ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/220

(2004/C 70 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3108/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Subsidies

Can the Commission state whether it provides financial and/or other support to the following organisations, who say they are engaged in the fight against racism?

If it does, can it also provide details, for each organisation, of the sums involved for each of the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and, if possible, 2003?

Under which programmes have subsidies been granted to these organisations:

— Searchlight (UK);

— Commission for Racial Equality, CRE (UK);

— Liga voor Mensenrechten (Flanders, Belgium);

— Mouvement contre le Racisme, l'Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie, MRAX (Belgium);

— Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en Racismebestrijding (Belgium);

— Antifascistische Onderzoeksgroep Kafka (Netherlands);

— Ras l'Front (France);

— SOS Racisme (France);

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

None of the eight organisations listed is in receipt of direct financial support from Community funds. Under the Community Programme to Combat Discrimination 2001-2006, some of these organisations are currently or have been in the past, partners in transnational projects, which are coordinated and managed by other organisations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/130

(2004/C 70 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: OLAF investigation into Eurostat

On 8 July 2002, OLAF issued a press release entitled ‘OLAF investigation into Eurostat’ (OLAF/06/02) in which it stated that it had on that date forwarded to the State Prosecutor of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg information it had gathered during two enquiries into matters liable to result in criminal proceedings concerning possible fraud relating to contracts concluded between Eurostat — the Statistical Office of the European Communities — and private companies. OLAF had conducted the two enquiries as part of a series of investigations into Eurostat.

Could the Commission clearly state whether:

— it has any news concerning the activities of the State Prosecutor of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in respect of the information gathered by OLAF and forwarded on 8 July 2002, which is to say what, if any, measures have been taken in respect of officials and/or companies;

— the investigation involved persons and/or companies who were also involved in the investigation referred to in letter No 003411 of 18 March 2003 from the Director-General of OLAF to the Paris Public Prosecutor (Reference CMS No 10120021510);

— the ‘series of investigations’ in progress on 8 July 2002 included the enquiry that led OLAF to forward information to the French authorities on 18 March 2003, or in other words, is OLAF still conducting investigations into Eurostat?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission was informed by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) that following the transmission to the Luxembourg judicial authorities on 8 July 2002 of information relating to two enquiries, two investigations were started into two private Luxembourg companies in connection with Eurostat. One judge is currently carrying out the two investigations, which are covered by confidentiality of judicial proceedings.

The file relating to a French company based in Paris sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor on 19 March 2003 is completely separate from the two files sent to Luxembourg.

The file sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor was part of the ‘series of investigations’ into Eurostat which were in progress on 8 July 2002. OLAF is currently carrying out other enquiries into Eurostat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/31

(2004/C 70 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Motorola Computer Group and Wordsworth Technologies Ltd and price fixing

I have received a letter regarding Motorola UK who have refused to accept purchase orders from Wordsworth Technology Ltd. They believe that they are being cut out because they have identified a price fixing scam run by the Motorola Computer Group. They have tried to source parts from Germany, but feel they were prevented from doing so by Motorola, and their current source in Hong Kong is under the same threat.

It is my understanding that Wordsworth Technologies had made a complaint to the European Commission in January 1999 regarding Motorola's price fixing, squeezing Wordsworth out of the market.

Has there been any progress in investigating this complaint and if so what has the outcome been?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission opened an investigation into the distribution arrangements of Motorola Computer Group (a business division of Motorola Inc) for certain of its products with a view to ascertaining whether these arrangements were in accordance with Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This investigation was opened after the Commission had received a complaint by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd in January 1999.

The Commission has been investigating this complaint by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd actively. It has sent a very significant number of formal requests for information to Motorola Computer Group, its distributors and customers as well as Wordsworth Technologies Ltd, in order to be in a position to analyse all facts in their proper economic and legal context. It has also held various meetings with the parties in this case, including Wordsworth Technologies Ltd.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that Motorola Computer Group has introduced various modifications to its distribution arrangements as a direct result of the Commission's investigations in this case.

The Commission is currently elaborating its final analysis of all the issues that were raised by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd. This analysis will not only take account of the issues that Wordsworth Technologies Ltd raised in its initial complaint but also of those raised in later correspondence, including those the Honourable Member is referring to, which were actually only brought to the Commission's attention late in 2002.

The Commission is confident that it can inform Wordsworth Technologies Ltd in the near future about the Commission's position in this case. Wordsworth Technologies Ltd will then be given an opportunity to comment upon this position.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/192

(2004/C 70 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3068/03

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Funding of bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe

According to my sources, following the entry into force, on 1 January 2003, of the new Financial Regulation applicable to all the European institutions (Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (1)) and its implementing procedures, the operating subsidies hitherto granted to bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe will henceforth be awarded on the basis of a new procedure. Instead of receiving automatic funding, these information centres will be required to take part in an invitation-to-tender procedure, failing which they will not be eligible for subsidies.

