ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Cause of the wreck of the Prestige

According to a report in Lloyd's List of 25 November 2002, on the same day as the tanker the Prestige foundered, another ship in the same area had spilled its cargo of 200 17-metre long logs into the sea.

According to Lloyd's List, given the heavy seas that day, it is possible that the Prestige was hit by one or more logs, creating a hole in the ship's hull which caused it to founder.

Has the Commission examined the possibility that a previous shipwreck was also the cause of the wreck of the Prestige with all that that entails?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

On 13 November 2002, in the middle of a storm, the tanker Prestige, en route from Latvia to Singapore, requested emergency assistance after a large breach opened in its starboard hull. The crew later reported that the ship had started listing after what they described as a loud noise was heard, as if the tanker had hit a floating object.

Though aware of the article the Honourable Member is referring to, the Commission would stress that it is not for it to determine what caused the loss of the Prestige. That is a task for the competent authorities of the States concerned by the disaster.

The Commission is nonetheless following the investigation into the causes of the disaster very closely. Accordingly, it is involved as an observer in the ad hoc audit of the American Bureau of Shipping (the Prestige's classification society) being conducted by the International Association of Classification Societies. It is also in contact with the national authorities which have opened enquiries: the Bahamas, Spain and France.

With a view to the hearing which Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism intends to hold during March 2003, the Commission will send Parliament an interim report on the information it has on the accident.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2956/02

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Subject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China

In June, Spain requested application (pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96(1)) of the safeguard clause in respect of imported tinned mandarin-orange segments, since the Community market was being severely disrupted by imports from China.

At the beginning of September 2002 the Spanish authorities sent the Commission further information additional to what it had submitted in July concerning the serious state of affairs which has prevailed in the mandarin-orange market in recent months.

How does the Commission account for its inaction when according to Article 22 of the above regulation it is required, in a serious situation such as this, to adopt measures within three working days following receipt of notification?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

As the Honourable Member knows, safeguard measures vis-à-vis World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members (such as China) can only be imposed in acordance with WTO obligations. This means that the Community may only act in accordance with WTO rules in this field. One of these requirements is that it is the task of the Member States to present a file with sufficient information as to the nature and dimension of the trade disturbance, and of the serious impact on the relevant Community producers.

Unfortunately, the information presented by Spain up until now does not meet the high standards imposed by WTO and the Community's rules. The Commission is in close contact with Spain, highlighting aspects to be completed in order to fulfil these standards, and will expeditiously examine any additional information provided. The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission will not hesitate to proprose the appropriate action as soon as this is legally justified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Illegal immigration

Eleven months ago Greece and Turkey announced that they had reached an agreement on the co-ordination of measures and the return of illegal immigrants arriving in Greece from the Turkish coast. As part of this agreement the Greek Government purchased twelve entirely new patrol boats to improve patrollling of the Aegean. According to publications in the Greek press none of these vessels has become operational and they remain unused in storage, having been deemed unseaworthy. It should be pointed out that the maritime area of Lesbos (which covers a significant section of the Northern Aegean and from where thousands of illegal immigrants enter the EU every year) is patrolled by only two patrol boats, while a third vessel held by the Lesbos Port Authority is plagued by technical problems, which means that it is essentially not being used.

Will the Commission say what is the total amount of Community funds given to Greece over the last three years to upgrade its patrolling capability in the Aegean? Does it know what use the Greek authorities have made of these funds? Are Community funds being given to the prefectures of the Aegean islands to return illegal immigrants to Turkey and from there back to their countries of origin? Have the Greek authorities given it the full text of the Greek-Turkish agreement on the return of illegal immigrants? What is the total number of illegal immigrants returned by Greece to Turkey and from there to their countries of origin over the last eleven months? Is the Commission aware of the precise situation as regards the purchase of the twelve new vessels which are remaining unused? Does it have any information from the Greek authorities about whether they intend to purchase any other vessels?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The purchase of 10 patrol boats and related equipment for Greece was partly funded by the Interreg II programme, which contributed with EUR 9 340 000. According to information given by the Greek Ministry of National Economy all boats are in full operation and none have been taken out of service. On the contrary, the operating hours of each boat are reportedly very high. This is apparently also the case for the boats located in Lesbos.

The prefectures of the Aegean islands have not received Community funds available for migration management purposes in order to return illegal residents to Turkey.

The Greek authorities have not transmitted to the Commission the text of their readmission agreement with Turkey. This agreement is not yet in force since ratification by both parliaments is pending.

The Commission has no data available on the returns from Greece to Turkey for the last 11 months.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3879/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Launch of the trademark Made in Malaga

The trademark Hecho en Málaga (Made in Malaga) has been launched by a foundation and an association of young artists and craftsmen from Malaga province (Spain), with the objective of boosting sales of local craft products.

