ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1095/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of Macerata

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 Macerata, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the City of Frosinone

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 City of Frosinone, 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 City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Frosinone and whether that municipality submitted projects under the Leader+ programme, whether it obtained finance for those projects and whether those funds were used.

The documents in the Commission's possession show that the municipality of Frosinone is not included in the territory participating in the Leader+ CIP for Lazio, which the Commission approved by its Decision C(2001) 3626 of 26 November 2001.

As a result, Frosinone could neither submit projects nor obtain finance under the Leader+ programme for Lazio.

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 on the basis of procedures which guarantee the Leader approach. The final selection of the groups and projects part-financed is made by the Member State or the regional authority responsible in accordance with the conditions laid down in the programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1096/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0358/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council. Iraq.



Official Journal 280 E , 21/11/2003 P. 0051 - 0051



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0358/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council (12 February 2003) Subject: Iraq Were the Presidency, the High Representative and the Prime Ministers of all existing and candidate states consulted or even informed before the publication on 30 January of the letter from eight European leaders calling on Europe to rally behind the US over Iraq? If not, why not? Reply (21 July 2003) The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the statement made on this subject by the Presidency, on behalf of the Council, at the plenary part-session in Strasbourg in March 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0232/03

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: End-of-Life Vehicles Directive

Is the Commission aware of the problems Member States are experiencing in disposing of the ever-increasing numbers of cars being dumped as a result of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive? What is the Commission doing to ease the financial and practical burden of disposing of these vehicles that has fallen upon ordinary farmers as a result of the legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

There is no evidence to suggest that Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles(1) (ELVs) is responsible for an increase in the number of cars being dumped. On the contrary, the Directive contains provisions which are specifically intended to combat the illegal dumping of ELVs. In particular, the Directive specifies that, from 21 April 2002, vehicles may only be deregistered following the presentation of a certificate of destruction, which may only be issued by licensed treatment centres. Moreover, the problem of dumped cars existed before the entry into force of this Directive. For example, the United Kingdom's (UK) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) estimates that up to 350 000 vehicles were abandoned in the UK in 2000.

The ELV Directive specifically requires Member States to establish systems to finance the collection and treatment of ELVs. The Directive establishes the principle that the last owner should be able to dispose of an ELV free of charge, while requiring that manufacturers meet all or a significant part of the cost of implementing this measure. This applies from 1 July 2002 for vehicles put on the market after this date. For vehicles placed on the market before this date, the Directive requires that manufacturers meet this cost from 1 January 2007. The Directive does not specify how it should be met until 31 December 2006.

It is therefore the responsibility of Member States to implement the most appropriate system to finance the collection of ELVs in the intervening period, including measures to ensure that farmers are not negatively affected.

Legislation providing for free take-back systems for old cars is already in place, for example, in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden.

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2295/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: EU funded projects

Will the Commission list the projects for which EU funds (including any EIB loans) were committed, and for which funds were disbursed, during the last financial year in Hampshire/Kent/Surrey/W Sussex/E Sussex/Isle of Wight/Oxfordshire/Berkshire/Buckinghamshire?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(7 April 2003)

Subject: The Olivença issue (Portugal/Spain) and of the Ajuda Bridge

The Olivença issue is, briefly, as follows:

- By the Treaty of Alcanizes, signed in 1297 by Dom Dinis, King of Portugal, and Fernando IV, King of Castille, Olivença was definitively integrated into Portuguese territory, and remained so following the end of the Dynastic Union between Portugal and Spain (1580-1640). On 20 May 1801, Spanish troops occupied Olivença. On 6 June 1801, in the face of a threatened French invasion,

Portugal was coerced by the Treaty of Badajoz into ceding Olivença to Spain. The Spanish invasion of Portugal in 1807, in violation of the Treaty, led to its annulment. The Treaty of Paris of 30 May 1814 declared the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz null and void. The Final Act of the Vienna Congress (9 June 1815), Article 105, recognised the rights of Portugal. On 7 May 1817, Spain signed the Treaty of Vienna, recognising the just claims made His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent of Portugal and Brazil, to the town of Olivença and the other territories ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Badajoz of 1801, and thereby undertook to make its best efforts to ensure that these territories were handed over (in the shortest time possible) to Portugal.

- To this day, the frontier between Portugal and Spain from the mouth of the river Caia to the mouth of the river Cuncos is still undefined, thanks to the Olivença issue.

- To come to details, in 1709, following the War of the Spanish Succession, the Bridge of Olivença or of Our Lady of Help the Ajuda bridge, was destroyed by Spanish forces.

- On 11 March 2003, with a view to rebuilding the bridge, on the initiative of Spain, work began on earth-moving operations on the left bank of the Guadiana, which is Portuguese territory administered de facto by Spain. This led to the Portuguese Foreign Minister's office requesting an explanation from the Spanish Minister. More recently, the Spanish project reached the right bank of the Guadiana (Elvas local authority), located on Portuguese territory de jure and de facto.

Can the Council answer the following:

- Does it have a position on the Olivença issue?

