ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Abolition of death penalty

Despite the worldwide trend in favour of abolishing the death penalty, the numbers of death sentences imposed by Egyptian courts and the numbers of executions actually carried out has been steadily rising in recent years. That is confirmed both by a UN report, which states that more than 100 executions have been registered over a 5-year period, and by information supplied by Amnesty International to the effect that from 1991 to 2000 more than 500 death sentences were imposed and more than 200 executions carried out.

Does the EU Commission have at its disposal information concerning the numbers of death sentences imposed and executions carried out in Egypt in the last five years?

Can the EU Commission forward to me any relevant data available to it?

What action will the EU take in campaigning against the growing numbers of human rights violations in Egypt generally, and of death sentences imposed and executions carried out in particular?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the extensive use of the death penalty in Egypt, and of the wide range of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed. Although there is relatively little official data available, Amnesty International figures indicate that executions in Egypt rose from 35 between 1981-1990 to 213 between 1991-2000. In the five year period 1996-2001 Egypt sentenced 382 persons to death and 114 executions were carried out. The Amnesty International report of June 2002 is probably the most readily available source of information.

With respect to measures taken by the Union in defence of human rights in Egypt, the Parliament will be aware of the Commission's stand on individual cases brought to its attention, notably concerning the imprisoned democracy campaigner Saad Ibrahim and the homosexual men arrested and charged in the so called queen boat affair. In addition, the Egyptian human rights and democracy movement benefits from support under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).

With respect to the extensive recourse to the death penalty in Egypt, the Union is guided by its longstanding opposition to the death penalty within its global human rights policy which, since 1998, has included an integral commitment to strengthen international activities in favour of the universal abolition of the death penalty. Until such time as that goal is achieved, the Union also campaigns for is progressive restriction and insists on the respect of minimum standards in its application.

The Union strongly lobbies against the death penalty in international fora and supports non-governmental organisations that work for the same objective through the EIDHR. The policy to push for universal abolition is pursued globally and raised in dialogues with all third countries, which retain it, including Egypt.
AnswergivenbyMrsDiamantopoulouonbehalfoftheCommission
(4February2003)
AstheconditionswhichjournalistsmustfulfilinordertotakeupsalariedemploymentinItalyarenot
clear,theCommissionwillcontacttheItalianauthoritiestoverifytheconditionsofapplicationofthislegislationandwillinformtheHonourableMemberoftheoutcome.
(2004/C58E/010) WRITTENQUESTIONE-3749/02
byGlenysKinnock(PSE)totheCommission
(20December2002)
Subject:Financingfordevelopment
WouldtheCommissionoutlinehowmuchprogresshasbeenmadeineffortstoensurethatMemberStates
meetthefundingfordevelopmenttargetsagreedattheBarcelonaSummitinMarch?
IstheCommissionsatisfiedwiththeprogresssofar,andwouldtheCommissionconfirmthatthemandate
tomonitortheprocessisbeingfulfilled?
AnswergivenbyMrNielsononbehalfoftheCommission
(13February2003)
SincetheMonterreyConference(18to22March2002),severalMemberStatesincludingBelgium,Ireland,
Luxembourg,theNetherlands,FinlandandSwedenreaffirmedtheircommitmenttomeetorexceedtheUnitedNationsOfficialDevelopmentAssistance(UNODA)targetof0,7%.OthershavesetintermediatetargetshigherthantheCommunitybenchmark.TheUnitedKingdomannouncedanincreaseofaroundUSD2,2billioninitsannualODAbudgetby2005,raisingthegrossnationalproduct(GNP)ratiofrom0,32%to0,4%.FrancehascommitteditselftoreachtheUnitedNationstargetby2012whichmeansthatitscontributionin2006willbeabovethesetUnionaverage.TheCommissionconsidersthatfirststepshavebeentaken.
On 19November 2002, the Council stressed the importance of adequate monitoring of the
implementationofthosecommitments.Inthisrespect,itwelcomedtheintentionoftheCommissiontoensurethemonitoring,inparticularconcerningthefinancialcommitments.
TheCommissionwillcontinuetheworkdoneinpreparationoftheMonterreyConferencethrougha
factualreportingonthestateofplayatEuropeanleveltobepresentedtotheCouncilinMay2003.AquestionnairewassenttotheMemberStatesinDecember2002andbilateralcontactswillcontinueonalloftheeightcommitmentsmadeduringtheBarcelonaEuropeanCouncil(15/16March2002).
(2004/C58E/011) WRITTENQUESTIONP-0028/03
byBartStaes(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(14January2003)
Subject:CompatibilityofUScross-borderlease(CBL)systemswithCommunitycompetitionlawandpublic
procurementlegislation
Forsometime,AmericaninvestorshavebeenproposingtoFlemishcommunesthattheyshouldleasetheir
sewerage networks (or parts of them) for a period of 99 years. The American investor immediatelysubleases them back to the commune for a shorter period, 25 years. At the end of this period thecommunehasarightofpurchaseorcalloptionpertainingtotheremaining99minus25years.ThisC58E/10 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/8

