WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/02 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Council. Phone tapping at Europol.
Date: 2002-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Europol, protection of communications

C 277 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Does the Commission agree that similar measures should be put in place for bass fishing? Will the
Commission also agree that these measures would lead to a substantial reduction in the incidental capture
and killing of dolphins?

Many European countries such as France and the Netherlands are not conducting independent monitoring
of their pelagic trawl fisheries. Does the Commission agree that the monitoring of cetacean by-catch in all
pelagic trawl fisheries in European waters should be made compulsory?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The problem of dolphin by-catch in the bass fishery off Devon and Cornwall is just an example of the
problem of by-catch of protected or threatened species. Cetaceans, which are strictly protected under
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (1), suffer mortality from diverse types of fishing, not just the winter bass fishery in the Western
Channel. Updated details on by-catch of cetaceans may be obtained from the report of the STECF
(Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries) subgroup on Fishery and the Environment.
Details on the problem can also be found from the 2002 report of the Advisory Committee for the
Environment (ACE) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

The above-mentioned reports also highlight possible remedial measures to keep by-catch of cetaceans
under control. However, technical details that will be needed to draft efficient measures proportionate to
the threat to cetacean populations are still missing. The Commission expects to have a complete picture of
these details by June 2002.

As far as the monitoring of by-catch is concerned, it should be borne in mind that Article 12 of Directive
92/43/EEC already stipulates this obligation for Member States, as well as the obligation to set up remedial
measures. The Commission believes that, in any case, action at Community level is required for monitoring
and alleviation of by-catch to be effective.

On the basis of the forthcoming reports of STECF and ICES, and following further consultation, the
Commission will elaborate the appropriate legislative proposals on monitoring and mitigation of by-catch.
Whether these measures will include measures similar to the drift-net ban cannot be anticipated at this
stage.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 277 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Council

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Phone tapping at Europol

Is the Council aware of the revelation in the edition of ‘De Telegraaf’ published on 23 March 2002

1.
that internal phones are allegedly being tapped at Europol?

Does the Council share my view that, if those allegations prove to be true, they indicate lamentable

2.
working relationships at Europol and potential management problems?

Is the Council prepared to conduct an inquiry into these allegations and inform the European

3.
Parliament of the findings of that inquiry and of any measures which might be taken?

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/119

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.

(2002/C 277 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: The European Schools

Many parents of children at the three European schools in Brussels have complained that recently pupils
have been transferred in the middle of the school year from one building complex to another. These
transfers have understandably caused consternation and dissatisfaction both among pupils at these schools
and their parents who find their schedules completely disrupted by these arrangements.

It should be pointed out that, according to the parents, these changes affect some 200 families with
children at the European schools and are the result of decisions taken in an untransparent manner without
the parents being consulted. Another matter which affects the quality of education at the European
Schools and the health of teachers and pupils and which has greatly alarmed parents and pupils is the
presence of asbestos at the European School in Uccle.

What is the Commission’s view of this state of affairs? Who makes the decisions to transfer pupils > in the
middle of the school year > from one building complex to another, and on the basis of which criteria? On
the basis of which criteria are pupils divided between, and enrolled in, these three schools? Have parents
been asked about these transfers? Which EU bodies and agencies fund all the European Schools? Can the
Commission confirm that the issue of asbestos at the European School at Uccle has been resolved and that
there is no danger for the other European Schools? In view of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU,
have any measures been taken to provide high-quality teaching for the significantly larger number of
pupils who will clearly have to be admitted to the European Schools? Will all the official languages (new
and existing languages) be fully respected in the new teaching schedule to be drawn up?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

In response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the transfer of pupils and
consultation with parents, the financing of the European schools, and the teaching of languages, the
Commission refers the Honourable Member to the full replies on these matters recently given in its
answers to written question E-0944/02 by Mrs Figueiredo (1) and to written questions E-0787/02,
E-0788/02 and E-0789/02 by Mrs Schleicher (2).

The Community currently provides 59 % of the budget of the European Schools under an agreement
concluded with the intergovernmental Board of Governors, the provisions of which were included in the
Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools that was signed by all the Member States and the
Communities on 17 June 1994 (3). The European Patent Office, under a separate agreement, provides
funding for the European School in Munich.

The work to remove asbestos from the Uccle European School building has been carried out as part of the
inventory and management programme presented by the competent authorities of the host country, in this
case Belgium. As in previous operations, the remaining work will be carried out during school holidays in
order to ensure the safety of all those involved.