WRITTEN QUESTION E-1276/03 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council. Regulation on sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Date: 2003-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU action, developing countries, foreign policy, health legislation, reproductive health, revision of financial perspectives

C 51 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

He was always moved from hospital to prison too early. Given Barandalla’s situation a request was made
to the Criminal Court of Zaragoza for Barandalla’s release under Article 92 of the Penal Code due to his
sufferings and incurable illness. This request was repeated several times and all of them were refused in
spite of additional reports from different doctors and hospitals that consider it absolutely necessary for
Barandalla to be released.

Can the Council say what steps it will take in a humanitarian bid to remedy this situation?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

It is not for the Council to comment on a criminal case which is a matter for national judiciary authorities.

(2004/C 51 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1276/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Regulation on sexual and reproductive health and rights

Regarding the Regulation on sexual and reproductive health and rights, Members of the European
Parliament were asked to vote in plenary (13 February 2003) for an increase in the budget up to
EUR 73,95 million (Amendment 46) by mobilising the flexibility instrument in order to fund this increased
budget line.

Members of Parliament’s Development Committee and the EPP-ED Group were informed that this increase
followed, and was in conformity with, a Council request.

In the meantime, my office was informed by representatives at Commission and Council level that this
requested increase was in fact a unilateral move on behalf of the European Parliament. Furthermore, I am
informed it was at the request of the rapporteur. If this is so, it would mean that a conciliation procedure
is needed at Council level in order to reallocate funds in the context of EU external actions (Chapter 4).

Could the Council please clarify if it did request the above increase or not?

According to Budget Commissioner Schreyer’s office, Budget 2003 is already engaged and fully allocated.
Does the Council intend therefore a conciliation procedure in order to reallocate funds in the context of
the EU external action? Could the flexibility instruments be mobilised for each year of this programme
2003-2006? Regarding the agreement of the programme itself, could the Council please clarify under
which procedure it will act: qualified majority or unanimous vote?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as a general rule,
inserting non-binding
provisions, such as wishes which might impinge on the Budget Committee’s prerogatives (cid:1) especially as
concerns use of the flexibility instrument (paragraph 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May
1999) (1) (cid:1) is to be avoided.

Nonetheless, on the question of the points made in the Honourable Member’s question, the Council noted,
when the Regulation concerned was adopted, the Commission’s confirmation that the increased financial
framework for this Regulation may be integrated into heading 4 of the financial perspective and,
in
particular, into the increased funding earmarked for development policy in the context of drawing up the

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/73

budget by activity. The Commission therefore has no intention of proposing use of the instruments
provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999, i.e. proposing that funds over and above
the existing funding for heading 4 be mobilised.

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.

(2004/C 51 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

Right from the outset of the war in Iraq we have seen disturbing images of the inhuman treatment to
which prisoners from the Anglo-American alliance are being subjected. The conduct of the Iraqi authorities
manifestly contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Convention as regards respect for prisoners of war.
It may very soon be that EU citizens are prisoners of war of the Iraqi authorities too.

What action will the Council take in this regard?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council

is strongly attached to the full respect of the Geneva Convention relative to the
1.
treatment of prisoners of war by all parties to a conflict, in particular as regards the general protection of
prisoners of war under part II of the Geneva Convention, and especially its Article 13, which provides
inter alia that prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated, and that prisoners of war must at all
times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public
curiosity.

2.
Regarding the last element of the question, as the war in Iraq has ended with the Iraqi regime’s defeat
and the liberation of all prisoners held by Iraqi forces, no more particular action to ensure the protection
of prisoners of war in captivity by the Iraqis is required.

(2004/C 51 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Law No 383 of 18 October 2001

The Italian Government has amended Law No 383 of 18 October 2001 (the so-called ‘Tremonti Two’ Act),
which has been in force since 25 October 2001, to limit the scope of the measures to certain areas of
Italy, and in particular to those hit by natural disasters in recent months. In this way, Law No 383 will no
longer apply to general impacts but to very localised ones with respect to potential beneficiaries.

Bearing in mind that it would be appropriate for this provision to be submitted to the European
Commission for scrutiny, even though it has received no notification of it to date and the decrees
implementing the law are soon to be issued, could the Commission indicate what action it will take to
avert the risk of a potential infringement of EU competition rules?