ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3220/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Viability of the construction of a new airport at Corvera (Murcia, Spain)

Recent press reports state that the Spanish government intends to build the above new regional airport, following the approval by the Interministerial Committee for Defence and Transport of a report favouring its construction, which, it is claimed, will meet the alleged need for new facilities to handle large numbers of tourists.

Is the Commission aware of these developments?

Does the Commission not consider this new scheme to be contrary to the recommendation made in the white paper on European transport policy for 2010(1) that the construction of new airports should be suspended?

Does the Commission not consider that Spain's airports already have excess capacity, and that this circumstance casts doubt on the viability of any fresh projects?

(1) COM(2001) 370.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2002)

The Spanish authorities have not officially informed the Commission about their intentions with regard to the construction of a new airport in the region of Murcia, and are under no obligation to do so.

On the basis of general information publicly available, the Commission is aware of the recent developments in this respect.

The Commission does not consider that the possibility of the project in question would go against the policy advocated by the Commission in its White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(1).

The White Paper does not recommend to limit or restrict the construction of new airports. Instead, it clearly states that Europe will not be able to cope without new airport infrastructure, including in the candidate countries ().

The Commission believes that it is primarily the responsibility of Member States to assess whether or not capacity requirements exist, which may or may not point at the desirability to build additional airport infrastructure. The Commission has no direct competence in such matters.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3923/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Death of the Chechen Salman Raduyev in a Russian gaol

On Sunday 15 December 2002 the Russian Ministry of Justice announced the death, at the age of 35, of Salman Raduyev the first of the Chechen commanders to be arrested, tried and sentenced to life imprisonment for the hostage-taking in Kisljar in 2001 on 14 December 2002 in the infirmary of the White Swan prison in the city of Solikamsk, Siberia (Perm region). It took him several days to die following an internal haemorrhage caused, according to Russian sources, by old war wounds which had never completely healed.

On Monday, 16 December, an article in the Russian newspaper Kommersant, reproduced in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, reported statements made anonymously by prison staff, according to which Raduyev was said, by his cell-mate, to have been beaten to death after having opposed a surprise search of his cell by his guards. Salman Raduyev was one of the witnesses whose testimony was used to back the Russian Justice Ministry's request to Denmark and Great Britain for the arrest and extradition of Akhmed Zakaiev. Raduyev allegedly claimed that Zakaiev had taken part personally in kidnappings and terrorist acts. In the same article the Kommersant suggested an interpretation of events according to which Raduyev might have been forced to testify against Zakaiev and then been eliminated.

Is the Council aware of these allegations and if so, how did it react? What official steps does it intend to take to ensure that light is thrown on the real circumstances of Mr Raduyev's death? More generally, how does the Council rate Russia's ability to fulfil the duties of a constitutional state?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council is aware of the allegations concerning the death of Mr Raduyev in a Russian prison in December 2002. It considers that the allegations should be brought before the competent authorities in Russia. The Council will follow this case closely.

The Council will continue to take advantage of the numerous political dialogue meetings with Russia at all levels to underline that democracy and respect of human rights are key elements of the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia. The Council will also continue to underline that progress in the reform process in Russia, including strengthening of the rule of law, is essential for the further development of relations. The Council stands ready to support the Russian authorities in this context.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: State of implementation by the EU Member States of the ERIKA legislative package

What is the state of play as regards implementation by the EU Member States of the ERIKA legislative package? Which were the Member States that, at a certain moment, blocked an agreement to bring implementation forward? On what grounds did they justify such a position?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3600/02 and E-3660/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The Honourable Members are reminded how the Commission deplored the fact that the initially proposed timetable for phasing out single-hull tankers was not retained. The proposal would have meant category 1 single-hull tankers such as the ERIKA or the Prestige being phased out at 23 years of age.

Under the Regulation finally adopted by the co-legislators, the Prestige would have been phased out by 15 March 2005 at the latest. If the timetable proposed by the Commission had been retained, the Prestige would have had to be decommissioned on 1 September 2002 (date of application of the final Regulation) as it was 26 years old on the date of the accident.

In this context, the Commission welcomes the unanimous support of the Member States, as expressed in the conclusions of both the Transport Council of 6 December 2002 and the European Council in Copenhagen, for the measures it presented in its Communication of 3 December 2002.

On 20 December 2002, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation(1) to Parliament and the Council on the accelerated phase-out of single-hull tankers and return to the originally proposed timetable. The Commission hopes that the proposal will be adopted during the Greek presidency.

(1) COM(2002) 780 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3147/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Use of EU funding by metropolitan areas

In many European cities the problems of social cohesion and sustainable development are among the most pressing: damage to the environment is being matched by a deterioration in the quality of life of city-dwellers. For this reason, in recent years the European Union has launched a wide range of measures designed to improve our cities and the quality of life of their inhabitants.

