ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nauru

With respect to Nauru, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2004/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Nauru

With respect to Nauru, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3071/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Special Commissioner for Traffic for the city of Rome

Rome City Council has asked the Italian Government whether it can appoint the Mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, to the post of Special Traffic Commissioner. This appointment would equip Mr Veltroni with special discretionary powers to grant derogations from the legislation in force. He would, for example, be able to arbitrarily decide whether or not environmental impact assessments should be carried out on the construction of underground car parks or other public works. This would encroach on the regional government's authority, as recognised by the Italian State and the European Union and, above all, would be liable to deprive citizens of the only regulatory instrument they have for preventing serious damage to the environment and the liveability of the city.

Could the Commission therefore:

1. indicate whether it is possible for mayors to bypass EIA procedures at their discretion, even if they have been delegated special powers;

2. state whether this constitutes a potential infringement of the directives governing this area;

3. give its assessment of this situation.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The issue of the share-out of the responsability to apply the provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) whether before or after amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2) among the different authorities of a Member States is not a matter of Community law.

However, all national authorities which are responsible for applying the provisions of the Directive in the Member States are obliged to comply with it.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Take-up of funds under third CSF in Greece

Mr Pachtas, the Greek Deputy Minister responsible for administering funds from the third Community Support Framework (CSF), indicated that in Greece over 70 % of the scheme had already been mobilised. However, information published by the Greek Finance Ministry indicates a take-up rate of only 10,67 % of public funds earmarked for this purpose almost three years after official entry into force. Furthermore, if private sector contributions are also taken into account the situation is much worse. Regarding programmes for the outlying regions whose development is lagging furthest behind (Epiruc, the northern Aegean, western Macedonia) the take-up rate is situated between 2 and 2,7 %.

What precise figures does the Commission have regarding total take-up for the third CSF in Greece? In which regions of Greece is it highest and which projects are involved? Is there any danger, and if so how great, of forfeiting unused Community funds? What representations have been made by the Commission to the Greek authorities with a view to accelerating the take-up of funds under the third CSF?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2003)

The figures on the absorption of funds under CSF III given by the statements of payments submitted by Greece under Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) show that, of a total of EUR 21 950 100 000 for the whole programming period, by October 2002 EUR 3 452 760 000, or 15,7 %, had been paid. After deducting the 7 % advance, actual implementation was about 8,7 %. However, more recent figures from the national authorities put actual implementation in December 2002 at about 10,9 %.

The Commission has no figures on the absorption rates for individual projects because payments are calculated by measure rather than at a lower level. However, this information is available in the Ergorama national monitoring system.

At present the regional operational programmes for the southern Aegean, the Ionian Islands and western Greece are the ones which have the highest implementation rates.

As regards the risk of a loss of funds, the n+2 rule will apply for the first time in Greece at the end of 2003. At the meeting of the CSF Monitoring Committee in spring 2002, Greece identified certain operational programmes which required careful monitoring, although loss of funding was not certain at this stage. The situation will be reviewed in partnership with Greece early in 2003 and if necessary appropriate steps will be taken to correct this problem.

The Commission has also begun a dialogue with the Member States on the simplification of procedures, mainly to speed up the pace of using Community funding.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 25.6.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3241/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Drama schools and training programmes under the European Social Fund

There is a demand from young people in Greece for training programmes in the dramatic arts. In the light of such demand and in order to create greater awareness of the training programmes available, can the Commission confirm whether such programmes are already running or will do so under the Third CSF for Greece? If so, can the Commission explain who is eligible to take part in the training programmes? What are their financial obligations, if any, towards the drama schools? In particular, which drama schools have undertaken to carry out the relevant programmes in Greece?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that up to now no European Social Fund (ESF) co-financing of drama schools has taken place under the 3rd Community Support Framework for Greece.

Following the modernisation of vocational training in Greece, a labour market study is always necessary before including a particular sector in the calls for tender of the cofinanced training actions.

If a future study reveals that there is a labour market need in the field of dramatic arts, it may be decided to finance training actions under one of the Operational Programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 November 2002)

Subject: Medical errors

Researchers say that approximately 108 000 people die in United States and Canada every year as a result of medical errors. An error occurs in seven percent of all medical treatments: medicines are administered too early or too late, the wrong medicine is used or the dose is incorrect. In 0,32 % of these cases the outcome is fatal. The figures are exactly the same for emergency cases. In almost a third of all reported cases, medical error is the result of negligence. Belgian researchers estimate that the same figures apply to Belgium.

Can the Commission confirm these estimates?

Does the Commission have figures for medical errors in the European Union? If so can it disclose them?

