ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/175

(2004/C 33 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1829/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Letters to the Greek Government concerning the use of Community funds and the compliance with EU legislation

Can the Commission say how many letters have been sent to the Greek Government since 1994 and from whom (Commissioners, directors-general or heads of division) concerning the proper use of Community funds for environmental protection purposes and the transposition and proper implementation of Community environmental legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

In accordance with the role assigned to it by Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the Commission maintains regular and abundant correspondence with the national authorities on the implementation and appropriate use of EU funds granted to projects contributing to environmental objectives and on the correct application of EU environmental legislation. The number of letters sent in each case depends on a number of factors.

For instance, the investigation of a complaint concerning the application of EU environmental law may comprise several stages involving the dispatch of many successive letters.

When the Commission considers that there is an infringement, it may initiate the procedure provided for by Article 226 of the EC Treaty which may lead to the matter being brought before the Court of Justice, preceded by the dispatch of a letter of formal notice and of a reasoned opinion.

However, it is materially and technically impossible to produce statistics showing the total number of letters which the Commission has sent to the Greek authorities since 1994. However, it is possible to produce general statistics on the number of complaints or infringements relating to transposition and application of EU environmental legislation in Greece.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/263

(2004/C 65 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Serious defects in Greek ambulances

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly brought up in the Greek parliament the question of the provision of ambulances belonging to the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAB), the specifications which should be met, transparency in the choice of the vehicle makes bought and the equipment that they should have in order to be able to carry out their difficult tasks.

Workers at EKAB have on many occasions pointed out that many of these ambulances lack the requisite portable artificial respiration equipment (which is designed to give the first supplies of oxygen to an injured person), as well as another acutely essential piece of equipment, the defibrillator, which ought to be in every ambulance to administer repeated electrical shocks to a patient who has had a heart attack.

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly pointed out (through the social issues coordinator responsible for this area, our former European Parliament colleague Nikitas Kaklamanis) the problem of lack of transparency in the choice of ambulances makes bought from time to time (thanks to the second and third Community support frameworks).

Could the Commission set out the exact total amounts which have been made available by the EU from 1994 until the present, and indicate precisely which operational programmes (either via the CSF or Community initiatives) apply to the provision of ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units? Has the Commission been informed of the above-mentioned defects in ambulance equipment? What is the Commission's position with regard to the allegations by workers at EKAB that for a city such as Athens (with five million residents) there are only 72 ambulances, amounting to one ambulance for every 70 000 city residents; hence the recent incident (on 30 September 2003) of the injured motorcyclist in Athens who waited for two hours in a heap on the road for an ambulance to arrive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/216

(2004/C 65 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2781/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in China — the Falun Gong

According to the Chinese national press agency Xin-Hua the government in Beijing intends to continue its campaign against the Falun Gong Movement, an organisation it calls ‘an evil cult’, which is ‘anti-social’ and ‘anti-scientific’.

The communiqué says ‘we are aware that the battle will be long, arduous and complex. We must therefore be vigilant and spare no efforts in this undertaking’.

The results of this ‘undertaking’ — made by the Beijing government and reiterated in this way — are as follows: 1 600 members of the Falun Gong movement tortured and beaten to death; 500 sentenced to more than twenty years' imprisonment, 1 000 interned in psychiatric institutions, 25 thousand undergoing ‘reeducation’ in labour camps and 100 000 detained without trial.

Can the Commission say:

— whether it knows about these declarations of intent on the part of the Beijing government;

— whether it knows that members of the Falun Gong movement in a Union country — Belgium — have brought before the courts charges of ‘genocide, torture and crimes against humanity’ against the former Chinese President Jang Zemin, now head of the army, and two of his close collaborators;

— whether it intends to take any official steps vis-à-vis the Beijing government, and if so, of what kind, not least in the light of the request contained in the report adopted on 5 September 2003 by the European Parliament, which calls on ‘the Council, the Commission and the Member States (…) to provide for the imposition, in response to violations of religious freedom, of similar penalties and sanctions to those prescribed since 1998 by the United States International Religious Freedom Act (Public Law 105-292, 105th Congress)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Members for the information on the Chinese authorities’ policy towards the Falun Gong movement.

