ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/03

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Port services

In February 2001, the Commission presented a proposal for a directive on market access to port services, which was revised in February 2002.

As a result of the events of 11 September 2001, the American authorities have implemented a set of rules requiring various degrees of certification/identification of employees handling freight to the USA, including dockers.

There are also plans to overhaul the IMO's Convention for the safety of life at sea, SOLAS, to take account of the problem of combating terrorism. This will have consequences affecting those who are allowed to handle cargo, containers, etc. in ports.

How does the Commission intend to take into account the problem of combating terrorism in the directive on market access to port services?

Will it be tabling a new proposal for a directive incorporating the aspect of combating terrorism? If not, can it explain how it will ensure a high level of security in connection with self-handling (see Article 13 of the directive)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission does not believe that the proposed Directive on Market Access to Port Services(1) is the appropriate legislative act to include security measures following the announcement or the adoption of such initiatives by the Community or by the United States.

As regards in particular the revised Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, the Honourable Member is informed that this Convention only covers security aspects onboard vessels and the immediate interface between ships and port facilities but not the entire complexity of port operations.

The Commission intends to bring forward a proposal aimed at incorporating the results of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Diplomatic Conference into Community legislation.

Furthermore, it is carrying out work on a legislative proposal dealing more specifically with port security. It is intended that this initiative would cover security aspects in the port as a whole as well as certain intermodal aspects concerning links between ports and the hinterland.

(1) OJ C 154 E, 29.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena

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 Siena, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 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-1479/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Exports of fresh and frozen beef from Member States to the Vatican City State and management of the meat counters in the Vatican shop

In an interview published in March 2001 in the trade journal Eurocarni, Ruggero Guidoni, the head of Guidoncarni, which is based in Torrevecchia (Rome), stated that in 2000 Unicarni of Reggio Emilia was awarded the contract to supply meat to the supermarket run by the Vatican Governorate, where around ten thousand consumers from that community, including purchasers for several religious houses, can buy goods on production of the appropriate pass. Ildo Cigarini, the chairman of Unicarni, asked us to manage the meat counters in the Vatican shop and we took up a 30 % stake in the company Roma Carni 2000, which was set up for that purpose. CIR Surgelati also took up a stake. The estimated turnover was 15-20 billion per annum. It could be even higher. Unfortunately the crisis upset these forecasts.

In the period 1998/2000 the Vatican imported 22 529,27 quintals of meat from EU Member States and received the export refunds provided for. These exports came from Belgium (579,84 q), Ireland (2 226,01 q), Italy (8 044,47 q) and the Netherlands (11 678,94 q).

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate:

- what instruments the European Union has, or in other words what measures Italy has adopted, to ensure that the Vatican does not directly or indirectly remarket in the European Union products for which export refunds are granted;

- whether the company that was awarded this meat management contract, or rather its constituent companies, export meat to the Vatican directly or through an intermediary;

- the names of the Belgian, Irish, Italian and Dutch companies that exported meat to the Vatican in the period 1998/2001?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1477/03, E-1478/03, E-1479/03 and E-1480/03given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 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-1478/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef

A table containing data on the quantities and value in euro of products for which export refunds are granted was appended to the supplementary answer to question P-3202/02(1).

Examination of this table shows that, for exports to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

(a) in 1999 exports from Italy totalled 39,592 kg for a refund of EUR 256 405,34, equivalent to aid of EUR 6 476,19 per kg of meat exported;

(b) in 2000 exports from Italy totalled 38,985 kg for a refund of EUR 305 341,16, equivalent to aid of EUR 7 832,27 per kg of meat exported;

In all likelihood, 395 920 kg were exported in 1999 and 389 850 kg in 2000, at a more credible level of aid of between EUR 0,65 and EUR 0,78 per kg of meat exported.

If one were to make these corrections, total exports would be 346 233 kg for 1998, 963 646 kg for 1999, 730 978,210 kg for 2000 and 212 249,800 kg for 2001.

Under Regulation (EC) No 419/2002(2), it should also be possible for the tabular data, extracted from the CATS database, to be used for monitoring and forecasting purposes.

It is specified in the table that the units of measurement, weights or quantities and the amounts in euro are provided by the Member States.

