ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1343/02

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

(2 May 2002)

Subject: Delays in payments

A number of people responsible for cultural and educational programmes, as well as ordinary citizens, have protested about delays in the payment of grants for projects in the field of culture and education and occupational training.

Given that, in most cases, the people concerned do not have the necessary financial reserves to advance the amounts required, the above situation is extremely harmful in both economic and cultural terms.

The Commission:

- Is it aware of these problems?

- Will it indicate what time frames are applied with respect to such payments?

- Does it intend to monitor the situation with a view to significantly improving and resolving this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Each year, the programmes in the fields of culture, education and vocational training involve thousands of transactions throughout the 30 participating countries. The Commission is aware of the difficulties in ensuring that payments to beneficiaries are made quickly; these difficulties are partly due to a new procedure being put in place which entails internalising payments previously made by external technical assistance offices whose new contracts stipulate that they will no longer carry out tasks considered to be the responsibility of the public authorities.

The agreements between the Commission and the beneficiaries under the programmes generally provide that the Commission has a payment deadline of 60 days as from the date of its acceptance of a valid request for payment (for the payment of an advance: the financing agreement signed by the beneficiary; for any payment of an intermediate advance or the payment of a balance: the financial accounts and activity report duly drawn up by the beneficiary and accepted by the Commission).

The Commission is endeavouring to reduce the payment times in the field concerned and has initiated various measures to this end; subject to the means at its disposal, these include increasing staff numbers handling payment transactions. However, the Commission keeps a close watch on the quality of financial management and the controls to which incoming documents must be subjected. In this connection, it is trying to simplify as far as possible the rules governing the management of the programmes with a view to speeding up the operational procedures involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Visas for non-Community citizens resident in Switzerland

Several hundred thousand immigrants, mainly from the Balkan States and Turkey, are living in Switzerland with valid long-term residence permits. Whenever they need to cross EU borders (Italy, Austria, Germany and, to a lesser extent, France) they have to apply for a visa. The FIM (Forum for the Integration of Migrants set up recently in Switzerland) suggests that instead of the visa requirement, they should have to present their passports and a valid residence permit.

Does the Commission support this proposal? If so, what action will it take to put it into practice? If not, what alternatives does it suggest to avoid confusion in the consulates of the EU countries concerned?

Does the Commission think that a solution to this serious problem might be found in the final decisions ratifying the agreement between the European Union and Switzerland?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The Commission is aware that several thousand foreign nationals resident in Switzerland are subject to a visa requirement when crossing the external borders of the Member States, including when transiting via a Member State to return to their country of origin for their annual holidays.

This issue will not be resolved by the agreement on the free movement of persons between Switzerland and the Union, which was signed on 21 June 1999 and should enter into force shortly, following its ratification by all the contracting parties.

It should be noted that if the Swiss request to participate in Schengen/Dublin were to give rise to a bilateral agreement between the European Union and Switzerland, the problem would be totally resolved. However, that is not likely to be achieved in the near future.

It has come to the Commission's attention that, since August 2000, Switzerland has granted visa exemptions to foreign nationals holding a residence permit issued by a Member State, and it does not rule out a reciprocal measure being taken in the medium term.

It should also be noted that existing law, and in particular the Common Consular Instructions(1), allows Member States to issue visas to foreign nationals resident in Switzerland in ways which do not constitute an excessive obstacle to travel.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Subject: Notification of contracts

Will the Commission state whether in its view a vaccine contract for the sum of £ 32 million placed by a Member State ought to be notified for open competition under the procedures of the procurement directives?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1199/02, E-1200/02 and E-1201/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Commission understands that Written Questions E-1200/02 and E-1201/02 relate to the award of a contract by the United Kingdom authorities for the supply of smallpox vaccines to address possible terrorist attacks in the light of the 11 September 2001 atrocities and in particular the ensuing concerns about bio chemical terrorist attacks.