Respect for human rights is a cornerstone of EU foreign policy. The EU has therefore paid very close attention to the human rights situation in China, especially through the bilateral dialogue conducted with China since 1996. The freedoms of belief and association figure high on the agenda at these meetings. In its dealings with the Chinese authorities the EU has regularly raised cases of Falun Gong members prosecuted for practising their faith. The Commission is aware of the 1998 US International Religious Freedom Act. In its dealings with China, it will continue to use dialogue as the most appropriate means of putting across its position on the issue to the country's representatives.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/84

(2004/C 33 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/03

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland and the Union

Finland, Sweden, and Denmark will have to end their restrictions on alcohol imports at the beginning of 2004. Once Estonia has been admitted to the EU on 1 May 2004, Finland will be faced with a very difficult situation from the public health point of view. Alcoholic drinks are significantly cheaper in Estonia than in Finland, the price difference being due mainly to the different tax rates. The scale of alcohol-related harm varies in proportion to changes in total alcohol consumption. Studies indicate that, once import restrictions have been lifted, total consumption in Finland will rise by as much as 15 %, resulting in, among other things, an increase in alcohol-related deaths, by 450 cases a year, and in an upsurge, also linked to alcohol, in the demand for social and health services, amounting to over 500 000 additional visits a year.

In its Conclusions of 5 June 2001 on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm (1) the Council focused on drinking by young people as an area of particular concern. After the import restrictions have been lifted, alcohol prices in Finland will fall, and consumption will increase accordingly, first and foremost in low income groups, and that includes young people. Article 152 of the EC Treaty stipulates that all Community policies and activities must be defined and implemented in such a way as to ensure a high level of human health protection. The Council, in its Conclusions of 5 June 2001, called on the Commission to put forward proposals for a comprehensive Community strategy aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm and has identified excise duties as one means of pursuing such a strategy.

Contrary to what was stipulated in the text, Directive 92/84/EEC (2) on minimum excise duty rates was not reviewed by the end of 1994. The Union could do much to prevent the harm which alcohol does to public health by imposing standard excise duties on alcoholic beverages above the present rates. Should tax harmonisation on the basis of public health considerations fail to happen, Finland will have no possibility of protecting itself from the worsening adverse consequences of alcohol drinking unless it is allowed to continue to restrict alcohol imports.

1. Will the Commission embark on an initiative with a view to raising the minimum assessment base for excise duty on alcoholic beverages, taking into account the effects of alcohol consumption on public health?

2. How would the Commission view a possible Finnish request to continue the restrictions on alcohol imports?

(1) OJ C 175, 20.6.2001, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/91

(2004/C 33 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0925/03

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Via Baltica

Is it true that the Via Baltica will be constructed through sensitive wildlife sites in Poland? Will this road be receiving any European funding?

What assurances can the Commission give that environmental impact assessment work will be done before any construction work starts?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/109

(2004/C 33 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1372/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Promotion of olive oil on the Community and world markets

The provisions to promote olive oil on the European and world markets contained in the regulation governing the common organisation of the market in olive oil expired at the end of 2002. Moreover, olive oil is not covered by Council Regulation (EC) 2826/2000 (1) on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market or the corresponding Commission implementing Regulation (EC) 94/2002 (2). Since 1 January 2003, therefore, there has been no Community action to promote olive oil on the world market.

Since this situation is one of concern to olive growers, will the Commission say what steps it will take to address this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Olive oil Promotion on the Internal Market

A directly managed Union-wide campaign to promote the consumption of olive oil (the seventh campaign) based on the old regulatory framework was still ongoing at the time when the new Regulation (3) was initially adopted. This is why olive oil was not included in the list of products eligible for promotion at that time.

The implementation of this campaign was finalised by the end of 2002. The evaluation part will be finalised by the end of June 2003.

