WRITTEN QUESTION E-3943/03 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel law.
Date: 2003-12-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Israel, Palestine, Palestine question, application of the law, association agreement (EU), family law, family migration, racial discrimination

C 78 E/676

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3922/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject: Projects co-funded by the Commission as part of the National Hydrological Plan

The Spanish Environment Ministry regularly publishes various figures concerning the number of NHP
projects and Annex II to Law 889 (on building works and projects) which have secured EU funding.
However,
the Commission’s DG on Regional Policy has replied to all questions and requests for
information in this connection with the statement that it possesses no NHP building project references,
since the requests for funding arrive without explicit reference to the NHP, bearing reference numbers
different from the abbreviations used in the NHP Law. This is a worrying situation, above all in terms of
the cumulative environmental effects and synergies of the various building projects.

Can the Commission submit a report on the co-funding, making reference to each NHP project?

Should the DG on Regional Policy not request that the Spanish Government from now on, identify each
building project included in the NHP Law with a specific reference to the latter, so as to facilitate the
monitoring of NHP projects?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to the question E-2288/01.

It should also be noted that Annex II of Spanish law 10/2001 on the National Hydrological Plan (SNHP)
referred to by the Honourable Member includes a listing of investments consisting of several hundreds of
projects. The Spanish authorities have submitted a number of
these projects for financing in the
framework of the financial instruments and programming documents mentioned in the response referred
to above, without specifically informing the Commission whether they are included in the SNHP, as this is
not a necessary requirement.

(2004/C 78 E/0720)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3943/03

by Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel law

(22 December 2003)

The need for an urgent change of the social, political and economic status of the Arab minority in Israel
and its attempt to gain minority recognition and rights is widely known. At present, as the deadlock in the
implementation of the road map seems to be insurmountable, further efforts should be made within Israeli
society for a real reconciliation between all of its components, and these could be regarded as a first step
to restart the peace process.

Unfortunately on 31 July 2003 the Israeli Knesset enacted the temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel
law prohibiting citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status to West Bank/Gaza
Palestinians married to Israeli citizens. This law forbids residents of the Occupied Territories married to
Israeli citizens or Palestinian residents in Israel to live lawfully in Israel with their companion. Furthermore
it aims at preventing family unification and will also apply retroactively, affecting tens of thousands of
couples. The fulfilment of this law will split nearly 22 000 families.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/677

This law directly discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel, as a majority of Israelis married to residents
of the Occupied Territories belongs to the Palestinian minority of Israel. Thus it contravenes many
international human rights instruments ratified by Israel with regard, in particular, to Article 5 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ratified by Israel in 1979.

Is not the Commission of the opinion that this law violates Article 2 of the Association Agreement
between the EU and Israel? What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to convince the
competent Israeli authorities to abolish this law or not to implement it?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission has taken note that the Knesset approved in July 2003 the Nationality and Entry into
Israel Law (Temporary Order). In the Commission’s view, this order raises issues of concern in relation to
family rights. The Commission has already
potential discrimination in the highly sensitive area of
expressed these concerns in Israel, and is following carefully the developments relating to the practical
modalities of this law. The Commission is also following carefully the observations of the United Nations
Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the matter.
Under the Union-Israel Association Agreement, Israeli respect for human rights constitutes an essential
its relationship with the Union. Matters relating to human rights are discussed in the
element of
framework of the political dialogue held between the Union and Israel under the Association Agreement.

(2004/C 78 E/0721)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3951/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Genetically modified GloFish

On Monday, 5 January 2004 the US firm Yorktown Technologies plans to start marketing the first
genetically modified pets. The GloFish is a genetically modified zebra fish. A green fluorescent gene from a
jellyfish and a red fluorescent gene from a sea anemone make the zebra fish glow green or red in the dark
under ultraviolet light. The GloFish was originally developed in Singapore as an indicator for toxic
substances in water, as the fish lights up red when it comes into contact with poisonous substances. This
transgenic zebra fish is now in danger of becoming a sought-after pet, at a price of USD 5.

Does the European Commission not agree that the genetic modification of these fish is in breach of the
Protocol on protection and welfare of animals included in the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam?

What steps does the European Commission intend to take to prevent the import and sale of such fish in
the European Union, in line with the current moratorium on GM products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

In relation to the animal welfare aspects of this question, the Commission currently has no information as
to whether the genetic modification of this particular species would compromise its general welfare when
kept as a pet in a domestic aquarium.

No animal welfare rules exist at Community level for fish kept as pets, and therefore this aspect is entirely
within the competence of the Member States.