ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/02

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Freedom of movement and cooperation between Member States in the sphere of education

For years the European Union has recognised the need to establish cooperation between the Member States in the sphere of education, in particular in order to improve the reception and opportunities for adjustment offered to the children of European citizens who change countries in accordance with freedom of movement, so as to facilitate their integration into the educational system and social life in the host country.

On 9 February 1976 the Council of Ministers of Education adopted a Resolution comprising an action programme in the field of education, the aims of which included:

- organising and developing a reception system which would include intensive study of the language or languages of the host country,

- providing more opportunities, as appropriate, for teaching these children their mother tongue and culture, if possible in school and in collaboration with the country of origin.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in complying with this Resolution and what the situation is in each Member State as regards support for teaching the children of nationals of other Member States the language and culture of their country of origin?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

The Commission acknowledges the concern expressed by the Honourable Member about the teaching of mother tongue in the host countries for children of European citizens who change countries, especially at a time where mobility is at the core of European policies. However, the Resolution makes no provision for reporting by Member States, and the Commission has no recent information about the current situation and different measures taken in Member States.

With regard to language teaching in general, the Commission is, of course, implementing the second phase of the Socrates action programme(1) in the field of education and the second phase of the Community vocational training action programme Leonardo da Vinci(2). These include a wide range of actions intended to promote language teaching and learning, such as teacher exchanges, production of new teaching material, improvement of methods and tools as well as measures to promote competence in foreign languages in specific situations and contexts.

(1) Decision No 253/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education Socrates OJ L 28, 3.2.2000.

(2) Decision No 382/1999/EC of the Council of 26 April 1999 establishing the second phase of the Community vocational training action programme Leonardo da Vinci OJ L 146, 11.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: EU action to reform the International Law of the Sea complex legal status of oil tankers

The disaster arising from the wreck of the Prestige off the coast of Galicia the latest in a series of six accidents of this type which have affected Galicia in recent years has once more brought to the fore the obstacles in the path of effective decision-making with a view to preventing or minimising the effects of such disasters. It is clear that the protection of the oceans and the natural environment and the preservation of the coastal economy and its communities are being seriously jeopardised by the existing International Law of the Sea and by the legal status of oil tankers (which lie at the centre of a complex network of interests and nations and flags of convenience, involving vessel owners, transporters, oil companies, classification companies and even mafia-type illegal businesses). What political and legislative initiatives will the Commission take, in the framework of the EU and the international community, to tackle this problem?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

The Commission communication of 3 December 2002 on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident(1) stressed the need for Member States to support Commission proposals aimed at restricting the right of shipowners to limit their financial liability when an accident is attributable to them and removing the de facto immunity of the key players in an accident (the vessel charterer, operator or manager) from compensation claims.

To supplement this measure, the Commission plans to propose a Regulation introducing criminal penalties for any person responsible for accidental pollution due to serious negligence or to unlawful tank cleaning operations.

With regard to audits of flag States, the Commission proposes to coordinate measures to combat flags of convenience by improving the supervision of the maritime administrations and recognised organisations responsible for inspecting the structural integrity of vessels. The proposal to introduce an audit procedure was first made at the interministerial conference in Tokyo in January 2002. The idea was supported by the Commission in its White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(2).

In this context, in its communication of 3 December 2002 the Commission urged Member States to work with it, within the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), in order to ensure the establishment of a code of practice to be followed by flag States, the launch of a pilot project to develop audit procedures and the introduction of these procedures as a binding IMO instrument.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: EU subsidies for Rhineland-Palatinate between 1999 and 2002

What European Union subsidies were paid to recipients in Rhineland-Palatinate between 1999 and 2002, broken down by EU programme? Who were the recipients and what funding was made available under cofinancing arrangements with the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate or the Federal Republic of Germany?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-0725/02 and E-1943/02given by Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Because of the length and detail of the answer, the Commission is transmitting it direct to the Honourable Members and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3807/02

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: EU classification of incinerator ash

Can the Commission confirm that in January 2001 it decided to omit bottom ash from incinerators from its classification of inert waste and that this decision should have been implemented by Member States by 1 January 2002?

If this is correct, can the Commission please advise what classification status incineration bottom ash currently holds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Bottom ash from incinerators is included in the European list of waste established by Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste(1).

This list distinguishes between non-hazardous and hazardous waste as defined in Council Directive 91/689/EC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste(2), but it does not classify wastes as inert or non-inert.

