ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/240

(2004/C 70 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3211/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: EU support for the European Network Against Racism (ENAR)

In a series of articles between 13 and 17 October 2003, the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet exposed a host of cases of irregularities concerning accounts, falsification of membership figures, etc. within Denmark's largest immigrants' organisation, Paraplyorganisationen for de Etniske Mindretal (ethnic minorities' umbrella organisation), or POEM.

As a result of the disclosure of the many irregularities within POEM, all public bodies in Denmark have discontinued financial support for the organisation. As indicated in an earlier question to the Commission (dated 15 October 2003), POEM has also received monies from the European Social Fund. In an article in the 17 October 2003 edition, Ekstra Bladet states that the POEM chairman, Bashy Quraishy, who, according to Ekstra Bladet, cannot have been unaware of what was large-scale fraud and in all probability was very much a party to it, also chairs the international organisation European Network Against Racism (ENAR). The article explains that ENAR is EU-funded.

In the light of Danish immigrant organisations' large-scale defrauding of public monies, can the Commission say how much ENAR receives each year by way of EU support and what checks are made to prevent misappropriation of funds by the organisation? Can the Commission furthermore say what the consequences will be, in terms of future EU funding allocations, of any involvement by Bashy Quraishy in the above-mentioned fraud?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

‘Stichting Steun European Network Against Racism’ (ENAR) is one of the organisations which receive an operating grant from the Commission under the Community Action Programme to combat discrimination 2001-2006. For the period 2003-2004, ENAR is scheduled to receive an amount of EUR 851 241 towards its operating costs.

ENAR has not received any European Social Fund co-financing under Objective 2 or 3 or Equal during the current 2000-2006 programme period.

The Commission has audited all Community funding paid to ENAR in 2003. There were no irregularities found. The Commission points out that the finances of ENAR are completely separate to the finances of POEM, which is a different organisation. The role of the President of ENAR is an honorary one and, consequently, the President does not receive payment for services rendered.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/254

(2004/C 70 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3314/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: British Beef Imports into France

In December 2001 the European Court of Justice ruled that a ban imposed by the French government on the import of British beef into the country was illegal. The Commission then recommended that France be held liable for substantial fines for non-compliance with the ECJ ruling.

With regard to this situation, could the Commission state whether France was held accountable for its actions and has any recompense since been paid? If France avoided the judgement passed down on them could the Commission then explain why this was the case and the amount in fines they should have paid?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2871/02 by Mr Parish (1).

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 25.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/57

(2004/C 70 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1807/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Commercial relations between the Commission and the Planistat Group

On 19 March 2003 the European Anti-Fraud Office OLAF laid a charge against Planistat Europe SA before the Paris public prosecutor. The company is accused of being involved in fraudulent practices and, by means of fictitious accounts practices, of having helped set up illicit accounts, which were then able to be used by Eurostat officials.

The Commission's Directorate-General for Financial Control has apparently been aware of this state of affairs since spring 2000.

Could the Commission indicate why commercial relations with companies in the Planistat Group were not, however, broken off and new contracts were even awarded?

On its Internet site the Planistat Group states that it has a turnover of millions in its work for the Commission, and that it works for the following Commission Directorates-General and services:

— External relations DG;

— Entreprise DG;

— Development DG;

— Research DG;

— Energy and Transport DG;

— Trade DG;

— Delegations;

— Forward Studies Unit;

— SCR (Joint External Relations Service);

— TACIS (EU Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States);

— Industry DG;

— Health and consumer protection DG;

— Environment DG;

— Information Society DG;

— Taxation and Customs Union DG;

— Eurostat;

— PHARE;

— European Development Fund.

Can the Commission confirm this information? Could the Commission state what sums have been paid to the Group over the last 10 years, with a breakdown by financial year and Directorate-General?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/215

(2004/C 70 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/03

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Crédit Lyonnais/Executive Life

A US court is demanding that the Crédit Lyonnais bank pay a fine of USD 575 million for the allegedly illegal takeover of an insurance company by a bank.

There are two possible views of this case.

Either the Crédit Lyonnais management are genuinely at fault.

Why then should the French authorities take on the personal responsibilities of the Crédit Lyonnais management? Does the Commission, which has recently been so strict about restrictions on state aids, consider it compatible with EU law that the French state — and hence French taxpayers — should pay 4/5 of the fine imposed on the bank?

