ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1277/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Uniates in Romania

On 7 February 2002, after having gained legal title in the courts, the Greek Catholic minority (also called Eastern Rite Catholic, or Uniates) was able to to recover their Church of Ocna Mures, Transylvania, Romania.

A few weeks later, on 16 March 2002, they informed me that they were driven out of their church by a mob led by three Orthodox priests, aided and abetted by the local police.

I'm further informed that a similar case happened a few years ago. In the town of Ardud, the police warned the Greek Catholic priest that he would be arrested then called the members of the congregation one by one and told them the same. Also in 1995, in the city of Craiova, the Orthodox Bishop had the Greek Catholic church demolished, with the involvement of the army and the police.

Is the Council aware of such discrimination against the Uniate minority in Romania?

In the context of accession negotiations, will the Council raise the issue of religious persecution?

Is the Council ready to demand an end to such religious discrimination against the Catholic minority or any other religious minority in Romania?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of human rights, including religious freedom. With regard to Romania, the Council notes that the Commission's 2002 Regular Report on Romania's progress towards accession, which was issued in October 2002, has concluded that, in general, Romania continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.

As regards the specific issue raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Regular Report states that freedom of religion in Romania is guaranteed by the Constitution and is observed in practice. There is however a particular issue concerning the property of churches. In this regard, the Report notes that In July 2002, Parliament adopted legislation that clarified the process of restituting property confiscated from churches. The legislation extends the scope of the previous law in several important respects. However, only church property is covered and there is presently no legal framework for the restitution of actual churches. This is a particularly important issue for the Greek-Catholic Church which had a large number of properties confiscated by the Communist regime but still has no legal redress. The Government has committed itself to producing specific legislation on this issue but delays in preparing such a law means that there has been no substantial progress.

In the framework of the pre-accession strategy, the Union will continue to monitor the situation in Romania in the light of the Copenhagen criteria for accession and, should the need arise, will discuss the matter with the Romanian side, in particular within the bodies established by the Europe Agreement such as the Association Council and Association Committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0909/03

by Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Communicating with the European Commission in the Irish Language (Gaeilge)

According to Article 21 of the Treaty, any citizen of the Union has the right to write to the European Commission in one of the languages referred to in Article 314 and receive an answer in the same language. The list referred to includes the Irish language (Gaeilge). In spite of these Treaty requirements, no provision is made for selecting Gaeilge as either a first or second choice language when filling in the M@ilbox form on the General Information Services page of the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/geninfo/mailbox/form_en.htm). What action does the Commission propose to take to correct this situation and ensure that Article 21 of the Treaty is respected and that citizens may correspond electronically as Gaeilge with the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The Honourable Member's description of the legal framework regarding written correspondence with the European Union institutions is legally correct. The second paragraph of Article 314 of the EC Treaty lists Irish as one of the languages in which the text of the Treaty is binding, whereas paragraph 3 of Article 21 stipulates that every citizen of the Union has the right to address and receive an answer in one of the languages mentioned in Article 314. Thus, since Irish stands for Gaelic, any citizen may write to the Commission in Gaelic and have an answer in the same language. However, Gaelic is not mentioned in Regulation No 1/1958 of the EEC determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community(1) and in its successive modifications as one of the official and working languages of the Union.

Since the launch of the European Union's website, Europa, in 1995, the Commission has extended the general principle of using all the official Union languages to electronic publishing.

In addition to official documents, the Europa website (http://europa.eu.int) offers the public a large volume of unofficial information. The Commission's aim here, subject to technical constraints and the availability of human and budgetary resources, is to do its utmost to give the general public access in whatever language they choose. This will still be a priority objective after the forthcoming enlargement.

(1) OJ B 17, 6.10.1958.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1265/03

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

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Outcome of the Transport Council's decision of December 2002 on the conclusion of agreements by the States with their respective industries

A decision was taken at the Transport Council of December 2002 on the conclusion of agreements by the States with their respective industries to ensure quality shipping and ban the transport of heavy fuel oil in single-hull tankers.

What has been the outcome of this decision? What agreements have been entered into in the various States with their industries?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

As the Honourable Member of the European Parliament rightly noted, the Council conclusions on ships' safety and pollution prevention, adopted on 6 December 2002 in response to the Prestige accident, urged Member States to enter into agreements with their respective industries to ensure quality shipping and eliminate older single hulled vessels transporting the heavy grades of oil and invited the Commission to develop a model agreement to this end.

The Commission, however, deemed it more appropriate to include the ban of transport of heavy grades of oil in single hull tankers into its proposal for an amendment of Regulation 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers, presented to the European Parliament and the Council on 20 December 2002, with a view to ensuring a uniform implementation throughout the Community.