(2004/C 70 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2997/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 33 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents (1)‘calls on the economic and social operators, through the social dialogue, to work towards establishing collective agreements so as to develop aspects relating to safety at work including vocational and continuing training’.

Has the Commission done anything to encourage this social dialogue, or does it intend to do so? What progress has been made in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

In its Communication entitled ‘Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006’ (2), the Commission pointed out that the social dialogue is an excellent instrument for establishing innovative approaches. It allows effective application of existing legislation and considers all the questions linked to the promotion of well-being at work while taking account of the risks and specific problems associated with particular branches and professions.

Furthermore, as far as the common fisheries policy is concerned, in the aforementioned Communication the Commission stated its intention to invite the social partners to identify measures aimed at improving living, working and safety conditions in the fisheries sector.

In this context, with a view to encouraging and supporting cross-industry and sectoral social dialogue, the Commission organises meetings of the social partners in the framework of the maritime fisheries sectoral social dialogue Committee.

Within this committee, the social partners identify and consider issues of common interest, such as vocational training and workplace safety.

In this context, the social partners are considering the establishment of a European network for vocational training and employment (Refope).

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

(2) COM(2002) 118 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/20

(2004/C 70 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3751/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Disappearance of Arjan Erkel in Dagestan

Is the Commission aware that Arjan Erkel, a member of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), Switzerland, was abducted on 12 August 2002 in Makhachkala, the capital of the Republic of Dagestan, which country is a member of the Russian Federation?

Is the Commission aware that Arjan Erkel's family has had no news of him since that date?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Russian authorities to investigate the fate of Arjan Erkel and to make every effort to secure his release?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/9

(2004/C 70 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3186/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Protection of pensions

What measures does the Commission propose to put in place in order to protect employees' pensions and contributions which are tied to EU companies, when those companies go bust?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 (1) is intended to protect employees in the event of insolvency of their employer. It contains not only provisions relating to the payment of employees' outstanding claims by guarantee institutions but also provisions on social security. Member States are thus obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure that non-payment of compulsory contributions due from the employer, before the onset of his insolvency, to their insurance institutions under national statutory social security schemes does not adversely affect employees' benefit entitlement.

Member States must also ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the business at the date of the onset of the insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivors' benefits, under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security schemes.

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/584

(2004/C 88 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Production levy in France

Further to my question No. P-2720/01 (1), will the Commission provide details of the measures taken on this matter and the grounds on which they were taken?

Can the Commission also say when a solution may be expected?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

Further to its first answer, the Commission is now able to provide the following information. Following an initial examination of the case, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to initiate a formal examination procedure within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty with regard to France's contributions to the national intertrade association for livestock and meat.

