ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3247/02

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Aftermath of the earthquake in Molise

On 31 October 2002, the Molise region was struck by a violent earthquake measuring eight on the Mercalli scale, which had its epicentre in the area north-east of Campobasso and was felt throughout the region.

Twenty-nine people died as a result of the earthquake, and hundreds were injured. In many municipalities there was also serious damage to homes, business premises and public facilities. In some municipalities around 80 % of the built surface area was destroyed.

The damage caused by the earthquake will inevitably impact on the economy of the entire region. Many families have found themselves homeless and having to disburse huge sums, while large numbers of family-run firms and various facilities have been destroyed and it will take many years to restore the villages and the activities carried on there to normal.

Considering that a state of calamity and emergency has been declared in the region, and in view of the serious economic repercussions confronting the local population, does the Commission feel that the circumstances dictate that Molise should be granted the benefits applicable to an Objective One region?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is informed that Molise, classed as an Objective 1 region (transitional support) for the 2000-2006 period, already enjoys the same opportunities as the other Objective 1 regions. An Operational Programme for EUR 605 million (Community contribution EUR 115 million) is helping promote sustainable economic development. One of its measures is concerned with restoring agricultural production potential affected by natural disasters and putting suitable means of prevention in place.

The provisions on aid from the EAGGF also include the possibility in the rural development framework of a measure for renovation and development of villages and rural heritage conservation.

The Commission is prepared to examine any proposal from the regional and national authorities for adjustment of the Operational Programme in progress in order to concentrate available resources on existing or new measures that will help overcome certain problems following the earthquake.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Questions E-3258/02 by Mrs Muscardini and Mrs Poli and E-3434/02 by Mrs Angelilli(1), which indicates the various Community-level measures that can be brought into play when natural disasters occur and the conditions under which they apply.

(1) See page 78.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2964/02

by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Council

(15 October 2002)

Subject: Forest Focus

As the Council is aware, the Commission recently brought forward a proposal for a new scheme to be known as Forest Focus to protect Europe's forests and to develop an awareness of the importance of forests to our environment. Forests in the EU cover 36 % of the EU's total landmass. Has the Council considered this proposal which is backed by the European Parliament and what assurances can it give that countries such as Ireland will be able to benefit from this programme?

Reply

(4 March 2003)

As the Honourable Member points out, the purpose of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) is to establish a new Community scheme on monitoring of forests and environmental interactions to protect the Community's forests.

The scheme would be based on the results obtained from two Council Regulations on monitoring the impact of atmospheric pollution and fires on forest ecosystems, which expire at the end of 2002. The Council is aware of the importance and the urgency of the matter and has already held five working party meetings: on 24 July, 12 September, 1 October, 10 October and 4 November 2002. A further two working party meetings were scheduled for November.

At its meeting on 9/10 December, the Council took note of a progress report on the latest work concerning the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community. On this occasion, the President welcomed the very substantial progress that had been made on the dossier. He called upon the Permanent Representatives Committee to continue its efforts towards reaching a final agreement, if possible at first reading, during the incoming Greek Presidency in early 2003, pending the European Parliament's opinion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3291/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2002)

Subject: US visa requirements for Greek citizens

Nationals of all EU Member States apart from Greece are entitled to travel to the US without a visa. In reply to my question H-0428/99(1), the Council indicated that the US Attorney General had approved the inclusion of Greece in the Visa Waiver Pilot Programme which currently includes all other EU Member States and that meetings with Greece at expert level are now being held for this purpose.

In view of developments regarding the November 17 organisation whose activities in Greece were the principle reason for the US decision to impose visa requirements on Greece alone among the EU Member States:

1. Can the Commission say what progress has been made by at the meetings of experts?

2. In view of the above developments, is it in a position to make direct representations to the US authorities with a view to ending discrimination against a European Union Member State?

(1) Oral reply of 15.9.1999.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Commission is aware that reciprocity with regard to visas raises a number of issues, including the one referred to by the Honourable Member.

In the proposal amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001(1) which it adopted on 28 November 2002(2), the Commission states that it intends to examine in depth the purpose and scope of the principle of reciprocity where visa policy is concerned and that it plans to present a report to Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2003.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

(2) COM(2002) 679 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3862/02

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Funding of a hydroelectric plant at Anilio in the Prefecture of Ioannina

Lakmos Energy Ltd was allocated funding under the second CSF, in particular the Operational Programme for Energy of the Ministry of Development, to construct a small hydroelectric plant at Anilio in the Prefecture of Ioannina. However, work was interrupted when the one-member Court of the First Instance of Ioannina issued a court order, following an appeal lodged by the inhabitants of Anilio and the Municipality of Metsovo, who claim that environmental legislation is being violated. A definitive ruling by the district court of Metsovo is still pending, but the project has already been entered in the third CSF, notably the Operational Programme for Competitiveness.

