According to the latest reports, over the last few months Israeli military forces have arrested 11 500 Palestinians in mopping-up operations – including 1600 young people under the age of 18. A large number of detainees remain in custody for lengthy periods without being informed of any charges, some trials are held summarily and excessive costs are imposed, which are extremely onerous for the detainees’ families.

In view of previous and recent UN resolutions, could the Council say whether, in its view, there is any legal basis to justify the arrest of these detainees (many of whom are civilians), their detention, the conditions in which they are held or even their occasional committal to trial?

What is the Council’s opinion regarding each of the above cases, and what is its political assessment, within the context of giving impetus to the EU’s resolutions on resolving the middle East crisis?

The Council is aware of the fact that, as the honourable Member points out, Israeli forces have arrested Palestinians.

Unfortunately, there is no detailed official information about precisely how many people have been arrested, the circumstances surrounding their arrest or the conditions under which they are being held.

It remains, however, consistently the EU’s general policy to make efforts to ensure that the rights of those held and of their dependants are respected and that the normal legal procedures and international standards are observed, among them the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, including those directed against Israel. This policy is also being followed in connection with the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

In this connection, the Council calls upon the honourable Member to familiarise himself with the conclusion of the Council meeting of 22 July 2002 concerning the situation in the Middle East. The conclusion confirms, inter alia, the need for an immediate improvement in the situation in the humanitarian and social sphere.

42 000 people are killed on the roads in the EU every year. Despite this fact, the Danish Presidency’s priorities for transport do not make any mention of road safety. When a direct question was put to the Danish Presidency in the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism in July this year, this too elicited no information concerning priority road safety issues in the next half-year.

What are the Council’s priorities for road safety in the EU under the Danish Presidency?

The Council is making a steady effort to improve road safety, and that is a central feature of the common transport policy. On this basis, the Council is able to inform the honourable Member that, during the Danish Presidency, we anticipate adopting the following:

a common position on a proposal for amending Directive 71/127/EEC; the objective of this will be to introduce special construction requirements for drivers’ mirrors, together with new technologies designed to increase drivers’ indirect field of vision and reduce blind spots;

a common position on a proposal for a directive on the training of drivers of buses and heavy goods vehicles, to include important provisions on road safety;

a common position on a proposal for a directive on the compulsory use of safety belts and restraint systems for children (that is to say, amending Directive 91/671/EEC).

During the Danish Presidency, the Council is also planning to continue examining the proposal for a regulation on the harmonisation of certain social provisions within road transport (that is to say, amending Regulation 3820/85/EEC). This proposal for a regulation is aimed at updating the provisions concerning minimum rest times and driving hour limits for drivers of buses and heavy goods vehicles. This would prepare the way for introducing digital tachographs, something which is expected to have a positive influence on road safety.

Finally, the Council wants to be able to introduce discussion of the following proposed legislation during the Danish Presidency, all depending however upon when the Commission adopts it:

a proposal for a directive on safety in tunnels;

a proposal for a directive on the subsequent fitting to lorries, buses and vans of mirrors that cover blind spots.

Moreover, the possibility cannot be excluded of the Council’s discussing, in the course of the Danish Presidency, the Commission’s new multi-annual action programme promoting road safety and covering the period 2002-2010, all depending upon when the Commission presents its programme.

The 'open coordination method' has become a useful way in which the Commission may monitor the progress of Member States in adapting to EU measures through non-legislative instruments.

Most recently, the application of the method in asylum policy means that the European Parliament, already sidelined because the co-decision procedure does not apply in the area, is not involved in the monitoring of Member States progress in this crucial area of asylum and immigration.

Could the Danish Presidency outline whether it has any plans to make the European Parliament an integral part of the open coordination method in general and of the open coordination method on asylum in particular?

In November 2000, the Commission presented to the Council and the European Parliament a communication on the common asylum policy, entitled ‘Towards a common asylum procedure and uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum’⁽¹⁾.

A year later, the Commission presented its first report on the implementation of this communication⁽²⁾. The report also refers to the application of the open coordination method to asylum policy.

The Commission drew attention in its report to the fact that, by accompanying and facilitating the transition to the second phase of the implementation of the common European asylum system, the open coordination method would support and supplement the Community legislation that is recommended in the Treaty and that is at the core of the common policy.

The Commission has also announced that, parallel to introducing a legal framework, it will support the use of the method and put forward proposals for European guidelines and for the content of the national action plans. At the same time, it will ensure coordination of the national policies, the sharing of best practice and the monitoring and assessment of the consequences of the Community policy, as well as organising regular consultations with the third countries and international organisations affected.

At this stage, the honourable Member would no doubt be well-advised to put his question directly to the Commission. The open coordination method has been debated in the Council which has primarily focused its discussions concerning asylum upon the implementation of those legislative tasks prescribed in accordance with Article 63 of the Treaty and the procedures in Article 67.

As the honourable Member knows, the Seville European Council set very specific deadlines for the Council’s adopting a whole range of legal instruments.

In the period since 3 July 17 Laotian dissidents have appeared before a Bangkok court following a request for extradition from Laos. These 17 people, who have already served a prison sentence for residence without a permit, were arrested on Thai territory after participating in an attempt to take control of the Thailand-Laos border post at Vang Tao-Chong Mek on 3 July 2000. The aim of this operation was to bring the lack of democracy in Laos to the attention of the public worldwide. A flag of the former kingdom of Laos was hoisted and the border post occupied until a counter-attack was launched by the Communist army. The Laotian authorities are basing their extradition request on the claim that these are simply ‘common-law bandits’. Apart from any considerations relating to the methods used, the facts show clearly that the action taken was political in nature. In view of the judicial standards prevailing in Laos, there is no doubt that if extradition were to take place the lives and health of the 17 people would be in serious danger.

Is the Council aware of this case? If so, what steps has it taken, or does it intend to take, to avert any possibility of the 17 people being extradited to Laos? In particular, has the Council asked, or will it ask, the Member States to grant the 17 people political refugee status?

The Council has not discussed this issue. Nor has it examined the rules governing extradition between Thailand and Laos. It is unaware of whether any Member State has proposed, or intends proposing, that any of the 17 persons affected seek asylum in one or other EU Member State. Nor does the Council intend requesting the Member States to proceed in this way. The human rights situation as such in Laos has, however, been discussed, especially when it was raised in the Joint Committee (EC-Laos). Moreover, a request for opinion on the death penalty is being prepared by the EU Heads of Mission Troika.

As part of the process of accession to the European Union, Slovakia has undertaken to gradually approximate its system of law to the acquis communautaire. This also, and particularly, applies to competition law.

A few weeks ago, Slovakia’s Supreme Court quashed the decision on a merger between several breweries and referred it back to the competition authority (Protimonopolny Urad). The stated reason was apparently that market shares had not been calculated correctly. Even before the original decision, concern had repeatedly been expressed about the substantial concentration within the Slovakian beer market.

How will the Council ensure that Slovakia applies all relevant provisions and procedures of national competition law as required by EU law?

The Council has consistently maintained that the negotiations under the chapter on competition cannot be concluded until it can be confirmed that the legislative framework is in place and that the administrative capacity needed for implementing and enforcing Community law in this area has been obtained. Finally, the candidate country in question has to show that it is able credibly to monitor the enforcement of Community law in the competition sphere.

Following proposals by the Commission, the Council thought that the competition authority was adequately monitoring enforcement of the anti-trust provisions, but called upon Slovakia to conduct a more preventive policy of sanctions and attach importance to preventing serious distortion of competition.

It is first and foremost up to Slovakia itself to comply with the EU’s demands. The matter referred to by the honourable Member seems to show that the Slovakian authorities and legal system take competition issues seriously and try to solve them.

It is also the case that national decisions in this area are monitored carefully by the Commission which is in constant contact with the competition authorities in each individual candidate country. The results of such monitoring are communicated regularly to the Council. We are certain that, if a serious problem were to arise, the Commission would either make use of its own powers or take appropriate steps to present the necessary proposals to the Council. The Council wished therefore to proceed on the basis of its general position and make a suitable decision either in relation to the Europe Agreement as this relates to the pre-accession period or as part of the accession negotiations.

The Council is not, however, aware of such a case’s having arisen recently in Slovakia.

What steps is the Council taking to ensure the safety of NGO workers in Guatemala who are working to protect the rights of neglected and abused youths against armed men who openly threaten them in the street?

The Council has never had the opportunity to examine the specific question raised by the Honourable Member. The Council has however at different occasions examined and expressed its concerns on the human rights situation in Guatemala. In their contacts with the Guatemalan authorities, the EU and Member States' representatives have frequently raised questions concerning human rights protection and expressed their concerns on different aspects of this issue. Just to mention the latest EU's initiative in this area, in July 2002, the EU agreed to make a demarche to the Guatemalan authorities inter alia condemning the harassment, death threats and assaults directed against persons and organisations working in the defence of human rights in Guatemala, which - we understand - covers situations like the one mentioned by the honourable MEP. The EU will continue to monitor the development of the situation in Guatemala and the efforts made by the Government to fulfil its human rights commitments.

The existence of the Community Patent is of fundamental importance for promoting the creativity of European enterprises and improving their competitiveness on the international scene. However, the Member States have so far been unable to reach any agreement.

Can the Council say what tangible steps it will take with a view to reaching an agreement at last and providing the final impetus needed to adopt the Community Patent?

The Council wishes to assure the honourable Member that it continues to attach the greatest importance to creating a Community Patent which will be an effective and flexible tool and which enterprises will be able to acquire for a reasonable price but which, at the same time, will comply with the principles of legal certainty and non-discrimination between the Member States, as well as guaranteeing a high level of quality.

Thanks to the progress made so far, the Council was able, at its meeting on 21 May 2002, to reach agreement on a common political approach as the basis for further work.

