WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/99 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Discrimination among pigeon fanciers in the border region between the Netherlands and Belgium.
C 280 E/150 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Are there any political differences between the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou and the Director- General, Mr Larsson over the Commissionís approach to employment policy? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (17 February 2000) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-2670/99 by Mr Hernandez Mollar (1). There are no political differences between the Member in charge of Employment and social affairs and the Director general of the Employment and social affairs Directorate general over the Commissionís approach to employment policy. (1) See page 100. (2000/C 280 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/99 by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council (19 January 2000) Subject: World Conference on Education for All 1990 the World Conference on Education for All At in 1990, European Union governments committed themselves to universal primary education by 2000. It has been estimated that around 130 million children in the developing world still receive no primary education. Is the Council still committed to universal primary education? If so, what is being done to fulfil the commitment? Reply (13 March 2000) The commitment to which the Honourable Member refers was made at an intergovernmental world conference. The Community institutions, and the Council in particular, therefore do not fall within that framework. The question raised by the Honourable Member consequently lies outwith the Councilís sphere of competence. (2000/C 280 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/99 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Discrimination among pigeon fanciers in the border region between the Netherlands and Belgium It used to be possible for pigeon fanciers from the Netherlands to join an association in Belgium. However, a few years ago this possibility was abolished, precisely at a time when Europe is becoming increasingly united. The ban was imposed by the Belgian Pigeon Fanciersí Federation, and is felt by residents of the border region to be inconvenient. Pigeon fanciers wish to be able to compete with one another irrespective of their place of residence, as they used to in the past. 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/151 According to information from the Commission, pigeon races are organised through pigeon fanciersí associations, and it depends on a pigeon fancierís place of residence whether he can join one of these in a region of Belgium or in the Netherlands. According to the Commission, the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciersí association is intended to take account of the distances which pigeons are required to fly during a competition. We dispute this residence criterion. The border region is a single region. The distance which pigeons have to fly is virtually the same if they are released, for example, from De Clinge in the Netherlands or De Klinge in Belgium. We therefore wish pigeon fanciers who are resident in the Netherlands to be allowed to join pigeon fanciersí associations in Belgium and vice versa. Will the Commission take the necessary measures to secure a lifting of the current ban? If so, how? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (29 February 2000) According to the information available to the Commission and to the Honourable Member, the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciersí association is laid down by both the Belgian Pigeon Fanciersí Federation and the Dutch Pigeon Fanciersí Federation. In this context, and regardless of whether the criterion is compatible or not with the principle of the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 (ex-Article 59) of the EC Treaty (assuming that we are dealing here with an economic activity), this situation does not seem to be attributable to the public authorities of these two Member States. The direct effect of Article 49 of the EC Treaty is that individuals can invoke it in national courts against the Member State and the public authorities to prevent the application of a national regulation which is contrary to the above principle. They can also invoke it against organisations which collectively regulate a professional sector, which could include a federation which regulates an economic activity. On the other hand, the Commission can institute proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty only in respect of regulations laid down by the public authorities of a Member State. From a formal point of view, therefore, the Commission does not have the power to respond to the Honourable Memberís request. (2000/C 280 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2868/99 by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council (10 January 2000) Subject: The cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti Mrs Flora Brovina, a paediatrician and intellectual from Pristina, was arrested by the Belgrade authorities for providing Kosovars with medical and food aid during the war. She was also accused of preparing terrorist acts. She was initially detained in Lipljan prison in Kosovo, where she was repeatedly tortured, and was then transferred to Serbia. During visits, she was not allowed to speak Albanian. She has a heart condition and has difficulty in obtaining the necessary medicines. On 9 December 1999 Mrs Brovina was sentenced to 12 yearsí imprisonment for áactivities against the Stateí. Mr Albin Kurti, a former representative of the Pristina Students Union, was brutally arrested on 28 April 1999 and is held in Pozarevac prison in Serbia. He is also accused of áactivities against the Stateí and álinks with a terrorist organisationí. Since he was deported to Serbia, the Serbian authorities have refused to provide any information about him