Bottom ashes from incinerators are included in two separate entries of the list appended to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC:

- Entry 19 01 11* bottom ash and slag containing dangerous substances includes bottom ashes that are rendered hazardous because they contain substances that have been or that will be classified as hazardous in Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(3), at such concentrations that the waste presents one or more of the properties listed in Annex III to Directive 91/689/EC on hazardous waste;

- Entry 19 01 12 bottom ash and slag other than those mentioned in 19 01 11 includes bottom ashes from incinerators that are not hazardous.

Member States were to take the measures necessary to comply with this Decision no later than 1 January 2002.

(1) OJ L 226, 6.9.2000.

(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(3) OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3794/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Second Community Support Framework

The deadline for the completion of payments within the framework of the programmes of the Second CSF ended on 31 December 2001.

Will the Commission provide a detailed table of the overall commitments and any disbursements made in respect of each structural fund and each operational programme and of the balance due to be paid to Greece as payment for these programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

To date, payments for Greece under Objective 1 in the 1994-1999 programming period account for 91 % of commitments.

The Commission is sending the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat a detailed table with the information requested for each operational programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Organisations that find funding

Is the Commission aware that there are companies offering to find European funding opportunities for charities in return for a percentage of the funding received? Such companies may collect all information, write all documents and reports needed for the funding and collecting all the data: they essentially formulate the application. What are the Commission's views on this practice and is there anything that can be done under current EU rules to detect it or prevent it? Can the Commission provide information as to whether there are any plans to address this issue in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Honourable Member's question to the Commission relates to certain intermediation practices of companies offering their services, at a charge, to potential candidates in order to help them obtain Community funding.

In contractual terms, whatever the nature of the intermediation service proposed (search for external funding, whether or not from the Community, in connection with the co-financing of the action, administrative assistance in preparing and presenting the funding application), the cost of such services would not satisfy the general eligibility criteria for the costs of an action under the standard grant agreement for an action, in that such costs would not be directly linked to the object of the agreement nor would they derive from requirements imposed directly by the agreement.

Financial intermediation practices of this type could not therefore be financed from Community funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Netherlands Student Grants Act

In the Netherlands, grants are awarded to students aged over 18. That applies to all forms of education. Child benefit is not paid in respect of students aged over 18.

If the students concerned pursue their studies in Belgium or Germany, student grants are awarded in respect of higher education and university courses but not in respect of secondary, basic or intermediate vocational training courses.

The Netherlands authorities recognise periods of study in Belgium and Germany in connection with the Compulsory Education Act, and degrees taken in Germany and Belgium are recognised as full degrees.

1. Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of the principle of free movement of services (following a recognised training course abroad) and/or the free movement of persons?

2. Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands' decision not to award grants to students over the age of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of Articles 149 and/or 150 of the EC Treaty in that the action of the Netherlands Government restricts student mobility?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

In general, each Member State is responsible for organising and financing its own education system.

Concerning Article 149 and Article 150: The Dutch authorities respond to the objective of encouraging mobility, described in Article 149 of the EC Treaty, by fully accepting and recognising periods of study in Belgium and Germany.

Concerning the free movement of services: Although the question mentions Article 49 EC, that provision is not at stake if, as it seems, it refers to training courses organised by public schools and/or universities. The Court ruled that such courses do not constitute services within the meaning of Article 49 EC.

Concerning the free movement of persons: The Commission will further examine this question in the light of the legislation and practice in the Netherlands and will, in due course, provide a supplementary reply to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Tanker accident

Last month, a tanker belonging to a well-known Norwegian company was involved in an accident when it was struck by the periscope of a US nuclear submarine (the Oklahoma City) causing serious material damage which necessitated repairs. I would recall that a similar accident also occurred last year on the high seas off Hawaii, again caused by a US submarine, resulting in the loss of nine sailors' lives.

In view of the fact that this latest accident occurred in European waters, will the Commission say what measures it took to secure the passage and safety of ships in its waters? In particular, did the Commission contact the competent US authorities to ascertain the precise cause of this unprecedented accident? Finally, can the Commission say whether there was any leakage of the tanker's hazardous cargo?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2003)

As the Honourable Member recalls, on 13 November 2002 the Norwegian LNG carrier Norman Lady very likely struck the periscope of the US nuclear submarine Oklahoma City to the east of the Strait of Gibraltar.

The company Leif Höegh, which owns the ship, stated that only its double bottom had been damaged and that the 30 crew members had not been in any danger. Furthermore, there had been no pollution.