Alternatively, the Crédit Lyonnais are not at fault. If this is the case, will the Commission, which no doubt knew of the operation when the takeover actually took place, explain its present silence on the matter? Will it also specify whether, in accordance with the reciprocity rule, US banks are prohibited from owning more than 25 % of the capital of European insurance companies and, if so, what penalties are applied for violation of this prohibition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission adopted the decisions concerning aid granted by France to the Crédit Lyonnais on 26 July 1995 and on 20 May 1998. The risk for the Crédit Lyonnais and for the French state of a potential fine payment to the United States for the alleged mismanagement related to the take-over of the Californian insurance company Executive Life in 1991 was already provisioned and taken into account in the restructuring plan of the Crédit Lyonnais. When the Commission assessed the restructuring plan of the Crédit Lyonnais, the French authorities provided the information on bad assets and risks. A special hive-off vehicle, ‘Consortium de Réalisation’ (CDR), a hiving-off consortium for taking over the compromised assets of Crédit Lyonnais, was set up in order to restructure the bank and return it back to viability. The risk related to the take-over of the Californian insurance company Executive Life in 1991 represented a part of hived-off assets.

Considering the above stated, the Commission is currently not assessing any State aid issue and legal consequences of the acquisition of the Executive Life, which was carried out in 1991, since this issue was taken into account in the decisions already adopted by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/171

(2004/C 70 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject: Commission Communication on immigration, integration and employment — brain drain

On page 16 of the Commission Communication COM(2003) 336, it is stated that ‘recourse to immigrants should not be detrimental to developing countries, particularly with respect to the brain drain’. The emigration of high skilled workers from the developing countries to Europe therefore constitutes a phenomenon that drives such countries into a vicious circle: the lack of a high skilled and dynamic labour force (plant managers, professional employees, etc.) simply makes the situation there more difficult.

However, earlier on in the document, reference is made to the problem of native unskilled or low skilled workers being adversely affected by large-scale immigration of low skilled labour from outside the European Union. In our knowledge-based economy, the need for low skilled labour (certainly from outside the Union) is small. What is more, further immigration of that type is undesirable, inter alia on social and economic grounds.

On the one hand, the Commission is seeking to attract high skilled workers (although without causing a brain drain), and, on the other, it acknowledges the problem of the uneven distribution of the burdens of immigration in Europe (situation of the low skilled). How does the Commission think that it will be able to reconcile these two considerations?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/134

(2004/C 70 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Encryption of EU communications

In light of the report on echelon that recommended the Commission encrypt its communications, can the Commission inform us of the progress made in ensuring the encryption of its communications especially for overseas offices?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission has taken all necessary steps to ensure that the security features of its communications are developed in order to deal with the risks properly identified by the report on Echelon.

The Commission is working in close co-operation with competent authorities from Member States on the choice of systems. The Honourable Member will understand that, for security reasons, the Commission is unable to communicate any further details in the context of a Parliamentary question. However, the Commission offers to inform the Honourable Member more comprehensively if he wishes to make direct contact with the relevant Service.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/159

(2004/C 70 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Safeguarding jobs at the Alcatel plant in Rieti

The telecommunications sector is going through a period of recession. In order to tackle the unfavourable situation the Alcatel group has decided on drastic job cuts. Apart from undermining the research sector this policy also threatens to lead to the company's activities being relocated to countries with low labour costs.

If they go ahead, Alcatel's restructuring plans will hit Alcatel's factories in southern Italy, in particular the ultramodern establishment in Rieti.

Is the Commission aware of the risks for the economy of the Rieti area, where substantial resources have been invested in electronics?

Since Alcatel's situation is improving, what steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent a temporary difficulty from seriously damaging employment?

How does the Commission intend to safeguard plants such as the one at Rieti, which are considered of strategic importance because of the highly specialised professional staff and equipment?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/197

(2004/C 70 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3017/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Bankruptcy of Grundig AG and protecting jobs in Portugal

In its reply of 20 June 2003 to my question E-1507/03 (1), the Commission said that it was gathering the requisite information before replying to my question concerning Grundig's bankruptcy and the protection of the jobs concerning in Portugal.

