ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/02

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

(19 March 2002)

Subject: The EU's objectives in the ILO world commission

The ILO has set up a world commission to consider the relationships between globalisation, the liberalisation of trade and social development. Naturally these issues are also important to the EU.

One of the chairs of the world commission is the president of an EU Member State, Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland.

The world commission intends to report its findings in March 2003.

What are the EU's objectives in connection with the world commission's work?

Are there any plans for debating the objectives and/or the world commission's conclusions with the European Parliament?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

The Council reminds the Honourable Member that on 12 November 2001, at the 282nd session of the Governing Body of the ILO, the representative of the Danish government made a statement on behalf of the European Union. This statement contained inter alia the objectives of the EU in connection with the activities of the World Commission, as follows:

The European Union reaffirms the great importance which it attaches to addressing the social dimension of globalization. Recent events have underlined the effects

which globalization has on everyone's lives, employment and working environment. It is therefore important to discuss all of its implications on the basis of the widest possible consensus so as to provide a coherent and constructive response. The aim should be to enable everyone to benefit from globalization in ways which lead directly to the eradication of poverty, the achievement of social cohesion, the creation of employment and improved governance. In this connection, the European Union confirms the great importance it attaches to following up the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work through positive measures from all sides, including technical assistance and greater cooperation between governments and social partners.

In addition, the statement confirmed the EU's strong support for reinforcing the role of the ILO, and for establishing under the auspices of the ILO a substantive international dialogue involving other international fora, including the WTO. It also stressed the positive political and economic impact of a new round of trade negotiations and its contribution to development and to strengthening international solidarity. It went on to note that the World Commission's work could usefully embrace other globalisation perspectives and enhance the value of all initiatives which help globalisation to contribute to greater social progress.

At the same meeting, the European Commission associated itself with the abovementioned EU statement.

So far, there are no plans for debating the objectives and/or the World Commission's conclusions with the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Protection of antiquities in European museums

It is common knowledge that many valuable Greek antiquities have been illegally exported from Greece and have been found in museums such as the Louvre or the British Museum. It is also common knowledge that the treatment of the Parthenon marbles, stolen by Lord Elgin and now in the British Museum, can be described as anything but civilised since the room in which they are exhibited is often the venue for dinners, lunches and cocktail parties (!) for large numbers of guests.

The situation at the Louvre is equally unacceptable. Masterpieces such as the Venus de Milo, the Nike of Samothrace and paintings by artists such as Delacroix and El Greco are exhibited with no protection whatsoever (e.g. display cabinets, special air conditioning etc) and the museum authorities allow hundreds of thousands of tourists to photograph them without restriction.

However, in the room of the Louvre exhibiting the diadem and jewellery of the Empress Josephine, there are special protective display cabinets and flash photography is strictly prohibited despite the fact that the objects are infinitely more recent than the priceless Greek antiquities.

Is the Commission aware of the unacceptable situation at the Louvre and the British Museum? Are the Commission's departments aware of the conditions in which priceless antiquities and exhibits belonging to the world's cultural heritage are kept? Does the Commission monitor whether such priceless works of art are treated indifferently or harmfully? What means are available to the Commission to intervene and compel the authorities of every European museum, small and large alike, to protect their exhibits effectively, especially those which are in their possession totally improperly and unlawfully? How might stolen archaeological finds be returned to their place of origin?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

As regards the question of assessing the conditions under which works of art are kept in museums and the means available to the Commission to intervene, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the Community has neither the technical nor the legal means to take action. It is up to the Member States concerned, via their various national bodies, to develop a policy for the protection of the cultural heritage.

As far as the movement, recovery and return of works of art are concerned, we would draw attention to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods(1) and Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State(2).

With regard to the return proceedings, the Directive provides for a time-limit of 75 years from the date of export and is concerned solely with goods removed unlawfully from the territory of a Member State after 10 January 1993, unless Member States have passed specific legislation.

(1) OJ L 395, 31.12.1992.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Political trial of the journalist Dede Abdulhalim in Greece

Recently, legal proceedings have been brought against a number of democratic journalists in Greece. One example is the prosecution and conviction of Dede Abdulhalim of Komotini in Thrace, a journalist specialising in minority affairs and proprietor of the newspaper Trakianin Sesi and of the local radio station ISIK FM.

The circumstances were as follows. On 14 January 2000, during a music programme on the local radio station ISIK FM, a piece of music was broadcast at the request of a listener who identified himself as Boskurt (Grey Wolf). Next day, a complaint was lodged against the journalist because of this request. The accusation was that the request referred to the Turkish-based extreme right-wing organisation the Grey Wolves, which was described as a criminal act and a national betrayal of Greece. The recording of the broadcast in question proves that only the name of the listener, Mr Boskurt (Grey Wolf), was mentioned without any further details.

On 25 February 2000, Mr Karaiskos brought proceedings against Mr Dede Abdulhalim before the court of Komotini for alleged insulting behaviour. The case was heard on 6 September 2001. The judge decided by judgment No 1 071 to sentence Mr Dede in absentia to four months' imprisonment. The appeal is to be heard on 12 February 2002 at the Appeal Court in Komotini.

