ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

As a general remark, the principle of the equality of charges for cross-border and corresponding national transfers, which is the subject of this question, is based on Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro (1). Given that the provisions of the Regulation are directly applicable in the Member States, there is no need for transposition by the Member States. The banks concerned are already bound by the provisions of the Regulation. The Regulation must also be observed in the United Kingdom for cross-border payments in euro, although pound-euro conversion costs may be charged on cross-border transfers in euro from and to the United Kingdom. In this respect, if the currency has to be converted, then a transfer from Germany to the United Kingdom will be more expensive than a national euro transfer. Under the Regulation, the bank is obliged to inform its customers of these exchange charges. In this specific case, it is not possible to establish from the information given in the Written Question whether the provisions of the Regulation have been observed by the banks concerned. The Commission would, however, be happy to accept and investigate any further information which Ms Jeggle or the citizen concerned may provide (e.g. account statements, lists of charges). In addition, in disputes concerning cross-border financial services the citizen concerned may turn to the dispute settlement bodies in the ‘FIN-NET’ network. These are out-of-court dispute settlement bodies which help citizens who have problems with their financial services providers. Further information on possible contacts can be found on the Commission website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/de/finances/consumer/intro.htm). The Commission would, finally, like to point out that it will be compiling a report next year on the effects of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, in which it will also look into the trend in national price levels for payments.
2.

A formal request from the Togolese authorities for the EU to send a Union election observation team was sent on 6 May 2003. However, in early April 2003 the Commission had already informed the Government that it would be impossible to dispatch an election observation team since the Government did not agree to the dates and terms of reference of a Commission exploratory mission. This mission would have assessed the pre-electoral situation, the human rights situation and the possibility to send an election observation team.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/187

(2004/C 33 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject: Publicity for the 2008 CSF in Greece

Recently, publicity promoting the 2008 Community Support Framework has been screened on Greek television at peak viewing times (e.g. before or during news bulletins).

The content of this publicity is pure propaganda in that it highlights the government's ‘achievements’ in education, the economy etc., making only a passing reference to the Community's vital financial contribution.

Does the Commission know the exact cost of the publicity for the 2008 CSF? Which Community appropriations are covering the cost? Is the Commission aware of the content of the publicity? Did the Commission authorise payment for publicity, particularly at peak viewing times? Can such propaganda continue to be broadcast in the run-up to the Greek general election?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The launching of information campaigns on European regional policy is a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities in the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. It is for the Member State to identify the most appropriate manner to inform the public while respecting the provisions in relation to Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 (1) and those contained in the Community Support Framework (CSF). The Honourable Member may wish to note that these provisions also require publicity actions to be interrupted two months before any election date. The Commission has no information at its disposal to suggest that there has been any misuse of Community funds in Greece for the information campaign.

It is not possible to make an assessment of the total amount of resources that will be mobilised for publicity and information in Greece during the third CSF since these are included within the total appropriations for technical assistance, and are not separately identified within those appropriations.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds, OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/107

(2004/C 33 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1359/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Gran Sol fleet provisional rest period

The Galician fleet fishing in the Gran Sol grounds has planned a biological rest period from 1 July onwards. In order that this biological rest period can go ahead with all the necessary guarantees in place for the fleet involved, the relevant authorisation must be published in good time in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ).

Can the Commission give details of the steps it intends to take or has already taken to ensure that the fleet involved can carry out this biological rest period and the relevant authorisation can be published in the OJ in good time?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it received a communication from the Spanish authorities on this matter on 20 March 2003.

The proposed measure, including the reasons behind its adoption, must be assessed, in particular from a biological point of view.

The Commission is currently examining whether the initiative is compatible with the relevant provisions of the Community legislation applicable in this area (1) (Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/181

(2004/C 33 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/03

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: State aid for football clubs

A number of professional football clubs in the Netherlands have recently received financial assistance from local authorities to rescue them from the threat of bankruptcy. Similar practices occur in other Member States. Local politicians are under heavy pressure from clubs and supporters, in the face of a lack of clarity surrounding European competition rules.

Does the Commission agree with the author of this question that the provision of financial assistance to football clubs by the authorities (state aid) leads to distortion of competition on the European football market?

How does the Commission define the European football market, and where does it consider the dividing line between national football markets and the European market to lie? Does it regard only the market for players as important, or does the football market have other aspects that are relevant to competition?