In addition to the operating subsidies, the bodies in question also received logistical support, such as supplies of publications, access to the ‘relays and networks Intranet’, back-up from the relays and networks helpdesk, in the form of documentary and technical assistance, from the meeting of relay heads, etc. It has been decided that bodies which submit an appropriate request will continue to receive this logistical support, on a temporary basis, in 2004.

This new procedure, which is intended to increase transparency in connection with the award of funding, raises three questions to which the European Commission alluded without providing a detailed answer:

— What criteria will be used to select the bodies which respond to the invitations to tender?

— Will the logistical support measures continue after 2004?

— In more general terms, the European Commission is now considering new forms of cooperation which will ensure that information is readily available to the public locally, whilst complying with the new rules laid down in the above-mentioned Financial Regulation. Can the Commission be more precise on this point?

(1) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/253

(2004/C 70 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3308/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Museum of Europe

In 2006, the ‘Museum of Europe’ (run by a non-profit-making association) is scheduled to open. The European Parliament has made premises available for it. The cost of setting up the museum is estimated at EUR 22,5 m. Various bodies have promised support, including the Belgian Government and a number of private enterprises. The European institutions are also planning to provide support.

What is the estimated amount of support to be provided by the Commission and other European institutions for the setting-up of the museum? What financial support is planned for the museum's annual operating costs after 2006?

Who are the members of the museum's management bodies (Board of Directors, Management Committee, Accessions Committee, etc.)? What criteria apply to their selection?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission has not contributed financially to setting up the Museum of Europe, and it cannot say whether the other European institutions have contributed.

There are no plans to fund the Museum of Europe's operating costs in 2006.

The Commission is not involved in selecting or appointing the members of the Museum of Europe's administration. It would therefore ask the Honourable Member to contact the Museum of Europe directly for further information.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/195

(2004/C 70 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Europe Houses

The concept of democratic deficit is used mainly to highlight how the European Union suffers from a lack of democracy and appears inaccessible to citizens as a result of the complex way in which it functions. It conveys the feeling that the Community's institutional system is still rather opaque to the uninitiated.

One of the tasks assigned to the Europe Houses on their founding was to dissipate this idea of the distance and inaccessibility of the Community's institutions. Their primary aim was to strive to bring the European people and the institutions closer together by providing information and removing the air of mystery surrounding the working of the Community.

It cannot be denied that, in this sense, they perform this role most worthily on a daily basis, displaying competence and energy. I was all the more amazed to discover, therefore, that the Commission is preparing simply to withdraw their operating grant for 2004, with notice given on 29 September. Aside from the organisational difficulties this cut will bring (particularly with regard to the employment of convinced young Europeans who have invested for years in this great enterprise), thought must also be given to the impact on the European Union's image. As the EU debates its future Constitution (and the procedures for its entry into force) and prepares to welcome 10 new members (whose accession is sometimes a cause of worry among citizens) and Europeans are called upon once again to express their opinions in the European elections next June (and we are all aware of how difficult it is to persuade voters to take part in this ballot), the European Commission is suddenly washing its hands of the EU's largest information network in the Member States.

As the reasons behind this decision are difficult to grasp, can the Commission shed some light on the matter?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/35

(2004/C 70 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Safety of crash barriers

A report by FEMA, the Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations, indicates that somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of fatal accidents involving motorcyclists are attributable to crash barriers. Associations representing motorcyclists say that safe crash barriers could significantly reduce the number of deaths. Although many safe crash barrier systems have now been developed, there are still no new European regulations on safety requirements for crash barriers.

Can the Commission say whether it is thinking of introducing European safety requirements for crash barriers?

What are its plans?

What is the timetable?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question E-3226/02 by Mrs Villiers (1).

(1) See page 10.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/195

(2004/C 70 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/03

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: Info-points Europe

A message has recently been sent to the various Info-points Europe informing them that they were to lose European subsidies.

The Info-points Europe were set up to enable members of the public to obtain information about Europe.

The withdrawal of subsidies manifestly conflicts with the new information strategy adopted in 2002. The Commission seems to take the view that the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 1 January 2003 is a sufficient condition for this withdrawal.

What financial support systems does the Commission propose to introduce?

Are any other measures planned to enable these bodies to operate?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/237

(2004/C 70 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3215/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Clinical Trials Directive

1. With regard to the transposition of Directive 2001/20/EC (1), the provisions of which must be in place by 1 May 2004, will the Commission confirm whether certain Member States are seeking exemptions for non-commercial clinical trials?

2. Will the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by the UK Government to seek such an exemption?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3209/03 and E-3215/03

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The concerns regarding potential hurdles to research have been taken on board and were discussed during a Pharmaceutical Committee meeting held on 15 May 2003 between Member States and the Commission.

The Commission and Member States discussed the responsibilities of the Member States to take into consideration the recommendation given in Directive 2001/20/EC (2), recital 14, for non-commercial trial.

It is clearly not the intention of the Commission that the implementation of the clinical trials directive in national law should have a prohibitive effect on prospects for European research.

On the contrary, it is the intention of the Commission to strengthen a European clinical trials environment in the interests of the European Research Area and the European citizens as stated in the G 10 recommendations.