Does the Commission have the information? If so, will it please forward it to me?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The Commission has now received the information it requested from the Portuguese authorities and would refer the Honourable Member to its supplementary reply to her written question E-1507/03 (2).

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 203.

(2) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 203.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/194

(2004/C 70 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/03

by Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points

The Commission recently decided to abolish the operating grant for Europe Info-Points despite the fact that the present juncture will be decisive for the future of the European Union.

Given the current context, i.e. the Intergovernmental Conference, national campaigns for the adoption of the future Constitution and the forthcoming European elections, is the Commission aware that its decision could not have come at a more inappropriate time?

Does the Commission fully realise how valuable the Europe Info-Points are in terms of providing information and serving as communication channels with a view to bringing Europe closer to its citizens?

Moreover, in view of the new Financial Regulation, as well as the size of the grant allocated by the Commission, why did it not provide for a gradual reduction rather than a sudden stop, which is plunging these offices into financial difficulty, forcing them to reduce staff and, in some cases, to close down?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/711

(2004/C 84 E/0798)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Support for Afghanistan

The ‘Afghanistan Support Group’ met in Oslo on 17 December 2002.

Who represented the European Union?

What topics were on the agenda?

What conclusions were reached?

Was a decision taken on any kind of support?

If so, what kind of support?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Afghanistan Support Group Meeting in Oslo 17 December 2002 was attended by the Union Special Representative to Afghanistan, Mr Francisco Vendrell. The Commission was represented by officials from the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and Directorate general for External Relations.

The meeting discussed the current and future needs of Afghanistan, the future co-ordination of international assistance to Afghanistan and the United Nations' (UN) Transitional Assistance Programme Appeal (TAPA) for 2003 was presented. Furthermore some key issues facing Afghanistan were discussed e.g. human rights, the role of women, the return of refugees, and opium poppy production. There was also discussion of some of the key issues facing Afghanistan including human rights, the role of women, the return of refugees, and opium poppy production.

The meeting was not a pledging meeting, but many donors highlighted the contributions they had made to Afghanistan in 2002 and expressed continued support for the future. The Commission noted that reconstruction and recovery aid for 2002 had been over EUR 205 million. Humanitarian support from ECHO had been over EUR 70 million.

Participants also welcomed the renewed commitment at the 2 December 2002 Petersberg meeting to the Bonn Agreement, and reiterated the importance of:

— improving internal security — in particular by pressing on with the establishment of the Afghan National Army;

— respecting human rights for all;

— preparing for the elections in 2004;

— tackling opium poppy production;

— establishing benchmarks to underpin full implemenation of the Bonn Agreement.

The meeting concluded that the time had come for the Afghanistan Transitional Authority to take the lead in the reconstruction effort. This would therefore be the last meeting of the Afghanistan Support Group. It would be replaced by a series of Afghan Government led Consultative Groups with the first full meeting in March 2003. For Humanitarian support there will be a donor led Humanitarian Aid Advisory Group chaired in the first instance by Japan.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/631

(2004/C 78 E/0668)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3702/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: EC-Macau Joint Committee — tenth meeting

Under the terms of the EU-Macau cooperation agreement, in force since 1 January 1993, an EC-Macau Joint Committee was established, to meet annually, on the territory of each signatory year about.

To date there is no news of the scheduling or holding of the tenth meeting, which should take place in 2003.

No official specifically responsible for EU cooperation with Macau has yet been appointed, capable of getting bilateral cooperation moving on the ground in Macau.

Commissioner Patten said in reply to my Written Question E-3098/02 (1). that the Commission continued to be committed to maintaining close relations with Macau.

Can the Commission answer the following:

— has the date for the holding of the tenth meeting of the Joint Committee been fixed;

— what are the reasons for it not having been scheduled or announced to date;

— does the Commission believe that the existence of an official specifically responsible for EC-Macau cooperation, the need for which both Commission and Parliament have acknowledged, would guarantee more effective continuity in following up relations with the Special Administrative Region;

— in the light of the foregoing, and pursuant to my previous Written Questions P-1961/01 (2) and E-3098/02 and taking account of the recent developments described in Question E-3278/03 (3), does the Commission believe that it can now go ahead with recruiting an official responsible for cooperation with Macau?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The EEC-Macau Cooperation Agreement of 14 December 1992 provides for an annual joint committee meeting to review trade relations and the state of bilateral cooperation between the Community and the Macau Special Administrative Region. The Commission is committed to holding these meetings annually. During informal talks with the Economic and Trade Office, Macau's mission to the Communities, it suggested a date for the tenth meeting of the committee in December 2003. Unfortunately Macau was unable to accept that date. The Commission is currently discussing other possible dates, i.e. February or March 2004, with its counterparts from Macau.