However, on a number of occasions the Commission has emphasised that not enough use is being made of European funding by local authorities, even though such resources are clearly needed to deal with extensive social, economic and environmental problems.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state whether:

1. A comprehensive study of metropolitan areas has been carried out?

2. An action plan has been drawn up for each metropolitan area, in particular European capitals?

3. A comparison has been drawn up of the extent to which European capitals use the funding available?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Commission, in cooperation with Eurostat, has for some years been using a set of indicators called the Urban Audit to assess the quality of life in European cities. The findings of the first phase Urban Audit I, based on a sample of 58 cities were published in May 2000. Urban Audit II, which will cover approximately 170 European cities including all capital cities, is in the course of being lauched and the findings should be available by early 2004.

Under the Interreg III Community Initiative, the Commission is part-financing a programme called the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON).

Applying the principles of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the programme recently launched inter alia the following three studies:

- urban areas' role, situation and potential as nodes of polycentric development;

- town-countryside relations in Europe;

- the Structural Funds' territorial impact on urban areas.

These studies, whose initial findings are expected by mid-2003, will examine the territorial disparities which exist in a number of urban and metropolitan areas.

As regards the possibility of an action plan drawn up at Community level for each capital, the Commission does not envisage any such initiative because responsibility for this rests with the Member States' authorities in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.

Capital cities may access Community Funds and in particular the Structural Funds via national programmes (Objective 3), and in some cases via regional and local programmes (Objectives 1 and 2, Community Initiatives Urban II and Interreg III).

Given the above and the fact that the system for implementing the Funds is decentralised, the Commission does not have information on capital cities' comparative use of the Funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/02

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

(6 December 2002)

Subject: The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

Could the Commission outline which laws in the UK would have to be amended to allow the European Public Prosecutor to function properly?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

The proposal to establish a European Prosecutor has been recently discussed in the Green Paper on criminal-law protection of the financial interests of the Community and the establishment of a European Prosecutor(1). This paper, which was prepared by the Commission, is a consultative document to be used as a basis for an open discussion.

In the Commission's view the European Public Prosecutor should be created by inserting a general provision in the future European Constitutional Treaty but confined to what is necessary to establish the Prosecutor and to define his tasks and main function. The rules governing his functioning would then be adopted by the Council and the Parliament through subsequent secondary legislation.

In order to attain the objectives of a European Prosecutor for the protection of the financial interests of the Community as outlined in the Green Paper as well as to respect the subsidiarity principle, the European Prosecutor would need to be incorporated into the judicial systems of each of the Member States.

The Commission also wishes to call the attention of the Honourable Member to the Corpus Juris study(2), which consists of comparative studies by experts in criminal law from all the Member States. This includes a legal impact assessment on the laws of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(1) COM(2001) 715 final.

(2) The Implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States, M. Delmas-Marty/J. A. E. Vervaele, Intersentia, Utrecht, 2000 (4 volumes).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3728/02

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Withdrawal of train 299

The Belgian rail company SNCB has announced that as from 15 December 2002 the night train No 299 (which also carries vehicles) will no longer run. This decision appears to have been made following the failure of the rail companies of the countries concerned (Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland and Italy) to agree on how to divide the operating costs. This route is of considerable importance for those EU citizens who are unable to travel by air for geographical, financial or health reasons. The decision runs contrary to the EU's overall transport policy, with its objective of developing rail travel, and is also immediately harmful to the EU institutions, which have a direct interest in a service used by Members, officials and members of the public.

Can the Commission state what measures it will take to obtain an explanation of this decision, and what action it will take to secure an agreement between the countries concerned? Can the Commission also take immediate steps to ensure that this service is in fact not withdrawn, even for a single day?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is aware that this service was discontinued on 15 December 2002. It regrets that the rail companies concerned have decided to reduce international services, but recognises that they are entitled to seek to optimise their organisation, including by not losing money on this type of service, as required by Article 5 of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways(1).

The Commission has no other information on the specific reasons which prompted this decision. It would point out, nonetheless, that if the main reason is financial, Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69(2) allows the competent national authorities of the Member States to conclude public service contracts with rail companies to operate train services on routes which would not be profitable without financial support from the public authorities.

The Commission intends, before the end of 2003, to present a proposal for a regulation on the rights and obligations of passengers in international rail traffic and a proposal for a directive to enable rail companies to become more competitive by facilitating access to the market in international passenger services.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, OJ L 156, 28.6.1969.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3352/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: EC Petition 566/2000

The Commission claimed (letter of 19.6.2002) that no effective action could be taken under the EC/Norway Agreement of 1973. Article 27(2.3) states that the Contracting Parties must provide the Joint Committee details of any Article 23 breach with all information and a decision made within three months. Was this done by the EC as a Contracting Party, what was the result, and if it was not done, why was it not done?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The letter of 19 June 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers sets out the eventual outcomes of submitting a competition case involving a Norwegian company to the European Economic Community-Norway Joint Committee under the European Economic Community-Norway Free Trade Agreement of 1973.