The Danish Presidency intends to focus its discussions in the course of the next couple of months on the issue of the legal system. With this in view, the Commission has promised to present the Council with a working document by no later than the beginning of September.

At its meeting on 14 and 15 November 2002, the Council will be called upon to review the situation, depending upon the progress that may have been made by then.

What is the current state of negotiations between the EU, Russia and the countries bordering northern East Prussia on the question of the future status and practical arrangements for the Kaliningrad oblast?

EU Over the past months, the EU and Russia have been discussing at all levels and with increasing frequency the issue of Kaliningrad. A Special Cooperation Committee on Kaliningrad was held in Svetlogorsk (Kaliningrad oblast) on 15 May. The EU-Russia Summit on 29 May had a discussion on the subject. A meeting of Vice-Ministers was held on 24 July to discuss the principles on which technical solutions should be found. In August, another meeting between the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, the Presidency, the Commission and the Council Secretariat took place and another is due to take place in September. There is a clear sense of urgency on both sides that a rapid solution should be reached in time before Lithuania and Poland introduce a visa requirement for Russian citizens (1 January and 1 July 2003 respectively).

The Russian position, as confirmed at the last EU-Russia Summit, remains that the EU should allow visa-free transit through agreed motorways and railways between Kaliningrad and mainland Russia. Russia argues that visa requirements for travel between different parts of the Russian territory would be an unacceptable violation of the Russian citizens’ right to move freely throughout its country’s territory.

The EU position is based on the Seville European Council conclusions, according to which an effective and flexible solution should be found on the question of transit of persons and goods, in compliance with the acquis and in agreement with the candidate countries concerned. The European Council invited the Commission to submit a study on the possibilities for such a solution in time for the European Council in Brussels on 24/25 October.

The EU has tried to move discussions with the Russians beyond the transit issue and take forward a package of practical measures to assist the region. The package addresses three issues: 1) movement of people and goods, 2) common challenges such as prevention of illegal activities, environmental pollution and health and 3) economic development, including transport, telecommunications, energy and fisheries. However, the package was rejected by the Russians, who opposed the idea of a visa requirement for Russian citizens.

The EU keeps trying to convince Russia about the feasibility of visas for Kaliningrad-related transit. The current Schengen rules allow for a fair amount of flexibility, such as multiple entry visas, in cases where persons need to travel frequently across the external border. As the visas issued by the candidate countries will be national visas until the lifting of the internal border controls, the candidate countries will remain free to set the fees and conditions of issue for visas with Russia.

In fact, it is not the visa or border control acquis as such that might negatively affect the movement of persons. The present reality is that crossing Kaliningrad’s borders today is very difficult and involves considerable delays. This situation is the result of inadequate physical infrastructure and administrative obstacles mainly on the Russian side. The EU is willing to intensify discussions with the Russians on practical measures to improve border infrastructure and management and consular facilities, in order to render the control procedures more simple and secure and to make the transition more palatable.

At the same time, the EU is having regular meetings with Poland and Lithuania on Kaliningrad, notably to ensure close coordination in view of future meetings between the EU and Russia. It is imperative that a solution on Kaliningrad is found in agreement with Poland and Lithuania, as required by the Seville European Council conclusions. In this regard, the Council on 22 July 2002 took note of an intervention by Commissioner Patten confirming the Commission's intention to come forward by the next General Affairs and External Relations Council (30 September) with the study requested by the European Council in Seville on Kaliningrad, with a view to finding a solution within the acquis in consultation with Poland and Lithuania.

On 10 July 2002 the National Assembly of the Slovakian Republic passed a law amending Law 140/1961 in the Penal Code to the effect that any person expressing sympathy with Communism or denying, questioning, approving or seeking to justify the crimes of Communism will be punished by a prison sentence of between three months and six years. Leaving aside the unacceptable criminalisation of an ideology, philosophy and practical political activity, this provision – assuming that the law will indeed come into force on 1 September 2002 - represents a fundamental hindrance above all to the Communist Party of Slovakia, its participation in the forthcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for September and the outcome of those elections.

Will the Council approach the Slovakian authorities to condemn these developments, which stand in clear contradiction to the principles of the freedom to express ideas and the freedom of action of political parties, and which also raise problems in relation to the acquis communautaire?

The draft amendment to the Slovak Penal Code to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers was indeed passed by the Slovak Parliament on 10 July 2002. However, the President of the Slovak Republic refused to sign the law and returned the law to the Parliament. The law was on the agenda for the Slovak Parliament’s session on 19 August 2002. The law was not passed.

At the beginning of July, a 23-year-old Italian soldier who had recently returned from Kosovo, where he had been serving as a volunteer in the multinational NATO K-FOR force, died from a galloping form of cancer. This is the seventeenth fatal case in Italy, ascribed to the use of depleted uranium during the NATO military intervention in the Balkans. Despite the assertions to the contrary by NATO and the EU, and the attempts to minimise the issue and to ensure that those who may be responsible remain unpunished, this new case heightens concerns about the deadly effects of the use of depleted uranium on those who come into contact with it without taking the necessary safety measures, such as the civilian population and unsuspecting and uninformed soldiers.

Does the Council intend to take the initiatives needed at international level to clarify this issue further, to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons and the use of harmful radioactive substances or other elements capable of causing mass destruction in the manufacture of weapons, and to contribute to the promotion of gradual, reciprocal and multilateral nuclear disarmament?

As the Honourable Member is aware, Mr Solana addressed the issue of the public concern relating to the health of military staff in the Balkans before the Plenary of the European Parliament on 17 January 2001. At that meeting he, indeed, assured the Parliament of his commitment and the commitment of the Council to contribute to the clarification of the situation. He stated that the principles guiding the approach of the European Union would be seriousness, transparency and honesty.

The Council discussed the issue on 9 April 2001. The President of the Council summarised the discussion thus:

The Council notes the work by various international organisations (UNEP, WHO, NATO, Ad hoc Group of experts set up by the Commission) on the possible health and environmental impact of exposure to depleted uranium in ammunition used in the Balkans.

In these detailed and objective studies, there exists no scientific evidence to link the use of depleted uranium with various illnesses suffered in the population or among those who served in conflict areas.

However, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region the Council is committed to following possible further investigations closely and re-examining the issue if appropriate at a future stage.

Recent developments regarding the effects of depleted uranium have not been a subject of discussion at the Council, nor has any Member State requested the issue to be discussed.

A US federal court has sentenced five Cuban citizens to life imprisonment, despite the fact that they have not committed any crime against the USA; it should instead have passed sentence on the criminal anti-Cuban gangs which have carried out or planned to carry out acts of sabotage against Havana. The five in question were investigating and gathering information about these gangs.

Does the Council intend, in response to the protests of dozens of mass organisations, to express its displeasure to the US authorities at this decision and take whatever initiatives are necessary to put an end to the unjust persecution of the five Cubans?

The Council has not taken, nor intends to take, any action in the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In the Commission’s proposed reform of the CAP, no consideration is given to the impact that production of fishmeal and other fish-derived products has on the state of fishery resources of industrial fishing, although this accounts for a substantial part of catches in Community waters, and in the case of Denmark, amounts to 1.5 million tonnes per year. It is both surprising and inexplicable that the Commission itself, without possessing conclusive scientific data, applies the precautionary principle in order to reduce catches of species destined for human consumption, but takes no decision on restricting the industrial fishing referred to above, and even justifies it in terms of the fact that the products are for producing feed for acquaculture.

What is the Council’s position on this issue? What is the proportion of industrial-fishing-derived products used for feed for acquaculture? And what proportion is assigned to economic sectors unconnected with fisheries?

The Council would like to refer to its reply to the Honourable Member Marit Paulsen (H-0389/02). The Council has never adopted a common position on industrial fisheries.

The two additional questions, i.e. to which extent products derived from industrial fisheries are used for feed for aquaculture or are assigned to economic sectors unconnected with fisheries, should be addressed to the Commission.

However, the Council has circulated a study presented by the Danish delegation on the impact of industrial fisheries in Denmark to which the Honourable Member may refer. In this report, the Honourable Member may find indications, in particular regarding landings of sandeel, sprat and Norway pout, which have no commercial value as human consumption species and make up 90% of the total landings in industrial fisheries. The study also points out that the fishery is closely monitored and by-catches are low. In the year 2000, the Danish industry processed 1.48 million tonnes of raw material of which the main part was industrial fish and the rest offal from the human consumption industry. 311 000 tonnes of fishmeal and 100 800 tonnes of fish oil were produced.

Fish oil is used for the production of margarine and is a vital ingredient in fodder for aquaculture. Small amounts are used in the medical, paint and lacquer industries. Fishmeal is used as a protein supplement in fodder for animal husbandry.

The 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April 2002 failed, by a single vote, to approve a resolution on the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. Furthermore, any mechanism other than a resolution which guarantees the monitoring of human rights in Iran by a Special Representative will be overlooked and ignored by the Iranian Government.

Would the Council encourage the Member State governments to co-sponsor a similar resolution for the General Assembly of the UN in New York in September?

On the basis of an evaluation of the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights, the EU is in the process of considering the approach it will adopt for the Third Committee of the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly. Thus, no decision on the question of tabling a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran has been taken as yet.

The EU approach to Iran should be regarded as an integrated whole. In its relations with Iran, the EU is currently pursuing a proactive approach. In accordance with the Council conclusions on Iran adopted on 17 June 2002, the EU will soon start negotiations with Iran on a Trade and Co-operation Agreement, which is linked to separate instruments on political dialogue and counter-terrorism. In addition, the Iranian authorities have raised the issue of initiating a regular human rights dialogue with the EU. The EU is approaching this issue on the basis of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues which were adopted by the Council in December last year.

