WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1570/98 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Unanswered questions
19. 11. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 354/113 (98/C 354/181) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/98 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (20 May 1998) Subject: Unanswered questions The deadline set in the European Parliamentís Rules of Procedure for answers to the following questions has long since expired. This is hampering my work as a Member of Parliament, since it prevents me from reacting quickly to subjects of topical interest to members of the public. I still hope, however, to receive answers in the very near future to the questions already put under Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure concerning: › equal opportunities in the internal market for gas and electricity (E-0341/98) › eavesdropping by MI6 and Echelon (E-1039/98 and E-1040/98) › economic espionage and State aid (E-1038/98) › possible fraud in connection with Dutch beef exports (P-1084/98) Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1998) The Commission does its best to meet the deadlines of three weeks (priority questions) and six weeks (other questions), unilaterally set by Parliament in its procedures. Although on the whole it is not capable of responding to priority questions (13% of answers in 1997) within three weeks, it answers other questions (87% in 1997) around the six-week deadline (an average of 6 weeks and 1 day in 1997 and 5 weeks and 6 days in 1996). The five questions referred to by the Honourable Member were answered on 5 May 1998 (question E 341/98), 15 May 1998 (three consecutive questions) and 8 May 1998 (priority question). The Commission wishes to make it clear that three of the five questions were answered within Parliamentís deadline. (98/C 354/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/98 by Francisco Lucas Pires (PPE) and Carlos Costa Neves (PPE) to the Council (25 May 1998) Subject: Agreement in the UN between the British Presidency and Indonesia to prevent the latterís being condemned on the grounds of violations of fundamental rights in Timor On 23 April 1998 it was reported in the press that an agreement had been reached between the British Presidency of the European Union and Indonesia at the United Nations in Geneva which averted a vote in the UN Commission on Human Rights on a motion for a resolution, sponsored by 34 States, strongly condemning the Jakarta Government. What was the exact tenor of that agreement, what justification and guarantees were given and to what extent is the refusal to condemn Indonesian action in Timor compatible with the commitment, reiterated in Amsterdam, to safeguard the defence of fundamental rights as an objective of Union foreign policy? Answer (20 July 1998) At the 54th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (Geneva, 16 March › 26 April 1998) agreement was reached on a statement to be read out by the CHRís chairman, ambassador Selebi, on the human rights situation in East Timor. The EU has made a direct contribution to drafting this Chairmanís statement, which reflects the consensus view of the CHR