ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Practical implementation of Eurodac

The development of a central database of fingerprints is in practice undeniably a complex matter.

Does the Commission know when Eurodac is due to become operational as a central fingerprint register?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's assessment that the development of Eurodac's Central Unit is indeed a complex matter.

However, implementation of the Central Unit is making good progress and is going according to plan.

Further progress will depend on the adoption of implementing rules which so far have not yet been adopted by the Council of the European Union. Provided the implementing rules are adopted by January 2002 and operational tests with Member States go well, the Central Unit could be ready by mid-2002.

However, Article 27 of the Eurodac Regulation(1) stipulates inter alia that in order to start operations of Eurodac, Member States have to notify the Commission that they have made the necessary technical arrangements to transmit data to the Central Unit. All Member States to which the Regulation currently applies presently estimate that such notification will occur before the end of 2002. Provided these estimates are correct, Eurodac could thus start operations at the end of 2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention, OJ L 316, 15.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Plan for an airport in Castellón (Spain)

The Provincial Council of Castellón is currently promoting a project to build an airport in Castellón (in the Region of Valencia). This project was forwarded to the Spanish Ministry for Public Works for its approval, but there was no response. The AENA (Spanish airports and air traffic authority) has stated that it considers the planned airport facilities to be unnecessary, since Valencia airport, only 70 km from Castellón, already caters for all the commercial and passenger transport needs.

It has just been announced that the land on which the airport is supposed to be built is being expropriated (the Commission can consult the announcement in the Official Journal of the Valencian Regional Government DOGV 4070, dated 23 August 2001).

In view of the facts set out above and taking into account the European Union's airport and air transport requirements, what view does the Commission take of the plan to build a new airport in the Region of Valencia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2001)

The development of a new airport is a decision that rests entirely with the competent authorities in Spain. The Commission has no role to play at this level of the decision process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2657/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(3 October 2001)

Subject: EU-Algeria Association Agreement

What is the Council doing to ensure compliance by the Algerian authorities with agreements entered into with the EU regarding respect for human rights?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

The EU is in the process of negotiating a Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Algeria to replace the 1976 Cooperation Agreement. Negotiations have gathered momentum since last year and might be concluded in the next few months. The Agreement will institutionalise regular political dialogue at various levels on all aspects of mutual interest.

The draft Agreement provides that respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall inspire the domestic and external policies of the parties and shall constitute an essential element of this Agreement. Upon the Agreement's entry into force, respect for human rights will thus become an essential element of the Agreement, serious breaches of which will oblige the other party to take appropriate steps.

In addition to the Association Agreement, which requires the consent of the European Parliament and will not enter into force until it has been concluded by the Council and ratified by the Member States' parliaments, the Council initiated a political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level three years ago. This is the forum in which the European Union, represented by the ministerial troika, regularly raises issues relating to respect for human rights with the Algerian authorities and strongly insists that any departure from this or any abuse in the fight against terrorism be avoided. On numerous occasions the European Union has expressed its concern at reports of arbitrary detentions, extra-judicial arrests, the use of torture and the fate of missing persons. In this context, the opening up of the country to human rights NGOs is a very positive development. A meeting of the same nature is planned for mid-November in Brussels, which will provide another opportunity to continue discussion of these matters with the Algerian authorities.

Lastly, Algeria has also subscribed to a number of principles in the framework of the Barcelona Process, including the principle of respect for human rights and the rule of law. More specifically, at the fourth Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Marseilles on 15 and 16 November 2000 the Presidency conclusions called for a deepening of dialogue on the following subjects: the process of consolidating the rule of law, and respect for human rights and democratic principles. Such dialogue concerning human rights has in fact been initiated at Senior Official level.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2475/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Safety and health protection for workers in the mining industry

Council Directive 92/104/EEC(1) of 3 December 1992 on the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries specified in the Annex establishes, in Section II, employers' obligations to guarantee the safety and health of workers, as well as health checks.

However, in Portugal a large number of accidents continue to occur at work, causing the loss of eyesight, limbs, hands and fingers and even death (mainly among workers employed in quarries) and a very large number of workers suffer from silicosis. The situation is becoming worse with the introduction of new tools, such as pneumatic drills and machines which create enormous clouds of dust in quarries and tile factories. Workers also suffer from back problems caused by carrying excessively heavy weights, deafness caused by noise, and rheumatism, which affects many employees working in excessively damp environments.

This situation is compounded by inefficiency on the part of the General Labour Inspectorate and a lack of preventive measures, health diagnostics, research studies or information campaigns.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of this inefficient application of the Directive and what measures should be taken to ensure safety and health protection for workers?