With the latest amendment of the above mentioned Regulation (4), olive oil and table olives were included in the list of eligible products and guidelines to draft the programmes were annexed. This will enable the professional organisations in the producing Member States to submit proposals within the current Regulation.

Olive oil Promotion in Third Countries

Based on Council Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999 of 14 December 1999 on information/promotion of agricultural products in third countries (5), the Community may where measures are decided in particular for the olive oil and table olive sector, carry them out through the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC).

The IOOC is for the moment in the process of reforming its administration and procedures.

For the time being the IOOC promotional activities are carried out with an annual budget of EUR 500 000 comprising the obligatory contributions of the IOOC members to the promotion fund.

A decision to contribute additionally with a voluntary financial contribution of the Community to the promotion fund remains to be taken.

(1) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 17, 19.1.2002, p. 20.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2002 of 18 January 2002 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 497/2003 of 18 March 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 94/2002 of 18 January 2002 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, OJ L 74, 20.3.2003.

(5) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/241

(2004/C 65 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2896/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject: EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

1. Is the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation monitored from Brussels?

2. Who signed off the present conditions that must be satisfied to secure funding?

3. Is the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation audited?

4. How was a body permitted to draft the conditions for securing EU funding while also being allowed to act as administrator of the fund that body being the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) and the Department of Environment and Local Government of Ireland?

5. Are the monies employed to establish the Peace and Reconciliation fund in addition to EU funds normally allocated to Ireland from the EU?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

As for all interventions financed under the Structural Funds, the PEACE Programme operates within the legal framework of the Structural Funds' Regulation (1). In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the primary responsibility for the day-to-day management and monitoring of the programme lies with the programme's delivery structures at the regional level, mainly the Managing Authority — the Special Union Programmes Body (SEUPB) — and the Monitoring Committee.

Day-to-day management is exercised within the framework of the Operational Programme document agreed by the Commission and the Irish and United Kingdom governments, which sets out the the priority areas for spending and their financial allocations. The document also sets out the general criteria for the selection of projects. Future detail in this regard is provided in the Programme Complement, which is a document drafted by the Managing Authority and approved by the Monitoring Committee.

The PEACE Programme is subject to the standard audit requirements involving both the Commission and the relevant national or regional audit bodies. SEUPB acts as the overall Programme Managing Authority and therefore has responsibility for all administrative aspects of the programme such as application forms, co-ordination, guidance to intermediary funding Bodies or final beneficiaries. It also implements a number of specific measures, while maintaining a clear administrative separation of duties in accordance with the principles of sound management.

The Department of Environment and Local Government is represented in an advisory capacity on the PEACE Monitoring Committee. It acts as the accountable department for the County Council Task Forces in the Border Region of Ireland; it is not involved directly in the implementation of any measure.

In accordance with the conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council meeting in Berlin in March 1999, the financial allocation for the PEACE Programme is fully additional to the Structural Funds allocation to Ireland and the United Kingdom.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/194

(2004/C 33 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: On-the-spot checks at EAGGF Guarantee Section national paying agencies

In the light of the assessment contained in the 2001 Annual Report of the Court of Auditors regarding national paying agencies for the EAGGF Guarantee Section, has the Commission made plans to increase its on-the-spot checks in 2003?

Could it specify the total number of external inspection missions that it intends to carry out in 2003 where the EAGGF Guarantee Section is concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2003)

The Commission considers the work of the certification bodies to form an adequate basis for clearing the accounts of the paying agencies. The Commission closely monitors compliance with the clearance criteria to ensure that all improvement measures are implemented by the paying agencies.

In 2002 the Commission carried out 164 external inspection missions on the EAGGF Guarantee Section including 27 on-the-spot checks at the national paying agencies (certification for 2001, accreditation, computer audit, etc.).

For 2003 the Commission has scheduled 185 external inspection missions on the EAGGF Guarantee Section (i.e. a 12,81 % increase over 2002), including 34 on-the-spot checks at the national paying agencies (certification for 2002, certification and pre-accreditation of the accession countries' paying agencies, delegated bodies, etc.).