This initiative, which will provide a new impetus for the market in craft goods in the province, has recently been presented to the public. It includes measures aimed at creating a cultural base for the export of local artefacts to other regions of Spain and to European and world markets.

Can the Commission indicate what Community aids could be activated to benefit this initiative of the Malaga craft sector, with a view to consolidating its incipient launch and helping the province's young artists and craftsmen build their future while dedicating themselves to their artistic specialities?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The project the Honourable Member refers to could receive co-financing from the Structural Funds under the integrated operational programme for the region of Andalusia in the period 2000-2006.

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the choice of projects eligible for co-financing is a matter for the Member State and depends, in particular, on the selection criteria set out in the programming documents. It would be appropriate, therefore, to call on the foundation and the association of young artists and craftsmen promoting the project to seek information from the Dirección General de Fondos Europeos de la Consejería de Economía y Hacienda de la Junta de Andalucía, at the following address: Isla de la Cartuja, Edificio Torretriana, 5a planta, 41071 Seville.

At the same time, the Commission is providing funding for the Prodecom project under the Euromed Heritage II framework programme, which seeks to mobilise the potential of the Euro-Mediterranean artistic and craft cultural heritage by using the designation local culture product intended to make it easier for the quality and originality of craft products to be recognised. In the longer term, this initiative should facilitate the marketing of craft products in Europe and worldwide. The project is being coordinated by the Chambre des Beaux Arts de Méditerranée (59, rue Cambronne 75015 Paris mail to: ch.beaux.arts@wanadoo.fr).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Controls on the central meat market of Rendi in Athens

On Friday, 6 December, inspectors of the Veterinary Office completed their inspection of the central meat market of Rendi in Greece. A similar inspection had taken place from 14 to 17 January 2002. Will the Commission state the conclusions reached by the inspectors as regards the sanitary regulations in force in the meat market in question and say whether they are satisfied with the progress made in the construction of the new meat market which the Government had promised to build following the announcement of the results of the previous inspection?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The Food and Veterinary Office inspection mentioned was the FVO's third visit in 2002 to the Rendi central market.

Despite some improvements, many problems were found to persist. Work has not yet started on building a new market.

The FVO has sent the draft report to the Greek authorities, asking them to reply and indicate what corrective action is proposed. Once these comments have been received, the report will be finalised and, as usual, sent to the Parliament and posted on the website of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General (SANCO).

In view of the findings of the mission carried out in December 2002, the Commission staff and the Greek authorities held a meeting on 21 February 2003 to consider the situation at the Rendi central market. The Commission representatives stressed how important it was that the shortcomings found at the market be remedied as quickly as possible. The Greek authorities acknowledged the need to act and stated their intention that the situation should improve before the end of June 2003. A formal reply from the Greek authorities is expected before the end of April 2003, with a detailed timetable for corrective action taking account of the FVO recommendations. The Commission will decide on follow-up measures in the light of this reply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3628/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Construction of a museum in Rizari grove

Following a special arrangement made with the Greek Parliament by the Ministry of Culture, Rizari grove (which is one of the last green spaces left in the centre of Athens) has been conditionally transferred to the Goulandri Foundation (bypassing the prior decision by the Greek Council of State to the opposite effect) so that a museum of contemporary art can be built there.

Since this project exceeds 6 000 square metres, could the Commission say whether an environmental impact assessment and an authorisation of environmental conditions have been drawn up as required by Directive 97/11/EC(1)?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

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 Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), requires Member States to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Such projects are defined in Article 4, which refers to Annexes I and II to the Directive.

However, construction of museums does not appear in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC, which is therefore not applicable in this particular case. This is a matter for the Greek authorities, which alone are responsible for deciding what action to take with regard to the project in accordance with Greek law.

(1) OJ C 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/02

by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2002)

Subject: Application form for the EU Youth action programme

The aim of the EU Youth action programme is to promote European cooperation in the youth field.

1. Is the Commission aware that the application forms for this action programme containing the explanatory notes for Action 1 youth encounters are over 40 pages long?

2 Does it share the view that such a lengthy document represents a disproportionate level of bureaucracy and needlessly hampers the promotion of youth encounters since potential applicants are deterred by it from the outset?

3. What action does it intend to take to produce shorter and more user-friendly application forms in future?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The Youth Community action programme is managed by National Agencies in the 30 participating countries. The Commission provides guidelines and monitors the general implementation of the programme: it sets the priorities, targets and criteria, looks after the image of the programme and is responsible for follow-up and evaluation.

As far as the criteria, rules and procedures governing selection are concerned, in the context of this decentralised implementation the Commission has drawn up a User's Guide and standard grant application forms for each of the five programme actions, which are available on the website of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. The National Agencies may, to a degree, adapt these guidelines to the national circumstances of implementation.