However, Article 27 of the said Agreement to which the Honourable Member also refers only provided for a right for either Contracting Party to refer the matter to the Joint Committee. In the case which is the subject of EC Petition 566/2000 and of the question asked by the Honourable Member the facts established by the Commission did not indicate any violation of Articles 85 and 86 of the then EEC Treaty and did not call for a reference of the matter under Article 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Defence of employment and social inclusion

The Portuguese branch of the Danish footwear-manufacturing multinational ECCO, which operates a plant in São João de Ver, in the municipality of Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal) that currently employs about one thousand workers, has announced via an internal circular that it intends to close a production unit, thus making some 180 workers redundant.

This follows on the heels of earlier restructurings which made some 300 workers, both male and female, redundant.

The Commission:

1. Can it state whether the ECCO group has received Community aid in Portugal or in any other EU Member State in order to set up factories, develop production, provide training, etc?

2. Is it aware of other restructurings accompanied by redundancies in companies belonging to this group in other EU Member States?

3. Can it state what information exists on the economic and financial evolution of the ECCO group? What measures will be taken to prevent unemployment in Portugal from rising further, in the context of the European Employment Strategy and the vital importance of social inclusion?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Council Regulation (EC) no 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) for the period (2000-2006) assigns the responsibility of implementing and monitoring of structural funds assistance to the Member States.

Therefore, the decision to approve projects submitted by private companies for Community funding is the responsibility of the Member State, through the power assigned to the management authorities of the various operational programmes.

The Commission has, however, been informed by the Instituto de Gestão do Fundo Social Europeu (IGFSE), that the company ECCO'LET (Portugal) Fábrica de Sapatos, Lda. has benefited from the following incentives for training their staff:

>TABLE>

According to the information of General Direction for Regional Development in Portugal, the company ECCO'LET has benefited as well from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) incentives in the amount of EUR 3 166 101, concerning the Community Structural Fund (CSF) II (1994-1999). In what concerns the CSF III (2000-2006), the amount of incentives included in the programme for economy is EUR 2 020 907 as indicated in the following table.

>TABLE>

The Commission is not aware of other restructurings accompanied by collective redundancies in companies belonging to the ECCO group in other Member States.

More generally, the Commission would like to note that it invited the European social partners to engage in a dialogue on anticipating and managing change with a view to applying a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate restructuring. The social partners agreed to incorporate this important issue in their recently adopted pluriannual work programme.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Access to Kaliningrad

Can the Commission confirm that the European Union is beginning to move towards the idea of subsidising non-stop sealed trains designed to link Kaliningrad to mainland Russia as a solution to the problems of access whilst respecting the security concerns of Poland and Lithuania?

Has the Commission discussed with the Russian government the possibility of building civilian as opposed to military port facilities on Kaliningrad's Baltic coast with a view to improving maritime links between Kaliningrad and ports in mainland Russia, and would this be a project that the European Union might be prepared to subsidise?

Finally, is the Commission aware of any plans to change the name of the exclave, which is named after the first President of the Soviet Union, and, if so, does the Commission believe that this holds any significance for its future political status?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The Commission recalls the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) conclusions of 30 September 2002 and 22 October 2002, which were confirmed by the Brussels European Council on 25 October 2002.

These Council conclusions clearly state that, while the Union should explore, in full cooperation with the Republic of Lithuania, the feasibility of visa-free travel by non-stop train for Russian citizens travelling between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of Russia, any eventual decision on such a scheme:

could only be taken by an enlarged Union, on the basis of a thorough evaluation of the political and legal aspects and once the technical obstacles have been overcome.

The GAERC conclusions of 22 October 2002 further agree that:

A decision to launch a feasibility study in 2003 by independent consultants will be taken by the Union with the agreement of Lithuania when there is agreement with Lithuania on the Terms of Reference for the study.

In this context, it is clear that neither the technical, political nor legal feasibility of such trains has been established. The Commission has therefore made no proposal, nor the Council discussed, the prospects for Union subsidies for any mode of transport connecting Kaliningrad with mainland Russia.

No discussions have taken place with Russia on the conversion for civil purposes of military port facilities. Via the Tacis technical assistance programme, the Union is, however, providing on-going assistance for the development of the Kaliningrad Port in a EUR 998 000 project aimed at strengthening its competitiveness by attracting national and foreign investments.

The Commission is unaware of any plans to change the name of the Kaliningrad Oblast.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2547/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: French legal provisions on rave parties

French legal provisions on free and underground techno music events are extremely repressive. For instance, as part of this war on rave parties, the Subprefect of Limoux took the questionable decision of forbidding Radio Ballade to broadcast techno music on 6 July 2002.

Does the Commission consider that these legal provisions comply with European standards?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The Commission would point out that the issues raised by the Honourable Member in relation to public order measures fall exclusively within the Member States' remit.

It is thus impossible to determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights within the meaning of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union.