ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: The Madrid Convention

Cross-border cooperation in Europe, including the Member States of the Union, is regulated by the Madrid Convention and the laws ratifying it in the individual countries, as well as the additional protocols to the Convention (not ratified by all the countries). At the same time, for Union countries bordering on other countries such as Switzerland and Slovenia Community cross-border cooperation is being developed, for example in the context of the Interreg projects. Does the Commission not consider that it would be appropriate to bring the old Madrid Convention into line with new international agreements, in particular in order to provide a consistent and improved framework for the Union countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2001)

The Commission is always interested in encouraging the development of tools and processes which can further cross-border cooperation and is aware that several Interreg Community Initiative programmes make use of the Madrid Convention for creating the necessary management structures for implementing the programmes.

As the Madrid Convention comes under the auspices of the Council of Europe, it is for that organisation to decide whether it should be amended or not. The Commission is however closely associated with the work of their relevant instances and would be ready to contribute actively in the event of a possible revision of this Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3434/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Stun weapon manufacturers using CE markings

In February 2001, a report by Amnesty International entitled Stamp out Torture revealed that electro-shock devices were still being used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons, detention centres and police stations in at least 76 countries around the world. Even more alarming was the discovery that stun weapon manufacturers are advertising that their products have been awarded the European CE standard mark.

I would therefore ask the Commission to:

- clarify the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded and the Commissioner responsible;

- explain to the European Parliament how many stun weapon manufacturers are using CE markings on their products.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2783/01 by Mr Ford(1)

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3291/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Funding for sport

What EU funds are available for developing sport in Member States? How much has been allocated and under what budget line(s) do they fall?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

There are no EU funds allocated specifically to the development of sport in the Member States. The only appropriations allocated directly to sport are for the prevention of doping. The sum for 2001 is EUR 5 million and this is provided under budget heading B3-2020.

However, in general, some sports projects may be financed by other Community funds, provided they meet the award criteria for these funds. For example, the Socrates and Leonardo programmes, the Framework Programme for research and technological development and indeed the Structural Funds have financed projects related to sport, as long as the projects are in line with the general objectives of these programmes. Thus, under the Socrates programme, a school sports project to promote the Olympic ideals has just received EUR 195 215 of funding.

However, to date no general record has been compiled of sports projects funded by the Community. An inventory of this kind would be difficult because a significant percentage of these projects are carried out at the initiative of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Statements by the Turkish Prime Minister

Speaking on the US television network CNN on 14 October 2001, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Bulent Ecevit stated that his country was also a victim of terrorism perpetrated by terrorists who find refugee in EU countries.

In view of Turkey's status as a candidate for accession to the EU, and the Turkish Prime Minister's indiscriminate accusation against all 15 Member States of the Union, will the Council seek to obtain an explanation and specific evidence to substantiate Mr Ecevit's claim?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

This is not the first time Turkey has claimed that persons regarded as terrorists in Turkey have found refuge in Member States of the European Union. This is neither new nor unique to Turkey. Since the events of 11 September, Member States have been investigating possible abuses of the right to political asylum by persons particularly those with connections to the Al Quaida network who, operating from within the territory of EU Member States, have encouraged violence and terrorism elsewhere.

The issue of EU-Turkey cooperation in combating terrorism is addressed with Turkey in the appropriate bodies, as part of measures to implement the action plan adopted by the Ghent European Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2909/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Council

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Delay in taking-up of duties by an OLAF director

In June 2001, the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) appointed Mr Alberto Perduca Director responsible for investigations and operations.

However, Mr Perduca has not been able to take up office, because the Italian government is blocking his leave of absence.

Is the Council aware of the reasons why it is doing so?

What steps is the Council taking to get the Italian government to lift the block it has imposed on leave of absence, which obviously not only affects Mr Perduca but will also prevent OLAF from recruiting other Italian public prosecutors as temporary officials?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

The Council would draw attention in this connection to point 5 of the Council Conclusions of December 2000 on the first report from the Supervisory Committee of the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in which it states that it shares the view of the Supervisory Committee that the Director of OLAF must rapidly recruit the staff provided for in the establishment plan, while observing a high level of professional competence.

The Council stresses, however, that in accordance with Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999(1) and (Euratom) No 1074/1999(2) of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF, and Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing OLAF(3), it is not a prerogative of the Council to intervene in internal procedures for appointments to OLAF.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3142/01

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2001)

Subject: State Aid Regulations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

The Commission will undoubtedly be aware that, under the current State Aid Regulations, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are owned by a larger group are classified as large companies, even in circumstances where the parent group treats such branch plants as separate cost/profit centres and often requires them to fund their own investment. Accordingly, any public assistance made available to them is limited to a maximum of EUR 100 000 over a three-year period.

