ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2563/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: National cadastral survey

According to the most recent reports concerning the organisation of the national cadastral survey in Greece the project has absorbed 83 % of the funds earmarked for it under the Second Community Support Framework while only 21 % of the work has actually been carried out.

Given that the Commission is refusing further funding for this major project, while the Greek Government must wait until the end of the year for approval of a loan by the European Investment Bank in order to carry out the project:

1. Does the Commission intend to approve the inclusion of the cadastral survey under the Third Community Support Framework?

2. Have the Greek authorities returned the GRD 20 billion as requested by the head of the Commission's Regional Policy Directorate by letter of 6 August 2001?

3. What specific irregularities were ascertained by the Directorate regarding the drawing up of the cadastral surveys, who was responsible for them and what penalties will be imposed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2001)

The Commission has always regarded the organisation of the national cadastral survey as a project of the utmost importance for the economic development of Greece.

As a result of implementation difficulties, however, the Commission began an examination under the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the various Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments(1).

In line with the principle of partnership, the Commission forwarded the results of the examination to the Greek authorities for information along with proposals for a decision it is planning to present concerning Community assistance granted under the Community Support Framework for the 1994-99 programming period. It is only when that procedure has been completed that the Commission can decide to cancel or reduce the Community assistance for the project.

Furthermore, on completion of the procedure under Article 24, the Commission will decide the terms on which additional funding will be granted for the cadastral project under CSF III 2000-06 for Greece.

The Commission will provide the Honourable Member with a copy of any decision it takes.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2787/01

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: Pollution of the area around Castel del Monte

According to reports which have appeared in the Italian press, at Andria (Puglia) an area in the Finizio woods near Castel del Monte is affected by severe and ongoing environmental degradation which is causing extensive damage to the local ecosystem and ruining the landscape.

The local authorities and the local inhabitants, who often visit the area, are extremely concerned about this situation.

Would the Commission agree that this state of affairs is damaging the local environment and disfiguring the landscape of an area of which is of great natural and, at the same time, historical importance, owing to its proximity to Castel del Monte?

Furthermore, does it intend to respond to this situation which, unfortunately, is also to be found in many other areas by setting up a permanent monitoring centre with a view to determining exactly how widespread such environmental pollution is?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The Commission's powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty, in particular, it is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States. On the basis of Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied. On the basis of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice. The Commission has a discretionary power in deciding whether to initiate such a procedure(1).

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, and in the absence of any details concerning the environmental degradation that is taking place or the damage being caused, the Commission is not in a position to assume that there is a likely breach of Community law.

The Commission cannot be aware of all situations which are likely to be considered as a bad application of environmental Community law by the Member States. Such situations are normally drawn to the attention of the Commission by letters of complaint, Parliamentary Written Questions and Petitions to the Petitions Committee of the Parliament. However, situations claimed to be inconsistent with the relevant Community law need to be precisely described so as to enable the Commission to assess them in relation to applicable Community environmental law.

(1) Priorities and criteria governing the Commission's discretionary power are listed in the Fourteenth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law 1996, in OJ C 332, 3.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: National operational programme (NOP) and SMEs

The Italian Minister for the productive sector recently announced that a specific measure under the Enterprise NOP was to be used to ensure that SMEs received adequate guidance.

Although of interest in itself, this initiative restricts the number of possible beneficiaries to the enterprises listed in Law 448, under which, as is common knowledge, applications will be accepted from medium to large-sized enterprises, which already have appropriate advisory support.

Would the Commission not agree that this restriction is contrary to the EU objective (restated in the NOP) of promoting entrepreneurship, with particular reference to the emergence of micro-enterprises, by giving companies that do not already have them the instruments they require to take a new approach in this area?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The national operational programme for local business development (Sviluppo imprenditoriale locale) under the Community Support Framework for Objective 1 regions in Italy in the programming period 2000-06 is intended to provide financing for the general aid scheme for productive investment under Italian Law No 488/92, and for integrated aid packages relating to capital investment, research and development, innovation, the purchase of real services, credit guarantees and improving workers' skills. Community aid allocated to this operational programme totals EUR 1 978.9 million.

The operational programme includes measures involving a contribution to the financing of guidance to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) define and carry out investment projects of an innovative nature. These measures are restricted to SMEs, which, unlike large companies, lack the resources to prepare and implement this type of investment.

It is also worth noting that, following the first four calls for tenders issued under Law No 488/92, small firms accounted for 60 % of the aid granted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2550/01

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

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Complaint regarding the discrimination suffered by foreign prisoners in Community prisons

Various Community courts have protested at the impunity with which state powers, including the judiciary, discriminate against foreign prisoners, both Community and non-Community nationals, with regard to the freeing of prisoners on licence.

The judges have considered it unjust that non-nationals are systematically denied the possibility of being freed on licence on the grounds that they have no roots in the country in which they are serving their sentence and that they might flee. Given that being freed on licence is not possible, their behaviour outside prison cannot be assessed and there is therefore no possibility either of them being placed in the lowest category of prisoners with day-release privileges.