The Question also mentions the possibility of appointing a UN Special Representative for Iran. This would be an issue that falls under the competence of the UN Commission on Human Rights, and is thus not on the agenda until the spring 2003.

Various reports suggest that, unlike earlier Presidencies of other countries, the Danish Presidency of the Council intends to ensure, or enforce, much greater transparency in relation to the Council’s activities. In view of the conflicting statements on this matter, could the Danish Presidency of the Council clarify the position.

In which areas, not previously concerned, is transparency to be introduced and in what form - in particular before and during Council meetings - and does the Danish Presidency of the Council takes the view that all the Council's legislative activities should be made accessible to the public?

The Danish Presidency of the EU will certainly be motivated by considerations of transparency.

The objective of making the EU’s legislative work as transparent as possible found practical expression in the implementation of the changes to Council procedures decided upon by the Seville European Council.

In accordance with the Council’s new Rules of Procedure, adopted on 22 July, the following Council debates conducted under the codecision procedure are therefore open to the public. Reference is made in this context to Rule 8, paragraph 1 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure:

presentation by the Commission of its most important legislative proposals, together with the subsequent Council debate;

the vote on legal acts, together with the Council’s concluding negotiations prior to the relevant vote and the attendant explanations of vote.

In such cases, the Council’s negotiations are made accessible to the public through transmission of the Council meeting via audio-visual media. The result of the vote is communicated visually.

Moreover, the Council will hold at least one public debate on important new legislative proposals above and beyond those covered by the codecision procedure.

Furthermore, the General Affairs and External Relations Council will, once a year, hold a public debate for information purposes on the Council’s annual work programme and, if appropriate, the Commission’s annual work programme.

At the same time as amending its Rules of Procedure, the Council has adopted the list of public debates for the six months of the Danish Presidency. This list comprises fourteen issues which the Council can debate publicly and which relate to the Commission’s most important legislative proposals under the codecision procedure. In addition to these, there are five important issues relating to other important legislative proposals that can be discussed publicly.

In relation to the previous system, this new system genuinely signifies greater transparency when the Council acts as a legislative authority.

Another feature of transparency to which the Danish Presidency attaches great importance is public access to Council documents and the correct implementation of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents.

The Interinstitutional Committee, set up in accordance with this Regulation to examine best practice, deal with possible conflicts and discuss future developments concerning public access to documents, met as early as 9 July on the Danish Presidency’s initiative.

The following topics, inter alia, were discussed at this meeting, at which Parliament was represented by Vice-President Cederschiöld and the Commission by Vice-President Loyola de Palacio: public registers of documents; the preparation of a brochure designed to inform the public of the policy regarding public access to documents; amendment of the agencies’ articles of association; and amendment of the regulation on historical records.

Finally, I should like to emphasise that, by way of supplementing the Community institutions’ major efforts in the information and communication area, the Danish Presidency of the Council guarantees people comprehensive information, together with easy access to this on the Presidency web site (eu2002.dk).

The regulation on international accounting standards approved by Parliament at second reading on 12 March 2002 stipulates that, as from 2005, the consolidated accounts of quoted companies will have to be drawn up in accordance with IAS standards. These standards are drafted and adopted by the IASB, an international organisation governed by private law.

However, for the EU to be able to gain some advantage from the adoption of the standards, it must be sure that IAS standards are consistent with the European public interest, as well as the competitive position of European enterprises.

The EU currently has a mechanism for monitoring the quality of the standards downstream. It is therefore essential that the EU should also be involved, in a way commensurate with its economic influence, in the IASB decision-making process so that it can make its views known within this organisation.

How does the Commission, which currently appears to have only observer status within the IASB, intend to strengthen its influence within this body so that is able to defend the European common interest effectively?

In the current climate of doubt, and even mistrust, prevailing with regard to the securities markets, particularly in the United States, but also, by extension, in the Union, it is important to reassure investors, individual or institutional shareholders, as well as all third parties concerned about the quality and integrity of financial information provided by European companies quoted on the Union’s stock exchanges.

The Union’s choice of the international accounting standards (IAS), issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, is one of the elements of the response expected by economic actors. In this regard, the Commission welcomes the rapid adoption – at a single reading – of the Regulation on international accounting standards, on 7 June. This regulation lays down that from 2005 the consolidated accounts of quoted companies will have to be drawn up in accordance with IAS standards.

In this context, the honourable Member raises the question of how the Union, and the Commission in particular, can exert its influence on the IASB, a private independent body, and ensure that the IAS standards respect the European public interest as well as the competitive position of European enterprises.

Although the ISAB is a private independent body, it is nevertheless subject to a set of rules - due process - which guarantee that everyone has the opportunity to express their views on a draft standard. Prior to issuing a standard, the IASB systematically carries out a public consultation on the draft standard, which is known as an exposure draft, which is taken into account during the process of finalising the said standard. The best way for the Union to influence an ISAB draft standard is to actively contribute to these consultations.

At European level, the European financial reporting advisory group (EFRAG), which assists the Commission in the evaluation of the existing and future standards of the IASB, contributes to the ISAB’s process of consultation and producing standards by providing the latter with technical comments. In producing these comments, the EFRAG also has recourse to consultation. The draft comments are published on the EFRAG’s website and all interested parties, in particular the national accounting standards bodies, the regulators, the industry and the accounting profession, can thereby contribute to the process of producing standards. The Commission, possibly in the name of the future regulatory accounting committee, reserves the right, on subjects of importance, particularly with regard to the European public interest, to address its own comments directly to the IASB.

As the main client of the IASB, the Union has a great influence over the decisions of the IASB. The Commission has observer status within the Standards Advisory Council and the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC). The Standards Advisory Council is the body that defines the priorities of the working programme of the IASB. IFRIC is the committee responsible for the implementation of the International Accounting Standards. Furthermore, the Commission holds a regular informal dialogue with Sir David Tweedie, President of the IASB. Tom Jones, Vice-President of the IASB, also participates as an official observer in the meetings of EFRAG.

The Commission is confident of the Union’s capacity to make its views heard within the IASB. It has already done so by making clear the importance the Union attaches to convergence between the fundamental principles of the International Accounting Standards and those of the United States’ Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP), with the aim of persuading the US stock exchange authorities to abandon the obligation for European companies to bring their accounts into line with the US GAAP, even though they are established in accordance with the IAS. The IASB has undertaken to work with the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) on a balanced reconciliation of the two standards systems.

The Union has all the more opportunity to exert its influence on the IASB because the EFRAG and the national standards bodies will contribute to the work of the IASB. The IASB does not operate in isolation, it is aware of the importance of the Union and is prepared to work in close cooperation with the national accounting standards bodies. The production of a draft regulation on the initial application of the international accounting standards has thereby been entrusted to the French accounting standards body, the Conseil National de la Comptabilité. This is an initial experiment. The Commission hopes that it will be conclusive and will be followed by many others.

The numbers of cases of large monopolies and securities groups in the USA and Europe which have defrauded the market and their shareholders by presenting fictitious profits are on the increase. Other firms which, instead of auditing, concealed information and actually provided advice on concealment methods are parties to this process. A significant share of the responsibility, however, belongs to those in charge of supervising and controlling the capital markets who permitted or did not take timely action against illegal enrichment activities by these undertakings, at the expense of small shareholders and savers.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to protect savers, small shareholders and insurance assets and funds from profiteering and illegal activity by businesses, to punish those responsible for using these methods and to compensate those affected by these practices who have seen their savings disappear overnight?

The current turmoil in financial markets and the impact of that turmoil on investors is of course unfortunate. Among the major causes is the lack of confidence in the United States capital market, caused by a series of mainly American accounting and corporate governance scandals, and the subsequent knock-on effect on European markets.

The United States’ authorities are responding to these scandals, trying to repair shortcomings in their regulatory system and increasing responsibility of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) for company accounts. The Commission is monitoring these developments very carefully. Since 1999, it has had in progress a series of initiatives designed to deal with many of the flaws currently being identified as inherent in the American system. These initiatives form part of the Financial Services Action Plan.

The Union's response to the current American situation was evaluated, explicitly, by the Council of Ministers of Finance at Oviedo last April. That meeting agreed that the Financial Services Action Plan addresses most of the issues raised by the Enron failure; it identified that some areas require further investigations, e.g. management of conflicts of interest by financial analysts and credit rating agencies; corporate governance issues.

The key elements of the Financial Services Action Plan relevant to the concerns raised in the Honourable Member's question are as follows:

Central to fair financial reporting are high quality accounting standards. Europe has addressed this need with the adoption, on June 7 of the International Accounting Standard (IAS) Regulation. This requires that, from 2005, more than 7000 listed Union companies will be required to prepare consolidated accounts under IAS. The IAS is a principles based system - not a cook book, rules based approach.

For corporate governance, the first line of defence against unscrupulous company managers, a review of Union practices was completed recently. As agreed at the Barcelona European Council, the Commission also broadened the mandate of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts chaired by Jaap Winter to cover a series of corporate governance issues raised by the Enron failure (audit committees, the role of non-executive directors and of supervisory boards, management remuneration, and responsibility of management for the preparation of financial information). This group will deliver its final report in late September/early October and the Commission will rapidly consider its response.

In addition, other corporate governance related initiatives such as disclosure of directors’ interests and take-over bids are also high up the Commission's agenda.

Concerning the issue of the statutory audit, a key independent assurance mechanism for financial reporting, several initiatives are relevant, dealing with auditor independence, quality assurance, auditing standards and public oversight.

On independence, the Commission recently issued a principles-based Recommendation on Auditor independence. This requires that auditors shall not engage in any work (including providing non-audit services) likely to threaten their objectivity and independence in carrying out statutory audit. In particular, it requires disclosure of audit and non-audit fees, mandatory rotation of partners in audit firms (every 7 years) and a two-year cooling-off period for partners before working for audit clients.