The Commission will, no doubt, also be aware that the events of September 11 have exacerbated the slowdown in the global economy with serious consequences for manufacturing industry, especially SMEs, in Britain and across Europe as a whole.

In view of these circumstances, will the Commission now agree to order an urgent review of the State Aid Regulations, particularly the way in which they impact on SMEs owned by a larger group? In addition, will the Commission now revise the EUR 100 000 limit on public assistance to large companies that was first imposed in 1996?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The criterion of independence is one of the key elements of the Commission definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)(1). A company which is owned or controlled by a larger company cannot be considered an SME since that ownership or control means the enterprise company does not suffer from the handicaps, notably in terms of access to finance, which apply to independent SMEs. In particular, the larger company is at any time free to change the arrangements for the funding of investments for the smaller company.

Although large enterprises are not eligible to receive State aid for investment or for employment creation outside of the assisted areas, it is not so that public assistance to such companies is limited to 100 000 over three years. Thus, for example, large companies are eligible to receive regional aid for investments in the assisted areas, aid for research and development and training aid in accordance with the detailed conditions laid down in the Commission's State aid rules.

The 100 000 limit to which the Honourable Member refers is the the amount at which public assistance granted to any single enterprise, outside of certain sensitive sectors such as transport and agriculture, is considered not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (ex Article 92) (1) of the EC Treaty. The Commission reviewed this limit in 2000 and decided not to increase it(2).

(1) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 (ex Article 92) and 88 (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid, OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3294/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Swedish derogations relating to animal feed

On 31 December 1997, 10 derogations granted to Sweden in respect of animal feed expired. In eight of those cases, Community and Swedish legislation were brought into line with each other. The remaining two, concerning colorants and ethoxyquin, were, according to the latest information received (early 1999), still being processed, in particular by the Commission's Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs.

Can the Commission say what steps have been taken on the last two derogations? Has Community legislation been brought into line with Swedish legislation or vice-versa, or are the derogations still applicable?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Sweden announced to the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs of 20-21 October 1997 its intention to abandon the derogation granted upon accession concerning the restrictions to use carotenoids and xantophylls as colouring matters in feedingstuffs intended for poultry and the combined use of formic acid with the antioxidant ethoxyquin.

The Commission was later informed in writing that the authorisation for use of these two feed additives in Sweden has been transposed by a formal decision of 18 September 1997 by the Swedish Board of Agriculture as an amendment to the Swedish statutory rules for feedingstuffs (SJVFS 1997:134).

The two groups of additives can therefore be used in Sweden according to the conditions established at Community level since 1 January 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Complaint over use of EU funds for concentration of rural holdings

Donato Rodríguez Loredo, a citizen from Galicia (Spain), has, beginning in 1996, submitted a series of requests for information and complaints to the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture concerning the concentration of rural holdings in Lourenzá-Norte (Vilanova de Lorenzá, in the province of Lugo). In its replies

to these initiatives, the DG initially claimed that the matter fell under Spanish rather than Community law. Despite this, Mr Rodríguez Loredo sent a further letter complaining at the irregularities perpetrated by the Galician regional government with regard to road building in the countryside, having received information to the effect that problems relating to defective construction had led the Commission to review the use of a large sum paid in aid for construction work in the area concerned. Can the DG for Agriculture provide information on these anomalous circumstances? Were the Community funds intended for this scheme withdrawn following checks made by the DG?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In 1995 the Commission conducted an inspection of the programmes for improving the conditions of agricultural production and for environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources in the Spanish Region of Galicia.

In the absence of certain persons in charge of the project referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission decided not to proceed with the inspection. The task was therefore passed on to the national inspectors. The Commission sent a letter to the Spanish authorities requesting them to look into the matter and accordingly to inspect the project.

In June 1997 the Galicia financial control department conducted an inspection of the project and drew up a report. The Spanish authorities have been asked to provide a copy of that report.

The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact the State financial control department, the national body responsible for coordinating inspections in Spain, for further information on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2581/01

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Subject: Chlorpropham

Foodstuffs such as potato crisps and chips are being sprayed with the toxic substance chlorpropham. According to reports in the Danish press, this substance may cause liver and kidney cancer in humans. The foodstuffs industry uses this substance to lighten the colour of crisps.

In the light of the above, is the Commission aware of any studies on the effects of this substance on human health? Does it consider it justifiable to permit the continued use of a substance in food products which are aimed in particular at children and young people, given that it may cause cancer or otherwise harm human health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the practice of spraying potato chips and crisps with chlorpropham. In any case such a practice is prohibited under Community law, as chlorpropham is not a permitted food additive (framework Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption(1)).