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate;

- whether the data supplied by the Member States are checked and who is responsible for doing this;

- whether the quantities of fresh and frozen beef exported from Member States to the Vatican City State were subject to any monitoring, what form that this took, and what forecasts were made in respect of these quantities;

- whether it does not consider the level of imports to the minuscule Vatican City State to be too high, or in other words that it can be assumed these products are sold in Italy?

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(2) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 8.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1477/03, E-1478/03, E-1479/03 and E-1480/03given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 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-0145/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Iceland international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Iceland international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. How much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Iceland?

2. How much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. How much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised three questions regarding economical transactions and fees for licences within the Community-Iceland Agreement. The Agreement contains no financial transactions between the Community and Iceland and no provisions on fees for fishing licences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0282/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Customs regime for tahini imports to Poland

Greece exports to the Polish market a product with the commercial name of tahini. On the basis of its production process, this product comes under customs category 12.08 and, under this category, the import duty from Greece into Poland amounts to 9 % of its customs value. Poland's Ministry of Economic Affairs has classified the product in customs category 20.08, catapulting the import duty up to 35 % of its customs value, and has imposed retrospective duty for all imports of the product over the past three years.

This decision by the Polish Government is directly detrimental, making Greek exports of the product prohibitive in practice and causing irreparable damage to the exporters being asked to pay retrospective duty covering a three-year period. In view of this:

1. Can it be valid to impose retroactively increased duties on the import of tahini, given that changes must be based on the principle of legitimate expectation and given the need for a secure basis on which to do business?

2. Could the Customs Code Committee deliver an opinion readjusting the duty on imports of tahini into Poland to 9 %?

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

1. Yes, under Community legislation and in the absence of valid Binding Tariff Information (BTI) issued by the Community's customs administration it is possible to change the classification of a product and to recover the import duty unless regulations concerning the protection of goodwill are applied. Polish customs legislation is similar to the Community's and therefore the same principles apply in Poland.

2. No Poland is not yet a Community Member so the Customs Code Committee's decisions are not applicable in that country. Even if this Committee admitted that the product in question should be classified under customs heading 12.08 of the Nomenclature annexed to the Convention on the Harmonised System (HS), the matter can only be resolved by bilateral agreement between the Community and Poland in conformity with Article 10.1 of the Convention on HS to which Poland and the Community are contracting parties.

3. If agreement cannot be reached, the matter could be settled by a decision of the HS Committee of the World Customs Organisation in accordance with the dispute settlement in Article 10.2 of the HS Convention.

4. However, note that in view of the procedures to be followed, any decision by the HS Committee cannot be taken until after Poland's accession to the Union. The Commission can then examine the possibility of raising this issue bilaterally with Poland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1128/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme for migrant workers by the municipality of Florence

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 Florence, urgently need to use European funds to support migrant workers, including those from outside the Community, in order to guarantee them the best conditions in which to live and integrate with the local community, in terms of both work and social conditions,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Florence has submitted projects for the action programme for migrant workers?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0828/03, E-0894/03, E-1126/03,E-1127/03, E-1128/03, E-1129/03, E-1130/03, E-1131/03, E-1132/03,E-1133/03, E-1134/03, E-1135/03, E-1136/03, E-1137/03 and E-1138/03given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

There is currently no Action Programme for Migrant Workers at Community level. The Commission recalls that funding for measures to promote the integration of migrant workers, under Budget Line B3-4110, was suspended in 1998 following the judgement of the European Court of Justice in Case C-106/96. No funding has been awarded in this field since that date.

A new programme to promote the integration of third country nationals, under Budget line B5-815, will be launched by the Commission (Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs) in May 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1024/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pesaro

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 EU subsidies include a support programme to foster the twinning of European cities and that many Italian cities, including the municipality of Pesaro, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects to benefit from funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0864/03, E-0886/03, E-1017/03, E-1018/03,E-1019/03, E-1020/03, E-1021/03, E-1022/03, E-1023/03, E-1024/03,E-1025/03, E-1026/03, E-1027/03, E-1028/03 and E-1029/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Twinning is funded centrally.

The grants are awarded by the Commission on the basis of projects presented by local authorities or twinning committees.

The grants are not paid until after the event, following submission of supporting documents.

The participation of local authorities in town-twinning activities is arranged via the publication of an annual call for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.

