WRITTEN QUESTION E-2284/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Europol data.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Europol, Greece, access to information, exchange of information, terrorism

C 161 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(2003/C 161 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/02

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: System for reimbursement of dental clinics in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom Government’s policy is to pay state-run dental clinics a defined fee for each item of
treatment provided, in addition to which all capital, staffing and operating costs are also paid. The same
treatment fees provided by independent dentists contracted to provide dental care are paid without
reimbursement of any capital, staffing or operating costs save that of part payment of business rates. Will
the Commission comment on whether this policy constitutes unfair competition and is consistent with EU
fair competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Health policy is the responsibility of the Member States, which are entitled to set up, run and fund public
health establishments with a public service remit.

The funding of these services complies with competition rules if it does not go beyond what is required to
enable them to fulfil their remit. However, overcompensation for public health services resulting in cross-
subsidisation of competitive activities could infringe competition rules.

It follows from these principles that the policy pursued by the UK Government of paying state-run dental
clinics a defined fee for each item of treatment provided, in addition to all capital, staffing and operating
costs, while independent dentists contracted to provide the same dental care are paid only equivalent fees
but receive no compensation for their capital, staffing and operating costs, is not necessarily a barrier to
free competition.

State-run dental clinics may be subject to obligations stemming from their public service remit (ceilings on
invoices, opening hours, geographical
location or specialist services provided) which do not apply to
independent dental clinics and which have cost-related implications. If the funding provided by the UK
authorities is limited to compensating state-run dental clinics for the costs stemming from their public
service remit, it is not caught by the rules on state aid.

The information available to the Commission is not such as to enable it to say whether the system
described by the Honourable Member is in breach of Community competition rules.

(2003/C 161 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2284/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)
and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Europol data

Savas Xiros was arrested recently in Piraeus in Greece after the explosion of a bomb, and all the evidence
shows that he belongs to the terrorist organisation ‘November 17’, which is, of course, on the European
list of
Investigations have shown that he also had contacts with terrorist
organisations operating in third countries, such as the Muslim Brothers in the Sudan, which reveals the
international co-operation that exists between terrorist organisations.

terrorist organisations.

Does Europol have any data or information about the movements of the person in question and about
other persons connected to terrorist organisations and their movements internationally? If so, how long
has it had this data? Was the Echelon system used to obtain this information and monitor the terrorists?
Was the information passed on to the Greek authorities in good time?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/21

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Members for the information and hereby confirms that it has
already taken measures to pass it on to Europol.

Access to the information requested by the Honourable Members, if such information were to exist, would
be restricted to highly specific cases laid down in the Europol Convention. The Commission is not one of
the organisations which has access to personal data in Europol’s possession.

(2003/C 161 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/02

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Legal basis of the framework decision on combating racism

Could the Commission please explain the legal basis of the proposal for a framework decision on
combating racism and xenophobia (1), in particular in the light of Article 31(e), because this provision does
not mention ‘racism and xenophobia’ as a subject for legislation pursuant to that article.

Article 31(e) relates solely to ‘organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking’. Has the Commission’s
Legal Service given an opinion on this issue? Please attach any such opinions to your answer.

(1) COM(2001) 664, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 269.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

The Commission’s proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia (1) is
based on Articles 29, 31 and 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU).

Article 29 of the TEU, which sets out the development of common action among the Member States in the
fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, refers in particular to the prevention and fight
against racism and xenophobia as a means of achieving the Union’s objective of providing citizens with a
high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice. That objective has to be achieved
through approximation, where necessary, of rules on criminal matters in the Member States in accordance
with the provisions of Article 31(e).

The Commission’s proposal for a Framework Decision also contains provisions aimed at strengthening
cooperation between judicial and other competent authorities as another way of contributing to the
mentioned objective, in accordance with Article 31(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the TEU. In particular, a common
definition of the constituent elements of the offences is a way to overcome the double criminality
requirement in the context of mutual legal assistance and extradition and contributes to improving judicial
cooperation. The obligation to establish jurisdiction in cases where Member States do not extradite their
nationals is a way to ensure compatibility in rules applicable in Member States as required in Article 31(c).
legal
Finally, the provision abolishing political offences as a ground for refusing requests for mutual
assistance or extradition would contribute to the achievement of the objective of facilitating extradition set
up in Article 31(b).

(1) COM(2001) 664 final, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.