As far as youth exchanges are concerned (Action 1), the standard application form for 2002 recommended by the Commission is thirteen pages long (including a one-page overview of the funding rules). The forms for the other programme actions are, on average, thirteen pages for the European Voluntary Service (Action 2), nine pages for Youth Initiatives (Action 3) and fifteen pages for Support Measures (Action 5).

Mindful of the need to strike the right balance between the capacities of potential Youth programme beneficiaries and the amount of information necessary to ensure sound financial management of projects cofinanced with Community funds, the Commission went to considerable lengths to simplify the User's Guide and the standard application forms when updating them in 2002. For example, a lump-sum system has generally been applied to all youth activities, thus simplifying the budgetary parts of the application forms.

As part of the updating of the forms for 2003, the Commission is continuing its efforts to make the forms simpler and more user-friendly while respecting the principles of sound financial management.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3560/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Proposed introduction of Article 23 in the Hong Kong legislation

In September 2002 the Hong Kong Government introduced controversial legislation known as Article 23. It seems that the proposed law was written under direct pressure from the People's Republic of China and is far more restrictive and severe than is required by the Basic Law. It appears that, if it were enacted, Hong Kong would have to ban any organisation that China considered a national security risk. All dissident groups including human rights groups, democracy activists, Catholics and Falun Gong, as well as individuals, would be affected. This is against Hong Kong's autonomy and the one country two systems principle. It seems that the proposed law would also place serious restrictions on Hong Kong's media with regard to publishing information relating to the Chinese Central Government in Beijing.

What information does the Commission have on this issue? What initiatives has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in order to prevent the implementation of Article 23? More generally, what initiatives has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to urge the Hong Kong Government to keep the one country two systems policy, which the Chinese authority promised to maintain in Hong Kong for 50 years after Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997, and to respect basic human rights and in particular freedom of speech, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Commission is following closely the consultative process launched by the Hong Kong Government on 24 September 2002 with a view to implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law.

The Commission appreciates the importance and political sensitivity of this issue in the global Chinese context. However, as the consultation document was drafted in general terms, it will only be possible to make an accurate assessment on its likely effects in relation to human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of religion, once the draft bill is submitted to the Legislative Council. This should take place in February 2003. Meanwhile, the Commission will monitor the issue and will encourage the Hong Kong Government to take the views of the Hong Kong population into account.

So far, the Commission is of the opinion, as expressed in its fifth annual report on Hong Kong adopted on 5 August 2002 that the One Country, Two Systems principle continues to work reasonably well, and that Hong Kong, in general, preserved its rule of law, human rights, civil liberties and free and open society.

However, the report also acknowledges that the actual implementation of these principles has given rise to some debate and uncertainty, notably in relation to Article 23. Therefore, the Commission will continue to follow further evolutions in this regard very closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Unusual characteristics of deficits

According to its answer to Written Question E-3043/02(1) the Commission only exercises budgetary control in the public sector as a whole and not in any of its specific components or sectors, which is obvious and was

implicit in the question. However, apart from not answering the question, which referred explicitly to the impact of this sectoral deficit on the overall public deficit, the Commission uses new concepts which raise new doubts.

Can the Commission therefore clarify what it means by the indication of unusual characteristics likely to compromise compliance with overall budgetary objectives?

Can it also clarify what the threshold is for considering extra-budgetary expenditure unusual?

The Commission also claims that the above-mentioned deficit apparently results from the system of public accounts and not from the national accounting system based on the 1995 ESA, but it does not explain what the value of the deficit is, calculated according to the national accounting system to which it refers.

It is advisable to bear in mind that it is the supervisory body, and not the questioner, who is responsible for carrying out any accounting conversion it considers necessary.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 78.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

In his written question, the Honourable Member explicitly refers to the Commission's answer to his previous written question E-3043/02.

In the written answer to question E-3043/02, the Commission stated that the focus of the Commission budgetary surveillance is the general government sector as a whole and not any of its constituent units or sectors in particular, unless the latter display uncommon features that might risk compliance of the general government sector with overall budgetary targets. The Honourable Member asks the Commission to clarify the meaning of uncommon features. As the Honourable Member knows, the structure of the general government varies considerably between Member States (e.g. some Members have a federal structure, others autonomous regions with considerable powers, etc.). Therefore, it is impossible to provide a general definition of the expression uncommon features. However, in the context of budgetary surveillance, the Commission has to pay particular attention to any development at the level of a constituent unit or sector of the general government that could ultimately endanger compliance with the budgetary target set for the general government as a whole, or render it altogether more complicated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/02

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

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Zimbabwe

With regard to Zimbabwe, can the Commission supply a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001, specifying the total amount of investment for that year?

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.