(1) OJ L 404, 31.12.1992, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware of any of the health and safety problems mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As the Honourable Member knows, it is the task of the Member States to ensure an efficient application of the rules on health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries. The problems raised by the Honourable Member should indeed be put to the attention of the national inspectorate which is responsible for the enforcement of Health and Safety issues in the extractive industries.

Nevertheless, the Commission will request the Portuguese delegation of the Tripartite Safety and Health Commission for Mines and other Extractive Industries(1) (Shcmoei) to investigate further the issues raised by the Honourable Member. Should evidence show that the problems raised have not been given adequate attention by the Portuguese authorities, the Commission will not hesitate to take appropriate action.

(1) The Shcmoei was created by a Council Decision adopted at the 44th session of the Council of Ministers, held on July 1957 (OJ 487 of 31.8.1957), and extended to cover all mineral extracting industries on 27 June 1974 (OJ L 185, 9.7.1974).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/01

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Protection of typical foods and strategy to safeguard European agriculture

Given that:

- the spread of mad cow disease (BSE) has profoundly disturbed public opinion and raised important questions about the exclusive use of industrial processes in agricultural production;

- the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in agri-food production, besides representing possible risk for consumer health, would favour a few big non-European multinationals at the expense of the European small and medium-sized companies operating in the sector,

the Commission is asked:

- What strategies does it intend to adopt in order to safeguard European agriculture?

- Does it not accept that comprehensive action should be taken to protect and promote the traditional agri-food production of the various regions of Europe, a guarantee of authenticity as well as an expression of the cultural wealth of those regions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Safeguarding and promoting the European model for agriculture were among the main aims of the reform of the common agricultural policy adopted in 1999 under Agenda 2000. Features of this European model, which are accordingly reflected in the objectives of the reform, are: a competitive agricultural sector; a fair standard of living for the farming community; production methods that are safe, capable of supplying quality products and environmentally friendly; a diversified farming sector that preserves the wealth of traditions and the variety of landscapes in the countryside and constitutes a source of jobs in rural areas. In a word, the model seeks to foster agriculture that is sustainable and multifunctional from the social, economic and environmental viewpoints. Promoting such a model is a strategic objective, not only under Agenda 2000 and with a view to enlargement but also in negotiations within the World Trade Organisation.

The quality and diversity of the Union's agricultural and food output are among the mainstays of the model. Precisely because of this diversity, food quality cannot be properly and comprehensively defined at Community level. The Commission does, however, have a role to play in improving information for the consumer and it has made various proposals in this area.

In particular, as the Commission stated in its answer to Ms Sbarbati's Written Question P-2555/01, to which the Honourable Member should refer, the Community plans to implement a comprehensive and coherent policy providing information on and promoting agricultural products, including foodstuffs, on the internal and third-country markets.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2818/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Student loans for British students resident abroad

It has recently been brought to our attention that British citizens resident abroad who go to study at higher education institutions in Britain are currently not eligible for the Student Loan scheme available to British citizens resident in Britain. This can have the effect of denying access to British educational institutions for these potential students due to financial problems. It seems an anomaly that loans are not available to British students who happen not to have been resident in Britain for some years, and appears to constitute unnecessary discrimination against these students.

We would like to know:

- Is the Commission satisfied that this constitutes equality of treatment for people in such a position?

- What steps is the Commission taking to ensure equality of treatment for such people?

- Does the Commission find any evidence of discrimination against citizens of other EU countries regarding access to British higher educational institutions and funding?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

According to Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content and the organisation of its educational system. However, as far as conditions of access to education are concerned, the Member States are obliged to respect the principle of equality of treatment.

According to the jurisprudence of the Court, at the present stage of development of Community law, the principle of equality applies to assistance given by a Member State to its nationals for the purposes of university studies, only in so far as assistance is intended to cover registration or other fees, in particular tuition fees charged for access to education.

The case raised by the Honourable Member concerns British citizens resident abroad who go to study in higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. The condition of access to student loans is an internal matter not covered by Community law.

The alleged British student loan system covers living costs accommodation, food, clothes, travel etc. and falls there with outside Community rules.

To the extent that the British system provides assistance to cover tuition fees (which falls within the scope of the EC Treaty, as mentioned before), the conditions that are imposed conform with Community law: the student must be a national of an Member State or a child of such a national and he must have lived in the European Economic Area (EEA: Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) throughout the three years before the start of the first academic year of the course for which he is seeking help with fees.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Use of languages when submitting European projects to the Commission

The forms for submitting proposals for financial support from the European Community's financing instrument for the environment Life-environment, which can be consulted on the website http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/envir, ask applicants to submit the technical part of the proposal also or only in English as external experts participate to the evaluation of the proposals.

