ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Political repression in Azerbaijan

Does the Commission believe that political repression in Azerbaijan is becoming more widespread and what steps is it taking to improve the situation?

Does the Commission have any specific information on the imprisonment of the leader of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party Rasul Gouliev and members of his family and on the arrest of Yagub Abbasov, the founder of the newspaper Ulus, and on whether political prisoners in general in Azerbaijan are brutalised while in custody?

Finally, what level of assistance is provided by the European Union to Azerbaijan, and what efforts have been made by the EU to persuade the Azerbaijan government that respect for freedom of expression and the rule of law are much more likely to generate long-term political stability and prosperity than crude political repression?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

The Commission is following the case of Rasul Gouliev (Quliev) and has information that suggests he is not in prison but is at liberty in the United States. The Azerbaijani Government maintains that he is guilty of embezzlement when he was in charge of state enterprises.

The Commission has no independent information on the treatment of Rasul Gouliev's family members nor does it have any specific information on the treatment of prisoners while in custody.

The International Committee for the Red Cross reached agreement with the government of Azerbaijan on prison visiting in 2001 and their reports are available on their website(1). In parallel Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report on the treatment of prisoners in Azerbaijan.

Between 1992 and 2002 the Community has provided Azerbaijan with 370 million of grant assistance: TACIS Technical Assistance 86,5 million, Food Aid 65 million, Humanitarian Assistance (ECHO) 92 million, Post conflict reconstruction 19 million, Food Security assistance 77 million, Exceptional Financial Assistance 30 million.

Through the provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement the Union carries out a full political and economic dialogue on a regular basis with Azerbaijan. The issues associated with press freedom and the sentencing of prisoners was discussed in detail at the Cooperation Council in October 2001. The Union has consistently made the point that respect for the rule of law and of freedom of expression are critical elements in the building of long term political stability in Azerbaijan and the whole Southern Caucasus region.

Under the Union-Azerbaijan PCA, the Parliament also has a Parliamentary Cooperation Committee where there will be opportunities to discuss the full range of political and economic matters.

Revisions to the law on the Media show the Government of Azerbaijan is taking steps to improve the legislative climate.

It should be noted that human rights and democracy issues also addressed within the framework of the Council of Europe which Azerbaijan joined in 2001.

(1) http://www.icrc.org/eng.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Council

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Phone tapping at Europol

1. Is the Council aware of the revelation in the edition of De Telegraaf published on 23 March 2002 that internal phones are allegedly being tapped at Europol?

2. Does the Council share my view that, if those allegations prove to be true, they indicate lamentable working relationships at Europol and potential management problems?

3. Is the Council prepared to conduct an inquiry into these allegations and inform the European Parliament of the findings of that inquiry and of any measures which might be taken?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The Council has been informed that the Director of Europol has formally denied that any phones were tapped at Europol by Europol officials.

At present the Council does not plan to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1478/02

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Prohibition of child labour

Council Directive 1994/33(1) on the protection of young people at work contains, inter alia, provisions prohibiting child labour (Articles 1(1), 4(1) etc.) and others defining conditions and exemptions etc. Article 17 prescribes that the provisions shall be incorporated into national legislation and regulations, and that the Member States shall report to the Commission every five years on the practical implementation of the directive. The Commission shall regularly report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of the directive.

1. Has the directive been incorporated into the Member States' legislation (in full or in part)?

2. Has the Commission received reports for the first five-year period?

3. Are these reports accessible to Members of the European Parliament and the general public?

4. Has the Commission drawn up a summary of the reports received?

5. Does the Commission know to what extent the directive is implemented in practical administration in the Member States?

6. Does the Commission know of any infringements of these rules in any of the Member States which have resulted in legal action and, possibly, convictions at national level or in the Court of Justice?

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

All the Member States have now transposed Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work.

In 2001, a document was drawn up setting out the real situation regarding the transposition of Directive 94/33/EC in the 15 Member States of the Union. The Commission is sending a copy of this report directly to the Honourable Member and to the General Secretariat of the Parliament.

Moreover, in a letter dated 6 November 2001, the Commission asked all the Member States to send it, without delay, the national report on practical implementation within the meaning of Article 17(4) of Directive 94/33/EC. The national reports of most of the Member States have now been received. A reminder letter was sent to the other Member States on 3 May 2002.

In accordance with Article 17(4) and (5) of the Directive, the national reports and the Commission's report will be submitted to Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, in principle during the last quarter of 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1639/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease in South Korea

In early May there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South Korea. 92 000 pigs and cattle have since been slaughtered. This outbreak came only a few weeks before the start of the football World Cup that is taking place from 31 May to 30 June 2002 in Japan and South Korea. Ten of the 15 EU Member States have qualified for the World Cup (Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden).