The Council has followed the Commission's reasoning on the matter and agreed, at its meeting on 27 March 2003, a general approach on this proposal, including a ban on transport of heavy grades of oil in single hull tankers.

As indicated by the Commission in its Communication Report to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster, of 5 March 2003, it seems that industry shares the view that Community legislation is the most appropriate means to ensure equal treatment between competing companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0672/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Respect for press freedom in the Basque Country

On 21 February the Spanish judiciary ordered the closure of the Basque nationalist newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaraia and the arrest of those running it.

This action on the part of the Spanish authorities has aroused opposition and confusion among various politicians and representatives of civil society. The Basque regional government has expressed support for the newspaper.

What does the Commission think about this action on the part of the Spanish authorities?

What steps will the Commission take to uphold the rights above all press freedom of the Basque people?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0641/03, E-0672/03 and E-0801/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The Egunkaria newspaper was closed down by court order. In our democratic States based on respect for the law, the judicial power is independent of the executive and the decisions of the courts cannot be overruled by political pressure. The Commission cannot comment on decisions given by a judicial authority.

All the judicial systems of the Member States of the Union provide the procedural guarantees for legal or natural persons prosecuted or sued in the courts as required by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been breached can bring an action in the European Court of Human Rights after all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0627/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Political persecution in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan has developed into a harsh dictatorship in which the political opposition is systematically repressed. Even relatives and friends of opposition figures are punished with imprisonment, torture and internal exile.

One example of such repression is the reprisals suffered by the relatives of Sapar Yklimov. Sapar Yklimov was previously forced to leave Turkmenistan because of his criticism of the dictatorship in the country. He now lives in Sweden and is a Swedish citizen. Sapar Yklimov's relatives are being persecuted in Turkmenistan and are refused permission to leave the country. Among those being persecuted is Sapar Yklimov's daughter, who was previously in Sweden as a refugee.

What action has the Council taken against the persecution in Turkmenistan? Has the question of the persecution of Sapar Yklimov's relatives, among them his daughter, been taken up directly with the regime in Turkmenistan or does the Council intend to do so in the future?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The difficult situation in Turkmenistan is a matter of grave concern to the European Union. In its declaration of 20 January 2003, the EU expressed its unequivocal support for a full and transparent investigation into recent events in Turkmenistan.

The Council would recall that seven EU Member States, and three other OSCE members, have implemented with regard to Turkmenistan the OSCE Moscow mechanism, which was adopted at the 1991 meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension in Moscow. More generally, the EU has supported this process since the start and actively monitored its implementation in Turkmenistan. The EU backs the efforts made by the Netherlands in the context of its OSCE Presidency to engage the authorities in Ashgabat in dialogue. The talks held by the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs on 3 March 2003 were particularly useful in this respect.

The situation in Turkmenistan was the subject of considerable discussion at a meeting of all EU Heads of Mission in Central Asia on 5/6 March 2003. In the course of this and other Council discussions, various individual cases have been highlighted for attention.

Over the past weeks, EU Heads of Mission in Ashgabat have made strenuous efforts to communicate the EU's concerns to the Turkmen authorities, but have met with considerable difficulties. In these circumstances, the main priority has been to urge the Turkmen authorities to change their attitude, rather than to focus on individual cases.

Nonetheless, the EU will continue to seize every opportunity, including in the context of the 59th UNHCR meeting, to raise concerns, both general and specific, about the situation in Turkmenistan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Fiumicino

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Pesaro

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0197/03

by Manuel dos Santos (PSE)and Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject: Company closure and relocation

According to reports in the Portuguese press the footwear company C. & J. Clark has begun the process of relocating a factory currently operating in Portugal (in Castelo de Paiva) to India and to an eastern European country. As an immediate consequence, approximately 600 workers will lose their jobs.

The company in question previously signed a contract with the Portuguese Government under which it is required to remain in operation until 2007. In exchange it receives a significant level of incentives in the form of Community support for the setting up of companies in the EU's poorest countries.

In view of the serious losses which Portugal will suffer as a result of this state of affairs (with especial regard to employment and social cohesion in a particularly depressed economic area, namely Castelo de Paiva) and taking into account what has occurred in the case of previous such relocations, will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Was it notified regarding this relocation?

2. Will it agree to make inquiries into this state of affairs?

3. Can the financial incentives granted in order to encourage the company to locate to Portugal continue to be paid now that the company has demonstrated a complete failure to honour its commitments?

4. Is it actually possible for those incentives to be replaced by others of the same value and nature which encourage relocation within Europe, thereby damaging the economy of a Member State?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Commission has no specific information on the intention of the enterprise concerned to relocate from Portugal to India or an eastern European country, but it wishes to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its answer to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1), and in particular to the aspects concerning the Community provisions applicable in this area.

(1) See page 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.