candidate countries' projects which are at odds with present EC environmental directives? Can it also restate the action taken in the event of failure to comply with those directives, and to make good the damage caused, in the environment field?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to its answer to written question E-1032/02 by Mrs Lynne(1) concerning Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3) and their impact on pre-accession financing.

In cases where the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession (ISPA) funding is involved for large infrastructure developments, similar standards to those set by Community environmental legislation need to be applied before any co-financing can be granted to the candidate countries. This involves, inter alia, the application of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(4). In addition, the applicant country will also have to investigate whether environmentally sensitive areas are affected which might fall in future under the protection of the two Directives previously mentioned.

As far as the assessment of the environmental impact of projects co-financed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) is concerned, similar standards as those set by the Community environmental legislation have to be applied and the Commission follows the environmental aspects before the loans are approved by the EIB. This also applies to the Directives mentioned above.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 75.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1136/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) and Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Trade in domestic dog and cat fur

Would the Commission provide information on its policy concerning the importing into the European Union of domestic cat and dog fur?

What plans does the Commission have to introduce a ban on the importing of these products into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The Honourable Member is asked to see written question E-1203/02 on the same subject put by Mr Whitehead(1) and the answer given on behalf of the Commission by the Member of the Commission responsible for health and consumer protection.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1108/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Measures against the Israeli Government

In the face of Israeli troops' full-scale and illegal invasion of the Palestinian autonomous territories, the European Union has, unfortunately, confined itself to mere advice to Sharon not to take matters to extremes with the President of the Palestinian Authority. It also continues to insist that the Middle East is a matter for the USA and not Europe, whilst refusing to take practical measures against the Israeli Government as it did at a very early stage and in drastic fashion against Yugoslavia during the events in Kosovo.

Will the Council take measures against the Israeli Government for the crime it is committing against the Palestinians, peace and humanity and, in more specific terms, will it suspend the cooperation agreement between the European Union and Israel forthwith until the siege of President Arafat in Ramallah is ended and Israeli troops have withdrawn from the autonomous territories of the Palestinian Authority?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council does not share the analysis offered by the Honourable Member. Indeed, it has, on the contrary, actively pursued an end to the recent senseless confrontation in the Middle East in concert with its partners, notably the United States, Russian Federation and United Nations. It is convinced that such coordinated international action offers the best prospect for a political resolution of the conflict based on UNSCRs 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace. The Council does not intend to suspend the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Israel.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Complimentary tickets

Would the Commission say which of its employees have received complimentary tickets to Football World Cup events?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0548/00(1). The Commission still does not have a general record of which officials, if any, were provided with tickets, whether paid for or free of charge, for the football World Cup. The rules set out in the answer to E-0548/00 continue to apply.

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Physical Agents (Noise) Directive

Did the European Commission conduct a full Regulatory Impact Assessment, especially as the proposal will affect SMEs, on the draft Physical Agents (Noise) Directive? If not, why not?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0772/02 and E-0773/02given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

The Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answers to Written Question E-3212/01 from Mr Bowis and others(1) and Written Question E-0703/02 from Mr Bushill-Matthews and others(2).

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 132.

(2) See page 38.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Security and human rights

Following the tragic events of 11 September, serious concerns have arisen over the way in which national security has become the overarching concern of many governments to the detriment of human rights, with secondary, parallel systems for the dispensation of justice being created in many cases.

Recently Amnesty International, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and other non-governmental organisations published an open statement addressed to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, asking states to ensure that any measures taken to tackle terrorism complied with their human rights obligations. The above-mentioned non-governmental organisations expressed their support for Mary Robinson's appeal for the creation of a mechanism to monitor the human rights impact of anti-terrorism measures taken by states, and requested the High Commissioner to produce a report on the effects of such measures on human rights, which will lead to recommendations for their effective observance.

What is the Council's position in relation to the views of the non-governmental organisations and Mrs Robinson, and does it intend to take steps to support and implement them?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

At the Laeken European Council the European Union reaffirmed its total solidarity with the American people and the international community in combating terrorism with full regard for individual rights and freedoms (paragraph 17 of the conclusions).

During the last session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the European Union actively supported a Mexican draft initiative on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while encountering terrorism. However, Mexico decided to suspend the presentation of the initiative when it became clear that its final adoption by CHR was, unfortunately, far from guaranteed. In principle, this important initiative will be submitted to CHR next year.

The Council has not taken a position yet on the High Commissioner's proposals mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Interchange of Data between Administrations (I.D.A.)

The Council of Ministers of Transport and Communications of the European Union met on 25 March 2002 and adopted a decision on the interchange of data between administrations (I.D.A.). The news bulletin Euractiv reported on 26 March 2002 that this decision also involves the transfer of data between Member States and non-Member States (web page www.euractiv.com).

Can the Council say what type of data will be exchanged between the administrations? Could such interchange of data include details concerning the religious beliefs of Union or third country nationals? Could such interchange of data take place between the national administrations of Member States and the Turkish authorities, for example? Can the Council say what position the Greek delegation adopted during the debate within the Council of Ministers on the subject of the interchange of data between the administrations of the Member States and non-Member States?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The general orientation agreed, whilst awaiting the opinion of the European Parliament, at the Transport/Telecommunications Council of 25/26 March 2002 concerned a proposal from the Commission to introduce certain amendments to the existing Decisions Nos 1719/1999/EC and 1720/1999/EC which establish the IDA II programme.

