ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Hainaut Objective 1 region

According to the Commission, it is still too soon to say how many businesses based in West Flanders will move their registered offices to Hainaut in order to obtain European subsidies for the programme period 2000-2006. Between 1994 and 1999 about fifty businesses apparently surrendered to the enticement to move from Flanders to Hainaut.

Can the Commission state:

1. What businesses are involved?

2. Why these West Flanders businesses have relocated in Hainaut, bearing in mind that the Community's has a particular interest where a firm undertaking a relocation has been supported by public funds either in its present or future location?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0408/01 and E-0459/01 given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Within the context of an Objective 1 programme, such as the one for the province of Hainaut in Belgium, support to enterprises can be given only in case of investments which are implemented in the geographical programme area. Whether or not a company has its registered office within or outside the programme area is irrelevant when it comes to the possible eligibility of its investments for support under the programme. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the study suggested by the Honourable Member, which would focus on changes of registered offices, is not a useful way of gauging the possible impacts of the Hainaut Objective 1 programme.

The impact of the programme, in terms of the location of production or service facilities, could be considered only at the level of decisions of companies to invest in the programme area. However, investment decisions are guided by a multitude of factors. It would most probably be difficult, if not impossible, at micro-economic level to single out the role of an Objective 1 programme in such decisions. Moreover, counterbalancing effects would have to be taken into account, since large areas of the province of West-Vlaanderen itself are eligible for support under the Objective 2 programme Kustgebied-Westhoek.

In any case, it would be premature now to consider the question whether the Hainaut 2000-2006 programme will lead to a shift of investments from West-Vlaanderen to Hainaut: this issue could only be addressed after a substantial part of the programme has been implemented.

Concerning the 1994-1999 programming period, the Commission will address a request to the authorities of the Walloon Region, requesting a list of enterprises which have their registered office in West-Flanders and have benefited from support for investments in the context of the 1994-1999 Hainaut Objective 1 programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0526/01

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Intermediate employment objectives

The Stockholm European Council will, for the first time, evaluate the procedure established at the Lisbon Council, establishing the achievement of full employment as a goal for the year 2010. The Presidency suggested, at the Ecofin Council of 19 January in Brussels, that it might be possible to establish certain intermediate employment objectives, but so far no specific statements have been made as to what these intermediate objectives would comprise.

How does the Commission view this proposal?

What would the parameters be (e.g.: objectives by gender, age, types of activity, regions, temporary jobs, etc.) for these intermediate objectives, so as to be able better to diagnose the problem and target the best solutions, with a view to achieving full employment by the scheduled date?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Attaining full employment in Europe by 2010 calls for resolute and continued efforts by all actors involved. The Commission agrees with the Presidency's wish to reaffirm our commitment to the strategy and aims decided in Lisbon. Substantial progress is possible now thanks to the favourable macroeconomic environment strong economic growth, low inflation and healthy public finances which create the right conditions to move forward.

If we are to reach the objective of full employment by the end of the decade, new intermediate targets for the overall employment rate and for women will help to focus policy action and to monitor progress. Indeed, open policy coordination based on common quantified targets by a given deadline has proved powerful as a political tool for enticing concrete action by national authorities and by social partners. The experience in the Luxembourg Process is a good example and the European Council in Lisbon acknowledged it by extending this principle to other domains such as economic reform, social protection, and education.

The Commission's communication Realising the European Union's potential: consolidating and extending the Lisbon strategy(1) adopted on 7 February 2001 in view of the Stockholm European Council on 23-24 March 2001 goes one step further and calls on the European Council to agree intermediate targets for employment rates across the Community for January 2005 of 67 % overall and 57 % for women.

Member States are also invited as established in Council Decision 2001/63/EC of 19 January 2001 on Guidelines for Member States' employment policies for 2001(2) to consider setting national targets, in consultation with the social partners, for raising the rate of employment, in order to contribute to the Community-wide objectives of reaching by 2010 an overall employment rate of 70 % and of more than 60 % for women and in particular, for significantly increasing the number of older people (55-64) remaining in the workforce.