The Commission is not fully aware of all the steps which the United Kingdom authorities may have taken in the award of the contract. In the absence of such information, it is not possible to conclude with any certainty whether this particular contract falls within the scope of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts(1) and whether the award of the contract should have been subject to open competition.

As regards Written Question E-1199/02, information received by the Commission indicates that the Member States that have procured emergency vaccines to counter potential terrorist threats following the anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001 did not follow open public tender procedures on account of the security implications involved.

Article 2 of the above-mentioned Directive constitutes a derogation from the provisions for open public tendering. This includes supply contracts which are declared secret or the execution of which must be accompanied by special security measures in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions in force in the Member States concerned or when the protection of the basic interests of the Member State's security so requires.

As a derogation from the general rule that public contracts must be awarded by public tender, Article 2 has to be restrictively construed on a case by case basis. Relevant factors could include a perceived need at the time of the contract not to announce the existence or nature of the contract for public security reasons. Statements made by the European Court of Justice in Case C- 273/97 of 26 October 1999 to the effect that Member States have a degree of discretion when adopting measures which they consider to be necesssary in order to guarantee public security, may also be a relevant factor in this type of case.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1441/02

by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: 'Europass' beneficiaries

The Commission has just announced that 20 000 Europasses for training purposes have been allocated since the initiative came into operation in 2000.

Will the Commission provide a break-down by nationality of this scheme and the type of courses followed?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the Europass Training initiative, which was established by Decision 1999/51/EC of the Council of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship(1). The specific objective of the Decision is to encourage periods of vocational training in other Member States and contribute to their quality.

The Commission has adopted on 2 May 2002 and submitted to the Parliament and the Council its report on the implementation of the Decision(2).

This report, which is required by Article 9 of the Decision 1999/51/EC, offers a picture of the first two years of implementation. In particular, it contains information on the dissemination of Europass-Training documents, including a break-down per country.

Table 3 of the Report (page 14) shows the break-down per country of origin (Union + European Economic Area countries) of European pathways recorded by Europass Training documents of November 2001:

>TABLE>

As concerning the type of course, about three quarters of Europass Training holders were in education or training at secondary or upper secondary level; lower and higher levels of education each account for 10-15 % of the cases.

Further findings include the following:

- the duration of the traineeships abroad varied between 3 and 15 weeks;

- a slight majority of Europass Training holders were women (about 55 %);

- a strong majority of Europass Training holders were between 17 and 23 years old.

A substantial number of European pathways come under the Leonardo da Vinci programme, though the proportion varies considerably from one country to another (30 to 100 %). In some countries bilateral or national initiatives account for up to 50 % of the European pathways.

(1) The Decision was adopted on 21 December 1998, OJ L 17, 22.1.1999, it entered into force on 1 January 2000.

(2) Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council: Report on the implementation of the Decision 1999/51/EC of the Council of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship, COM(2002) 214 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0953/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Accidents at Sellafield

On 8 February 2002 another serious accident occurred at the Sellafield complex necessitating the temporary shutdown of one of the nuclear reactors. In December 2001 six nuclear reactors, including four at the Sellafield complex, were shut down after a malfunction within a reactor in Scotland.

How many times in the last five years have security concerns forced the shutdown of reactors in Sellafield, for what reason, and on what dates; and what information was received by the Commission on each incident?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission is regularly informed of matters concerning nuclear safety in the Member States and the candidate countries. In addition, under Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty the Commission has responsibilities in the field of radiation protection.

However, it would point out that the design and construction of nuclear power stations falls within the sphere of responsibility of the Member States, and that the proper functioning of nuclear installations is primarily the responsibility of nuclear operators under the supervision of the national safety authorities. Therefore, the Commission receives no information whether security concerns forced the shutdown of a reactor, as long as there is no radioactive release outside the plant.