- If not, how does it assess the issue from a legal point of view?

- What parallels does it draw with the Gibraltar issue, repeatedly raised by Spain?

- Does it intend to take steps to help resolve the problem?

- How does the Council view a Member State which fails to meet international legal obligations repeatedly given to another Member State?

- With regard to the Ajuda Bridge, could the Council consider intervening with a view to putting a stop to this Spanish initiative?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Honourable Member should note that the Council has never broached this subject, as it does not come within the Council's purview.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0164/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(24 January 2003)

Subject: Competition between banks

Most Italian banks impose hefty charges on account holders (EUR 100 or more) if they decide to close a current account. Charges are higher still in the case of transfers of securities (even intangible ones).

Charges are also due if a client chooses to withdraw his custom in response to a unilateral decision on the part of the bank to alter the conditions applicable in a way which is disadvantageous to the client.

This obviously complicates any decision to switch to a rival bank, since the financial factors to be weighed up include not only the terms and conditions offered by the second bank but also the hefty charges imposed by the first.

The fact that the amount of these departure taxes varies greatly according to the bank concerned suggests, furthermore, that the amount is not related to the cost of providing an actual service but is intended as a means of discouraging clients from withdrawing their custom.

Is such a practice to be regarded as being in accordance with the rules on free competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Under Union competition law, prices cannot be fixed in a concerted manner, that is by agreement, decision or concerted practices between undertakings (Article 81 of the EC Treaty). For any intervention under Article 81, an allegation of collusive behaviour would need to be substantiated with evidence. The indication in the written question by the Honourable Member that the amount of the charges varies greatly according to the bank concerned, seems to indicate that there is no such collusion.

Article 82 of the EC Treaty prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. In assessing possible dominance, account is taken of factors such as market share, the presence in the market of credible competitors and other aspects which may allow the firms involved to avoid competition. On the basis of the information available to the Commission, no individual bank has a dominant position on the market for current accounts in Italy. Given that allegedly most Italian banks are charging high fees for the closure of accounts, Article 82 might be applied if collective dominance could be established. However, the Commission has no elements to suggest that the majority of Italian banks do not compete amongst each other and are not exposed to actual or potential competition from others on the market for current accounts.

Furthermore, the Commission would point out that Community competition law applies where trade between Member States may be appreciably affected. It appears from the information provided that the competition issues are mainly related and confined to the Italian market; as a result the National Competition Authority (which for the banking sector is the Banca d'Italia) would seem to be better placed to assess the competition concerns raised in the question. The Commission has informed the Banca d'Italia of the concern raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Gerardo Galeote Quecedo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Release by the Netherlands authorities of Mullah Krekar

Is the Council aware that the Netherlands authorities have released Mullah Krekar, leader of the international Islamic organisation Ansar al-Islam?

Is the Council aware that Mullah Krekar, who was arrested at Amsterdam airport after being expelled from Iran is currently in Norway where he has refugee status?

Is the Council aware that the terrorist organisation headed by Mullah Krekar is said to have produced and tested chemical and biological weapons, including ricin, a lethal toxin for which there is currently no vaccine?

What action will the Council take to counteract Mullah Krekar's activities and prevent him from ever entering the European Union, thereby ensuring that in future he is unable to move around within the EU as he did in the years leading up to his arrest?

What action will it take to ensure that Norway keeps a watchful eye on the activities of Mullah Krekar's and his organisation, which seems to be recruiting many of the Al-Qa'ida members who escaped from Afghanistan?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member have not been referred to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Freedom of association in Romania

Following the reply of 27 June 2002 to my question E-1377/02(1), in which the Commission states that freedom of association is covered by the Copenhagen criteria, new developments have occurred in Romania. The Bucharest Court of Appeal has just confirmed the decision to refuse registration to Romania's first regional party, the Liga Transilvania-Banat. The Court stated, inter alia, that regionalism and subsidiarity are principles that run counter to the unitary and indivisible character of the Romanian state.

Is the banning of a democratic political party compatible with the spirit of the accession criteria defined in Copenhagen? Does the Council intend to ask the Romanian authorities for an explanation?

(1) OJ C 28, 6.2.2003, p. 100.

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council recalls to the Honourable Member that Article 49 of the EU Treaty provides that any European State which respects the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law may apply to become a member of the European Union. Therefore the Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. With regard to Romania, the Council notes that the Commission's 2002 Regular Report on Romania's progress towards accession concluded that, in general, Romania continued to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. The report also stated, more specifically, that The Romanian Constitution provides for the freedom of association and the freedom of assembly. Both of these rights are respected in practice.

The Council does not intend to comment on a specific ruling of a Romanian court, which, according to available information, can be further appealed both at other levels of the domestic judicial system and in relevant international fora such as the European Court of Human Rights. If it turns out that there has been a violation of the fundamental principles mentioned above, the European Union will, especially in the light of the Copenhagen criteria for accession, make the appropriate representations to the Romanian authorities, particularly within the framework of the bodies established by the European Agreement.