1. What is the Commission's view of South Korea's policy on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

2. How great is the likelihood of contamination for the EU?

3. What measures have and are being taken to prevent tourists, football supporters and footballers from bringing contamination with foot-and-mouth disease back to Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

With reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission wishes to refer to its reply to written questions P-1535/02 by Mr Böge and P-1544/02 by Mr Maat(1) and P-1682/02 by Mr de Roo(2) on the same subject.

In addition to those 12 outbreaks predominately in pigs which were reported until 20 May 2002 and to which reference was made in the above-mentioned replies to the Parliament, new outbreaks continue to occur since 3 June 2002 affecting also cattle and small ruminants.

The competent authorities of the Republic of Korea carried out an awareness campaign to inform soccer fans and provide information on the Internet (http://www.nvrqs.go.kr).

Equally, the competent authorities in the Member States have launched information campaigns for people returning from foot-and-mouth disease infected countries and the Republic of Korea in particular.

A draft Commission Decision on the reinforcement of controls on the luggage carried by travellers arriving in the Union from third countries will be presented to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health shortly.

(1) See page 172.

(2) See page 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0957/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: St Llorenç-Collserola Via Verda

By decision of 17 May 2001, the local council of Cerdanyola in Catalonia (Spain) adopted an agreement to amend the Barcelona metropolitan general plan town planning regulation in respect of its provisions for Sant Cugat del Vallès-Cerdanyola.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow more intensive urban development. Amongst the zones which will now become subject to increased urban pressure is a major route across flat country used by wild animals, a veritable ecological corridor between two nearby mountains, namely Collserola mountain and the natural park of Sant Llorenç del Munt, Serra de l'Obac.

The scheme in question threatens the biodiversity of the entire region. It flies in the face of any prospect of sustainable development, and has led to protests and appeals from many NGOs and environmental protection associations. It would appear to violate 1985 and 1997 directives on environmental impact assessments for public or private projects, and the 1992 directive on the preservation of the natural habitats of fauna and flora.

Is the Commission aware of the situation? If not, does it have any means of carrying out an inquiry? If it is, would it inform me and possibly also the authorities concerned as to its standpoint?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

It must be pointed out that Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), states that Member States are to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects. This provision is applicable to the projects referred to in Annexes I and II to the Directive.

It must be stressed, however, that only concrete projects are referred to in the Annexes of Directive 85/337/EEC, amended by Directive 97/11/EC. Urban development plans or regulations cannot be regarded as projects and, as a result, do not fall within the scope of this Directive. Nevertheless, it will be noted that, if any project resulting from the application of a town planning regulation falls within the scope of Annexes I or II to the Directive, it will then have to be subject to the procedure provided for therein.

The Commission was not informed of the events which the Honourable Member deplores. In any case, on the basis of the information provided in the written question, the Commission considers that the facts as reported do not constitute a failure to comply with Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2394/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: MPA hormone scandal

1. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in Ireland disposes of its hormone waste via the processing firm of Cara Environmental Technology. Does the legislation on waste permit a pharmaceuticals firm to dispose of hormone waste without any control on what is done with the waste? Does the legislation on waste products make sufficiently clear with what rules a firm must comply in the processing and subsequent export of such waste? To what extent have the Irish authorities sufficiently checked what is happening to this waste and are all the export permits in order?

2. Is the Belgian firm of Bioland, which processed the MPA hormone, adequately monitored by the Belgian government and governmental bodies, in the light of the fact that this firm has been discredited on several occasions by its careless (to say the least) attitude to the rules?

3. How are the Dutch firms which processed this waste monitored in the animal feed chain?

4. Is it possible to give an account by Member State of the financial losses suffered by pig farmers as a result of export restrictions, the closure of numerous farms for several weeks, and the possible infertility of the herd?

5. To what extent can the European legislation on product liability offer a solution to the losses suffered by livestock farmers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0526/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 February 2002)

Subject: Immunity and the European Arrest Warrant

To avoid the kind of protracted legal dispute that ensued in the U.K. following the arrest of former President Pinochet despite an International Treaty commitment on the part of the U.K. government not to arrest current or former heads of government (superseded in the opinion of a majority of Law Lords by a later international commitment) can the Council detail the list of persons who will be immune from arrest under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, and make it absolutely clear in the legislation whether this will include EU diplomats, current and former heads of state, government ministers, members of national Parliaments, the European Parliament and the European Commission?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The answer to the question as to which persons are entitled to immunity from criminal jurisdiction, and under which circumstances, is to be found in international conventions, bilateral intergovernmental agreements, customary public international law, the case law of the International Court of Justice and national constitutional provisions. The application of these sources of law is a matter for which the Member States are responsible.