It should also be pointed out that, as already announced to the European Parliament's Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee, the Commission intends to submit a proposal, following on from the conclusions of the Laeken European Council (14 and 15 December 2001), formalising a Community approach to nuclear safety in the form of common standards and European control mechanisms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Funding of alternative range of textbooks under the 1st operational programme Education and initial vocational training

Subprogramme 1, measure 1, action (a) entitled Books-Programmes, forming part of the 1st operational programme Education and initial vocational training in Greece, provided for the publication of an alternative range of teaching material, such as a selection of textbooks for second-year physics. One year after their publication, these books were withdrawn because of the problems they created in the educational process.

1. What amount of funding was made available for this project?

2. What measures will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Under the operational programme mentioned by the Honourable Member, funding for the production and publication of an alternative range of books/textbooks was actually provided.

The action referred to was implemented and financed under this programme to the tune of Ecus 200 000.

According to information provided to the Commission by the Ministry of Education, some of these textbooks have been withdrawn.

The Commission does not currently have any other information on this matter. A letter will therefore be sent to the Ministry of Education in order to look at what action to take concerning this question when the operational programme is wound up.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/02

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

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Interreg III A programme (Almería)

The exclusion of the Province of Almería (autonomous community of Andalusia) from the Interreg III A programme of funding, which focuses on cross-border cooperation with Morocco, has given rise to much concern among the inhabitants of the province owing to the fact that its proximity to Morocco means that the two areas have many common interests deriving from the constant flow of persons and goods through the province's port and the large number of Moroccan citizens who have been drawn into the province by its agricultural development.

1. Given the above, why does the Province of Almería not come within the scope of the Interreg II programme which was adopted in 1992?

2. In view of the fact that the province was again left out of the Interreg III A programme in 1999 (covering the period 2000 to 2006), what likelihood is there of it being included in the next Interreg programme which will be drawn up at the end of the current programme?

3. Is there any possibility of the province being able to benefit from the programme during the 2003 to 2006 financial years, and if so, what procedures should be followed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Almeria is ineligible for strand A Cross-border cooperation of the Interreg III Community Initiative. This strand is in essence concerned with cooperation across land frontiers, maritime areas being eligible only in exceptional circumstances. For the same reason Almeria was ineligible for Interreg II Spain/Morocco over the period 1994-1999.

Almeria is however eligible for two strand B Transnational cooperation Interreg programmes for the period 2000-2006: Western Mediterranean, to which the European Regional Fund contribution is 103 800 000 and South-West Europe, to which the contribution is 66 135 000. Under the first of these it is proposed to expedite transnational cooperation between the European zones covered and the North African countries.

Almeria is also eligible under strand C Interregional cooperation of Interreg III.

It can also benefit under the Objective I Operational Programme Andalusia, which has been allocated 7 840 400 000 from the Structural Funds, of which 6 152 700 000 is from the ERDF.

The Commission cannot comment at this stage on continuation of Interreg after 2006 or what areas would be eligible. It has no plans to alter the list of eligible areas in Annex I to its Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000(1).

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory Interreg III (OJ C 143, 23.5.2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/02

by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

Will the Commission agree to consider the submission from the UK's Recreational Sea Angling (RSA) group with reference to the depletion of fish stocks in our seas, and agree to consider their suggestions for policies and management of fish stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of sea angling and its contribution to the well-being of certain coastal areas. However, the Commission believes that sea angling, in general terms, would be best managed by Member States, on the basis of their proximity to the activity and the general absence, in many cases, of a clear transnational dimension to this activity.

However, this does not mean that the Community should overlook such activity. In some cases, it is clear that angling may have a Community dimension, for example where the species being caught are already managed by the Community or in other cases where anglers' contribution to the fishing mortality of certain fish stocks may be non-negligible. In such cases, the Commission believes that Community intervention may be necessary and Member States may be required to take measures in respect of sea angling that reflect Community policy needs.