On quality assurance, the Commission’s 2000 Recommendation on quality control of audit work remains relevant. The Commission has undertaken to review the practical Implementation of this initiative in 2003.

On other audit related matters, such as a code of ethics and public oversight of the audit profession, auditing standards (where we envisage the application of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) for all Union audits by 2005) and audit committees, the Commission will come forward this fall with a Communication on the future Union audit strategy, addressing these issues.

Securities regulators have a part to play also in the proper application of accounting standards. In this respect, the Commission is working with the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) to develop an adequate enforcement infrastructure in the Union, able to deliver consistent and proper enforcement of IAS should throughout the Union. Proposals should begin to appear in the autumn.

To ensure that financial information appears on a timely basis, the Commission has published a second consultative document on Regular Reporting. This document addresses issues such as the periodicity of financial reporting (quarterly reporting) and on-going disclosure obligations.

On pensions, the Commission’s Proposal for a Pension Funds’ Directive, investment in the sponsoring company is limited to a maximum of 5% of the assets held by the pension fund, reducing the risk highlighted by Enron of over-concentrated investment in one company's stock.

In addition, there are other emerging issues such as the activities of financial conglomerates, financial analysts and credit-rating agencies. Initiatives relevant to these areas include the Market Abuse Directive and the Investment Services Directive. Consideration of such issues is ongoing within the Commission and initiatives will be amended or new ones proposed where necessary.

Each of the above initiatives requires Member States to take appropriate action to ensure appropriate implementation, including any sanctions and penalties.

In summary, agreeing these initiatives - as a matter of priority - will strengthen the Union in all areas and help build the integrated European capital market by 2005.

A number of projects with EU funding have been running for several years in the candidate countries, chiefly under Phare, which seek to improve the Roma situation - in many instances through education, health care and greater democratic participation.

There has been serious criticism of those projects by several voluntary organisations for the Roma - principally directed at the fact that EU-funded programmes for Roma are prepared without the Roma or their organisations being given an opportunity to be involved at the planning stage. This has allegedly resulted in projects not being properly focused, with far too little support being given for fundamental problems such as poverty and unemployment.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Roma and their organisations are fully involved in the planning of EU projects and that, on that basis, they produce better results?

The Copenhagen criteria require the candidate countries to ensure respect for and protection of minorities. The Community legislative acquis includes provisions for combating discrimination, in particular discrimination based on ethnic or racial origin. The Commission monitors the development regarding the situation of the Roma through the Regular Reports.

It is mainly the responsibility of the national authorities of the candidate countries to improve the situation of the Roma minority. The Commission constantly encourages them to do so and is determined to help them in tackling this important issue.

As a result, Phare financing for the Roma in the candidate countries with important Roma minorities, that is, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, has increased steadily during the last years. In 2001, more than EUR 31 million was provided within the National Programmes as well as further support through grants to non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Phare projects focus on various aspects of the social exclusion experienced by the Roma, such as education, health, infrastructure and access to the labour market. Funds are channelled towards the priorities identified under the national strategies or action plans to improve the conditions of the Roma, which have been adopted in these countries.

The programming of Phare is prepared by the national authorities of the candidate countries in cooperation with the Commission, according to the priorities identified in the Accession Partnerships. The Commission strongly encourages the national authorities to earmark support to Roma communities and to consult Roma organisations in the planning process. More generally, it also encourages the national authorities to involve these organisations in all programmes and initiatives aimed at combating social exclusion and discrimination.

Nevertheless, it is true that the identification of the relevant interlocutors within the Roma community remains a problem. Therefore the Commission ensures frequent contacts with Roma organisations at all levels to support the development of their organisational and political capacity. This has resulted in increased Roma participation in structures and processes addressing their concerns.

One of the decisions taken at the Seville European Council was that said Council should meet formally four times a year (twice as frequently as is currently the case), without prejudice to other informal meetings, and should draw up three-year strategic programmes starting in December 2003, on the basis of which annual operational programmes would be devised.

Does the Commission not think that this would lead to an increase in the influence exerted within the Community by the European Council (the body within which the Member States’ executive powers are concentrated) and by the EU’s legislative, and that this would be to the detriment of the Commission’s executive powers whilst at the same time increasing the democratic deficit of a Union which does not practise the proper separation of public powers as prescribed by Montesquieu and as required of a modern democracy?

The Commission welcomes the decisions taken by the Seville European Council (21-22 June 2002) with a view to improving the functioning of the Council within the context of enlargement. It is very much in the Commission’s interest to work alongside institutions which are operating efficiently, each of them fully exercising the competences attributed to them by the Treaties. The Commission cannot see how the decisions of the Seville European Council could affect the current interinstitutional balance.

In particular, the Commission fully supports the improved programming of the Council’s work, which it will be associated with. It is already seeing the benefits of its actions to strengthen its own political programming, put in place by the present Commission by means of the introduction of the cycle of annual political strategies (APS), and is convinced that the increased programming of the Council’s work will also make its action more efficient. Finally, the Commission wishes to strengthen the interinstitutional dimension of the programming activities of the Union’s institutions and in this regard it considers that dialogue between the three institutions is necessary.

Is the Commission aware of the decree by which the Spanish Government intends to modify the rural employment plan substantially?

Is it aware of the social implications of these proposals for Spanish rural areas?

If these proposals are put into effect, will the Commission have any mechanism available to cushion the impact of the decree as regards rural development in highly agricultural areas such as Andalusia and Estremadura?

In the Commission's view, what social protection measures should be considered in order to maintain the level of farm incomes and thereby prevent the flow of people away from rural areas, the consequent depopulation and the concentration of land ownership?

The Commission is aware of the decree mentioned by the honourable Member and would like to point out that the organisation of social protection systems falls within the competence of the Member States.

With regard to the possible consequences of this decree and the social impact of these proposals on Spanish rural areas, the Commission does not currently have any specific information.

At the meeting of the Industry Committee on 18 June, Mr Lamy said he was not convinced of the importance of introducing common binding environmental guidelines for ECAs including rules on transparency.

In the preparation of report COM(2002)0212/final the Commission asked four private sector organisations to comment on the implementation of Directive 98/29/EC⁽¹⁾. Why were only private sector groups consulted and not trade unions and social, environmental and development NGOs?

Does the Commission not agree that such guidelines are necessary to ensure policy coherence?

How does the Commission intend to follow the excellent example given by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation on ex-ante transparency and consultation of affected communities?

The Commissioner in charge of the Trade in his comments at the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (ITRE) referred to the fact that the harmonisation of export credit insurance programmes has so far not been a priority in the common commercial policy. This was a statement of fact, and in no way implied that the issue of environmental guidelines was unimportant. The Commission acknowledges that the introduction of common binding environmental guidelines for Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) including rules on transparency will take time, but - as will be referred to later - the international acceptance of such guidelines, or rather 'common approaches', is making good progress and the Commission values this highly.

The Directive 98/29/EC pursues the objective set forth in Article 132 of the EC Treaty, i.e. to achieve harmonisation of export credit insurance programmes, lessen existing distortions of competition between Member States, increase transparency and further co-operation between enterprises within the Union. The introduction of binding environmental guidelines for ECAs including rules on transparency is not covered in the Directive. Therefore, in preparation of the Commission Report only European organizations representing the undertakings of the Community have been asked to submit their comments on the progress in harmonization of cover conditions, premiums and cover policies.

With regard to environmental guidelines, Member States privilege progress at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) level, as this is more effective in order to maintain an international level playing field, than advancing at Union level in an isolated way. The Commission welcomes the progress made so far at OECD resulting in a draft Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits. This text should be seen as a good starting point. It is already being applied by Member States and will be revised after two years of gaining experience with the implementation.

The objectives of the Recommendation are clear and supportive of the overall objective of sustainable development in Europe and the European commitment to transparency. They respond to the requirements as laid down in Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty to integrate environmental considerations into Community decision making.

More specifically on the subject of transparency and consultation, the Recommendation contains only minimum requests. The text is the result of a compromise which, realistically, at this stage, represented the maximum achievable. On the positive side, it can be said, that the text gives special attention to two areas of major concern, notably with regard to the need for the requirement of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the most sensitive cases, and an improvement of the information exchange and reporting provisions. Furthermore a revision is foreseen already by the end of 2003 when the agencies have gained a bit of experience with the handling of environment concerns.

The Commission understands the view that a higher level of environmental protection - like indeed already accepted by the Japan Bank for International Co-operation - would be advantageous for environmental goals. However, because of the very diverging constraints on the different ECAs in the Community, they will have to move forward gradually. It should also be said that the Japan Bank - being a huge institution compared to most ECAs, which are relatively small - can easier commit large resources to environmental questions.

The ETUC, UNICE and CEEP have used the provisions of the Treaty for the first time to conclude an agreement on teleworking. The agreement is to stand by itself and will not take the form of EU legislation. It cannot be expected, therefore, that the agreement will be implemented in the same way as a directive or regulation.

Who is bound by the teleworking agreement (the Member States, the umbrella organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) and their affiliated organisations, individual firms)? What significance does the fact that the agreement deals in general principles rather than minimum requirements have, and what are the implications thereof? Who will check that the agreement is correctly implemented (does competence lie with the Commission and the Court of Justice)? Have will such checks be carried out? (The agreement does not state how it is to be implemented in the individual countries but refers to national practice, which could make it difficult to use the same monitoring mechanisms in all the Member States).

The European framework agreement on teleworking signed by the social partners on 16 July 2002 will be implemented by the members of the European Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations (UNICE)/European Union of Crafts and small and medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME), the European Centre for the public economy (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) (and the PMS/European Confederation of Executive Staffs liaison committee), in accordance with the procedures and practices of the social partners in the Member States, as laid down in Article 139(2) of the EC Treaty.