Is the Commission prepared — in the light of the fact that, taking advantage of the lack of clarity surrounding the permissibility of assistance, the authorities in the Netherlands, and also in other Member States, are currently assisting football clubs by a variety of means — to submit as soon as possible a communication laying down the necessary framework conditions for assistance to football clubs, so as to put an end to the present situation characterised by a lack of clarity and by distortion of competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘aid granted by a Member State, which distorts competition by favouring a specific undertaking, shall insofar as it affects trade between Member States be incompatible with the common market’.

Professional football clubs that engage in economic activities, like selling broadcasting rights, concluding advertising and sponsorship contracts and distributing merchandising articles are to be considered undertakings. A transfer of financial resources to certain professional football clubs is likely to distort competition between these undertakings.

The question is not whether there is a European football market though, but whether the mentioned activities are subject to trade between Member States. Not all football clubs are performing all these activities. In addition, it seems that not in all of these cases an effect on trade between Member States can be established.

Since the application of state aid rules is relatively new in this sector, the Commission maintains that its policy has to be developed on the basis of individual cases. In its practice up to now the Commission has, in certain cases, not objected to subsidies in this sector when the state subsidies served an educational objective or the aid was granted for the construction of stadiums which can be under certain conditions considered as general infrastructure. The Commission will continue to develop and clarify its policy in this area, when dealing with specific cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/68

(2004/C 65 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1220/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Prato

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 Prato, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/182

(2004/C 65 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Call for review of the Lhasa urban development plan

The committee overseeing implementation of the Unesco Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has urged the Chinese authorities to review their urban development plan for Lhassa, the capital of Tibet. The decision was taken during the 27th session of the Unesco World Heritage Committee, held in Paris from 30 June to 5 July 2003. The committee made a series of recommendation to the Chinese authorities, with a view to mitigating the negative impact on the World Heritage values of this property caused by development pressures and called for the implementation of a national policy for the protection of the remaining historic traditional buildings in Lhasa. In 2002 the Chinese authorities demolished historic Tibetan houses in Lhasa (www.savetibet.org/News), raising serious concerns about Beijing's commitment to fulfil its obligations to the Unesco Convention. The committee also called for demolition to be stopped, ‘particularly in the Shol area’. Shortly afterwards, experts from Unesco and Icomos (International Council on Monuments and Sites) conducted missions to Lhasa in October 2002 and April 2003 respectively.

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the Chinese authorities meet their obligations and act upon Unesco's requests? Does it intend to suspend funding for all projects in Tibet if the Chinese authorities continue to fail to act on the requests made by the international community regarding the protection and conservation of Tibetan culture and heritage?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2003)

Protection of the rights of minorities and, in particular their cultural identity, is one of the topics regularly raised by the European Union in its bilateral human rights dialogue with China. The European Union will continue to use this process to put forward its viewpoint to the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has always taken steps to ensure that the cooperation programmes implemented in the autonomous region of Tibet serve first and foremost the interests of the local Tibetan population which is itself concerned for the European Union to have a presence in the region. The Commission therefore considers that any interruption in these programmes would inevitably have a negative impact on the local population.
II.

Action under the other CFS II and CSF III programmes was as follows: 3. Education 4. Over the period 1998-2001 (CSF II), under the ‘Continuing training’ operational programme, an educational programme was run for school age children in 30 locations with a gypsy population. The main activities comprised training 3 000 teachers for schools attended by gypsy children, producing appropriate teaching materials, setting up accelerated catch-up courses and promoting awareness among parents. Following this programme, in 2000, 75 % of the children regularly attended primary school as opposed to 25 % previously. 5. 2002 onwards (CSF III) This educational programme has been extended to all areas with a gypsy population and supplemented by new measures. It is co-financed by the CSF III ‘Employment and continuing training’ programme. In the initial phase, 130 accelerated catch-up courses are planned to integrate children into mainstream education. These are not special schools for gypsies but entail a preparation and support programme to help them reintegrate into the school system. Courses for trainers and production of teaching materials are also on the agenda. This initial phase will also include: literacy courses for 600 adults, courses in oral and written communication in Greek for 150 adults and training of 150 adults in basic areas such as health, children's education, etc. 6. Health 7. Over the period 1997-2002, the Ministry of Health, Prefectures and non-government organisations (NGOs) ran a vaccination programme. 8. For 2002-2008 (CCA III) a public health programme is planned, co-financed under the CSF III Health and Welfare operational programme. It includes action on preventive health, vaccination and health education. A particular example is a mobile medical unit which has already visited 20 gypsy encampments. By the end of the period it will have visited all the communities concerned. The unit performs preventive examinations (blood tests, chest x-rays, PAP tests, etc). In some communities, with the help of national funds, a permanent housing programme is being implemented, which will include 50 health centres. These centres will be co-financed by the corresponding CSF III regional programmes. 9. Employment Promotion 10. 1997-2001 saw the implementation of some hundred occupational training programmes. The participants included around 1 800 members of the gypsy community. 11. For the current period, a number of vocational training and employment support programmes are planned under the ‘Employment and vocational training’ OP and the regional CSF III programmes. They primarily target disadvantaged groups, including the gypsy community. 12. Gypsy Support Centres (Adults and children) This project is co-financed under the EQUAL initiative. There are currently ten centres operating in ten different districts. They provide advice and information in areas such as education, employment, health, housing and relations with the administrative authorities. In the districts with housing projects (national funds) 20 more such centres are planned for the current period.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/70