As to the question of participation of anglers in the Community's decision making process, the enhancement of the participation of stakeholders is one of the priorities in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. In that context, and inasmuch as the Commission takes initiatives on sea angling or on fisheries in which they have a major interest, anglers' associations will certainly be consulted as an fundamental stakeholder in this activity.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1904/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 June 2002)

Subject: MOX shipment from Japan to UK

Is the Commission satisfied that adequate security measures are in place for the returned MOX shipment from Japan to the UK port of Barrow-in-Furness due in August/September 2002?

Would the Commission detail what the security measures are and whether all necessary safeguards are in place to protect European territory and European waters?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

The Commission has neither the responsibility nor the legal powers to evaluate the security arrangements adopted for the return shipment of the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel to the United Kingdom.

The Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) in the United Kingdom is responsible for the regulation by civil nuclear operators for the secure transport of sensitive categories of nuclear material. In this context, the Office is the British designated national authority under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, for shipments to and from overseas destinations.

Specifically concerning the return shipment of the MOX fuel from Japan, this falls directly under the regulatory control of the OCNS. The Office reviewed all the security arrangement, in particular in the context of the terrorist attack last September 2001 in the United States. These security arrangements were also reviewed by the United States and Japanese regulatory authorities. All the security authorities are satisfied that the security arrangements are amply robust to deal with any potential threat.

According to the information available to the Commission, security measures in place seem adequate. Nevertheless, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and, in particular, the paragraph concerning confidentiality of information concerning security measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: First Progress Report on Cohesion

The figures for Madeira's per capita GDP as a proportion of the Community average (72 %) given in the First Progress Report on Cohesion aroused a mixture of surprise, satisfaction and concern in the questioner. In actual fact the change was much more significant than expected, because of the change in the method of calculating national accounts after 1999. Madeira progressed from 54,5 % of the Community average (mentioned in the Second Report on Cohesion published in 2001) to the 72 % mentioned in the First Progress Report.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. what changes in the criteria for calculating national accounts explain such a significant change in the GDP of the Autonomous Region of Madeira;

2. to what extent each of the changes was responsible for the new figures?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2002)

The Portuguese regional accounts in the First Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion adopted by the Commission on 30 January 2002(1) were compiled in line with Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA 95)(2). For the data in the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion adopted on 31 January 2001(3), the old national accounts system (ESA 79) was used.

All Member States are at present updating their data by applying the new national and regional accounts system ESA 95. In July 2001 the Portuguese national statistical office published the first estimates in this new economic accounts series and at the same time sent the data to the Statistical Office of the European Community (Eurostat).

Methodological differences between the two systems largely explain the change in the relative position of the per capita GDP of the Madeira Autonomous Region. The new system is more comprehensive and obviously more up to date than the old one, particularly where the service sector is concerned. Nonetheless the data that has just been published is restricted to the years 1995 et seq and is subject to correction. The most significant changes from the previously published estimates can be found in the tourism, financial services (free zone) and property sectors.

(1) COM(2002) 46 final.

(2) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(3) COM(2001) 24 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1981/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Health service waiting lists in Rome and Italy as a whole

Rome and Italy as a whole have for some time been wrestling with the serious problem of waiting lists for access to free public health services. The problem can be particularly serious in the case of emergencies and certain diseases. In many cases patients have to wait more than six months to undergo tests.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether there are examples of good practice in this field;

2. whether there is any Commission documentation or research on the subject;

3. whether it can express a general opinion on the issue?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The Commission is aware that waiting time for health services causes concern in a number of Member States. At this stage, however, it does not have data on waiting lists available. The new public health action programme which was recently adopted by the Parliament and the Council, however, foresees the establishment of a comprehensive health information system which may provide a framework to pursue some of the issues raised by the question.

Moreover, the Commission hopes that replies by the Member States to a recently issued questionnaire on health and long-term care for the elderly will provide some insights into the problem and possibly yield some indications on how it can be tackled.