On the question of the appointment of an official with special responsibility for cooperation with Macau, the Commission still does not consider that the size of its current cooperation programme in Macau, consisting of a single project expiring this year, justifies recruiting an official for this purpose.

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 39.

(2) OJ C 364 E, 20.10.2001, p. 232.

(3) See page 248.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/478

(2004/C 84 E/0553)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Letters to the Greek authorities regarding the proper use of Community funds and compliance with Community (regional policy) legislation

Can the Commission say how many letters it has sent to the Greek authorities since 1994 and from whom (Commissioners, directors-general or heads of division) concerning the proper use of Community funds and the transposition and proper implementation of Community regional policy legislation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Under the partnership principle a flow of inquiries and information between the Commission and national authorities in connection with implementation of Community programmes is standard management practice.

For both Greece and the other Member States the exchanges, which occur on an almost daily basis, can be made by various means, including letters signed by a Commissioner or Director-General.

Dispatch of such letters is a routine matter given the Member States' accountability for utilisation of Community funds in line with the rules drawn up at Community level.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/314

(2004/C 88 E/0319)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel

While the French judiciary continues its enquiry into the notorious fire which caused the deaths of 39 people in the Mont Blanc tunnel on 24 March 1999, great concern has been aroused by the news that there may have been a defect in the Volvo lorry which caught fire inside the tunnel and triggered the tragedy. Suspicions centre on a construction fault on a certain model of lorry, which is said to result in the lorry catching fire in the event of a cigarette end entering the air intake. Does the Commission have any information on this matter?

Answer given by M. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission has not been informed of any developments in the investigation being conducted by the French authorities to determine the full circumstances of how this disaster occurred, as the matter is still sub judice. The Commission is, however, familiar with a number of official reports which establish the facts and are in the public domain. The Commission is aware, for instance, that the disaster began with a fire breaking out in a semi-trailer towing vehicle a few minutes after it had driven through the Chamonix toll-station. Various possible explanations have been put forward as to how this fire actually started in the towing vehicle. At the moment, none of these theories can be either confirmed or ruled out, and it is up to the experts appointed by the examining magistrate to check their relevance.

On 30 December 2002 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network, in order to prevent such accidents and to protect tunnel users.

The Commission also intends to make it mandatory for hand-held fire extinguishers or fire extinguishing systems to be fitted in all vehicles with a maximum mass of more than 3,5 tonnes. It will also endeavour to resolve the safety problems posed by the additional fuel tanks which may be mounted on heavy goods vehicles.

Lastly, in the course of 2003, the Commission will submit a proposal to extend Community type-approval to commercial vehicles. In the meantime, type-approval of such vehicles remains the responsibility of each Member State and national regulations apply to the construction standards governing such vehicles.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/88

(2004/C 78 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Funding for the IRENE organisation

In answer to other recent questions to the Commission (E-0344/03 (1) and P-1436/03 (2)), Mrs Diamantopoulou stated that the whole amount of appropriations under the new budget Item A-3046 had been allocated to an organisation called IRENE and described the terms and conditions under which this action had been taken. I need to gain a clearer understanding of the matter.

Can the Commission therefore say what Community subsidies or other type of financial support it granted to IRENE, directly or indirectly, in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and — as far as is known — 2003? Specifically, what amounts were granted under what budget headings and/or Community programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

According to the Commission's databases on contracts, the following amounts have been committed to the Irene organisation:

— in 2001, an amount of EUR 36 402 under the STOP programme (budget heading B5-820);

— in 2002, an amount of EUR 99 494,36 under budget heading B3-4105 (Preparatory measures combating and preventing exclusion) and an amount of EUR 300 000 under budget heading A-3046 (Women's organisations).

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 211.

(2) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 198.