Can the Commission say whether it considers it appropriate, with a view to preventing this discrimination against foreign prisoners both Community and non-Community nationals as regards being freed on licence, to propose Community legislation guaranteeing that foreign prisoners can be freed on licence on the same conditions as prisoners who are nationals of the state concerned?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2001)

The Commission would stress its great interest in the issues raised by the Honourable Member which jeopardise the principles of equality and non-discrimination as restated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission would point out that the rules on releasing prisoners on licence to which the Honourable Member refers are enshrined in national criminal law and thus, in principle, fall within the jurisdiction of the Member States. However, the Court has constantly maintained that Community law restricts this jurisdiction(1). The rules may not discriminate on grounds of nationality against persons entitled under Community law to travel or stay in a specific Member State as recipients of services nor can they restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law, unless such discrimination is justified by objective circumstances or by Member State's obligations relating to public policy and national security.

The Commission plans to question the Member States on the subject of their systems for releasing prisoners on licence regardless of the nationality of the prisoners.

At the present time, the Commission can see no reason for proposing Community regulations to guarantee non-national prisoners the same rights to be released on licence on the same terms as national prisoners.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 February 1989 in Case 186/87 [1989] ECR I-195; judgment of 10 February 2000 in Case C-340/97 [2000] ECR I-957.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/01

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE), Reimer Böge (PPE-DE)and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Export of sperm to third countries

Breeding organisations have informed us about problems with the export of sperm to certain third countries (for example Japan and Hungary) and also to Austria. Those countries refuse to import sperm from countries where cases of BSE have been identified. The International Office of Epizootics (OIE) states in its documents that sperm cannot be a carrier of BSE (this also applies to milk and leather). There is, therefore, no reason why imports should be refused. The countries that are refusing to import sperm are all members of the OIE.

Is the Commission aware of this situation, and what does it intend to do to solve this problem? Does the refusal of these countries conflict with WTO rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the restrictions imposed by certain third countries for exports of semen from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) affected countries. The Commission considers that such restrictions are not based on scientific principles and they are clearly against the international standards, i.e. the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) animal health code. Consequently, the Commission considers that these restrictions are not in compliance with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement.

The Commission has frequently addressed the above problem during bilateral and multilateral contacts such as the SPS Committee with the relevant third countries insisting that import restrictions must be science based and comply with the international standards. The Commission will continue to address this issue in future contacts with these countries.

As regards the restrictions imposed by Austria on semen originating from Germany and France, the Commission is considering the opportunity to initiate infringement procedures against Austria on basis of article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Airline competition and government subsidies

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the understandable decision by EU governments to offer financial support to their airlines in the light of the terrible events of September 11 does not take the form of illegal subsidies designed to advantage one Member State's airline over another or to prevent the need for restructuring on the part of certain airlines which was necessary long before the terrorist attacks?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission adopted a Communication(1) to Parliament and Council on 10 October 2001, outlining its position with regards to the economic consequences of the terrorist attacks in the United States and to the crisis the air transport industry is currently facing.

Concerning State aids, this communication explains inter alia on which legal basis and to which extent the Commission would favourably envisage measures by Member States granting airlines financial compensation for the losses incurred directly related to the terrorist attacks and to the closure of the American airspace on a non discriminatory basis.

These measures will in any case be examined by the Commission according to the usual rules and procedures applicable in the area of State aid in the air transport sector.

It should also be stressed that the compatibility of aids granted to companies in financial difficulties is a different issue from that of compensation for damages directly related to the events of 11 September 2001.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final: The repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3037/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Hand luggage on aircraft

In reaction to the terrible events of 11 September in the USA, checks at airports have also been greatly intensified in Europe. Hand luggage in particular is now being very meticulously searched.

Does the Commission not consider that it would therefore be advisable for security reasons to impose a general ban on carrying hand luggage onto aircraft, so that in future all items of baggage, including hand luggage, would have to be surrendered immediately on check-in?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

The measure suggested by the Honourable Member has been examined with aviation security experts, but has proved to be very controversial. While it would undoubtedly facilitate passenger control, it would discriminate against people who wish to or have to keep certain articles close at hand during a flight.

The benefit in terms of security was not regarded as sufficient to include this measure in the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security(1) which the Commission sent to Parliament and Council on 22 October 2001 and which Parliament has started to examine.

(1) COM(2001) 575 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3026/01

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Infringement of the European Habitats Directive

Will the Commission investigate whether the Danish State is infringing the provisions of Article 6 of the European Habitats Directive owing to the Danish Environment and Energy Ministry's approval of plans for the construction of a 3000 m2 adventure centre in the heart of one of Denmark's most important habitat areas (No 150 Klinteskoven)? Does it consider it right that the Storstrøm county authorities should grant funds under EU Objective 2 for this purpose? To what extent is an EIA necessary in connection with the construction of this adventure centre?