This is a European framework agreement between the social partners which lays down general principles and not a legislative act adopted by the Council in accordance with Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty which establishes minimum requirements. It therefore follows that the implementation of the agreement depends on the procedures and practices of the social partners in the Member States.

Item 12 of the agreement lays down its own monitoring mechanism: implementation will take place within three years of the signing of the agreement. The member organisations will report on the implementation to an ad hoc group created by the contracting parties under the responsibility of the social dialogue committee. This ad hoc group will prepare a joint report on the implementation actions, which will be prepared within four years of the signing of the agreement. In the event of questions about the content of the agreement, the member organisations may refer the matter jointly or separately to the contracting parties. The social partners will be able to ensure the coherence of this monitoring in the different Member States, within the framework of their autonomy.

In its communication adopted on 26 June 2002 on 'the European social dialogue, a force for modernisation and change',⁽¹⁾ the Commission calls on the social partners to significantly improve the monitoring procedures in place and to produce periodic reports on the implementation of the agreements signed. These reports will have to identify the progress made on the content of the implementation of the agreement and compliance with it. In this context, the Commission will be closely monitoring the implementation of this agreement.

According to the Commission (DG External Relations), part of the bilateral work concerning the EU’s relations with Russia focused for much of 2001 on energy, environmental protection and nuclear safety. This was meant to be done through the conclusion of the agreement on a Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program (MNEPR), aimed at cleaning up radioactive waste in north-west Russia and through the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP). Similarly, in the press briefing from the Commission issued on 27 May 2002 before the Ninth EU-Russia Summit held in Moscow in May 2002, it was stated that the environment and nuclear safety were going to be discussed and that it would be important to ensure that the Russian Federation finalised the MNEPR agreement as soon as possible. In the Joint Statement issued after the EU-Russia Summit, however, no reference was made to the MNEPR. A pledge conference on the NDEP is also to be held on 9 July.

What is the current situation concerning the MNEPR? What are the obstacles to the conclusion of an agreement on the MNEPR? What measures is the Commission going to take in the near future in order to ensure that the Russian Federation finalises the agreement?

In the last months the Commission, together with the other Western Donors involved, has been doing all it could to reach a final agreement on the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme in the Russian Federation (MNEPR). We accepted a difficult compromise offered in June 2001 by Russia to settle the last obstacles, assuming that this would lead to a quick conclusion of the agreement.

Unfortunately, over the last months the Russian side has neither confirmed its willingness to sign, nor given any indication of the nature of the problems holding up their signature. At the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP) Pledging Conference held in Brussels on 9 July 2002, the Russian representative stated that the agreement could be signed soon, after negotiation on certain technical details, but without indicating what these details might be.

This Pledging Conference indeed provided a timely occasion to reiterate Western donors’ insistence on a quick conclusion of the agreement. Several donors, including the Commission, indicated on that occasion that the signature of the MNEPR is a pre-condition to initiate the operations of the nuclear window of the Fund. The Commission, together with other donors, shall of course continue to press this issue with the Russian authorities at every opportunity.

In June, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council recommendation on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control.

Will the Commission state what it hopes to achieve with its proposal, with particular regard to discouraging children and young people from starting to smoke and/or encouraging them to give up smoking, and does it hope that, eventually, it might be possible to submit a proposal for a directive on this issue?

The Commission’s proposal for a Council Recommendation on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control aims inter alia at reducing the supply of tobacco products to children and adolescents, and at avoiding that certain types of advertising for tobacco products reach children and adolescents. The proposal forms an important part of the Community’s comprehensive tobacco control strategy, which comprises binding legislation (tobacco products Directive 2001/37 EC⁽¹⁾, Commission proposal for a tobacco advertising Directive⁽²⁾) and smoking prevention and cessation initiatives (under the Tobacco Fund, The 'Europe against Cancer' programme and the new Public Health Action Programme 2003-2008), and has to be seen against this background.

Discouraging children and young people from starting to smoke, and/or encouraging them to give up smoking, are key elements of the Community’s tobacco control strategy. However, these are not exclusively addressed through the proposal for a Council Recommendation. In fact, smoking prevention and cessation for young people are the main objective of the European Network for Young People and Tobacco⁽³⁾, and of the Europe-wide campaign⁽⁴⁾ which was launched in May and will run for three years. The Commission is confident that these measures, taken together with the above legislative instruments and the provisions of the proposal for a Council Recommendation, will indeed have a significant impact on the prevalence of smoking amongst children and adolescents in the Union.

Article 152 of the EC Treaty does not provide a legal base for a Directive aimed at smoking prevention and smoking cessation.

In the General Introduction to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 2003, the Commission states that it will come forward in 2004 with a Communication on the main perspectives of the development of the Union, of its policies and of the future financial framework after 2006.

Will the Commission give assurances that it will place greater emphasis in its Communication on tackling poverty in the EU, debt relief for the poorest countries, providing more resources for innovation and SMEs, and ensuring that peripheral and island regions such as Ireland continue to have access to the funds required to tackle a range of infrastructure needs?

Under the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure, the Commission must submit proposals by 1st July 2005 for a new post-2006 financial perspective. The Commission intends to present these proposals in the course of 2004.

The financial resources to be proposed for the main categories of expenditure will reflect the main priorities and orientations set for Union policies from a budgetary angle.

The Honourable Member’s concerns will be taken into consideration in connection with the cohesion policy and other internal policies to assist Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or designed more generally to support economic growth across Europe. As far as eligibility for the structural funds is concerned, it will depend mainly on relative prosperity.

Debt relief for the poorest countries of the world is a particular concern for the Commission, which supports the international Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative, that aims at bringing the external debt of poor countries down to a sustainable level. The current level of Union commitment to the initiative is of about € 1.15 billion, which is financed principally by the European Development Fund and Member States’ budgets. The time horizon of the initiative is expected to be limited, and within the next three years the bulk of the relief should have been granted.

Will the Commission provide an up-to-date assessment of the EU initiative aimed at providing access to drugs for poor countries, whereby developing countries with no domestic drug production of their own can obtain affordable supplies of essential medicines, and indicate the extent to which it foresees the applicant countries playing a role in this initiative?

The honourable Member is advised to refer to the Commission’s reply to oral question H-0508/02 by Mr van den Berg at Question Time during Parliament’s July 2002 part-session.

With regard to the candidate countries, like all members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), they are participating in the discussions taking place in the Council on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), in which they align themselves with the Union. Regular meetings take place on a technical level in Geneva between the Union, represented by the Commission, and the candidate countries, to discuss this problem.

The candidate countries have not, however, been formally involved with the Communications on this subject presented by the Union to the WTO.

Will the Commission make a statement on the decision of the G8 to increase debt relief for the poorest countries by 1 billion dollars and the response of aid agencies that the debt relief would barely make up for the fall in prices for commodities such as coffee and cotton and on the comments of the Canadian spokesman for Care who noted that the US Congress had approved 40 billion dollars to fight terrorism three days after the 11 September attacks but that such huge sums were not forthcoming to help the world’s poor?

The Commission, as a G8 member, subscribes in full to the conclusion of the latest G8 summit held on 26 and 27 of June in Kananaskis, Canada, stating that an additional $ 1 billion will be made available to alleviate the debt burden of poor countries. This indicates that debt relief for poor countries remains high on the political agenda. The problems relating to the fall in commodity prices are well known to the Commission and have been constantly addressed by Community aid programmes. The provision for stabilisation of export earnings (STABEX) under the Lomé Conventions, was designed to address this issue. The system for financing for short-term fluctuation in export earnings (FLEX) has been improved under the Cotonou Agreement, in a way to ensure more speedy disbursements and that the funds available are used in the context of the overall programming of Community aid for the recipient country.

The Heavily Indepted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative, which aims to bring the external debt of poor countries to a sustainable level, has also widely recognised this problem and some of the additional funds announced in Kananaskis will indeed be utilised to help reach debt sustainability in those cases where poor countries have experienced external shocks.

The Commission does not intend to comment on the statement of the Canadian spokesman for Care.

As the Commission will recall, several initiatives have been taken over the years to highlight the positive role played by senior citizens in our society, including the holding of a Senior Citizens’ Parliament in Luxembourg in 1993 which called for a Senior Citizens’ Parliament in each Member State and a conference in 1998 on ‘Senior Citizens in the 21st Century.’

Will the Commission firstly ensure that delegates from smaller countries are equally funded at EU level so that they can attend the meetings of the European Federation of Retired and Elderly Persons which, because of EU cut-backs, is no longer possible and, secondly, will the Commission state what action has been taken on the initiatives outlined above and what steps have been taken by Member States to involve the representatives of senior citizens in decision-making bodies at both local and national level?

The European Federation of Retired and Older People (FERPA) is a private organisation. Over the past five years, it has received grants from the Commission for a number of specific projects. However, the Commission has never as such provided funding for the travel costs of delegates to meetings of FERPA and there are no budget lines which would allow it to start such a practice.

At European level, the follow-up to the initiatives mentioned by the Honourable Member include greater attention to the positive contributions from older persons in Commission documents and policies and core funding from the Community Action Programme to Combat Discrimination for AGE, the European umbrella organisation formed by older people's non-governmental organisations active at regional, national or European level.

The Commission is aware that during the 1990s, a few Member States established councils of senior citizens at local and national level, but it has no comprehensive overview of developments in this area.

The Danish Presidency intends to establish guidelines for a new action plan for the EU’s Northern Dimension for 2003 to 2006 and sees this as part of a new overall strategy towards the EU’s neighbours to the east. At the same time, a Euro-Mediterranean strategy is also being developed.

What plans does the Commission have for developing the EU’s Western Dimension?

