ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2139/00

by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Luxembourg's interpretation and implementation of Directive 98/43/EC on tobacco advertising and sponsorship

Is the Commission aware that the Tour du Luxembourg Heart of Europe car rally took place on 22/23 April 2000 Easter weekend, to make matters worse over 550 km of major and minor roads and cycle tracks?

After a fairly low-key first appearance in 1999, this year's event was European-level (European Championship, coefficient 2). It had a budget of LUF 10 million and was sponsored by Marlboro, whose name appeared everywhere (on billboards, including an enormous advertisement covering the Ettelbrück agricultural fair building; at the start of the race; on many Marlboro-sponsored cars taking part and, in particular, on the six hundred marshals patrolling the course in the company's colours). The rally has actually been switched to the Luxembourg Ardennes from the Belgian Ardennes, where the directive in question has been transposed into law. Before the directive's entry into force, only hill climbs were held in Luxembourg.

In my view, the recitals and articles of Directive 98/43/EC(1) lay down time limits for bringing commercial practices into line and for the replacement of the tobacco firms providing sponsorship by other financial backers. During the transitional period, States are not allowed to authorise events which did not exist before the directive's entry into force. Moreover, does not a Member State that gives the go-ahead for an event to be moved 50 km away have a duty to act in good faith (Article 12 of the EC Treaty) vis à vis the Member State that has transposed the directive, thus making it impossible for the event to be held on its own territory?

Does the Commission support my view? If so, given that the facts are known, is it prepared to set the necessary procedures in train to ensure compliance with Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the Tour de Luxembourg in the Heart of Europe car rally which took place on 22/23 April 2000.

Concerning the application of Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products(1), the Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that Luxembourg is not obliged to incorporate this Directive into its national legislation until 30 July 2001.

The Commission therefore sees no need to take measures to require compliance with Community law in this case. As regards any duty to act in good faith towards another Member State, this is a matter for that Member State rather than the Commission.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1870/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Prisons and the third pillar

The recent incidents in the Sassari district prison (Sardinia) and the subsequent action by the judicial authorities highlight the critical situation in Italian prisons,

which is adversely affecting the conditions in which prisoners are being held and the activities of the judicial police. Outdated buildings, unacceptable and insanitary conditions, overcrowding (with an occupancy rate of 120 % of the number of places available) and prison staff shortages are only some of the more glaring defects of the prison system. In such circumstances, violent incidents of all kinds are the order of the day and the possibility of ensuring respect for human rights can seem remote.

In view of the prospect of cooperation in third pillar matters:

1. Why does the Commission not carry out a comparative study of the situation in the Union countries' prisons to assess prison conditions and propose the standards that should be maintained?

2. What differences are there between the respective legal status of members of the judicial police in the various Member States?

3. Is it conceivable that they might eventually be harmonised?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The situation of prisons in the European Union referred to by the Honourable Member is first and foremost a matter for the Member States.

1. A comparative study of prison conditions would theoretically be feasible under the Grotius financing programme, which has been adopted in the justice and home affairs field. To date, however, this matter has not been included in the programmes setting annual priorities and no request for a study along the lines of that proposed by the Honourable Member has been received.

2. The status of members of the judicial police differs between Member States, depending on the relevant national legislation.

3. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, harmonisation of status is currently not one of the priority objectives in the justice and home affairs field. However, a range of training, information and communication initiatives for members of the police have been launched at European level, in line with the priorities identified by the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 for the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1107/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Equal opportunities in the applicant countries

How does the Commission intend to ensure that EU Directives on equal opportunities for women are implemented and enforced in full by all the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Enlargement of the Union is based on the fulfilment by the candidate countries of the Copenhagen criteria in the political, economic and acquis related fields.

As regards the latter criteria, the candidate countries are obliged to harmonise their national legislation fully with the acquis communautaire upon their accession to the Union. This applies of course also to the Community directives on equal opportunities for women.

In this context, the Commission not only monitors closely the alignment of national legislation with the acquis, but attaches particular importance to the effective implementation and enforcement of the Community acquis in the candidate countries. The Commission evaluates the progress made on a yearly basis in the regular reports.

It will continue to monitor the issue closely and will report on this in the next regular report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Freedom of the press in Russia

Does the Commission believe that the search carried out by the FSB (former KGB) in the offices of the independent MediaMost Press Group is an indication of a new climate, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and some years after the abolition of Communism in Russia?

Is it concerned about this attack on the freedom of the press, against MediaMost and its television station NTV, whose President, Vladimir Goussinsky, is also an important director of the Russian Jewish Community?

Will the Commission urge the Russian President Vladimir Putin to guarantee freedom of expression and to denounce such practices, unacceptable in a state which is governed by the rule of law, is a member of the Council of Europe and which hopes, one day, to join the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission like others in the international community has been closely following recent developments surrounding the media in Russia and is highly concerned about reports of incidents that could undermine press freedom. Free speech is a vital component of any democratic society and an important litmus test of Russian commitment to creating an open society based on the rule of law and the respect of essential human rights. The Commission will keep the situation under close review and will continue to raise the general issue as well as specific cases with the Russian authorities as the need arises.