The Honourable Member is requested to take note of the details of that procedure when they are published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission will endeavour to take a decision within 18 months of the start of the procedure, and will inform the Honourable Member of the final outcome of its examination.

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 179.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/579

(2004/C 88 E/0591)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2951/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Allocation of structural funds

Would the Commission please give details of the allocation by each local authority in Galicia (Spain) of the monies invested by the structural funds over the 1994-1999 programming period?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission is informed by the responsible authorities in Spain that the information requested for the region of Galicia is available at the detailed geographical level of the municipalities in incomplete form only. They have given us the following breakdown by province for the 1994-1999 programming period:

(pesetas) PROVINCE ERDF EAGGF FIFG Lugo 159 842 770 248 1 700 299 862 6 836 285 588 La Coruña 198 227392318 885 147 058 23 936 009 296 Orense 41 344 303 188 1 416 242 020 — Pontevedra 106 497 819 506 526 301 303 45 759031802 Total 505 912 285 260 4 527 990 243 76 531326 686

They state that owing to the nature of the action financed by the ESF, the large number of Operational Programmes (multiregional and one regional) involved and the large number of managing bodies acting in Galicia, the breakdown asked for is very difficult to make. For Galicia as a whole the ESF contribution for 1994-1999 is EUR 576,13 million. This covers both the regional programme and the national level ones.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/691

(2004/C 78 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3857/02

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia

My previous written question on this subject (P-2365/02 (1)) asked the Commission to state how many baby seal pups were clubbed to death on the White Sea in the year 2001. It also asked the Commission to raise the matter, which appals so many people in my constituency and elsewhere, with the Russian authorities at the earliest opportunity.

In the reply, the Commissioner acknowledged that the treatment of baby seals in the White Sea has been an ongoing concern in recent years. Will the Commission now make renewed efforts to ascertain and publish the number of seal pups that were slaughtered on the White Sea in 2001, and make preparations for obtaining similar figures in respect of 2002?

Furthermore, will the Commission also undertake to raise the matter in an effective way with the Russian authorities, if necessary seeking their cooperation in obtaining this elusive information, and state when this will be done?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission will continue to raise the issue of the treatment of baby seals in the White Sea with the Russian authorities in the context of its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, in particular at the Sub-Committee on Environment.

As regards the number of seal pups killed during recent years the Russian authorities have so far indicated that they do not have such information, but they believe that numbers should have been decreasing over the last few years reflecting a downward trend in profitability. Figures from other sources are not sufficiently up to date to assess the situation.

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 18.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/707

(2004/C 84 E/0793)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3821/02

by Elena Padotti (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Violation of asylum rights in the EU

On 28 November 2002 the Italian authorities repatriated Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family, from Malpensa airport (Milan) to Syria, despite the existence of a death sentence against him in that country. This act was in breach of the Italian Constitution.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that ‘no-one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed’ (Article 2), and also underwrites the right of asylum on the basis of the Geneva Convention and the protocol of 31 January 1967 (Article 18). Meanwhile, negotiations are currently in course between the EU and Syria for an association agreement.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to intervene as a matter of urgency so as to ensure that the death sentence is not carried out and that the physical integrity of Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family is not put at risk?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/29

(2004/C 33 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3909/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: GATS

The UK Government has clearly implied that at least some parts of the public education system do not fall under the exemption clause in Article 1.3 as they are supplied in competition with the private sector.

Especially in the UK, the higher education sector already comprises a mixture of public and private institutions with increasing amounts of funding coming from fees and other private sources.

In light of this, does the EC plan to agree to any requests from third countries which entail the removal of any limitation which would ensure that commitments apply only to privately-funded education?

Can the EC also clarify the term ‘privately-funded education’, in view of the fact that increasing amounts of funding are coming from fees and other sources to all educational institutions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Community has no intention to modify the existing commitment on higher education services which is limited to privately funded services.