The guidelines adopted by the Commission for the programmes of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds for 2000-2006 ⁽¹⁾ encourage an integrated approach to the interventions of the Structural Funds in order to make progress towards more balanced territorial development and reduce the disparities between the central and the peripheral areas. In this way, the development of each region should contribute to promoting the emergence of several zones of economic integration which are better distributed within the Union and gradual progress towards a more polycentric European area.

In the second report on economic and social cohesion⁽²⁾, amongst the possible priorities for future cohesion policy, the Commission proposed the promotion of areas of cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation and the areas suffering from serious geographical or natural handicaps, including the peripheral areas.

Within the framework of the ESPON programme (European spatial planning observatory network), funded by the Community’s Interreg III initiative, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member Sates, is currently carrying out research aimed at increasing understanding of trends in territorial development in Europe and stimulating the debate taking place on the future cohesion policy. In particular, the programme aims to define, by combining territorial indicators and socio-economic indicators, the areas of global integration with a European dimension and of an interregional and transnational nature and to establish a diagnostic approach to these areas.

Phase B of the Community initiative Interreg III, dedicated to transnational cooperation between national, regional and local authorities, is aimed at promoting a greater degree of territorial integration within the broad groupings of European regions, with the aim of achieving sustainable, harmonious and balanced development within the Community.

Within this phase B, cooperation between the island and maritime regions as well as the western regions of the Community is particularly encouraged, by means of several programmes, and the Atlantic area receives a contribution from the regional development Fund (ERDF) of up to EUR 122 million. The objectives of this programme are based upon four priority axes: the polycentric structuring of the area and the development of poles of competence, the development of transport systems and improving access to the information society, the promotion of the environment and the promotion of Atlantic identity.

Furthermore, since 1990, various interregional cooperation programmes have been developed for the Atlantic area with the support of credits from the ERDF, such as the Interreg IIC Atlantic Area programme (1994-1999), the Atlantic Arc Network programme (1990-1993), Finatlantic (1991-1994) and the Atlantis pilot action (1993-1995).

In a welcome development, it appears that the forthcoming revision of the EU's common agricultural policy will result in a switch from direct aid to greater focus on rural development.

Rural development, however, is quite often dependent on small, local food producers (small-scale production of specialist foods is one of the countryside's potential niches). Such local producers often encounter problems in marketing and selling their produce. Their access to the market is impeded by the fact that their small volumes cannot provide the supplies required by the large, multinational food chains.

Is this a situation which the Commission had reason to examine during the debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy? If not, does the Commission share my view that this situation merits investigation?

The Commission considers that small local food producers, particularly of specialist foods, should continue to play an important role in the quality and diversity of European food production. The Commission therefore shares fully the Honourable Member’s view that this is an issue that requires further attention.

For this reason, it has proposed in its Communication on the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measures supporting quality, certification and promotion and marketing of agricultural produce under the Second Pillar of the CAP, rural development. Together with measures designed to help farmers meet standards, which will benefit especially smaller farms, this should help local producers respond to new opportunities.

In reply to my previous question (P-0545/02) on the Thessaloniki underground, the Commission explained that the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the commercial banks had asked that the concessionaire make certain changes. Under these changes, a financial contribution by the shareholders of the consortium which has undertaken the project were to be a condition for approval of the plan for financing the project in question. This contribution has, however, still not been made, nor have the Greek authorities submitted the financing plan making provision for co-funding of the project on the basis of the Structural Funds for the programming period 2000-2006. In view of the above:

Has the Greek Government submitted a request for co-funding of the project for the 2000-2006 period?

An evaluation of the financing plan by the EIB was expected in July – does such an evaluation exist? Has it been made, and if not, will the concession contract remain valid or not?

Has the Commission granted approval of the financing plan to the concessionaire, so that the latter can finally embark on construction of the project?

What steps does the Commission intend to take if the obligations which the concessionaire has undertaken concerning the construction of the project are yet again not met?

The Greek authorities have not yet presented to the Commission an application to confirm the level of Community assistance for the project of the Thessaloniki Metro, on the basis of article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds⁽¹⁾.

As far as the European Investment Bank (EIB) co-financing is concerned, no final financial plan for this project has been approved at this stage. The EIB is performing relevant due diligence of the operation, actively negotiating terms of its financing with the concessionaire and the commercial banks. Negotiations are continuing and the target of the Greek State is to achieve financial close by year end.

The Commission has no competence on the implementation and management of concession contracts prepared and signed by the Member States on one hand, and banks and undertakings on the other, provided that the Community legislation is respected at all stages.

Will the Commission make a statement on the reform of Euratom?

The Commission assumes that this question relates to the possible reform of the Euratom Treaty in the context of the European Convention.

The Commission is aware that the issue of the possible reform of the Euratom Treaty has been raised.

The Commission is reflecting on this question in the context of its contributions for the Convention and will state its position in due course.

Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439/EEC⁽¹⁾, as amended by Directives 87/101/EEC⁽²⁾ and 91/692/EEC⁽³⁾, requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that, as far as possible, the disposal of waste oils is carried out by recycling (regeneration).

Since it has been established that Austria, Ireland, France, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland have failed to comply with that requirement, Commissioner Wallström sent a letter of formal notice to those countries on 10 April 2001.

What steps have the countries concerned taken since then with a view to their complying with the Directive? What steps will the Commission be taking with a view to ensuring that the Directive is duly transposed into national law?

The Commission has opened infringement procedures pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty by the sending of letters of formal notice to Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom in April 2001 and Greece in October 2001. All these letters concern the failure by these Member States to adopt measures that prioritise the processing of waste oils by regeneration when there was no technical, economic or organisational constraint to prevent this. This requirement to prioritise regeneration derives from Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439/EEC, as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC⁽⁴⁾

Following the Commission’s assessment of the replies to the letters of formal notice, it was concluded that the above-mentioned infringements have continued with regard to Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Commission this year addressed reasoned opinions to all those Member States pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty. In order to complete its assessment with regard to Spain and Finland, the Commission addressed supplementary letters of formal notice to these Member States. The measures taken by France are still being examined by the Commission.

Finally, after having given the Member States a possibility to comply with the reasoned opinions, the Commission decided in June this year to take Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice. The measures taken by the other Member States in order to comply with the requirement to prioritise regeneration of waste oils are currently being examined by the Commission which will take appropriate measures after it has completed its assessment.

The Commission is seeking a balanced and fair approach to cohesion policy in the future. Objective 1 will probably be retained. However, the sparsely populated regions of the North would cease to be Objective 1 regions if the sole criterion was 75% of GDP.

It is absolutely vital that regional policy should continue in these regions after 2006. In addition to their sparse population, many of the regions in question suffer from natural disadvantages, cold climate, long distances, rapidly dwindling populations and high unemployment. In addition, the problems arising from the Union’s long external border should be borne in mind (the major disparity in standards of living between Finland and Russia, for example), as on the other hand should the opportunities.

What will the Commission do to ensure that the sparsely populated Northern regions (the former Objective 6 regions in Finland and Sweden) are treated fairly when deciding on the future of the EU’s regional and structural policy?

In accordance with Article 158 of the EC Treaty, with a view to promoting harmonious development, the Community aims in particular to reduce the differences between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured islands or regions, including rural areas.

To this end, the second report on economic and social cohesion⁽¹⁾ identifies the economic, social and territorial priorities for cohesion policy, which include the development of areas suffering from serious geographical or natural handicaps.

Following the adoption of the said report, the Commission has been engaged in a very long debate on the future of its cohesion policy, with regional, local and association representations. This debate is ongoing and the Commission will make proposals on the adoption, at the end of 2003, of the third report on economic and social cohesion.

Furthermore, with a view to enriching the debate, the Commission has launched various studies aimed at better characterising the areas suffering from these territorial handicaps, analysing their situation, their needs and potential, the Community and national policies implemented in those regions and their impact. Although they are not aimed specifically at the sparsely populated areas, these studies nevertheless deal with problems which are common to all these areas. Their conclusions will enrich the considerations which will lead to the Commission making specific proposals relating to these regions, within the framework of an enlarged Europe.

Does the Commission believe that its environmental impact assessments undertaken before the commencement of funded building projects take into account every possible impact on the environment, including the impact on flora, fauna, pollution, nature conservation, food chains, biodiversity and the ecological balance of an area?

In particular, can the Commission explain why the Iberian lynx is facing extinction in Portugal and Spain following several EU-funded building projects there which have contributed heavily to the near-extinction of the species?

Does the Commission have any plans to investigate this problem further or to help rectify the situation?

How does the Commission propose to improve its Environmental Impact Assessments in order to ensure that such unwanted consequences do not result from EU projects in future?

According to the Structural funds regulations⁽¹⁾, the selection of projects and the assessment of their compliance with Community legislation and policies is the responsibility of the national and regional authorities that have submitted a regional development or conversion plan to the Commission. The responsibility for undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment therefore rests with those authorities and not with the Commission.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC⁽²⁾ amended by 97/11/EC⁽³⁾) requires that an extensive range of information is made available and taken into account before granting development consent. The Directive applies to a wide range of infrastructure and other types of project. The information on the aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the project includes information on the items mentioned (Annex III to the Directive sets out the complete list).

The main threats to the Iberian lynx are the destruction of its habitats and the scarcity of its prey animals, especially rabbits whose populations are widely affected by myxomatosis. In addition, several types of development projects might have a negative effect on Iberian lynx populations. For instance transport and water projects tend to fragment the habitats favourable to the lynx. The Commission has always insisted on adequate impact assessments and mitigating actions to be taken in these projects in order to reduce the effects on the lynx populations.

Community law is helping to protect the lynx. Important lynx habitats have been listed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 Network. Projects likely to have an impact in these protected areas fall under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC⁽⁴⁾) where an assessment of the impact on the protected area is required. A failure to comply with this legislation implies the refusal of CFommlunity funding. A number of infringement proceedings have been opened for non-compliance with Community legislation on nature protection.