(1) COM(2001) 79 final.

(2) OJ L 22, 24.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/01

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Alcoholic beverages

Does the Commission consider that wine is an alcoholic beverage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Alcoholic beverages are not defined in Community legislation. In Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), wine is defined as the product obtained exclusively from the total or partial alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes, whether or not crushed, or of grape must.

For the purposes of the tariff and statistical nomenclature and of the Common Customs Tariff, Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999(2) classifies wine of fresh grapes (CN code 2204) among alcoholic beverages (CN codes 2203 to 2206 and 2208).

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 278, 28.10.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0405/01

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Compliance with the Angola-EU fisheries agreement

The government of Angola appears to be about to suspend the Angola-EU fisheries protocol, on the grounds that the Commission has not paid the annual contribution referred to in the protocol and has not complied with its condition concerning introduction of a satellite system.

Given the serious political implications of suspension, as well as the adverse consequences for the fleets fishing in Angolan waters, can the Commission provide detailed answers on the following points:

1. the reasons for non-payment of the annual contribution and non-compliance with the condition concerning introduction of a satellite system?

2. the consequences of the above for relations with Angola?

3. the implications for Member States' fleets and the proposed means of dealing with this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

1. The payment of the first instalment of the financial compensation due under the 2000/2002 protocol to the Community/Angola Agreement should have taken place by 30 November 2000.

The negotiations, which started in January 2000, were only concluded in July 2000, after a third round. The Commission informed the Angolan authorities, during the July round, that it would be difficult to make any payment before 31 January 2001, but Angola insisted on mentioning in the protocol the deadline of 30 November 2000 for the payment of the financial compensation.

As regards the satellite system, the Community is not at fault. The data which constitute the corner stone of that system (co-ordinates for the Angolan Exclusive Economical Zone (EEZ) and contacts for the Angolan Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC)) and without which it is impossible for it to work, had been repeatedly requested from the Angolan authorities since July 2000, but were only received at the end of January 2001, and in a format that does not allow for its direct application. Following their receipt, new contacts have already been launched in order to obtain the information needed for the launch of the system.

2. Despite the Commission's best efforts, the delay in the payment could not be avoided, and everything has been done with a view to guaranteeing the smoothest possible development of the longstanding relations between the Community and Angola in the field of fisheries.

3. Although at the end of January 2001 Angola signalled to the Commission its readiness to suspend the protocol, that suspension never took place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1391/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Measurement of returns on public investment

Is the Commission aware of studies undertaken to compare ex ante and ex post returns on public investment in each Member State? Will it rank each Member State in order of its public servants' prowess in accurately forecasting returns on public investment?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The measurement of returns on public investment is a complex issue as it involves market elements and factors which are outside the economic sphere. Political considerations play an important role. Forecasting the return on public investment appears even more difficult, and ex post assessment of its accuracy equally so. The Commission does not intend to rank national public administrations according to their forecasting capabilities.

In the case of major projects under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, the Commission insists on a cost-benefit analysis for an ex ante assessment of each project, in accordance with the relevant regulation. An ex post evaluation of 120 Cohesion Fund projects is also nearing completion. The interim conclusions of this study suggest that the results of environmental projects are broadly consistent with expectations. For a number of transport projects the forecasts were too optimistic with regard to construction time but too pessimistic as regards the traffic using the renovated sections. The ex post cost-benefit analyses show that in the end the economic rate of return on many of these projects is over 20 %.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1562/01

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Information for project planning and evaluation

The EU funds a wide range of programmes involving the financing of projects in a number of policy areas. Is there a central information resource for companies specialising in project planning and evaluation or is the information dispersed across the range of directorates administering the programmes/projects?

If such a central resource is not available, will the Commission consider setting one up?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Project financing awarded by the Commission is generally done as part of a programme which has its own legal framework and which is managed by an operational Directorate General in charge of the policy area in question. Management or databases for project planning or evaluation are decentralised tasks, where project appraisals are carried out by the responsible Directorates-General. The Commission publishes an annual evaluation report, which is accessible on the europa website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/evaluation/en.index.htm).

