ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1652/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2002)

Subject: Earthquake forecast

The publication in the Greek press on 23 May 2002 of a report by the Greek professor of seismology Papazachos concerning the probability of a major earthquake in four regions of Greece between the present time and the autumn of 2004 caused an uproar in Greece. The eminent Greek professor pointed in his report to the possibility of a major seismic tremor occurring in the short term in the region between Crete and the Peloponnese, in the Dodecanese, the eastern Aegean and in the region where the borders of Greece, Albania and FYROM meet.

In his reply to my question E-0799/01(1) on 21 June 2001, Commissioner Philippe Busquin stated that the earthquake prediction programme, Prenlab, had been funded by the Commission, as had SM-Site

(Developing Stress Monitoring Sites and Infrastructure for Forecasting Earthquakes) as a project under the 5th Framework Programme (1998-2002) with a Community contribution of EUR 1,3 million. Has the Commission funded any earthquake forecasting project or network in Greece or does it intend to do so in the near future? If so, which, when and to what amount? What is the Commission's view of the report by the Greek professor of seismology?

(1) OJ C 340, 4.12.2001, p. 95.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Earthquake research continues to be an important priority for the Commission.

Seismic risk assessment, including research into the seismic mechanisms which cause earthquakes and methods for analysing and monitoring seismic phenomena, is one of the priorities of the Community's Sixth Framework Programme for research and technological development under the heading Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems.

In order to disseminate and make effective use of the results of projects funded by the Commission, the EU-MEDIN initiative (Mediterranean Disaster Information Network) was launched in November 2000 with the aim of improving coordination within the scientific community and promoting risk prevention, communication and rapid information exchange.

The decision was taken to contribute to seismic risk prevention rather than short-term prediction, which has been regarded as unreliable and likely to have significant economic and social repercussions. The Commission is also running schemes designed to help decision-making on prompt action in response to major seismic events.

In April 2003, as part of the EU-MEDIN initiative, a seminar to review the state of the art in seismic risk prediction and prevention will be held at the Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (ITSAK) in Thessaloniki, Greece, which will be attended by the leading European researchers in the field.

As to the report by Professor Papazachos, the Commission does not comment on the scientific merits of individual reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0531/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Reform of the Commission

Is the Council satisfied with the progress made in reforming the Commission, and what measures does the Council believe are indispensable to that process if it is to be effective and to win public support?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

It would not be appropriate for the Council to take a view on the internal reform of another institution. The Council is not therefore in a position to respond to the Honourable Member's question.

On a more general level, however, the European Council, meeting in Göteborg on 15 and 16 June 2001, gave a reminder of the need for the Union to be served by modern, open and citizen-oriented institutions and considered that the reforms under way in all the institutions of the Union underscored their commitment to that objective.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Ariel Sharon's murders in Ramallah

On 12 March, after two murders had been committed in Bethlehem, Ariel Sharon's troops murdered 25 Palestinians in Ramallah.

How long is the European Union going to wait before taking a firm and final stance against this head of government, as a necessary step in order to secure peace between the State of Israel and a Palestine which has been recognised as a State?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0856/02 and E-0859/02

(22 July 2002)

The Council will not comment on the specific allegation referred to by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament about which it does not have all the necessary facts. In its declaration on behalf of the European Union of 20 April 2002, the Presidency stressed the importance of the initiative taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to obtain detailed information on the events that took place in the Jenin refugee camp. Furthermore, the European Union has urgently called for medical and humanitarian organisations to have immediate access to the Palestinian population as called for in the UN Security Council Resolution 1405 of 19 April 2002, which stated its concern at the dire humanitarian situation of that population.

The EU has repeatedly called upon both parties to break the cycle of violence. On 10 April 2002, in a joint statement with the UN Secretary-General, the US and Russia, the Presidency and the High Representative i.a. called upon Israel to refrain from the excessive use of force and undertake all possible efforts to ensure the protection of civilians.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1006/02

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the restructuring plan arising from the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco

Reports have recently appeared in the press concerning the progress of the implementation of the restructuring plan for the Spanish and Portuguese fleets. Apparently, alternative uses have already been found for more than half of the Spanish vessels which were operating under this agreement. However, according to these reports, only 29 vessels have so far been taken out of service, whereas around 160 others are being put to alternative use in the fishing industry. These figures are alarming, considering that the purpose of the restructuring plan was to permanently restructure the fleet (scrapping or converting 176 vessels).

1. Does the Commission have any information about this situation?

2. Does the Commission agree that the plans were intended to provide a structural solution for a large number of vessels and fishermen and that the use of the scrapping and retirement component of the restructuring plan is crucial to the plan's success?