In addition the delegation of the Commission in Russia has organised several meetings with both Russian and foreign journalists to discuss the state of freedom of expression in Russia. These included prominent journalists from network television station (NTV) and Radio Ekho Moskvy, which are both part of the Media-Most holding. The delegation has also been involved in two other recent initiatives. It gave financial support to the Pen Club congress in Moscow, which focused primarily on the subject of freedom of expression and, in April 2000, it sent a group of a dozen Russian journalists to Europe.

Further, through the Community's Democracy Programme the Commission has been supporting a number of Russian non-governmental organisations in the media sector and the TACIS 2000 core programme will include activities related to the training of Russian journalists.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Consequences of the drought in Portugal

It is common knowledge that the drought in Portugal is damaging agriculture in various ways, especially where winter and late spring and early summer crops are concerned.

Have steps been taken to aid the Portuguese producers who have sustained losses? If so, what support has been granted?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

The Commission has been fully aware of the continuing drought in Portugal in recent months. It is still too soon to assess the damage to this year's crops.

The Commission will examine any specific problems that may arise in the context of the common market organisations.

If Portugal wishes the Community would be able, as part of her operational programme on agriculture and rural development for the period 2000-2006 and within the financing limits already set, to part-finance restoration of production capacity lost as a result of natural disasters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1524/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Residential estate near spoil dump

Can the Commission indicate in general terms how Rule 1 in Annex I to the Directive on the dumping of waste (1999/31/EC(1)) should be interpreted, particularly in view of the possible plans for setting up a dump for hazardous dredged spoil in the Oostvliet polder in the municipality of Leiden, the Netherlands? The neighbouring municipality of Voorschoten intends to build a residential estate 250 metres from the proposed site of the dump.

In the Commission's view, is it possible to build a residential estate in the immediate vicinity of a hazardous spoil dump?

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Under Annex I Point 1 of Directive 1999/31/EEC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, when choosing a site to construct a landfill, the location must take into consideration requirements relating to the distances from the boundary of the site to residential and recreation areas, waterways, water bodies and other agricultural or urban sites. The landfill can be authorised only if the characteristics of the site with respect to these requirements, or the corrective measurements to be taken, indicate that the landfill does not pose a serious environmental risk.

It is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate regulations to implement these requirements. Directive 1999/31/EC must be transposed into national law by 16 July 2001. The building of residential estates, however, does not fall under the scope of the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/00

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2000)

Subject: Objectives of the study of supplies of tuna loins

The Council asked the Commission to conduct a study of needs as regards supplies of tuna loins to the Community market. According to the document released by the Commission which provides a summary of the study, the objective was indeed to assess supplies of tuna loins. However, the opening paragraph of the chapter containing recommendations begins by stating that the study's focus lies in ascertaining the means of helping the Italian industry to remain competitive.

Will the Commission say what the ultimate objective of the study actually was?

Does it consider it ethical that this study, financed from public funds and responding to a specific request from the Council, should have in fact served as a means of establishing the needs of certain undertakings in a Member State?

If these undertakings wish to determine the weaknesses in their ability to compete with other enterprises in the Member States, should they not commission a study of their own?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

On the first point, would the Honourable Member please refer to the Commission's joint answer to Written Questions E-756/00 to E-761/00 by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna(1).

The Commission considers that the study's analysis and conclusions both served a balanced purpose.

The analysis covers the main Member States which produce and consume the product in question (as well as third countries) and the recommendations relate to all market participants, both in the short and medium term.

The assertion that the study served to ascertain the needs of certain businesses in one Member State is incorrect, since far from concentrating on operators in a single Member State it took a detailed look at the situation of the main firms in all the Member States involved: seven in Spain, five in Italy and four in France.

In answer to the last point, the Commission would stress that it carried out the study in response to a request from the Council and not from the firms concerned.

(1) OJ C 26 E 26.1.2001, p. 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1006/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Supply of tuna loins to the European tuna canning industry

In the framework of the new COM, on 17 December 1999 the Fisheries Council agreed to open a new quota of 4 000 tonnes for tuna from third countries, at a tariff of 6 %, for the period 2001 to 2003.

In the draft agreement between the European Union and Mexico, the Commission has also agreed to consider during the third quarter of 2001 the possibility of opening a quota for tuna loins originating from Mexico.

Does the quota of 4 000 tonnes from third countries at a 6 % tariff for the period 2001-2003 include the possible quota of Mexican tuna loins, or, if agreed, would the latter be in addition to the original quota?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The autonomous tariff quotas opened by the Community to supply the processing industry must be applied universally and so be accessible to all non-member countries if they are to comply with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). By contrast, tariff concessions under a free trade agreement, such as the concluded by the Community with Mexico, are restricted to the preferential partner concerned, pursuant to Article XXIV: 8(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This means that, while Mexico may benefit from the Community's autonomous tariff quotas, other non-member countries may not benefit from tariff concessions granted by the Community to Mexico under the free trade agreement.