However, among the chlorpropham uses as a plant growth regulator and herbicide authorised in the Member States, an important one is the post-harvest treatment of potatoes in storage to suppress sprouting. The safety of chlorpropham use is currently being evaluated at Community level in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 on the placing of plant protection products on the market(2). The data evaluated were not sufficient to demonstrate one way or the other whether the use of chlorpropham satisfied the requirements of the directive and Commission Decision 2001/134/EC of 14 February 2001 concerning the decision on the possible inclusion of certain active substances into Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC(3) set a deadline of 31 December 2001 for the provision of the specified additional data necessary to establish whether chlorpropham use is sufficiently safe to satisfy the requirements of the directive.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(3) OJ L 49, 20.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2354/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: EU-Mercosur negotiations

Negotiations between the EU and the Mercosur authorities with a view to making progress on the agreement on free trade in goods and services were held in Montevideo at the beginning of July.

The Commission stated that the objective of the negotiations was to bring about substantial liberalisation between the two parties.

In the light of the outcome of recent rounds of negotiations, particularly the latest round, in which it was noted that certain areas still require intensive negotiations, what are the Commission's current forecasts as regards a successful conclusion to the negotiations on the above agreement?

When and how are detailed discussions to be held on the various aspects relating to access for raw materials such as hides and skins and tariffs applicable to textiles?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2001)

As provided for in the negotiating directives, the Commission presented its offer on tariff, services and public purchases to Mercosur at the fifth negotiating session.

The Mercosur countries were unanimous in their very positive reaction to the Union's political gesture and undertook to present their own offer before the next session, or at any rate before 30 October 2001.

From the outset the Commission has taken these negotiations very seriously. Five rounds have already been held. The sixth is planned for the week of 29 to 31 October to suit the presentation of Mercosur's tariff offer.

The Commission has always defended European industry's need for access to raw materials. Thus it has requested suspension of export taxes and even elimination of unfair trading practices which de facto make it impossible to import this type of product. The detailed negotiations on the products themselves will begin at the negotiating round due to be held in Brussels at the end of October.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/01

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: The cold-blooded murders of children and young people in Honduras

According to a United Nations expert, many hundreds of homeless children and young people are being murdered in Honduras, many of them by the State. This is unacceptable for a country that has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

What actions is the Commission going to undertake in order to stop these cold-blooded murders of children?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2858/01 and E-2859/01given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the current wave of violence in Honduras affecting all sections of the population, including children and street children, 66 of whom died between January and August this year.

UN Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir went to Honduras at the Government's request. She found that the security forces were involved in some cases but only as individuals and not acting as a body. One of the Rapporteur's major concerns is the lack of effort on the part of the security forces to resolve these crimes.

The Commission shares her concerns. It is also worried that this violence seems to be getting worse despite the political will displayed by Honduras in seeking to contain it.

The UN Rapporteur puts the wave of violence down to the weakness of the country's institutions, to poverty and to a lack of education, a view shared by the Commission.

The Commission's development strategy towards Honduras takes these problems into account. 42 % of the funds earmarked for technical and financial assistance to Honduras for the period 2000-2006 are for education and strengthening the rule of law, not to mention specific projects such as cofinancing with NGOs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Support for organisations working with the mentally ill or providing psycho-geriatric assistance

10 October has been declared World Mental Health Day. The World Health Organisation (WHO) believes that mental illness accounts for 12,5 % of all illnesses, thus representing a higher proportion than cancer and cardiovascular disease. In Spain, the mentally ill number over 800 000, to which total should be added that of older people requiring psycho-geriatric care.

In recent years hospital health care provision for these sufferers has been reduced, and the task has been transferred to the community, with home helps, mini-residences, occupational workshops, etc. At the same time, partly due to the lack of funding, but also because of the need to involve society more with these sufferers, the number of institutions, foundations and social organisations working with them has increased.

Is the Commission making any provision for the promotion of research into mental or psycho-geriatric illness?

Is the Commission providing support for the setting up of community infrastructures for sufferers in these categories under any heading?

Does the Commission have support programmes for associations, foundations or institutions working in this social sector?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Community Health Promotion Programme supports measures to promote sound models of good practice in mental health with a view to developing coping and prevention strategies to be implemented in the Member States. The Commission has also given support through this programme to the development of cooperation between organisations active on the promotion of positive mental health and on the prevention of mental disorder.

A project which has just started under the leadership of Deusto university in Bilbao develops coping and prevention strategies in relation to depression during the whole life cycle. One aspect of this project aims at preventing depression during the transition period from working to retirement life.

Another project that is currently carried out aims at setting up a European synopsis on compulsory admission and involuntary treatment of psychiatric patients based on national legislation and practice.