During the period 1994-2001 LIFE Nature funding has been given to two projects for Iberian lynx in Portugal and 18 projects in Spain. Their main aims have been to protect and maintain the lynx habitats and to enhance the number of prey animals. The sustainability of a species with a low number of individuals and isolated sub-populations is always doubtful but as can be seen from the number of projects the Commission considers the survival of the Iberian lynx a priority issue.

The two regions mainly concerned are Andalucía and Extremadura and the respective operational programmes for those regions during the period 2000-2006 take into consideration measures regarding the protection and preservation of the Iberian Lynx, such as the sustainable management of bio-diversity and the conservation of wild fauna and flora, in particular those species in danger of extinction. Specific activities for the conservation of the Iberian Lynx have as main objective the recuperation of its population in Andalucía via the improvement of its habitat, through the supply of enough food, wild rabbits, the reproduction in captivity and its re-introduction in areas where it was extinct in the recent past. In Extremadura there are also programmes for the supply of additional food sources to protected species, such as the Iberian Lynx.

In the period since 3 July 17 Laotian dissidents have appeared before a Bangkok court following a request for extradition from Laos. These 17 people, who have already served a prison sentence for residence without a permit, were arrested on Thai territory after participating in an attempt to take control of the Thailand-Laos border post at Vang Tao-Chong Mek on 3 July 2000. The aim of this operation was to bring the lack of democracy in Laos to the attention of the public worldwide. A flag of the former kingdom of Laos was hoisted and the border post occupied until a counter-attack was launched by the Communist army. The Laotian authorities are basing their extradition request on the claim that these are simply ‘common-law bandits’. Apart from any considerations relating to the methods used, the facts show clearly that the action taken was political in nature. In view of the judicial standards prevailing in Laos, there is no doubt that if extradition were to take place the lives and health of the 17 people would be in serious danger.

Is the Commission aware of this case? If so, what steps has it taken, or does it intend to take, to avert any possibility of the 17 people being extradited to Laos? In particular, has the Commission asked, or will it ask, the Member States to grant the 17 people political refugee status?

The Commission has followed this issue from the beginning, when a group of Laotian opposition members, together with several Thai nationals, attempted to take control of a border post at the Laos-Thailand border.

The case has not yet been settled. The Laotian members of the group have asked for political asylum in Thailand. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Bangkok is aware of this request and is making appropriate enquiries.

While our representatives continue to follow developments closely, neither the Commission nor Member States have so far intervened directly in the issue. In the first instance, this is essentially a bilateral problem between Thailand and Laos, and in regard to the possibility of resettlement, the UNHCR – as the appropriate body – is already involved.

In its answer to my written question of 20 February 2002 (E-3590/01) concerning dyke sections in the district of Sliedrecht, the Commission says that it initiated an infringement proceeding pursuant to Article 226 of the EEC Treaty in the framework of which a reasoned opinion has already been issued. It further states that the reply of the Government of the Netherlands to this reasoned opinion is currently under assessment.

After contacting the Commission officials responsible for this matter on numerous occasions, I was given an assurance that in June, or at the latest on 11 July, the Commission would probably consider whether this case should be referred to the Court of Justice. I have since been informed that because of slow progress in processing the file no decision was taken on 11 July.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that a decision is not only being delayed at European level but also at local level in an improper way? Citizens, firms and authorities in Sliedrecht have been waiting for a decision for more than a year and a half.

When does the Commission finally expect to be able to take a decision on this matter?

In relation to the ongoing infringement case concerning the Sliedrecht dykes, the Commission is in the process of assessing the detailed answer from the Dutch government to the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission on 26 July 2001. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, the Commission will consider whether to bring the case before the Court of Justice.

During the meeting of the Commission of 26 June 2002, the Commission decided to include the issue on the agenda of the Commission meeting in October 2002 for further consideration. The Honourable Member will be informed of the future decisions of the Commission in this infringement case.

The Commission has previously acknowledged, in reply to questions posed by me (H-0699/00⁽¹⁾), that in the case of ferries on the west coast of Scotland, it is appropriate to treat peninsulas as 'virtual islands' for the purpose of 'public service obligations' in the context of Union law on maritime cabotage.

In that light, does the Commission agree that the possibility of a legitimate subsidy to support pedestrian services must not be made into a barrier that prevents competitive vehicle ferry services on routes that will sustain competition?

According to Article 4 of Regulation 3577/92 of 7 December 1992⁽²⁾ applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), Member States may conclude public service contracts with shipping companies participating in regular services to, from and between islands. In this case, Member States may subsidise the involved service, i.e., they may provide aids aimed at covering its operational losses, provided that the conditions laid in the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport⁽³⁾ are fulfilled.

As the Commission has stated in its reply to the questions formerly posed by the Honourable Member, the possibility of concluding public service contracts may be taken into consideration when the geographical location of one of the ports linked by the ferry service is equivalent to the one of an island.

As for the subsidies to 'pedestrian services' -that the Commission understands as maritime transport of pedestrians- the relevant measures, only addressing public service obligation, should not affect trading conditions between competitive services to an extent contrary to the common interest.

The act establishing the new integration project for Africa, which is modelled on the process of European integration and is to replace to obsolete OAU by the new African Union, was signed in Durban, South Africa, on 9 July 2002.

How does the Commission view the creation of the African Union and what relations will it establish with it, bearing in mind that countries such as Equatorial Guinea have signed the constituent act despite their continuing violations of human rights and complete inability to respect the most basic political rights?

The Commission welcomes the creation of the African Union and has expressed its full support for this very ambitious project based on African ownership and leadership. The Commission trusts the African Union will be instrumental in promoting the advancement of democracy, human rights and sound economic policies across the continent by setting high standards of economic and political governance. The Constitutive Act of this Union gives a new impetus to the promotion of peace and security, which are indispensable preconditions for the development of the continent and the fight against poverty. From a democratic perspective, the African Union should help in holding African governments accountable to their people and encouraging civil society participation.

By its very nature, the Commission is well placed to understand the vision and values that will guide the African Union. The African Union is largely modelled on the European integration process, the most successful example of an ever closer union between sovereign states. This is why, on the occasion of the Durban Summit, the President of the Commission congratulated the new president of the African Union, Thabo Mbeki, on the launching of the African Union.

As regards the question of human rights violations in some member countries of the African Union, it is worth noting that the African Union has included in its Constitutive Act the principle of non-indifference, which allows the African Union to subject member states to sanctions in case of violation of the Constitutive Act.

Regional organisations such as the African Union can provide a very good platform for a positive exchange of experiences in issues such as respect for human rights and the development of democratic values, and contribute to an improvement of the situation in those countries with a weaker human rights record.

The Union and the Commission, for their part, are actively engaged in a political dialogue with the countries of Africa and their regional organisations. When the need arises, they can impose sanctions on African, Carabbean and Pacific countries via article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in cases of serious violations of human rights or other breaches of the essential elements mentioned in the Agreement.

EuroCommerce has lodged a complaint with the Commission concerning the agreements or rules governing acceptance of Visa International payment cards. EuroCommerce considers that those rules restrict competition because, inter alia, traders are required to pay for a package of services from Visa International.

To date, the Danish market has been kept free of high fees for debit cards as distinct from international credit cards. There is cause for concern here, if the rules and principles are accepted, as there is likely to be an impact on the Danish market.

Has the Commission taken a decision in this case and, if so, with what outcome? If the Commission has opted to accept Visa International's rules on payment, have conditions been laid down to prevent distortions of competition and ensure that the Danish market is kept free of such fees?

On 24 July 2002 the Commission adopted a Decision concerning certain 'multilateral interchange fees' (MIFs) in the Visa card payment system. A MIF is an interbank payment made for each transaction carried out with a payment card. In the Visa system, it is paid to the cardholder's bank by the retailer's bank.

The Commission's Decision exempts, under the competition rules, certain MIFs of Visa international for cross-border payments in Europe, after Visa made significant reforms to its MIFs, which will reduce their level, increase their transparency, and lead to them being fixed with regard to objective criteria. The granting of an exemption to the revised MIF of Visa requires the rejection of the complaint from EuroCommerce.

The Commission concluded that, although the multilateral setting of the Visa MIF between competing banks constitutes a restriction of competition, a multilaterally-fixed interchange fee can lead to beneficial efficiencies and economies within a payment network, and therefore can benefit from an exemption, but only if it is set in a reasonable and equitable manner. This criterion is met by the revised MIF of Visa, in particular as it will be capped at the level of certain costs which the Commission is satisfied are relevant to the MIF.

In the Commission's view, the Decision removes a distortion of competition created by the previous, unreformed, MIF of Visa, which Visa had freedom to set at any level it wished, without restriction, and it will produce savings for merchants' banks, which - competition should ensure - are passed on to merchants and ultimately to consumers.

The Decision is without prejudice to the application of national legislation, including the Danish law on payment cards. Moreover, it does not concern MIFs for domestic payments, nor fees charged to consumers or merchants; it only applies to cross-border interbank payments.

Will the Commission call on the United Nations Secretary-General to instigate a review of the UN's conduct in relation to the 1968-69 'Act of 'Free' Choice' in West Papua in light of the abduction and assassination of the Chairperson of the Papuan Presidium Council, Theys Hiyo Eluay, in November last year?

Given the continued unrest in West Papua and the success of the popular consultation properly conducted by the UN in East Timor in August 1999, will the Commission urge the United Nations Secretary-General to reconsider the act of self-determination in Papua of August 1969, as it continues to be a source of unrest and protest in Papua and constitutes a threat to stability and peace in the region of South East Asia?

The Commission, together with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, continues to closely follow developments in Papua.