The autonomous tariff quota of 4 000 tonnes of tuna loins at 6 % recently approved by the Council could therefore also assist Mexico. In addition, the Community will have to honour its commitment under the trade agreement between the Community and Mexico and so begin discussions before 1 September 2001 on the possibility of opening a tariff quota for this type of product under preferential arrangements.

The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that the trade concessions already agreed with Mexico in the fisheries sector and any future concessions form part of a trade agreement which will result in a significant increase in bilateral trade in all sectors, which will benefit both Mexico and the Community, including firms in Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0680/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Involvement of elected representatives in overseeing international institutions

Will the Commission indicate whether any discussions are taking place with governments and parliamentary groups in order to promote the greater involvement of elected representatives in overseeing international institutions, including the United Nations?

Is, for example, the Commission pursuing the European Parliament's proposal to invite the Chairs of parliamentary environment committees to meet with officials from the UN's environmental agencies?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member on the involvement of elected representatives overseeing international institutions raises matters of global governance and reform of the United Nations system. Given that the Community is not a member of the United Nations (UN), this is an area where Member States have primary responsibility. The Honourable Member should be aware of the encouragement generally given by the Commission to closer contacts between elected representatives and also international organisations. This is also the basis for the arrangement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the involvement of Members of Parliament in international conferences.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1721/00

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: IGC

In his speech at Humboldt University on 12 May, the German Foreign Minister suggested that the European Parliament might be replaced by an indirectly elected chamber of national parliamentarians and a second chamber of senators along either the US or German model.

Does the Presidency share the view of Mr Fischer?

How many other members of the General Affairs Council hold that opinion?

Is the German representative on the IGC advocating such a proposal?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member is probably aware, the Council has no role in the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer's answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00(1), will the Commission please give a comparable proportion of payments which were completed within the 60-day period for the four previous years (i.e. 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995)?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1669/00 and E-1670/00 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

Performance and change in average payment times since 1995 (overall statistics)(1).

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

The Commission started registering invoice payment times in 1995. The apparent deterioration in 1996 and 1997 revealed by the statistics published is, without doubt, largely due to the increased discipline with which departments record data in the system of accounts to monitor invoices.

(1) These statistics do not include the payment of advances to the Member States under EAGGF Guarantee which are charged to a non-budget account when they are actually paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(30 March 2000)

Subject: Restitution of property in the applicant countries

Many Union citizens are descendants of persons whose property in central and eastern Europe was seized during the Nazi occupation or the Holocaust period or durings and after the subsequent Communist takeover. Will the Council insist, as an essential condition for the accession of the new Member States to the European Union, that they adopt and implement effective schemes to restore property unlawfully seized?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

The Council is aware of the problems associated with the restitution of property in certain applicant countries of central and eastern Europe.

As the Honourable Member undoubtedly knows, the accession negotiations are conducted on the basis of the acquis communautaire, which the applicant countries have to take over and implement before accession. The relevant chapter of the acquis for the purposes of the acquisition of immovable property is the chapter on the free movement of capital. However, there is as yet no specific acquis relating to the question raised by the Honourable Member.

Whatever the case, the applicant countries' compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, enshrined in the Treaties, will be monitored closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1767/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Abduction of child, an EU national, by his Lebanese father

The Greek Foreign Ministry and the Greek public have been deeply concerned recently about the abduction of the son of Mrs Alexandra Tzana, a Greek national, by his Lebanese father, Zak Serafim, and the illegal detention of the child somewhere in Lebanon. The child's mother has appealed to the Foreign Ministry to have her son, Emiliano Serafim, returned. Mrs Tzana has sole custody of her child by virtue of judgment No 1231/1999 of the Athens Court of First Instance, which became final on 2 February 2000. However, despite the fact that the child is a Greek national and the detention of the child in Lebanon by his father is totally illegal, the father consistently refuses to return him to his mother.

Does the Commission believe it can assist in any way, on the basis of Community legislation or specific agreements with Lebanon (e.g. by making representations to the Lebanese authorities or by taking other measures through its departments), to ensure that the child is returned immediately to his legal guardian, his mother? Is so, in what way can it assist and what does it propose to do in practical terms?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

The Commission is aware of cases such as that cited by the Honourable Member occuring in several countries in the region, in which a child is taken by one parent against the wishes of the other parent, and in defiance of court orders. There are now other similar cases in Lebanon affecting Member States' nationals.

Relations between Lebanon and the Community are governed by the 1975 co-operation agreement, which essentially sets out trade and economic arrangements between the partners. It does not cover such issues as human rights, legal obligations of a civil nature, or humanitarian issues. The Euro-Med association agreement which would normally cover those issues, is still under negotiation.

These cases are normally taken up on a bilateral basis between the Member State authorities and the Lebanese authorites. The case cited by the Honourable Member is also of a bilateral nature and therefore it should be pursued through the usual diplomatic and legal channels between the two states concerned.