(2004/C 65 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality 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 municipality of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/92

(2004/C 33 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1032/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Via Baltica

As part of Poland's National Development Plan, which was submitted to the European Commission in January, the Via Baltica motorway is intended to form the first part of a planned European-wide transport corridor and will require co-financing from the European Union. The road proposals threaten an area of significant environmental importance, the Biebrza marshes, as well as two unique natural forests. As Poland's largest national park and home to wolves, elks and many threatened bird species, the Biebrza area of wetland is of such conservation value that it fulfils the criteria for protection under the Habitats and Birds Directives when Poland accedes to the EU. The proposals are contrary to both EU and Polish environmental legislation and may pose a serious threat to wildlife in Poland.

In light of this, does the Commission intend to fund the construction and, if so, will it ensure that the project is both fully consistent with the requirements of EU environmental directives and that any EU funds received are used in a way that is compatible with the EC environmental acquis?

Furthermore, does the Commission intend to explore and promote alternatives in answering Poland's transport problems?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/103

(2004/C 33 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1279/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Lack of medical care for Basque political prisoners

Lack of medical care for Basque political prisoners shows how laws are not equally implemented in the Spanish Kingdom.

Bautista Barandalla's case is one of the clearest examples of that. This 38-year old Navarrian has been in prison for over 12 years. In 2000 he was diagnosed with ulcerous proctitis but he was not admitted into hospital until March 2002. From that time, 13 times he has had parts of his colon and rectum removed. He was always moved from hospital to prison too early. Given Barandalla's situation a request was made to the Criminal Court of Zaragoza for Barandalla's release under Article 92 of the Penal Code due to his sufferings and incurable illness. This request was repeated several times and all of them were refused in spite of additional reports from different doctors and hospitals that consider it absolutely necessary for Barandalla to be released.

Can the Commission say what steps it will take in a humanitarian bid to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Matters relating to the release of prisoners on health grounds are the responsibility of Member States.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to take any action under Community law in such cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/48

(2004/C 65 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/03

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Quality promotion

The Commission's proposal over the reform of the CAP provides for Regulation (EC) 2826/2000 (1) on internal promotion of agricultural products to be abolished in 2005, although the projects funded under this regulation have hardly got underway. The Commission wishes to replace the regulation, which is geared to generic campaigns, with a new measure within the Rural Development chapter, aimed at promoting quality labels, arguing the need to avoid double funding.

Independently of the fact that the reason adduced by the Commission is completely unfounded, since the two initiatives have totally different objectives, and indeed could be said to be in opposition to each other, can the Commission explain why the decision to be taken by the Fifteen on the reform is being pre-empted by cutting the budget for Regulation EC 2826/2000 now, in 2003? The reasons advance reasons adduced by the Commission service claim that the cutback is due to the poor quality of many of the projects submitted for 2002. Does the Commission believe that this is the most appropriate way of motivating and educating those concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

It is right that the first series of promotion and information programmes for agricultural products under Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, were decided in August 2002. That is also the reason why budget credits for Community internal market promotion measures amounting to EUR 50,3 million were utilised only up to EUR 15 448 million (Budget year 2002). For 2003, Budget credits are foreseen for EUR 46,5 million (Budget lines Bl-3800 and Bl-3810) and the preview of utilisation shows better results for this year.

The Commission can confirm that one of the reasons for the low consumption of budget credits is due to the quality of the submitted promotion proposals. Out of 120 proposals received, only 40 proposals, from professional organisations from 14 Member States, could be accepted as conform to the discipline of the Regulation and the guidelines for promotion programmes.

Concerning the replacement of Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 by a new measure under the Rural Development Proposal within the Common agricultural policy (CAP) Reform proposal, it is worth mentioning, that following the actual state of the debate of this proposal in the Parliament and in the Council, the Commission is analysing the possibility of coexistence of both regimes, taking care to exclude any overlapping.

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.