The term ‘privately-funded education’ limits the Community commitment only to those institutions whose operation is based on private resources. The fact that some educational institutions receive supplementary support from fees or other private funding does not automatically make them ‘privately-funded’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/15

(2004/C 65 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3539/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: Preferential-priced medicines illegally reimported into the EU

Is the Commission aware that significant quantities of not-for-profit medicines destined for African countries are being illegally reimported back to the EU for sale at a higher price? If so, what measures are in place to ensure that current customs controls at EU borders are being effectively implemented, and does the Commission intend to introduce further additional measures to address this growing problem?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is indeed aware of the problem of low priced medicines destined for developing country markets that are being imported into the Community.

Importation of medicines coming from third countries into a Member State is subject to the holding of an authorisation as laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1).

Action against unauthorised importation of low priced medicines is currently only possible for products protected by intellectual property rights. If goods covered by either trademark or patent protection on a Community market are appearing without permission of the right holder, he/she may take action in the national courts against the importer and ensure that the goods are removed from circulation.

The Commission has in the context of the Community Programme for action on communicable diseases and poverty reduction proposed a Council Regulation (2), adopted by the Commission on 30 October 2002, to prevent tiered priced medicines sold to developing countries from entering the Community market. This Regulation, once in force, will enable the customs authorities to detain goods suspected to be tiered priced medicines (whether covered by intellectual property protection or not) at the Community borders until the national authorities issue a decision on the character of the merchandise and the use that can be given to these goods.

The Commission firmly believes that improved means to prevent import of low priced pharmaceuticals to be traded on Community markets, as outlined above, will encourage the pharmaceutical industry and exporters to supply sufficient volumes of essential medicines to poor countries at affordable prices.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2) COM(2002) 592 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0148/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Kiribati international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Kiribati international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector on Kiribati?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

1. The Protocol of the Fishing agreement (both in adoption phase(1)) between the Community and the Republic of Kiribati stipulates in its Article 2 that EUR 100 000 per year of the total financial contribution will be used for the payment of the specific actions established in Article 5 of the Protocol. The aforementioned actions aim the institutional development of the fishing sector of Kiribati.

2. The Protocol states in its Article 2 that the financial contribution rises to EUR 546 000 per year during the first year and a minimum of EUR 416 000 per year during the subsequent two years. Of that amount, the financial compensation rises to EUR 446 000 during the first year of validity of the Protocol and to EUR 316 000 for the two last.

As from the second year, the financial contribution could be increased up to EUR 65 000 per year for each additional tuna seiner license obtained in accordance with the possibilities offered by Kiribati within the conditions of the Palau Agreement (and corresponding to the additional catch of 1 000 tons of tuna). In the assumption that seven additional seiner licenses are acquired per year, the total Community financial contribution could rise to EUR 871 000.

According to Article 2 of the Protocol, the government of the Republic of Kiribati has exclusive competence to determine the use of the financial contribution which is not earmarked for targeted actions.

The fishing possibilities determined by Article 1 of that Protocol are the ones that follow:

- seiners: 6 vessels (for the first year; up to seven additional licenses per year for subsequent years);

- long-liners: 12 vessels.

The total financial contribution entitles fishing 8 400 tons of tuna during the first year and 6 400 tons of tuna per year for subsequent years.

3. The fees that vessel owners have to pay are fixed by the Protocol at:

- EUR 35 per ton of fish captured in the Kiribati fishing zones. It shall include all local and national taxes with the exception of port taxes and charges for the provision of services.

- Licenses shall be issued on advance payment of an annual sum of EUR 21 000 per tuna seiner and EUR 4 200 per long-liner and shall not be refundable. Such amounts are equivalent to the fees for respectively 600 tons and 120 tons of tuna and tuna-like species caught within Kiribati fishing zone.

(1) The Fishing agreement will have a validity of five years from the starting date of enforcement, while that of the Protocol is of three years.