Article 17(c) of the proposal for a Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant provides that where the person against whom the arrest warrant has been issued enjoys an immunity, the time limits for that person's surrender to the judicial authorities shall not start running as long as a decision on maintaining or waiving that immunity has not been taken. Where power to waive the immunity of the person concerned lies with the Member States, they should ask the competent authority or institution to decide whether immunity should be maintained or waived. The arrest warrant would only have no effect in cases where immunity is maintained.

The Council, acting on the basis of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, has no competence to lay down general rules defining the categories of persons who would be entitled to immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Its powers are limited to drawing up rules in respect of immunities enjoyed by persons working for bodies set up by an act of the Council (e.g. Europol).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1729/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Marketing rules in the EU

Is there any prospect of pharmaceutical companies being allowed to advertise their products even if those products are medicines available on prescription only?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The advertising of medicinal products for human use is regulated primarily by Articles 86 to 100 of 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).

Regarding advertising of medicinal products to the general public, Article 88, paragraph 1 of Directive 2001/83/EC provides that Member States shall prohibit the advertising to the general public of medicinal products, which are available on medical prescription only. The only exception to this strict ban is laid down in Article 88, paragraph 4 of the same Directive. This provision exempts vaccination campaigns carried out by the industry and approved by the authorities of the Member States from the general prohibition of advertising. Outside this exception, all kind of advertising of prescription-only medicines to the general public is strictly forbidden.

Regarding advertising of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe or supply such products, specific provisions are contained in Articles 91 to 96 of Directive 2001/83/EC. These provisions do not generally prohibit the advertising of medicinal products available on medical prescription only. Accordingly, pharmaceutical companies may advertise even prescription-only medicines to this category of persons.

In the specific context of television advertising, the particular ban of Article 14 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(2) has to be respected. It sets out that television advertising for medicinal products and medical treatment available only on prescription in the Member State within whose jurisdiction the broadcaster falls shall be prohibited.

At present, certain parts of the pharmaceutical legislation are under revision. The Commission's proposal(3) contains certain modifications of Article 88 of Directive 2001/83/EC in order to allow better information on certain prescription-only medicines. The strict ban of any kind of advertising for these products, however, is fully maintained.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(3) COM(2001) 404 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0769/02

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Pindos national park

The northern Pindos is one of the areas which the Greek authorities have put forward for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. Community finance has been made available for this area, through the operational programme for the environment under the 2nd CSF; in order to draw up a management plan with a view to the designation of the area as a national park. However, none of the procedures provided for under Greek law, such as the issuing of a presidential decree and the formation of a managerial body, have as yet been initiated.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the Community funds granted for these studies are used effectively?

Can Community funds be provided to set up the necessary infrastructure for the subsequent operation of the national parks?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The Pindos National Forest Management project was part-financed under the Environment Operational Programme of the Greek Community support framework for the 1994-1999 programming period. We are informed by the Greek authorities that the budget of some 813 000 allocated to the project was all spent by the final date of eligibility for expenditure set for that period, i.e. 31 December 2001.

In line with Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1998(1) as amended by Regulation 2082/93(2) the Commission awaits the Member States' transmission by 30 June 2002 of final declarations of expenditure and final programme execution reports. In that context the Greek authorities will have to certify that the conditions set in the decision granting aid have been duly respected.

The Commission has already drawn the Greek authorities' attention to the need to accelerate the necessary procedures for implementing management plans part-financed by the Structural Funds or the LIFE programme for Natura 2000 network sites and so securing their protection. We were informed by the authorities that the Pindos management plan should be approved at the end of the first quarter of 2002, the Presidential Decree designating the zone being scheduled for the fourth quarter.

Biotope protection infrastructure can be part-financed under the environment OP, which specifies the type of measure eligible, for the current 2000-06 programming period.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/02

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Infrastructure tariffs

To what extent and under what conditions is the introduction of obligatory and selective charges or tolls with a view to favouring modal transfer between different modes of transport compatible with Community law as the relevant jurisprudence currently stands, particularly as regards the principle of the freedom of movement of goods and persons, and the competition rules?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

At present Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures(1) in road transport lays down the conditions under which Member States may levy taxes, tolls and user charges for heavy goods vehicles.

As announced in its White Paper on the European transport policy(2) and expected by the Council, the Commission is preparing a framework to ensure that the price of using different modes of transport better reflects costs to society.

It intends to issue in the coming months a working document describing a methodology which relates infrastructure charges to infrastructure, congestion, pollution and accident costs in all modes and which will provide the basis for developing the future Community framework related to infrastructure charging.

This framework will meet the concerns of both ensuring efficient use of infrastructure and facilitating the financing of new infrastructure. Further measures to organise a progressive and coordinated implementation will be considered afterwards.

(1) OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2) COM(2001) 370.