What is the Commission doing to cut the number of medical errors?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Under the EC Treaty, the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care are the responsibility of the Member States, not of the Community (Article 152, paragraph 5).

The Commission does not therefore have a role in systematically monitoring specific medical errors in the Union. However, under the health information system, which will be part of the new public health Community action programme, the Commission will be developing a set of health indicators, which will include indicators concerning avoidable causes of death as well as iatrogenic diseases and death (calculated risks to health as a result of medical actions, incorporating medical errors). These health indicators are foreseen to be collected by the Member States and to be stored in the Euphin-system (European Public Health Information System). On the basis of the outcome of this data-collection further initiatives may be considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2980/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Social clause in international fisheries agreements

The Commission is rightly encouraging European social dialogue between entrepreneurs and trade unions with a view to ensuring that the progress of European integration includes the social aspects. Of the various industries, perhaps fisheries most require this social dialogue, due to the harsh working conditions, long working days, high rate of accidents, aspects which go beyond the national framework, low levels of trade union organisation and collective negotiation, wage systems foreign to labour law, etc.

At the plenary meeting of the Sea Fishing Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee of 19 December 2001, the economic and social representatives adopted a social clause to be included in fishery agreements with third countries.

The clause also recognises the following within the framework of these agreements: freedom of association, effective recognition of collective negotiation, and the elimination of discrimination of all kinds with regard to employment and profession. It further establishes guarantees for contracted fishermen from the signatory countries, who are guaranteed living and working conditions similar to those of the EU.

The Commission has recently signed three fishery agreements, with Santo Tomé, Angola and Senegal respectively, and neither the regulation nor the protocols make any reference to this social clause.

Why did the Commission not include this social clause in its proposals for regulations and in the protocols?

What measures is the Commission going to take to promote this clause and make it effective?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Commission is following with interest the deepening of the social dialogue between employers and employees in the sea fishing sector and welcomes adoption by the social partners meeting in the Sea Fishing Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee of the declaration calling for inclusion of a social clause in the Community's fishery agreements with other countries.

The Commission is at present studying how the social partners' wish can best be realised. It would be possible to include the clause in agreements directly by means of a specific reference. Or its provisions could be set out in the agreement and possibly improved on depending on the nature of the latter.

The Commission can already draw on past experience in this matter: provisions on employment of seamen already exist, e.g. in the protocols to the agreements concluded with the Seychelles(1), Côte d'Ivoire(2) and Mauritania(3).

(1) OJ L 134, 22.5.2002.

(2) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001.

(3) OJ L 341, 22.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3481/02

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Belgian government contract for the development of the European district

The Rem Koolhaas Office for Metropolitan Architecture was recently excluded from taking part in a design competition for an overall urban development concept for the European district in Brussels.

According to the reasoned decision of the Prime Minister's chancellery the practice was excluded because of a formal irregularity (the absence of a signature on one of the documents submitted) and weaknesses regarding the multidisciplinary approach and the necessary references.

According to press reports, only four Belgian architectural practices have been admitted to the second round and yet the government decision says that the Koolhaas proposal was one of the four best schemes.

1. Was Commission involved in the invitation to tender for the competition, as the main resident of the European district, or otherwise?

2. Does the Commission consider that the competition complied with European rules on public procurement? What does the Commission consider to be the financial value of the contract?

3. The notice of competition was published on 19 July 2002 in the Belgian Invitations to tender bulletin and the deadline for submitting bids was 7 August 2002. Does the Commission consider that such a short deadline in the middle of the summer holidays is acceptable from the point of view of fair competition?

4. Is the Commission prepared to raise the question of the invitation to tender with the Belgian government and to press for a reopening of the tender procedure?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Honourable Member's question relates to a procedure for the award of a public service contract with a view to designing an overall urban development concept for the European district in Brussels.

The Commission was not involved in the invitation to tender either as the main resident of the European district, or otherwise.

According to the Commission's information, the financial value of the contract appears to be limited to EUR 250 000.

The Commission has received a complaint from the Rem Koolhaas Office for Metropolitan Architecture. It therefore intends to examine the procedure at issue in detail and, if necessary, question the Belgian authorities on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Update on the evaluation of fenthion

Commissioner Byrne stated in his answer to Written Question E-0749/02(1) that the Commission would submit the result of its evaluation to the Scientific Committee on plants in April 2002 and that the Committee was expected to deliver its opinion within two months. The Commissioner added that it was the intention of the Commission to decide on fenthion as soon as possible after receipt of the opinion of the Scientific Committee.