By way of information, for the 2002 financial year, in Decision 2003/313/EC of 8 May 2003 (1) the Commission disjoined the accounts of 17 paying agencies out of a total of 91 (i.e. 18,68 % ), broken down as follows:

— Germany (2);

— Greece (1);

— Spain (2);

— France (8);

— Italy (2);

— Portugal (1);

— United Kingdom (1).

(1) OJ L 114, 8.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/232

(2004/C 65 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Italian projects submitted in the context of the Community action programme for public health

Data supplied by the Commission concerning the projects funded by the Community action programme for public health reveal that 171 projects worth a total of approximately EUR 37 million were approved and financed between 1996 and 2002. Only two of these were Italian projects and they accounted for only about EUR 500 000.

Can the Commission say how many Italian projected were submitted under this programme, in order to show whether few Italian projects were submitted or whether there were reasons for repeatedly considering the projects unsuitable?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

As shown in the table attached to the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2386/03 (1), funding was indeed provided for two Italian projects under the health promotion programme in the period 1996-2002:

— EUR 92 387,00 to the interuniversity Experimental Centre for Health Education for the project The contribution of Southern European Countries in the elaboration of a European multilingual thesaurus for Health Promotion and Education', in 1996;

— EUR 364 945,91 to the IRCCS Burlo Garofolo for the project ‘Breastfeeding Promotion in Europe’, in 2002.

Fifteen out of the 78 projects submitted under this programme in 2002 were Italian (In all, 18 projects were approved.).

Following calls for proposals, projects are selected solely on the basis of project quality, in accordance with strict criteria set out in the calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Nationality plays no part in the project evaluation.

However, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to two points:

— the coordinators for the above two projects were of Italian nationality. However, since most of the projects selected were Community-wide, it is very likely that some of the partners in other projects under the programme were Italian, though the Commission does not have details of the funding allocated to all partners in all projects;

— during the planning period 1996-2002, the Commission funded some 104 other public health projects with Italian coordinators, in addition to the two projects under the health promotion programme as mentioned above: — four projects under the programme ‘Health monitoring (1998-2002)’; — four projects under ‘Injury prevention (1999-2002)’; — 33 projects under ‘AIDS and communicable diseases (1996-2002)’; — 44 projects under ‘Cancer (1996-2002)’; — four projects under ‘Rare diseases (2000-2002)’; — three projects under ‘Pollution related diseases (1999-2002)’; — 12 projects under ‘Drug prevention (1996-2002)’.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 259.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/110

(2004/C 65 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2082/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Violations of Greek air space by Turkish aircraft and security of the inhabitants of the Aegean

During a recent visit to the border islands of Samos and Ikaria I experienced the deep anxiety felt by the inhabitants at the constant, provocative violations of Aegean air space by Turkish warplanes and the impact which they have on the lives and security of the local people as well as their livelihood in the tourist industry.

The alarm was compounded, in particular, following the recent incident in which two Turkish F16 fighters harassed an Olympic Airways flight bound for Istanbul from Athens.

What view does the Council take of Turkey's conduct in this respect and what measures will it take forthwith to put an end to such violations by Turkey?

What measures will it take to address the insecurity felt by European citizens living in or travelling through the Aegean and to restore normality and peace to the wider region?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

1. The Council is aware of the incidents mentioned by the Honourable Member. It is also aware of complaints about an increasing number of violations of Greek airspace by Turkish military aircraft, and of the sensitive nature of this question in Greece. Such incidents do unfortunately contrast with the general improvement in neighbourly relations between Greece and Turkey since 1999.

2. The Council considers that Turkey as a candidate State, must — pursuant to the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the UN Charter — make every effort to prevent tension, in the spirit of point 4 of the Helsinki conclusions. This is, moreover, made a specific priority in the revised version of the Turkey Accession Partnership Agreement. In line with the Helsinki conclusions, the European Council will have to review the situation in this respect, including its repercussions on the accession process, before the end of 2004.