Will the Commission say by what precise procedure (invitation to tender or other) the project was entered in the second and third CSF, what is its overall budget, how funds have been distributed between the two CSFs and what is the precise percentage of Community, national and private funding for this project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Following a call for tenders launched under the Efficient use of energy aid scheme approved by the Commission, the investment project to which the Honourable Member refers was included in the Energy operational programme of the 1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece. The total contractual cost was GRD 388 million, of which 54 % was to be provided by the investor, 23 % by the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 23 % by the State.

The opening of judicial enquiries entailed the suspension of work on the project. The relevant national authorities were informed that the project would be deleted from the programme in preparation for its closure by the Commission.

Greece has not yet asked the Commission for the financial closure of this programme. Under the Community rules on assistance in the period 1994-1999, the Commission must receive the details required for closure by 31 March 2003.

The project promoter has submitted a new proposal following a call for tenders launched under a new aid scheme Encouraging private investment in energy, which was also approved by the Commission. That aid scheme is part-financed under the Competitiveness operational programme of Greece's Community support framework for 2000-2006. The total cost of the proposal amounted to EUR 406 134, of which 60 % was to be provided by the investor, 20 % by the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 20 % by the State.

According to the information received by the relevant national authorities, the project has not yet been included in the operational programme in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3809/02

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Procedure for appointing senior Commission officials

On 30 July 2002 the Commission published a notice of vacancy (COM/122/02) for the post of director of security(1).

Under the selection procedure for this vacancy, the successful candidate may be chosen either from among the Commission's existing staff or by a procedure other than the competition procedure.

Can the Commission state the grounds on which it has decided, in this case, simultaneously to open the procedure provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, given that in the past the procedure for A2 posts has always been to examine internal applications first and to consider external applications only if no internal candidate is found suitable?

Does the Commission not consider that this decision sets a precedent running counter to both the legitimate expectations of officials as regards career questions and the obligation to practise sound and properly-balanced human resources management?

(1) OJ C 181, 30.7.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

1. Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations allows for the publication of grade A1 or A2 posts outside the Institutions. The Commission has, from time to time, published vacancies externally, particularly for positions that require specific qualifications and/or in order to encourage a wide spectrum of applicants.

The post of Director for Security is obviously a very specialised function with a distinctive profile. It therefore necessitates both specific expertise and related experience.

2. Recognising those realities, in this precise case the Commission considered it appropriate to publish the post both internally and externally in order to save time. The aim of this decision was also to attract the largest possible number of candidates from a variety of backgrounds who would meet the necessary relevant qualifications. The fact that 39 applications were received demonstrates, in the view of the Commission, that this was an appropriate strategy.

3. The Commission does not consider that this procedure constitutes a practice which will jeopardise the legitimate career expectations of European officials. The procedure used does not adversely affect the chances of existing officials to be successful for such a position, particularly since such parallel publication enables officials who do possess the appropriate profile for the post concerned, but lack the necessary seniority within the terms of the internal publication, to apply for the post.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2896/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Tobacco smuggling

Tobacco smuggling is on the increase, and governments are being cheated of large amounts of tax revenue. The World Health Organisation even says that it knows that the tobacco industry is encouraging the continuation of tobacco smuggling.

How many illegal cigarettes are sold in the EU each year? What value does this trade represent?

How many illegal cigarettes are sold in Belgium each year? What value does this trade represent?

What is the EU doing to reduce tobacco smuggling?

What does the Commission see as being the tobacco industry's role in tobacco smuggling? Does the Commission agree with the WTO that the tobacco industry is encouraging the continuation of smuggling?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

It is impossible to state how many illegal cigarettes are sold in the Union each year. However, the Commission is able to provide figures for recent years of the seizure of cigarettes smuggled into the Union, which were obtained from customs authorities in the Member States. This may give an indication of the problem, given that the customs authorities of the Member States are unable to detect and seize all cigarettes smuggled into their territories. For the same reasons, it is impossible to state how many illegal cigarettes are sold in Belgium each year. However, the Commission is able to provide figures for recent years of the seizure of cigarettes smuggled into Belgium. These figures are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In an attempt to reduce tobacco smuggling, the Community, along with the Member States, created a Task Group Cigarettes in 1995. At present, the Task Group is comprised of ten full time officials at the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), as well as officials in the relevant services of all of the Member States. The Community and ten Member States also commenced a legal action in November 2000 in a United States Federal Court against three cigarette manufacturers for, inter alia, smuggling of cigarettes into the Union. The Community, through OLAF, has also developed strong ties with authorities in the applicant countries in its fight against cigarette smuggling.

