WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/02 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council. Failure by the Council to reply to priority questions within the set time limits.
Date: 2002-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, interinstitutional relations (EU), written question

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/147

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

In its declaration of 11 March 2002, the European Union welcomed the Malino peace talks between
1.
representatives of the Christian and Muslim communities of the Moluccas, and the subsequent 11-point
declaration to end all violence in Moluccas. The EU also welcomed the mediation of the Government of
Indonesia in the peace process, urged both signatory parties to the 11-point declaration to fully implement
its content, and urged the Government of Indonesia to take the necessary measures against intruders
seeking to disrupt the ongoing peace process in the province. Finally, the EU encouraged the Indonesian
Government to initiate rehabilitation and development activities in the area, in order to obtain a broader
public support for the peace process.

The EU has not raised the arrest and trial of Jafer Umar Thalib with President Megawati, but has
2.
regularly discussed the security situation in the Indonesian provinces, including the Moluccas, with the
Indonesian authorities. Local EU Heads of Missions have reiterated the EU’s support for the Malino
Agreement in their talks with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, and continue to monitor closely the
evolution of the situation on the ground. The EU also continues to support the Agreement practically by
enhancing project co-operation in the Moluccas and in Central Sulawesi.

The EU, during the EU-Indonesia Foreign Ministers meeting on 24 September in Copenhagen, also

3.
discussed the situation in several regions of Indonesia, including Aceh, Papua and the Moluccas.

(2003/C 92 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Council

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Failure by the Council to reply to priority questions within the set time limits

My priority written question P-0296/02 (1) on the role of the Spanish Presidency in the fifty-eighth session
of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva (18 March to 26 April 2002) was sent to the Council on
30 January 2002 and was registered on 5 February 2002. I received a reply to that question on 25 June
2002, by which date the session of the Commission on Human Rights had ended two months previously,
and the Spanish Presidency only had five days left to run.

Under Rule 44(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, replies must be given to priority
questions within three weeks of their being registered at the Council, which would take us to 26 February
2002 at the latest.

In the Council’s joint answer to written questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00 (2) dated 10 July
2000, the Council stated that it was not bound by the deadlines set in the European Parliament’s Rules of
Procedure. Nevertheless, it stressed that with a view to better collaboration with the European Parliament
in this area, it had acted swiftly to introduce a series of internal measures enabling it to reply to written
questions within two months.

In the case in point, the answer to the priority question which I had tabled came almost five months after
it had been registered, at a time when that answer was inapplicable, and therefore of no use, as the fifty-
eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights had ended and the Spanish Presidency was nearly
over.

Is the Council aware of the difficulties that failure to observe the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure
create? Will the Council take genuinely effective measures to eliminate these delays, which are more
frequent and much longer than is the case with replies from the Commission?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 70.
(2) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 167.

C 92 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council can only confirm the answer it gave to Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00.
Furthermore, it can assure the Honourable Member that, as far as possible and in accordance with its own
internal rules of operation, it always acts in such a way as to ensure that a reply is given as soon as
possible.

(2003/C 92 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/02

by Imelda Read (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Tobacco advertising

On 28 March 2002, the British Government forwarded to the Commission a notification under Directive
98/34/EC (1) concerning the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. The standstill period on this draft
law was due to expire on 1 July 2002. Can the Commission confirm that the reason for this extension is
that the German Government has lodged objections to this draft British law banning tobacco advertising?

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the draft Tobacco Advertising and
Promotion Bill has indeed been notified on 28 March 2002 under Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field
of technical standards and regulations. Subsequently, on 28 June 2002, the German authorities issued, in
accordance with Article 9(2) of that Directive, a so-called detailed opinion. This detailed opinion has
extended the status quo period until 30 September 2002.

(2003/C 92 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2288/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Elections to the European Parliament in 2004

(25 July 2002)

Will the reduced allocation of seats in the European Parliament (as agreed at Nice) be introduced for the
elections to the European Parliament in 2004? Will the UK’s allocation therefore be cut from 87 seats to
72 for June 2004?

If the allocation of seats to the UK is to be reduced, what will be the regional basis for the reallocation of
the seats?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it made to question E-1706/02 put by
Mr Andrew Duff.