In terms of scale, this accident cannot be compared to the collision between the US nuclear submarine Greenville and a Japanese fishing training vessel, which caused the death of nine sailors off Hawaii in February 2001.

Following this regrettable incident, the Commission did not make contact with the US authorities and did not plan to take any specific measures. In fact, it does not have any powers in the field of the navigation of warships such as nuclear submarines.

Thus, the extensive measures designed to improve maritime safety in European Union waters adopted in the Erika II package, particularly Directive 2002/59/EC(1) on monitoring maritime traffic, are part of the legal order established within the International Maritime Organisation and concern only commercial vessels.

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the coastal state in charge of monitoring the collision zone and the authorities of the flag states to determine the causes of the accident and to check that navigation rules were complied with.

(1) Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2284/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE)and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Europol data

Savas Xiros was arrested recently in Piraeus in Greece after the explosion of a bomb, and all the evidence shows that he belongs to the terrorist organisation November 17, which is, of course, on the European list of terrorist organisations. Investigations have shown that he also had contacts with terrorist organisations operating in third countries, such as the Muslim Brothers in the Sudan, which reveals the international co-operation that exists between terrorist organisations.

Does Europol have any data or information about the movements of the person in question and about other persons connected to terrorist organisations and their movements internationally? If so, how long has it had this data? Was the Echelon system used to obtain this information and monitor the terrorists? Was the information passed on to the Greek authorities in good time?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Members for the information and hereby confirms that it has already taken measures to pass it on to Europol.

Access to the information requested by the Honourable Members, if such information were to exist, would be restricted to highly specific cases laid down in the Europol Convention. The Commission is not one of the organisations which has access to personal data in Europol's possession.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3087/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: State aid to the German pulp industry

According to the newspaper Dagens Industri, on 17 September 2002 the Commission approved state aid and loan guarantees totalling SEK 6,5 billion to a huge pulp plant at Stendal in Germany. The Swedish company Södra

claims that the German state aid is a direct blow to their plans for expansion. Swedish forestry companies receive no state aid for their investments and they therefore maintain that the German state aid is distorting competition on the internal market.

Does the Commission consider that, if it approves the launch of other forest industry projects in the future with the aid of taxpayers' money, there is a risk of damaging Swedish companies in that industry?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

In June 2002 the Commission authorised aid to Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a new pulp mill. Investment costs amounted to some EUR 800 million. The aid amounts to around EUR 250 million.

The project is located in Eastern Germany, which is considered to be one of the less developed regions in the Community. In these regions aid can be granted up to a level fixed by the Commission in order to promote the economic development of these regions by supporting investment and job creation.

The project of Zellstoff Stendal has been approved on basis of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects. In assessing the compatibility of the aid under the multisectoral framework, the Commission has also to take into account the capacity and market situation in the industry. This is done by looking at the capacity and market situation and development over the last five years. In the Stendal case the Commission found that the pulp sector did not suffer from over-capacities.

If another project in the same sector will be notified to the Commission by a Member State before 31 December 2003, the Commission will assess this project on its own merits, considering, in line with the actual multisectoral framework rules, the capacity and market situation at the time the project will take place, but also the regional impact of the project. If the project is notified after the 1 January 2004, the new multisectoral rules will apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2868/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: Growth forecasting record

1. Will the Commission give the forecast (or forecasts) made by each Member State for their real growth rate of GDP in the ensuing financial year for each year of the last ten years?

2. Will the Commission also show the consensus forecast of independent forecasters (for example as published by Consensus economics) at the time of the publication of the official forecast, and compute for each Member State an average difference between official forecast and independent forecast?

Will the Commission provide a short commentary on the lessons if any from this exercise?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2865/02, E-2866/02, E-2867/02 and E-2868/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Commission does not systematically collect the various forecasts made during the year by Member States for growth and budget balances. It is therefore also difficult to assess their forecast accuracy.

Very much attention is paid to the growth and budgetary projections included in the Stability and Convergence Programmes which the Member States submit to the Commission in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies(1). These projections are assessed in the light of the Commission's own view on the economic situation and outlook, but also of those provided by other international and private entities.

A comprehensive study of the track record of the Commission forecasts is, however, available as an Economic Paper of the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, published in October 1999: http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/economic_papers/economicpapers137_en.htm

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3692/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: St Vincent and the Grenadines

With regard to St Vincent and the Grenadines, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.