3. Will the Commission perform an interim evaluation of the implementation of the restructuring plan? If so, how soon? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of a number of articles on this subject in the press. The truth of the matter is that the restructuring operation has just started, so it is far too early to evaluate it.

The Commission believes that the restructuring objectives set are still completely valid and achievable. It will closely monitor the plan's progress, in collaboration with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1014/02

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Competition policy in the energy market

The Commission had a very successful experience using its anti-monopoly powers in the case of telecoms liberalisation. Does the Commission intend to build on this positive experience and use its power in the field of energy liberalisation? If the EU is to ensure that the Lisbon economic reform targets are met, it will be vital that European energy markets are fully liberalised and that likewise, the Commission is prepared to flex its anti-monopoly muscles in the event that the aspirations outlined at the Barcelona summit are not fulfilled within the foreseen timeframe.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The Commission believes that the adoption by the Council and the Parliament and a proper implementation by Member States of the Commission's legislative proposals of March 2001 remain the best and most appropriate solution to complete the opening of the Community energy markets. The vote of the Parliament some days before the European Council of Barcelona (15 and 16 March 2002) as well as the Conclusions of the latter have given an important impetus towards the achievement of this objective.

At the same time, the Commission will continue to make use of the Community competition rules to actively promote and maintain a competitive market structure. Indeed, barriers removed by regulatory measures should not be replaced by contractual arrangements or practices, nor by mergers or state-aid preventing the creation of common electricity and gas markets.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0425/02

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Racist murder in Spain

On 27 January 2002 a young man from Ecuador, Wilson Pacheco, was found dead in Barcelona harbour (Spain). This young man appears to have been the victim of a beating by bouncers at a bar. He was then thrown into the sea and left to drown. The whole brutal attack was witnessed by several by-standers who made no attempt to intervene.

Will the Council analyse the causes of and reasons for the increase in racist and xenophobic violence in the European Union? Will it take any measures or initiatives to enhance the work of the European Observatory on Racism and Xenophobia, in line with the conclusions adopted at the Tampere Summit? Is the Council taking any particular action to raise public awareness in the Member States?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The Council was not aware of the incident referred to by the Honourable Member in her question. For several months now, however, the Council has been considering initiatives designed to prevent sad occurrences such as that reported by the Honourable Member.

At its meeting on 25 and 26 April 2002, the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted some conclusions on combating racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, in which it pointed in particular to the importance of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

The Council is also currently considering an initiative from the Kingdom of Spain for supervision of levels of training and other aspects of private security personnel within the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Fisheries

On 18 April 2002, the European Court of Justice upheld a series of complaints made by Spain against the anchovy quota exchanges carried out by Portugal and France since 1996 under a number of EU (Council) fisheries regulations, which had enabled the French fleet to obtain a larger quota for that species in the Bay of Biscay.

The Court recognised that, following this cession of the Portuguese quota to France, Spain had not received, as it should have under the terms of its Act of Accession, 90 % of the catch possibilities in the Bay of Biscay, and concluded that the anchovy allocation in that zone had been modified with no justification whatever, to the disadvantage of Spain.

When will the Commission amend the regulations concerned, so as to put an end to a state of affairs which has now been ruled irregular by the Court of Justice?

What steps will the Commission take to compensate all the households which have suffered from these circumstances for the past eight years?

Will France be penalised in any way for engaging in practices contrary to Community law?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

As a follow up of the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice on the subject, the Commission will propose the deletion of the footnote allowing the transfer of anchovy between ICES areas IX and VIII in the framework of the first amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2555/2001 of 18 December 2001 fixing for 2002 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required(1).

Following this ruling of the Court, it is not up to the Commission to provide any compensation. Spain did not argue and the judgement did not establish that any damages were sustained.

As to possible sanctions to France, it is to be borne in mind that France acted in conformity with Council Regulations. The annulment of those Regulations does not have the result that the French acts on the basis of that Regulation should retroactively be considered to be contrary to Community law.

(1) OJ L 347, 31.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1521/02

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Environmental effects of the construction of hydroelectric projects in the Epirus area

In its answer to my question P-3174/01 (13 November 2001)(1) concerning the environmental effects of the construction of hydroelectric projects in the Epirus area, the Commission states that it would send a letter to the Greek authorities requesting information, in the light of which it would examine the alleged incompatibility of the projects with a number of Community provisions.

What was the Greek authorities' answer and what was the Commission's assessment thereof?

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 207.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

On the basis of the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission opened a file on the matter to determine whether the work in question conforms with Community environment legislation.

The Commission contacted the Greek authorities and asked for information on conformity with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), and on the account taken of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3) when the works were planned and approved.

The file was discussed at the last meeting between the Commission and the Greek authorities on the application of Community environment legislation in Greece (the so-called package meeting) which took place in February 2002.

