Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

6.3.

2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/95

Whilst the responsibility rests quite rightly with the Belgian authorities, football supporters from many
other Member States will be attending; would the Commissioner with special responsibilities for Sport
therefore agree, given the potential for spectator violence and in order to put safety first, that the match
should be moved to the more suitable location of the King Baudoin Stadium in Brussels? If so, could the
Commission raise its concerns with UEFA while there is still time to change the arrangements for the
match?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the Honorable Member that it has not been contacted by any
competent authority expressing concern about the safety of the stadium in Charleroi for the match
between England and Germany.

The responsibility for ensuring adequate safety to spectators and players during the matches held during
EURO 2000 lies with the national authorities and football associations. On the basis of the information
available, the Commission has good reasons to believe that these authorities and associations will be able
to ensure adequate safety. In this connection it should be mentioned that according to the Union of
European football associations (UEFA) the Charleroi stadium is safe and in conformity with UEFA rules.

The Commission therefore does not see the need to ask the organisers to have the match played at a
different location.

(2001/C 72 E/114) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1666/00


by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Violation of children’s rights

On 3 May 2000 the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Social Affairs  Committee for Minors) made
arrangements for the transfer to Switzerland of Izabayo Fidencie, a Ruandan child who had been found on
Italian territory without the appropriate documents living with Nshimiyimana Juvenal, who claimed to be
the girl’s father, despite documentary evidence establishing beyond doubt that he was not acting in good
faith.

The appeal lodged with the Lazio Regional Administrative Court against the decision taken by the Social
Affairs department of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in this dramatic case without carefully
examining the evidence provided by the Ruandan Government, which demonstrates that Nshimiyimana
Juvenal was not telling the truth, shows that the administrative provision adopted was of a superficial
nature.

The European Union has always claimed to be committed to respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, in particular affirming its commitment to fundamental social rights and the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Furthermore, Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states ‘in all actions
concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law,
administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary considera-
tion’ and declares the child’s right to a family, not the right of anyone to have a child.

1. What steps does the Council of Ministers of the European Union intend to take to ensure that Italy
ascertains who Izabayo Fidencie’s parents actually are and entrusts her to the care of her legal or natural
parents?

2. What steps does the Council of Ministers of the European Union intend to take to ensure that in the
light of the new evidence produced and pending the judgement of the Lazio Regional Administrative
Court, Italy suspends the transfer to Switzerland of Izabayo Fidencie?
C 72 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6.3.2001

Reply
(26 September 2000)

It is not for the Council to interfere when Member States exercise their powers to remove aliens from their
territory.

(2001/C 72 E/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1673/00


by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission
(29 May 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

Further to Ms Schreyer’s answer to my Written Question No E-0505/00 (1), will the Commission please
indicate the cost of interest paid on late payments by the Commission in each year since its change of
policy in 1997, together with the amounts claimed in each year?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission


(19 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is informed that the Commission only has data for 1999.

In its communication of 10 June 1997, the Commission decided to change its policy on contracts by
introducing a clause formalising the maximum period of 60 days within which payment must be made
and allowing creditors to claim interest on expiry of that period, unless payment was suspended at the
Commission’s initiative. This measure was indeed put into practice since, in 1999 alone, 41 proposals for
commitments in respect of interest on late payment were introduced by the Commission, for a total of
€ 1 114 870, of which € 932 289 had been paid by the end of the year by means of 282 individual
payment orders.

(2001/C 72 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/00


by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(29 May 2000)

Subject: Resolution of Religious freedom

Following Parliament’s adoption on 11 February 1999 of a resolution on religious freedom (B4-0131/


1999 (1)) which refers specifically to news of persecution of religious minorities in India, what action has
the Commission taken to ensure that the Indian Government protects religious minorities and that the
relevant human rights clauses in treaty agreements with India are rigorously implemented?

(1) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 385.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission


(22 June 2000)

Since a number of attacks on Christian families and facilities in 1998 the delegation of the Commission in
New Delhi, in close consultation with the missions of the Member States, has been monitoring the
situation regarding religious minorities in India. Particular attention has been given to assessing the
implication of any discriminatory legislative measures that could affect the freedom of faith of Christians