The Union immediately made a declaration on 13 November 2001, deploring the death in suspicious circumstances on 10 November of Mr Theys Eluay, the chair of the Papuan Praesidium, and continues to urge the Government of Indonesia to investigate the matter thoroughly and bring the perpetrators to justice. The Commission has participated in this and all Union démarches and continues to draw attention to Union’s concerns regarding the situation in Papua.

At the end of March, Union’s Heads of Mission in Jakarta, including the Commission Delegation, visited Papua for a fact-finding visit and to reiterate the Union's concerns to the Indonesian authorities.

Following the Indonesian Parliament’s approval in November last of a regional autonomy law for Irian Jaya (to be called thereafter 'Papua'), full implementation of this law should make a significant contribution to resolving the difficulties in the province. To support this process in the longer term, the Commission envisages - within its Country Strategy for assistance to Indonesia - to focus on encouraging good governance and the rule of law in the framework of the Government's decentralisation and regional autonomy policies including Papua.

The Commission shares the stated position of the Union, which firmly supports the territorial integrity of Indonesia, while encouraging the Government to make urgent efforts to address and resolve peacefully Indonesia’s internal conflicts, whether separatist or sectarian in character. Therefore in the present context the Commission is not proposing to call for a review of the 'Act of Free Choice' of 1969 regarding Papua.

Ever since work began on the Olympic village in December 2001, in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games, workers and the organisations representing them have been complaining at the unacceptable health and safety conditions and conditions of employment and insurance. This inadmissible situation has now culminated in the death of a fourth worker, in addition to the hundreds of workers who have suffered injuries. The situation is similar in many other workplaces. According to the report by the labour inspectorate, fatal accidents at work in Greece increased by 50% in 2001 by comparison with 2000, which means that one death is recorded for every one and a half working days, with 46% of fatal industrial accidents occurring on building sites.

What concrete steps will the Commission take to improve the situation, and at the same time to ensure that employers apply Community health and safety rules, that strict and thorough checks are carried out by the competent authorities and that offenders are punished, so as finally to put an end to the irresponsible conduct of employers and this crime against workers?

Many Directives are applicable to improving the safety and health of workers at work. Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work⁽¹⁾ - the so-called 'Framework' Directive - gives the basis and sets general requirements for improving working conditions at workplaces. Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites⁽²⁾, sets specific rules for health and safety on construction sites. The latter directive, in particular, has shown positive effects, as several Member States are reporting reductions in the accident rate in the construction sector.

Both directives are transposed into Greek law. The control and enforcement of the application of the national legislation transposing the Directives is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Member States, in the present case the Greek Labour inspectorate. It has to be noted that the Commission can only intervene if a systematic non-application of the legislation becomes apparent.

In its communication on a new Community strategy for safety and health at work⁽³⁾, the Commission emphasises the need for a generalisation of a prevention culture. It also calls for a better application of existing law on European worksites.

Taking up the challenge, the Council, in its resolution on a new Community strategy on health and safety at work (2002-2006), calls on the Member States to 'develop and implement co-ordinated, coherent prevention policies, geared to national conditions, with measurable targets set in this context for reducing accidents at work and occupational illnesses, especially in those sectors of activity in which rates are above average' and to 'ensure better implementation of the legislation in force, in particular through more effective inspection and monitoring, through making available to businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, suitable advisory and consultancy services, as well as through improved occupational risk-prevention training and the adoption of measures aimed specifically at reducing accidents at work and occupational illnesses in high-risk sectors'.

The Commission expects an adequate response to this resolution at the level of the individual Member States and in particular for all the players involved: e.g. the public authorities, the social partners, insurers… thus giving a fresh impetus to the efforts to reduce occupational diseases and accidents. The construction industry should be a main focus of these efforts.

As part of its general anti-labour policy the Greek Government is intensifying its high-handed and repressive measures and has introduced the anti-constitutional measure of 'civil mobilisation'. At the seamen's strike of 29 May the Government deployed the Port Police and special riot forces against strikers, which resulted in bloodshed. When the seamen demanded that their insurance, labour and wage rights be satisfied and that measures be taken to protect human life at sea, the Greek Government, acting on behalf of shipowners and in order to break the seamen's strike, introduced the 'military law' on 22 June in an attempt to abolish the right to strike in practice and, more generally, basic democratic rights.

What view does the Commission take of such anti-democratic and fascist measures to repress strikes and what measures does it intend to take to ensure that the demand of the entire workforce for an immediate end to mobilisation is met?

The Commission would point out that the consideration and interpretation of the facts mentioned by the honourable Member relate to respect for the principle of the prohibition of forced labour and respect for the right to strike. These principles are reaffirmed in Articles 5(2) and 28 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. It should be noted however that, according to its Article 51, the Charter only applies to Member States when they are implementing Union law, which clearly does not appear to be the case in the situation in question.

Furthermore, given that the alleged facts do not fall within the scope of Community law, recourse to the legal procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty is excluded.

On the other hand, Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union lays down that the Union is founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the Rule of Law. According to Article 7 of the same Treaty, the Commission or a third of the Member States may refer the matter to the Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government, in the event of a serious or persistent violation of the principles laid down in Article 6(1). In this particular case, as far as the Commission is concerned, it is impossible to establish that there is a serious and persistent violation within the meaning of Article 7 solely on the basis of the facts as interpreted by the Honourable Member. Recourse to the procedure laid down in Article 7 is, therefore, also excluded.

Finally, it should be pointed out that it falls in the first instance to national judges to penalise any violation of fundamental rights. Once the appeal procedures at national level have been exhausted, the matter may be referred to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the violation of rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols.

Can the Commission explain why, as Chair of the Member State group responsible for classification, it allowed the group to propose an R53 classification (may cause long-term adverse effects on the aquatic environment) for all non-dust sizes of zinc (Directive 67/548/EEC⁽¹⁾), even though the group did not take into account the scientific evidence requested by the EU and provided by industry to the European Commission?

Why it is not possible to classify each of the sizes of zinc placed on the EU market on the basis of data provided that demonstrate that such classification is justified by the scientific evidence?

Can the Commission provide a detailed economic impact assessment of the consequences of the proposed classification for the zinc industry and its downstream users, given the importance of the commitments given to SMEs at the Feira Summit to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens?

As you mention, the Commission chairs the Member State group responsible for Classification and Labelling of Dangerous Substances.

At the June 2002 meeting of this Working Group, industry provided and explained the results of the study presenting the scientific evidence to which you are referring. Taking these into account, Member State experts in the Working Group agreed on a compromise tentative proposal, namely to classify zinc in the massive form with the risk phrase R53 (May cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment), which is the weakest level of environmental classification. R53 would cover the concern about dissolved ions from any piece of massive zinc, i.e. any particle size larger than powder particles. In contrast to this, zinc in powder form is classified N; R50-53 (Very toxic to aquatic organisms, May cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment) and labelled with the symbol 'Dangerous for the environment'. This is stronger than R53 alone. This proposal would therefore classify each of the sizes of zinc placed on the Community market differently and that size would be taken into account.

It should be noted that this is only a tentative proposal of the working group for a 'harmonised' classification and labelling. The European Congress on Biotechnology (ECB) will allow another round of discussion at the next meeting of the working group. It will then finalise its advice to prepare the Commission decision.

For all dangerous substances where a ban or severe restriction is envisaged, it is standard procedure that the Commission asks for a socio-economic analysis to be performed. However, in this case, a socio-economic analysis has not been done so far, as the proposed classification with R 53 does not automatically lead to any restriction on the marketing or use of zinc.

With regard to my question (H-0459/02) tabled on 30.5.2002 and the written reply received from the Commission on 11.6.2002, the response to the first incident referred to in the question was flippant and the second incident referred to in the question was totally ignored.

Would the Commission show its respect for the principles of procedure, transparency and accountability by replying in full to the relevant question.

The Commission has nothing further to add to the reply given to the Honourable Member in the reply to Oral question H-0459/02.

According to information provided at the meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 15 July 2002, in 2003 a wide range of bodies concerned with questions of European integration are once again to receive substantial financial subsidies, at the suggestion of the European Commission.

On the basis of what criteria are these bodies selected? Will the Commission also submit applications from bodies that do not appear on the proposed list and in what form? By whom and when are the bodies that receive subsidies to be audited in respect of the use made of the funds granted to them, and on the basis of what criteria?

Each year the Commission proposes in Chapter A-30 of the preliminary draft budget grants to institutions of European interest and to organisations advancing the idea of the European civil society. Where budget lines are dedicated to just one organisation (e.g. A-3020 in favour of the 'Our Europe' organisation) the grant is always intended only for that organisation.

Other budget lines (eg A-3035 for the preservation of Nazi concentration camps as historical memorials) are intended for grants to be allocated following an open call for proposals. Allocations are made in line with the vademecum on grants⁽¹⁾ and take into account any specific budgetary remarks relating to such lines. In these cases, the Commission does not propose specific organisations to receive the grants.

In some cases (e.g. A-3021 for organisations advancing the idea of Europe) the Commission does not propose in the preliminary draft budget any specific organisation, and intends to allocate the grants following an open call for proposals. In the course of the budgetary procedure the Parliament may make amendments to the comments of the line in order to earmark specific amounts to specific organisations.

While the Commission is not legally bound by such budgetary remarks, it follows the earmarking as an expression of the wishes of the Budgetary Authority, so far as the earmarking is not in contradiction with the Commission's responsibilities in executing the budget.

The institutions and organisations receiving these grants have to agree to allow the Commission to check on their use of the Community funds. The Commission services verify the financial statements submitted in support of requests for payment, and carry out on-the-spot checks under annual inspection programmes. From 2003, institutions and organisations receiving grants over 50,000 Euro will also have to provide independent auditors' reports.

Details of beneficiaries of the grants in previous years under Chapter A-30 are published 'http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/beneficiaries_en.htm '.