Is the Council aware of this case?

Did these proceedings respect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press?

Will the Council request information about this from the Member State concerned?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council can inform the Honourable Member that it is unaware of the facts of this case and that in any case, it has no authority to comment on judicial decisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/02

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

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Definition of waste and by-products

In the EU framework Directive on waste (Directive 91/156/EEC)(1) waste is defined as any substance or object which its owner has discarded, intends to discard, or is required to discard. The problem with the definition is that it does not allow for processes from which two products are obtained. Ferrochromium scrap, for example, a by-product of steelmaking, is sold to other quarters to be used in, among other things, earthwork and road building. According to the EU definition ferrochromium scrap is waste, and those who produce it have to pay both waste tax and the value added tax arising from the sale of the product. Companies which develop and commercially exploit their processes to utilise by-products, saving natural materials in so doing, are thus forced into an economically unfortunate situation.

What steps will the Commission take to change the concept of waste so as to distinguish more clearly between final disposal and utilisation?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended(1) defines waste as essentially meaning any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. The definition has been interpreted by the Court of Justice so as to mean that, following the environmental protection principles enshrined in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty, the concept of waste may not be interpreted restrictively(2). In relation to ferrochromium scrap referred to by the Honourable Member, a request for a preliminary ruling is currently pending before the Court that may lead to further clarification on the status of scrap metal materials in relation to the Directive(3).

The Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the Community calls for clarification of the legislative distinction between waste and non-waste(4). Within the context of the Programme, the Commission will take steps to undertake a review on how best to achieve this task.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996 (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996).

(2) Cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 ARCO Chemie Nederland and Epon [2000] ECR I-4475, at paragraphs 39-40 of judgment.

(3) Case C-444/00 The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd.

(4) Article 8(2)(iv) of draft Decision of the Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Community Environmental Action Programme (PE-CONS 3618/02).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Concerns over the 110 prisoners in Guantanamo

The treatment of the 110 prisoners in the American Guantanamo base in Cuba who are thought to have had links with the al-Qa'ida network has aroused world-wide indignation. Various international bodies and non-governmental organisations have protested about both the inhumane transportation and detention conditions of those in the American base, and the legal regime under which they are being held.

What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the conditions of transportation and detention of the prisoners in Cuba are investigated and that a competent tribunal pronounces on the legal status of the detainees and, in particular, whether they are entitled under the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention to prisoner of war status? How will it ensure that, in any case, their human rights are fully respected and they are treated humanely, in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0168/02, E-0236/02, E-0239/02 and E-0263/02

(27 June 2002)

The Council confirms that it considers it important that every detainee be treated humanely in accordance with general standards of international law. The Council is not in a position to ascertain whether the conditions of detention at Guantánamo meet those standards solely on the basis of media reporting. President Bush made a public statement on the subject on 31 January 2002. The Council, however, does not have at its disposal the information necessary to judge correctly whether the detainees at Guantánamo must be regarded as prisoners of war. It would point out that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War provides that, in the event of doubt, a prisoner must be granted the protection of the Convention until such time as a competent tribunal can determine his status. In the interval, detainees must be treated humanely and receive proper medical care, clothing and food. The detaining power is, however, entitled to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security of the facility and the detainees in accordance with international law.

The Council does not intend to send observers to Guantánamo. The Council welcomes the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been granted full access to the detainees and will be in a position to exercise its mandate. The delegations of the United Kingdom, French, Spanish and Belgian Governments have also had access to their respective nationals detained at Guantánamo Bay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0263/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2002)

Subject: The prisoners in the US Camp X-Ray at Guantánamo

What is the Council's policy position vis-à-vis the US Government with regard to reports that the prisoners in the camp at Guantánamo, caught in Afghanistan, are treated like wild animals, being deprived of the senses of sight, hearing, smell and touch the kind of treatment meted out in torture camps?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0168/02, E-0236/02, E-0239/02 and E-0263/02

(27 June 2002)

The Council confirms that it considers it important that every detainee be treated humanely in accordance with general standards of international law. The Council is not in a position to ascertain whether the conditions of detention at Guantánamo meet those standards solely on the basis of media reporting. President Bush made a public statement on the subject on 31 January 2002. The Council, however, does not have at its disposal the information necessary to judge correctly whether the detainees at Guantánamo must be regarded as prisoners of war. It would point out that Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War provides that, in the event of doubt, a prisoner must be granted the protection of the Convention until such time as a competent tribunal can determine his status. In the interval, detainees must be treated humanely and receive proper medical care, clothing and food. The detaining power is, however, entitled to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security of the facility and the detainees in accordance with international law.

The Council does not intend to send observers to Guantánamo. The Council welcomes the fact that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been granted full access to the detainees and will be in a position to exercise its mandate. The delegations of the United Kingdom, French, Spanish and Belgian Governments have also had access to their respective nationals detained at Guantánamo Bay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0162/02

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Nuclear attack on Israel

1. Is the Council aware of statements made by the former President of Iran, Mr H. Rafsanjani, concerning a possible nuclear attack on Israel?