The Commission understands the researchers' concerns but has at this stage no intention to propose a modification to Directive 2001/20/EC.

The Commission is currently working together with the Member States in the preparation of the implementing guidelines of this Directive. We are therefore confident that most of these concerns will be addressed during this preparation.

(1) OJ L 121, 1.5.2001, p. 34.

(2) Directive 2001/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, OJ L 121, 1.5.2001.
1.

On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates of VAT (1). Since the Commission's aim was to improve the operation of the internal market it was important to give all Member States the same rights in deciding whether they applied reduced rates, and for the same sectors. The proposal for a Directive does not provide for reduced rates for labour-intensive services as such. In its evaluation report on the experiment with reduced rates for such services (2), the Commission concluded that, from the information supplied by the Member States and given the limitations of the methods of analysis used, it was not possible to find solid evidence of such reductions either boosting job creation or having an impact on the black economy. For the purposes of this report the Commission used its QUEST macro-economic model to carry out a an analysis of the effects of a reduced rate of VAT compared with the effects of reduced labour charges. The results showed that even in the most favourable hypothesis, namely that the entire reduction of VAT rates was passed on in domestic prices, a reduction in charges on labour creates 52 % more jobs, calculated for the EU as a whole, for the same budgetary cost. However, it should be noted that some sectors currently covered by the experiment (work on private housing and home care services) have been included in Annex H because many Member States already apply reduced rates or exemptions for these services under specific derogations which they have been granted. This is not the case for small repairs and hairdressing, since only a minority of Member States currently apply reduced rates to those services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/618

(2004/C 78 E/0654)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: European Union/Morocco agreement

The Council of Ministers for Agriculture, meeting in March and December 1997, stressed ‘the importance of taking account, when defining the Community position in negotiations with third countries, of the characteristics of the Community agricultural market and of the socio-economic repercussions of the proposed concessions on that market, as well as of the need to develop a consistent overall strategy on the subject’, and they encouraged ‘the Commission to conduct regular analyses of the situation regarding trade in agricultural products and in particular of the impact of preferential arrangements for imports of such products into the Community. They stressed'the need to have available, before the adoption of negotiating directives or autonomous measures involving concessions on agricultural products, an analysis of the impact of the concessions liable to be granted to third countries or groups of third countries as well as of the advantages which could result for the European Union’.

Has the Commission carried out the impact studies called for by the Council in order to define the Community position in negotiations with Morocco? Will it forward them to Parliament? What is the scheduled timetable for submitting the regular impact studies on the association agreement with Morocco called for by the Council?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3645/03 and E-3646/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Within the recent agreement with Morocco on the import of agricultural products, quotas have been determined on the basis of traditional patterns on flows. Morocco has exceeded the quota fixed in the Association Agreement for the export of courgettes. However, this has caused no disturbances in the Community market, nor has any operator or country presented complaints. Moreover, the relevant data has been regularly supplied to the Management Committee of Fruit and Vegetables. Therefore, the Commission did not deem it necessary to take action as there is no case for fraud or other misgivings, the excess import quotas being the result of an increased demand for courgettes in the Community.

An impact study was conducted in 1997. In 2002, the Council formally asked the Commission to produce another study on the impact of the liberalisation of the Mediterranean agricultural products on the bilateral negotiations on agriculture. A reference to this study has been included in the conclusions of the meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs which took place in Naples on 2/3 December 2003. This study has been finalised recently and is available on (www.femise.org).

The Commission is perfectly aware of the particular sensitivities linked to the Mediterranean products. For this reason, it informs the players involved at regular intervals, in the context of the various Management and Consultative committees and through the different Council working groups.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/719

(2004/C 84 E/0808)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds to support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1040/03 and E-1046/03

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipalities of Perugia and Terni.

In particular, the Honourable Member asks whether the municipalities of Perugia and Terni have submitted projects for the Leader+ programme, whether these municipalities have obtained funding for their projects and whether this funding has been used.

The documents in the Commission's possession show that the municipalities of Perugia and Terni form part of the territory participating in the Leader+ CIP for Umbria, which the Commission approved by its Decision C(2001) 3489 of 7 November 2001. The Umbria region has recently selected the Local Action Groups which will take part in the Leader+ programme. The municipalities of Perugia and Terni are thus among the possible beneficiaries of the LAGs actions, but no project has received any funding yet.

It should be noted that the Commission does not decide on specific projects or on the selection of the LAGs. It decides to contribute to a programme which includes criteria for selecting the groups using procedures which will guarantee the proper Leader approach. The final selection of the groups is made by the Member State or regional authority responsible, whereas the projects part-financed are selected by the LAGs in accordance with the conditions laid down in the programme.

As a result, the ‘Assessorato all'Agricoltura’ of the Umbria region, the body responsible for managing the programme, could provide information on the various beneficiaries, on the submission deadlines for invitations to tender planned by the Region and, more specifically, on the municipalities of Perugia and Terni.