The Commission, along with the Member States, is currently in the process of negotiating an International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control under the auspices of the World Health Organisation (WHO). One of the issues to be included in the Convention is defining measures to combat illicit trade in tobacco products. It is essential to address this issue also in the context of a global tobacco control convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3355/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Ban on concluding public contracts with media companies

A new law adopted by the Greek Parliament (No. 3021, Greek Government Gazette 19/0672002) prohibits the conclusion of public contracts with natural or legal persons who are primary shareholders in media companies. The same law defines a primary shareholder as anyone holding as little as 5 % of the total share capital of a media company.

Given the difficulty of identifying primary shareholders at both Community and international level, will the Commission say:

- whether the new law is consistent with Community law and to what extent it infringes the principle of equality as a general principle of law in view of the fact that it will not be possible to scrutinise either companies with registered offices in a Member State or off-shore companies as opposed to domestic companies,

- whether the Member States are required to cooperate with the corresponding national authorities in identifying primary shareholders (provide information, carry out inquiries, etc), especially when no corresponding scrutiny is provided for in their national legislation,

- whether any delay in carrying out checks on Community companies constitutes an infringement of the principle of equality and discrimination against them in relation to domestic companies, and to what extent it is practicable and legally valid to preclude Community companies from concluding public contracts if it is impossible to scrutinise them effectively?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

Following the written question (P-1666/02) asked by the Honourable Member on this topic, the Commission obtained the text of the Greek law in question.

The Commission is in the process of analysing this law.

If necessary, the Commission will contact Greece in order to obtain any information it requires to complete its analysis.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3922/02

by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Applicability of the European Union Solidarity Fund for tackling disasters

Under the terms of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2002 the creation of a European Union Solidarity Fund was recently approved (Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002(1)), in order to enable the Community to respond rapidly, efficiently and flexibly to emergency situations. According to the third paragraph of Article 2(2) of the Regulation, 7,5 % of the annual amount available to the Fund may be allocated to a region affected by an extraordinary disaster, mainly a natural one, affecting the major part of its population, with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region.

Apart from compliance with the terms of the Regulation and provided that the budgetary authority has adopted the relevant decision, are there any other conditions determining whether the envisaged funding may be used to assist those affected and to rehabilitate an area hit by a disaster?

Might the creation of a committee of inquiry set up in accordance with Rule 151 of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure to investigate a disaster in any way hinder the implementation of assistance once Parliament and the Council have formally approved the use of the Solidarity Fund?

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Barnier au nom de la Commission

(5 February 2003)

The principal aim of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is to give immediate financial assistance in the event of a major disaster to help people, regions and countries concerned to return to living conditions that are as normal as possible.

The EUSF Regulation(1) sets out the modalities for the operation of the Solidarity Fund, which must be respected by the Commission in its implementation.

In relation to the involvement of the Parliament regarding the EUSF, the Commission will present before 1 July 2003 to the Parliament and to the Council a report on the activities of the Solidarity Fund in the previous year. This report shall in particular contain information relating to Articles 3, 4 and 8.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of the 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2119/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Identity checks at Malpensa airport

At Malpensa airport in the last few days the State police have reintroduced controls in addition to the procedures for checking identity already introduced by the airlines, even for the Schengen area. The controls make no distinction between Schengen and other passengers and consist in people being physically stopped and each individual passport etc being checked, as well as the boarding card. Have the European authorities been notified about this suspension of the Schengen Agreements?

Supplementary answerby Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Article 2(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which has been incorporated into European Union law, provides that internal borders may be crossed at any point without checks on persons being carried out purely on the ground that an internal border has been crossed.

Article 2(2) provides that checks may be reintroduced for a limited period at internal borders where there is a threat to the public policy or national security of a Member State.

Article 2(3) provides that abolition of checks on persons at internal borders must not affect the exercise of police powers under national law throughout the territory of the Member State concerned, including therefore at airports.

According to the information received from the Italian authorities, they have not invoked the safeguard clause under Article 2(2) but have carried out controls under Article 2(3).

Provided that the controls to which the Honourable Member's question refers are aimed at checking travellers' boarding cards against their identity documents at various places in the airport, such as metal detector checkpoints and departure gates, for security reasons following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, they may be considered as controls carried out in accordance with Article 2(3).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/02

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 in the ensuing financial year for each year of the last ten years?

2. Will the Commission also show the subsequent outturn, and compute for each Member State an average difference between forecast and outturn?

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.