Nonetheless, any citizen of the EU is free to use his or her mother tongue when submitting such proposals.

Does the Commission not consider that strongly recommending the use of English constitutes discrimination against the large number of citizens of the Union who do not have a good command of that language?

Will the Commission ensure that all applications are treated in exactly the same way, irrespective of the language of the Union in which they are drafted?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission does not insist that the technical description of Life-Environment proposals is submitted solely or also in English. It simply recommends to present the technical part of the proposals (and only this) also or only in English, because various internal Commission and external experts participate in the evaluation of the proposals.

Each applicant has the right to present a proposal in any of the official Community languages. For this purpose the complete application form has been published in all official languages. The Commission assures that all applications in whatever Community language are dealt with in the same manner and that no discrimination occurs during the evaluation of each file (for example a large coverage of Community languages is assured in expert panels).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/01

by Gordon Adam (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foot-and-mouth disease Trading problems with EU applicant countries

Will the Commission indicate what steps it is taking against those EU applicant countries where measures taken by those countries are in breach of these agreements, either over foot-and-mouth disease or over similar issues such as BSE?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2266/01, E-2267/01, E-2268/01 and E-2269/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The decisions adopted by the Community to safeguard animal and plant health form an integral part of the body of Community law. The principle underlying the accession negotiations is that the applicant countries will adopt this body of law. As soon as they join the EU, these countries will be bound by Community legislation, including the requirements to provide safeguards for instance as regards foot-and-mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE). All the applicant countries have undertaken to abide by this principle. The Commission also insists that the applicant countries gradually incorporate Community provisions into their national law during the pre-accession period.

In the course of the pre-accession period, relations between the Community and the applicant countries are governed by the association agreements. In this context and in various international forums, the Commission has raised the subject of the sometimes excessive restrictions imposed by the applicant countries. The Commission is doing what it can to ensure that such restrictions do not exceed the precautionary measures adopted by the Community. The Commission confirms that the provisions to be adopted by the applicant countries must not constitute arbitrary discrimination or a covert restriction on trade. In this respect, the association agreements are a fundamental component of the pre-accession strategy. The Commission intends to continue its efforts in this area. Moreover, the Commission has frequent contact with the veterinary authorities in the applicant countries and regularly provides them with information on the latest developments in the Member States and on the measures which have been taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2976/01

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 October 2001)

Subject: Workers' chambers in Austria, Luxembourg and two German Länder

Austria, Luxembourg and two German Länder (Saarland and Bremen) have what are known as workers chambers'. In practice, this amounts to legally enshrined workers' participation in decision-making.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- Are such workers chambers' consistent with EU law?

- Is it consistent with EU law for certain European countries to require businesses to be members of chambers of industry and commerce or chambers of handicrafts?

- Does EU law take a different view of compulsory membership of workers chambers' compared with compulsory membership of chambers of commerce?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

As Community law contains no provisions on this matter, the obligation to join trade organisations that is imposed on enterprises and workers in certain Member States is a question for which these Member States have sole responsibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2958/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: List of judgements against Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights

In reply to my question H-727/2001(1) to the Council concerning the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Turkey for its continued detention of Leyla Zana and three other Members of Parliament, the President of the Council said that the Council does not have a list of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights which Turkey may have failed to observe. Given that within the partnership between the European Union and Turkey and the framework of enhanced political dialogue there is an expectation that the decisions of the ECHR will be observed, as Parliament has also requested, can the Commission make public a list of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights which Turkey is not observing and transmit it to the Council of Ministers?

(1) Oral reply of 3.10.2001.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Competence to supervise the observance of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights is vested in the competent organs of the Council of Europe, in particular, the Committee of Ministers of the Organisation.

According to available information, the Committee of Ministers presently supervises the execution of some 230 cases against Turkey.

Only in one case, the Loizidou case, has the Committee of Ministers clearly and repeatedly declared that Turkey refused to comply with the ruling of the European Court. In a number of other cases, the Committee of Ministers has, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the slowness of execution and/or the manner in which execution has been carried out. This is mainly linked with the absence of means in Turkish law to erase the consequences of convictions having been found by the European Court to violate the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights).

On a general level, the Committee of Ministers has acknowledged, on 12 September 2001 in a reply to members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, that significant progress had been achieved in certain areas concerned by the judgements of the European Court. However, the Committee noted that certain specific individual and/or general measures had not yet been adopted. The Committee recalled the importance and the urgency of such measures, particularly in view of the seriousness of the violations found and the time elapsed since the judgements concerned were delivered.

The Commission expects Turkey to fully respect its undertakings under the European Convention of Human Rights and will continue to follow all developments related to the execution by Turkey of the rulings of the European Court.