The Annex to the first of these two decisions contains a list of projects of common interest to be implemented under the programme. The Commission's recent proposal and the Council's general orientation include only small changes to this list. The descriptions of these projects give a broad indication of the type of data exchanged. It should be recalled that Article 7(c) of Decision 1720/1999/EC, which the Commission does not propose to amend, includes provisions, inter alia, regarding personal data protection and confidentiality in respect of such data.

Regarding the third countries to which the IDA programme may be opened, the Commission has proposed to add Malta and Turkey to those mentioned in the existing decisions. The Council's general orientation supports this change.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1695/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE),Anne Van Lancker (PSE) and Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Guarantee in connection with the running-down of intervention stocks that food will be distributed to disadvantaged groups

In the run-up to the enlargement, it is only normal that the Commission should be seeking to make revisions to agricultural policy. It is also understandable that the new policy should be geared more towards quality than quantity, one of the reasons which prompted the decision to run down intervention stocks. On the other hand, the idea that, although not originally intended for this purpose, part of the intervention stocks should now be used in order to guarantee disadvantaged groups the right to food should not be rejected out of hand.

Can the Commission state whether it has considered this idea in connection with any moves to run down intervention stocks and, if not, whether it intends to take other steps to ensure that food provision for the most disadvantaged population groups in Europe at least remains at current levels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

The aid programme introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community(1) and organised by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992(2) is one of the food programmes developed by the Union. The special feature of the programme is that it is based on intervention stocks and therefore helps reduce Europe's agricultural surpluses.

One of the objectives of the reform launched several years ago is to prevent intervention stocks from building up. The resulting downward trend in intervention stock quantities could ultimately entail re-examining the programme's advisability and implementation. It should be emphasised, however, that this trend is gradual and that the quantities needed to implement the programme are relatively small compared with present intervention stocks of various products.

The Commission would therefore point out that the downward trend in intervention stocks highlighted by the Honourable Members does not constitute an obstacle to implementing the current (2002) annual plan in the normal way or to preparing the next (2003).

Over time the Commission has adjusted implementation as necessary so that the programme can continue and develop. The Commission is mindful of the impact which the trend highlighted by the Honourable Members and particularly the forthcoming enlargement of the Union will have on the programme's future.

(1) OJ L 352, 15.12.1987.

(2) OJ L 313, 30.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1187/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Possible involvement of the Vatican in fraud relating to agricultural subsidies

On 14 August 2001 the Vienna newspaper Kronen Zeitung reported that the Vatican had been exploited by an Austrian dairy in a large-scale fraud. 800 tonnes of butter are alleged to have been delivered to the Vatican, but then appear to have been smuggled out again and sold in Italy. EU export subsidies worth millions were unlawfully obtained in this way, and taxes were evaded.

There were similar reports in the 1990s in connection with deliveries of sugar to the Vatican State.

The same newspaper also reported that OLAF, the EU Anti-Fraud Office, had started investigations.

1. Can the Commission confirm that OLAF has opened an investigation into the case?

2. Is this an isolated case, or does the Commission know of other businesses based in the EU that may be involved in such fraudulent practices?

3. If so, which products are affected?

4. Are goods exported to the Vatican, which attract export subsidies, put into free circulation in their country of destination in accordance with the regulations, and therefore processed? Does OLAF know of any cases where such goods have been transported back to Italy without passing through customs?

5. Does the Commission agree that smuggling operations on this scale are hardly possible without the officials in the Vatican responsible for such matters knowing of them?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Based on the information forwarded by OLAF, the Commission replies as follows:

1. Upon review of the information provided to it, the European anti-fraud office (OLAF) has considered that there are no grounds to start an enquiry.

2. and 3. OLAF has no such information.

4. Export refunds are paid on eligible agricultural goods delivered to the Vatican State. Goods exported to the Vatican are put into free circulation in that sovereign independent state. Olaf has no information of any case where such goods have been transported back to Italy without passing through customs.

5. OLAF has no information that would lead it to believe that either Vatican officials or Italian customs officials are aware of smuggling operations as alleged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1788/02

by Josu Ortuondo Larrea (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Autonomous governments' participation in the Spanish Presidency

Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution recognises and guarantees the right to autonomy of historical nationalities such as Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque Country and also extends the same right to the remaining regions, which have likewise formed autonomous communities. This system has been enshrined in the Statute of Autonomy. Moreover, the European Treaties entrust the Council with the task of coordinating the general economic policies of the Member States, and grant it decision-making power.

The Spanish Presidency of the European Union comes to an end in June and this will be the last opportunity to put questions to the current President-in-Office of the EU Council of Ministers.

Does the Spanish Presidency consider that preventing the governments of the Spanish autonomous communities from participating in all Presidency-related acts has helped it better to perform its tasks? Does the Spanish Presidency believe that there is no contradiction between the Treaty provisions establishing citizenship of the Union and a common policy on external relations, and the Spanish Government's insistence, as the sole justification for preventing the governments of autonomous communities from participating in Councils dealing with matters which fall exclusively within their sphere of competence, that these matters constitute international relations?

Reply

(8 October 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to this question in Question Time at the part-session in February 2002 (QH-963/01 put by Rosa Miguelez Ramos) and at the part-session in March 2002 (QH-066/02 put by Camilo Nogueira Román).