At the meeting, the Greek authorities claimed that a decision approving the environmental conditions has been adopted for only one low-capacity hydroelectric plant at Anilio. According to the Greek authorities, there are no plans to construct a hydroelectric plant at Vovoussa, as no preliminary decision on location or environmental impact assessment has been submitted to the national authorities. They added that the national authorities had received a preliminary decision on location for a project to build a hydroelectric plant at Agios Nikolaos on the Arachthos river near Dafnoti commune, and that this was currently under consideration.

The Greek authorities replied formally by letter to the Greek Permanent Representation to the European Union. The letter confirms the information given at the package meeting and includes numerous annexes. The Commission is currently examining the official response of the Greek authorities before deciding what further steps to take in this matter.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Level playing field for small EU projects

In sparsely populated areas, local authorities, businesses, and organisations are small and have few resources. However, they play a central role in implementing EU-funded projects.

One problem for these players is that Structural Fund projects are expected to be large. Because payments are made after the event, even project launches pose difficulties in themselves,

Small-scale projects are a matter of some significance for the areas concerned and those who operate in them.

A more important factor than the size of projects is their continuity because this allows the effects to extend over the longer term and produces more permanent results. It also ensures that project sponsors do not have to waste their scarce physical and mental resources by devising artificial cooperation schemes.

How will the Commission ensure in the next Structural Fund programming period that small but locally significant projects to be implemented by sponsors in given areas are placed on an equal footing with regional-level projects of wide territorial scope?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) provides for regional and local authorities, the economic and social partners and any other relevant body to share in the preparation, financing, monitoring and evaluation of assistance within the framework of the Funds. The organisations and institutions mentioned by the Honourable Member thus have the possibility of submitting projects, whether small or large in scale, and of being regularly updated on the programming for their region.

Moreover Article 2(2) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund(5) provides for support for local initiatives concerning employment and Article 4(6) provides for small grants to local partnerships. Thus the Commission encourages expansion of employment at local level, in which local players have an essential role.

Turning to the next programming period, the Commission launched the debate on future cohesion policy on adopting the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion(3) and the First Progress Report(4). Both documents are the subject of thematic and general seminars in which all the regional policy partners can make known their needs and wishes for the policy's future. The Commission will sum up the debate and present its proposals when it publishes the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion at the end of 2003.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.

(3) COM(2001) 24 final.

(4) COM(2002) 46 final.

(5) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.

(6) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Failure of Greece to comply with EU legislation concerning the internal market

Will the Commission say in how many instances Greece may be presumed to be in breach of Community legislation concerning the internal market, and in relation to which matters?

In how many instances (if any) is the Commission preparing to bring Greece before the Court of Justice, and in relation to which matters?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

In the context of activities to monitor the application of Community law relating to the internal market, 70 cases (complaints, own initiative cases or failure to communicate national implementing measures) are currently in motion against Greece. They include several infringement proceedings, two of which have reached the stage of letters of formal notice for failure to notify national measures implementing directives, nine are at the reasoned opinion stage and six have been referred to the Court of Justice. A list of these 17 infringement proceedings is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

The Honourable Member is also referred to the Commission's 18th Annual Report on monitoring the application of Community law (2000)(1). And the Commission publishes its recent infringement decisions and regularly updated statistics on its website http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/droit_com/index_fr.htm

infractions.

(1) COM(2001) 309 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Radiation assessment

Can the Commission say on the basis of what specific legal standards and technical guidelines radiation from nuclear power stations and nuclear reprocessing plants is assessed in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The relevant Euratom provisions governing the protection of the health of the population against the dangers arising from ionizing radiations are contained in Title II, Chapter 3, Euratom Treaty. Among these provisions, the following are relevant for the assessment of the exposures to ionizing radiation resulting from practices, in general, including those carried out by nuclear power plants/reprocessing plants in particular.

Article 35 Euratom Treaty states that each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards.

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation(1), contains several provisions related to the assessment of the effects of the practices on the population.

Its Title V, concerning the estimation of the effective dose, which refer to the values and relationships given in Annex II of the Directive (for external radiation) and the dose coefficients given in its Annex III (for internal exposure), to be used for the estimation of effective and equivalent doses.

Its Title VIII deals with the radiation protection of the population in normal circumstances. Under its Article 45, Member States are obliged, in particular, to ensure that dose estimates are made as realistic as possible for the population as a whole and for reference groups of the population; to decide on the frequency of such assessments, and to ensure that the estimates of the population doses include the assessment of the doses due to external radiation and the assessment of the intake of radionuclides. Under its Article 47, each Member State shall require that the undertakings carry out, in particular, the acceptance into service of equipment and procedures for measuring and assessing exposure and radioactive contamination of the environment and the population.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.