To help organisations that are interested in applying for project financing (grants) from the Commission, the Commission manages a database covering information on all grants awarded by the different departments. This database can also be of use for firms offering services for project planning and evaluation.

As for the question of the Honourable Member regarding plans for putting up a database, the grant management web site already provides co-ordinated information to the public on all Commission subsidies (which in most cases take the form of project financing); as in any similar organisation the planning and appraisal of projects for selection for financing is part of the Commission's internal management task, sometimes with the help of executive committees, made up of representatives of Member States.

The Official Journal is the main source for firms (or any member of the public) to find about what services the Commission is intending to buy for project planning or evaluation, through calls for tender and calls for expressions of interest. The Commission has also published an open call for expressions of interest for companies that are interested in offering services for evaluation. The list of companies established on this basis can be used by all Commission services. Information concerning this open call is available on the above mentioned web site.
(2001/C 318 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1230/01
by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(10 April 2001)
Subject: Free movement of persons and fire safety on public transport
On 6 November 2000, a woman died in a fire on the Foscari Intercity 602 travelling from Milan to
Venice.
An inquiry has shown that fire safety rules are not observed on this train, as is also the case on many
other Italian trains (at least 70). The Corriere della Sera reports in its issue of 16 March 2001 that flameretardants were not used in the seat upholstery.
What level of protection does European legislation on fire safety on public transport guarantee? What
steps does the Commission intend to take with a view to ensuring that uniform minimum safety standardsfor European citizens are put in place and monitored? Can the Commission supply relevant informationand explanations?
Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission
(17 May 2001)
Safety and health are essential requirements to be respected under Directives 96/48/EC of the Council of
23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (
1) and 2001/16/EC of
the Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-Europeanconventional rail system (
2).
Within the framework of these Directives, Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) are being
drawn up in order to clarify the corresponding general essential requirements. Respect for TSIs isobligatory once they are published.
Amongst the TSIs for HSTs, which the Commission aims to publish soon, the Commission draws the
Honourable Members attention to rolling stock which has technical requirements that must be respectedas a preventive measure against fire and toxic fumes. It is a very specialised subject for which knowledgeand technology are constantly evolving.
In the meantime, there are provisions in the abovementioned Directives and certain rules in use in the
Member States which apply.
As regards public transport vehicles, Directive 95/28/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 1995 relating to the burning behaviour of materials used in the interior construction ofcertain categories of motor vehicle (
3) establishes minimum fire resistance and melting behaviour
requirements of materials used in the passenger compartment of buses carrying more than 22 passengers.However, Directive 95/28/EC is an optional Directive: its requirements are not obligatory, but every busthat meets these requirements is entitled to bear an EEC type-approval mark and can travel freelythroughout the Community.
(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(2) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001.
(3) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.C 318 E/228 EN 13.11.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Continuing failure to clarify deaths of inhabitants of Kosovar village of Racak

1. Does the Council recall my Written Question No E-0628/00(1) of 2 March 2000 on the deaths on 15 January 1999 of 45 men belonging to the Albanian community in the village of Racak in Kosovo, and its answer of 8 June 2000?

2. Was the full report by the Finnish forensic team of 21 June 2000 handed over to the General Council and the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY)?

3. What, according to the report, is the exact number of victims, and what were the circumstances of their deaths?

4. Is the report in the public domain? If not, why not? Is the Council prepared to make the report available to Members of the European Parliament?

5. Has the recommendation made by Dr Helena Ranta in March 1999, that there should first be a thorough police investigation to give an overall picture of what happened in Racak, been followed up

6. Has the ICTY now opened a criminal investigation?

7. Does the Council endorse the findings of the report referred to in paragraph 2 above?

8. How, when and by whom does the Council expect the complete truth about what happened in Racak to be conclusively established?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 72.