Did the Scientific Committee conclude that fenthion is safe or unsafe, and what decision has been taken by the Commission?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 225.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission can confirm that it asked the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants on several questions arising from the evaluation of fenthion. Given the complexity of the issues surrounding the substance, the Committee has taken longer than expected to finalise its opinion. However, it is expected that the Committee will deliver its opinion in the coming months and the Commission intends to decide on fenthion as soon as possible thereafter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3140/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Unlawfulness of Directive 91/67/EEC

The current EU legislation on animal health checks in the aquaculture industry incorporates complex provisions governing the award to zones or farms of approved status. In particular, the provisions of Directive 91/67/EEC(1) and the subsequent implementing measures lay down in great detail the rules governing testing procedures in the laboratories run by national animal health authorities and impose, in cases where the presence of certain diseases is brought to light, extremely strict safeguards which represent a breach of the right of ownership. The rules do not stipulate that a technician designated by the firm concerned should be present when the tests are carried out or that, at least, a second test may be requested, even though the very survival of what are generally small firms depends on the outcome. These provisions would seem to be clearly at odds with the right of ownership, a fundamental human right which can be restricted only in a manner proportional to the objective to be achieved.

What interpretation does the European Commission place on the rules in force and does it take the view that the right of ownership is being violated? If so, what measures does it plan to take to bring an end to this unlawful state of affairs?

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Article 295 of the EC Treaty provides that this Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership.

Although property ownership is to be regarded as a fundamental right, that right has to be weighed in the balance with other fundamental rights such as the protection of public health and safety.

Measures taken to control the outbreak of diseases of animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, may, in the general public interest as well as in the interest of producers of the product concerned, require temporary restrictions on the exercise of certain property rights.

A similar question to that posed by the Honourable Member is currently the subject of a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice (joined cases C-20/00 and C64/00).

In relation to the possibility of those affected having an expert present at the time laboratory analysis of samples takes place, or indeed of receiving an additional sample for an independent analysis, the Commission's view is that, whilst this is not expressly provided for in the text of Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products, or the Commission's implementation rules, it is in no way prevented by the Community rules concerned. Member States are therefore, at liberty to provide for such rights of counter expertise in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2579/02

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation

In 1997 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive(1) on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation, on which the European Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on 19 February 1998.

To date this dossier has not been completed and the training and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation remain in the hands of the operators, since it has not yet been established that their training should be carried out by independent bodies appointed by the Member States.

In the meantime, and according to information from trade unions representing cabin staff, an increasing number of airlines are employing crews on a temporary and seasonal basis, and some of them have even reduced the period of basic training.

In view of current security concerns in air transport and the importance and responsibility of cabin crews in this area, can the Council say why the proposal for a directive has not yet been followed up and what the prospects are for its definitive adoption?

(1) COM/97/0382, OJ C 263, 29.8.1997, p. 5.

Reply

(18 February 2003)

Following the events of 11 September, on 16 October 2001 the Council resumed its examination of the proposal for a Directive on the professional competence of cabin crews so as to push forward work on this dossier. It has turned out, however, that advances in this area are closely linked to progress on another dossier, that relating to the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (transposition of JAR OPS 1). It has thus proved desirable that these two dossiers be examined in parallel. The proposal for a Directive on the professional competence of cabin crews will therefore be examined together with the proposal for a Regulation on JAR OPS, currently being revised by the Commission, in particular as regards Annex III.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1397/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: 2004 national indicative programme for China health and plant-protection rules

The Commission has announced that a group of Community experts were due to visit China in April in order to hold meetings for the purpose of drawing up a fresh proposal for a 2004 national indicative programme for China one which, it is hoped, will include a major component relating to health and plant-protection rules.

Will the Commission report on that visit and provide an assessment with regard to the inclusion of a health and plant-protection component in the above programme?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

A team of four experts started its activities in China on 13 May 2002 to study the feasibility of a new World Trade Organisation (WTO) related technical assistance programme, based on an analysis of the objectives, strategies and future needs of China, and on a mid-term evaluation of the ongoing Framework Programme for Community support to China's accession to the WTO.

The outcome of this expert mission should allow the Commission to agree with China on the content of a new programme and to adopt this programme in the second part of the year 2002.

Without pre-judging the final content of the programme, a common understanding was reached at the Community-China Joint Committee in January 2002 that it should include a substantial health and plant protection component.

Once the Commission has adopted the programme and a Financing Agreement with China has been signed, the programme content and a regular update of implementation status will be available on the website of the Commission Delegation in Beijing, as the Delegation will be responsible for the management of the programme.