With regard to the Honourable Member's questions the municipalities of: Fiumicino (E-0886), Frosinone (E-0864), Ancona (E-1017), Florence (E-1019), Livorno (E-1020), Macerata (E-1021), Perugia (E-1023), Pesaro (E-1024), Pisa (E-1025) Pistoia (E-1026) Siena (E-1028) and Terni (E-1029) did not obtain funding for the organisation of twinning events in 2000.

The municipalities of Carrara (E-1018) Massa (E-1022) Prato (E-1027) received funding for twinning in 2000. These funds were used.

The Honourable Member might wish to contact the local authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0108/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Funding the recovery of the Joola ferry additional questions

The answer to my earlier question (E-3319/02(1)) begs further questions.

The 8th EDF is not used up for Senegal.

In the view of the Commission, can funds for recovering the bodies of the victims and salvaging the ferry come from the 8th EDF, if Senegal agrees?

Does the Commission not have a moral and political duty to coordinate the recovery operation? Or does the Commission not wish to be involved in any way, and will it leave it to the affected Member States (France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands) to recover their own citizens themselves?

Is Europe going to fail to extend help to the victims, although its would make funds available immediately if a similar disaster were to take place off its own coast?

(1) See page 29.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission cannot use the financial resources of the eighth European Development Fund (EDF) as they are already earmarked for specific operations determined with the country as part of the cooperation strategy.

The Commission fully understands the concern expressed and the importance of the issue at hand; however, it must stress that the responsibility for taking any kind of initiative concerning the Joola ferry lies first and foremost with the Senegalese authorities.

Moreover, recovering the bodies of EU citizens is not included in the objectives of development cooperation with ACP countries, as defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty and in the Cotonou Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme for migrant workers by the municipality of Pisa

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 Pisa, urgently need to use European funds to support migrant workers, including those from outside the Community, in order to guarantee them the best conditions in which to live and integrate with the local community, in terms of both work and social conditions,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the action programme for migrant workers?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0828/03, E-0894/03, E-1126/03,E-1127/03, E-1128/03, E-1129/03, E-1130/03, E-1131/03, E-1132/03,E-1133/03, E-1134/03, E-1135/03, E-1136/03, E-1137/03 and E-1138/03given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

There is currently no Action Programme for Migrant Workers at Community level. The Commission recalls that funding for measures to promote the integration of migrant workers, under Budget Line B3-4110, was suspended in 1998 following the judgement of the European Court of Justice in Case C-106/96. No funding has been awarded in this field since that date.

A new programme to promote the integration of third country nationals, under Budget line B5-815, will be launched by the Commission (Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs) in May 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0696/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Traffic imbalances between France and Spain following the opening of the Somport Tunnel

France has not reciprocated the concern shared by all Spanish governments to get the Sagunto-Zaragoza-Somport-Toulouse-Bordeaux route treated as an EU priority route.

Despite the widespread hopes that the opening of the modern Somport Tunnel would relieve the Irún and la Junquera passes, this has in fact not solved the problem posed by the enormous volume of heavy vehicle traffic, since France has failed to meet its commitments and the northern exit is a local road which passes through town centres.

Can the Commission arbitrate and appeal to the French authorities to meet their commitment to improve the section of the N-134 road which links the northern exit of the tunnel with the Bordeaux-Toulouse motorway?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the congestion caused by heavy goods vehicles at the principal crossings of the Pyrenees.

In this respect, the opening of the Somport tunnel was a first step towards spreading the traffic more evenly but, as the Honourable Member rightly states, access on the French side remains the principal factor limiting development of this new trans-European route. Accordingly, the Commission is providing financial support, from the trans-European transport network budget and as proposed by the French authorities, for upgrading the RN 134 road to the tunnel. However, although Article 155 of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall establish a series of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of trans-European networks; these guidelines shall identify projects of common interest the Member States nevertheless remain fully responsible for implementation of the projects. Consequently, the Commission can only regret that the planning of a trans-European project of such importance has not shown the same level of commitment on the part of the two states concerned.

The Commission also considers that in the medium to long term credible, economically viable options for long-distance freight services will have to be put in place, bringing significant relief to congestion at the crossings of the Pyrenees on both the Atlantic and Mediterranean sides. The Pyrenees must not be an insuperable obstacle to trade on the internal market.