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The Council certainly recalls its reply of 8 June 2000 to a previous question on the issue and is ready to update the Honourable Member on the issue.

At the end of the month of June 2000, the Finnish forensic team completed its work and as agreed with the Council handed over directly to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) a full and detailed report of its findings. The forensic team has briefed the Council by presenting an Executive Summary (annex). This document has been recently declassified, following advice by ICTY and Dr Helena Ranta, who had lead the EU forensic team to Yugoslavia. On the same occasion both Dr Ranta and the office of ICTY Prosecutor made it clear that due to ongoing investigations, the content of the final report which is not in the hands of the Council should not be disclosed.

The Council agrees with these views and does not see fit to comment further.

As for the last question of the Honourable Member, it is clear that the complete truth about what happened in Racak will be established, by ICTY, after careful investigation and on the basis of all elements at its disposal, including the forensic expert's report. Only ICTY can judge the circumstances of and responsibility for this atrocious episode of recent European history.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0706/01

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 February 2001)

Subject: Public procurement

In 2000, the Commission presented two proposals for directives on public procurement: COM(2000) 275 and COM(2000) 276. These two directives, together with an interpretative document drawn up by the Commission, make it virtually impossible to take account of environmental considerations in public procurement procedures. For instance, it is not permitted to impose environmental requirements on the production of goods that are the subject of public procurement. Nor is it permitted, once the tendering procedure has closed, to give preference to a bid on the grounds that it is more environment-friendly. This is completely at odds with the Treaties which expressly require the European Union to promote sustainable development and take account of environmental factors. What is more, Parliament and the Council are expected to consider the directives without having seen the interpretative document (which has not yet been adopted by the Commission and the preliminary version of which is not publicly accessible). What are the Council's views regarding the virtual exclusion of environmental considerations from public procurement procedures? What is its position as regards the Council and Parliament being expected to consider the directives without having access to the interpretative document?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member already indicates in her question, the Council and the Parliament have at present not finished the first reading of the two Commission proposals for public procurement Directives. For this reason, it is not possible for the Council to comment on individual substantive points still under examination. The Honourable Member might wish to address to the Commission the part of her question which relates to environmental requirements on the production of goods as well as preferences given to products on environmental grounds after the tendering has been closed.

It should be pointed out, however, that according to information from the Commission, the Council may expect the interpretative communication on public procurement and the environment to be published soon enough still to be able to provide guidance for the discussions in the Council at first reading. It should nevertheless be recalled that the communication is merely intended to interpret the present legislation and will not constitute a new Commission proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Liquid Petroleum Gas fuel

What initiatives has the European Union taken with regard to the conversion of motor vehicles to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) fuel? What is the full cost to the EU of such initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The European type approval system regulates the placing on the market of new passenger cars. The regulatory framework comprises all the safety and environmental requirements which such vehicles have to satisfy before they are allowed to be placed on the market. Until recently, this system was not completely adapted in order to take into account all the specific characteristics of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) fuelled vehicles. For this reason, Member States needed to request a derogation for new LPG vehicles with respect to one or more European type approval directives.

In recent years, the Community has adopted a number of amendments to these type approval directives concerning LPG fuelled vehicles. Following the accession to United Nations economic commission for Europe (UN-ECE) regulation 67 regarding specific provisions for LPG fuel tanks and the adoption of an amendment to Council Directive 70/220/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by gases from positive-ignition engines of motor vehicles(1) to provide specific dates of application of on-board diagnostic systems for LPG fuelled vehicles, it will now be possible to receive a European type approval for an LPG fuelled vehicle. In this way, these vehicles can now benefit fully from the internal market.

The conversion of vehicles already placed on the Community market falls within the competence of the Member States. Several Member States have taken regulatory or fiscal measures in order to encourage such conversions depending on the specific situation prevailing within their territory.

Additionally, a draft regulation has been prepared at UN-ECE level in order to harmonise specific requirements for LPG retrofit systems. The adoption of this regulation is currently being considered by the Union institutions.

(1) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970.