A letter of 20 August 2001 from Per Villum Petersen to the Commission, and the papers annexed thereto, provide background information on this case.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

In response to the complaint to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission is conducting an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with. This investigation concerns the allegations made by the complainant relating to infringements of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) and Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(3).

The Commission's investigation has not yet been completed and no decision has therefore been made to open infringement proceedings in this case. It is therefore premature for the Commission to take any stance on the specific questions asked by the Honourable Member regarding the existence of infringements of Community law in this case. The complainant has already been informed by the Commission of its handling of the case and he will be continuously informed of the actions taken by the Commission.

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(4), the choice of the individual projects co-financed inside each regional programme is of the Member States' entire responsibility under the terms of decentralisation. Nevertheless, all the regional programmes are subject, before their approval by the Commission, to an ex-ante evaluation, which includes in particular the estimated impact on the environment.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(4) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Measures in the air transport sector

In a statement to the Commissioner responsible for transport, Mrs de Palacio, the Association of European Airlines pointed out that the measures announced by the Commission on 10 October 2001 are inadequate to overcome the crisis created in the air transport sector following the events of 11 September 2001.

Bearing in mind that many European airlines were already in crisis before the attacks, can the Commission say whether it has carried out studies to ascertain which financial repercussions are actually attributable to the terrorist attack in September?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

It can scarcely be denied that a number of airlines were already experiencing financial difficulties before 11 September 2001 and an economic downturn was already under way in the air transport sector. The events of 11 September should therefore be seen as speeding up and aggravating a crisis that was already manifest.

The Commission therefore drew its first conclusions from those events by giving its backing to compensation payments for the closure of airspace, additional safety measures and coverage of risks associated with terrorism.

It considered in particular, in its communication of 10 October 2001(1), that Article 87(2)(b) (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty could be applied on the following conditions to compensation for losses incurred by airlines due to the closure of airspace for four days:

- compensation is paid in a non-discriminatory manner to all airlines in a given Member State;

- it is only for costs incurred during the four days from 11 to 14 September 2001;

- the amount of compensation is calculated accurately and objectively.

The Commission did not think it should modify its policy on State aid lest this delay the restructuring necessary in the air transport sector.

The Commission is, incidentally, closely monitoring the situation in air transport on the basis of information provided by the Member States and the main players in the field.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/01

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Belgian State aid to Sabena

The terrorist attacks in the USA have plunged European airlines into financial difficulties. The Council has discussed measures to deal with the problems of insurance, but has ruled out direct State financial aid to crisis-hit undertakings. The Commission has for a long time been seeking to eliminate subsidies of this nature, which distort competition.

It is therefore remarkable that Belgium, which currently holds the Presidency, is providing cash and guarantees for Sabena, in which airline the Belgian State has a majority holding. Sabena's financial problems are certainly not new, and cannot be blamed on the crisis now affecting the industry as a whole. The Belgian Government's actions will exclusively benefit narrow national interests and eliminate competition, which will further reduce other European airlines' ability to survive.

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent the Belgian State from giving Sabena financial aid?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2878/01 by Sir Atkins(1)

(1) See page 184.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: EU support as a competitive advantage

In 1999 the Swedish Government reached a decision on the aid package for Bengtsfors. A Kr 60 million employment subsidy was promised and persuaded the car firm TWR to decide to shift production of its forthcoming special vehicle to the old Lear factory. The new factory is expected to provide 500 jobs in 2003. 50 million kronor in labour market support was also promised.

In respect of the Kr 60 million employment subsidy there has however been some debate as to whether the Swedish Government was in a position to take that decision and whether it did not need approval by the Commission. In respect of State aid to the motor vehicle industry, the Commission has to approve support exceeding 5 million euro, the rough equivalent of 45 million Swedish kronor.

To an earlier question in 2000 concerning the above case the Commission said it was keeping an eye on events concerning State aid for Bengtsfors. But the employment subsidy did not look as if it was going to be the large amount we initially imagined. We do not know what has happened since then.

Has the Swedish Government employment subsidy of 60 million kronor to Bengtsfors in connection with the Lear Corp. move been approved by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

In March 2001 the Swedish authorities at regional level decided to grant an employment aid of SEK 18,6 million (about 1,9 million) to the company Nisch Produkter AB in Bengtsfors. Based on the information available to it, the Commission believes that this company belongs to the motor vehicle industry. According to the Community framework for State aid to the motor vehicle industry(1), aid which is granted under an approved aid scheme and which does not exceed 5 million for a particular project does not have to be notified separately to the Commission.

The aid to Nischprodukter AB is granted under an employment aid scheme approved by the Commission in 1997(2), and the amount is below the threshold. Consequently, the aid did not have to be notified separately to the Commission and can be considered to be approved.

(1) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997.

(2) State aid no E 23/95. OJ C 16, 21.1.1999.