2. What credence does the Council give to such statements?

3. What steps is the EU taking in an attempt to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council has received reports of the speech by former President Rafsanjani to which the Honourable Members refer.

The strengthening of international rules and mechanisms to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is of prime importance to the EU and an essential goal of its foreign policy. Likewise, the EU believes that threats to Israel are unacceptable and undoubtedly damage the Peace Process and the stability of the region. In its dialogue with third countries, including Iran, the EU actively promotes the universalisation and effective implementation of multilateral instruments in the field of non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control. During the eighth EU-Iran political dialogue in Madrid on 4 February, the Spanish Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Miquel Nadal has expressed deep concern about President Rafsanjani's speech which he strongly rejected. The EU for its part has urged Iran to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and to conclude without delay an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In the context of its efforts to promote a resolution of the Middle East conflict, the Council also sees any threats of an escalation in regional violence as unhelpful in the current situation of extreme gravity. This has been stressed in contacts with Iran.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1359/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Legislation on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons in the applicant countries

1. Which applicant countries have transposed into their legislation Council Directive 91/477/EEC(1) of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons?

2. In which countries are improvements necessary?

3. Where exactly are the improvements necessary?

4. By what date must improvements be completedy?

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

All the applicant countries have agreed to take over the acquis of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons(1). In general, as in the Member States, the applicant countries already have provisions which are stricter than the minimum provisions laid down by Directive 91/477/EEC, as regards banned weapons and those which must be authorised or declared.

On the basis of the transposition work being carried out in all the applicant countries, the Commission has noted that most of the difficulties encountered relate to finalising the texts on the procedures for the transfer of weapons, and particularly the introduction of the European firearms pass. In accordance with the undertakings given by the applicant countries, this work should be completed by the date of their accession. In order to ensure that this is the case, the Commission is closely monitoring the progress of this work within the framework set up by the pre-accession strategy.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1120/02

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: EU support for promotion and use of environmentally friendly fishing methods and technologies

Every year thousands of small cetaceans (porpoises and dolphins) are caught and killed as by-catches in the course of fishing activities. This is one of the greatest threats to stocks of these creatures. The species concerned are listed in Annex IV(a) to Council Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and are thus strictly protected.

What measures has the Commission taken since 1994 to induce EU fishermen to use environmentally friendly fishing methods, in particular those needed to reduce or eliminate by-catches of cetaceans, and what results or improvements have been achieved in consequence?

In the area of the common agricultural policy farmers are granted subsidies under agri-environmental measures if they meet environmental obligations going above and beyond the needs of good agricultural practice. The subsidy is paid annually and calculated on the basis of the loss of revenue and additional costs arising from these efforts, with the need for a financial incentive also being borne in mind.

Does the Commission consider that similar measures in the fisheries sector, for example to reduce or eliminate by-catches of cetaceans, would serve a useful purpose? Does the Commission plan to take such measures, and if so, when and to what extent?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

As far as measures to reduce or eliminate by-catches of cetaceans are concerned, the Commission has proposed to ban fishing with drift-nets for highly migratory fish. This resulted in the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 849/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources(1).

More importantly, the Commission has encouraged, including by direct funding, the carrying out of studies aiming at a better protection of small cetaceans against by-catch. This has resulted in a number of new ideas such as acoustic deterrents and gear designs, which are now promising avenues by which by-catch can be reduced. The Commission has also granted financial aid in the framework of LIFE to induce higher protection to small cetaceans.

Following scientific and technical advice which will be made available shortly, the Commission intends to propose new Community legislation aiming at the alleviation of by-catch of cetaceans. Whether the measures proposed will have financial consequences will depend very much on the scope and nature of the technical specifications recommended by scientists. The Commission is ready to examine the need for or the appropriateness of public funding for the efficient implementation of such measures.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0768/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Follow-up to the deliberations of the Council of Health Ministers of 15 November on post-polio syndrome

On 15 November last year the Council of EU Health Ministers considered, at the suggestion of the then presidency, what decisions might be adopted to tackle post-polio syndrome and the situation of sufferers in a positive manner.

Since that date, what measures or steps has the Council taken in this context? What has the response of the Member States been? What proposals will the current presidency submit to meet the urgent needs of thousands of Union citizens affected by this syndrome?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0511/02 and E-0768/02

(26 June 2002)

On 15 November 2001, the Belgian Presidency drew the attention of the Council to the fact that post-polio syndrome is an important and sensitive public health issue and to the need for appropriate action to provide an adequate response to this problem. Further details are included in an information note from the Presidency to the Council which was the basis of the Presidency's intervention at the Council. This Council document is available to the public on the Council's internet site.

The attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the fact that the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care is the Member States' responsibility and that therefore the Council is not competent to comment on measures undertaken by individual Member States on this matter.