WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Protection of women's rights.
Date: 2001-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: action programme, cooperation policy, gender equality, least-developed country, position of women, women's rights

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/9

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of a number of controversial cases concerning the temporary use of vehicles
between Sweden and Finland and between other neighbouring countries. These cases are dealt with on the
basis of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for
temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1) and the
certain means of
legislation on the free movement of persons within the European Union.
Infringement proceedings
initiated by the Commission against Denmark in March 2001 under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC
Treaty are already before the Court of Justice and the Commission is currently considering initiating
infringement proceedings against Finland.

transport

Subject to verification of the facts with the competent authorities, the Commission shares the view of the
Honourable Member on the case he has brought to its attention (a person living and working in Sweden
and going to Finland to spend the night with his fiancée), i.e. that it is similar to the Ryborg case on which
the Court of Justice ruled in case C-297/89 (2). The Swedish authorities will contact the Finnish authorities
to seek an appropriate solution.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.
(2)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 1991, Rigsadvokaten v Nicolai Christian Ryborg, ECR 1991,
page I-1943.

(2002/C 205 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Protection of women’s rights

Despite all the pronouncements about the situation of women in less-developed countries, especially since
the World Conference in Beijing and the resolution on development and gender issues adopted by the
Development Council on 20 December 1995, the situation of women in developing countries continues to
be precarious.

In view of the fact that the promotion of women is an essential part of a global development strategy for
the developing countries, what specific policies is the Council thinking of adopting to step up the
promotion of their rights, health and education?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

The Commission agrees on the importance of gender equality in development cooperation. In spite of the
fact that women have won more independence and freedom of action during the last decades than ever
before, it is true that gender inequalities still exist around the world, in particular in the poorest countries
and among the poorest populations. Therefore, gender equality and the development approach to gender
mainstreaming adopted in the wake of Beijing, has been placed high on the agenda for many years in
development co-operation policies of the Community.

Recently, the Commission presented a Communication to the Parliament and to the Council (1) on a
Programme of Action, in which concrete actions and measures for mainstreaming of gender equality are
proposed.

The Programme, planned over five years, will
include interventions in particular related to health,
education and rule of law as part of the six priority areas of the Community’s Development Co-operation.

C 205 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

The main tasks of the Commission in its implementation of the Programme will be to:

A analyse and integrate gender into the six priority areas for Community development co-operation

activities;

A mainstream gender within projects or programmes designed at country and regional level and

A build internal gender capacity.

The Commission expects the Development Council of 8 November 2001 to adopt conclusions on the
Programme of Action and looks forward to a discussion of its Communication with the Parliament.

(1) COM(2001) 295 final.

(2002/C 205 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Threat to Swedish fish

A Commission proposal on limit values for dioxin in fish could deal a deathblow to the Swedish fishing
industry. According to Sweden’s National Fisheries Board, the proposal will probably result in a total ban
on the sale of salmon and eels from the Baltic Sea.

There is also a risk that the sale for consumption of herring and Baltic herring caught in the Baltic Sea
could be prohibited. The worst-case scenario could see a couple of thousand fishermen lose their jobs.

Sweden favours the introduction of limit values in this area, but they are being introduced too soon, and
the scientific basis for them is still not sufficient.

It is important not to act too hastily. Has the Commission assessed the possible effects of its proposal on
limit values for dioxin in fish on employment in Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Commission is aware of the possible effects the measures on maximum levels in fish could have on
the employment in the fishery sector, as mentioned by the Honourable Member. But the problem has to
be considered under the different aspects in particular the public health aspects besides the possible
economic consequences.

The Commission proposed to Council on 28 August 2001 measures (1) on maximum limits on dioxins as
part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the presence of dioxins in the environment, feed and food. The
most important objective for the Commission is the protection of public health by reducing human
exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The measures for the reduction of human exposure through food are justified by the fact that the intake of
dioxins by a considerable part of the European population exceeds the tolerable intake set by the Scientific
Committee on Food. The socio-economic impact of the proposals has also been taken into account, but it
must be clear that this cannot have precedence over the necessary level of human health protection based
on the scientific advice.