ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(2004/C58E/179) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2403/03
byPietro-PaoloMennea(NI)totheCommission
(21July2003)
Subject:PollutioninCanosadiPuglia
According to press reports and concerns expressed by local inhabitants, there is still a serious
environmental danger in the ‘Tufarelle’ district of Canosa di Puglia, for both the population and theecosysteminthecontaminatedarea.
Investigations at the location of the ‘Bleu’ waste disposal plant have shown that the water contains
pollutants,includingmetalsandcoliformbacteria.
Furthermore,inthesamedistricttherearetwocategory2Bspecialwastedisposalsitesandaneffluent
treatmentplant.
The case is being investigated by the competent department of the judiciary, which has led to the
managementofthe‘Bleu’dumpbeingarrestedbytheoperationalenvironmentalunitoftheCarabinieri.
Thesituationiscausinggreatconcernandalarm,sincethewasteplantislocatedneartheLoconedam,
rightnexttothestreamitself,andinthevicinityofanumberofartesianwellsusedtoirrigateagriculturalproducesoldforhumanconsumption.
CantheCommissionsaywhetheritisawareoftheseriouscaseofpollutionreferredtoabove?Whetheritintendstolaunchaninquirytoobtainmoreinformation?Whetheritintendstoinformthelocal,regionalandnationalauthoritiesofitsconcern?What steps it will take regarding the case to ensure that current Community legislation is correctly
applied?
Whetherithastakenactioninsimilarcasesandsuggestedremediesforsimilarsituations?
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(10September2003)
AtCommunitylevelthetreatmentofwasteisregulatedbyCouncilDirective75/442/EECof15July1975
onwaste(
1).Article4ofthisDirectiveobligesMemberStatestoensurethatwasteisrecoveredordisposed
ofwithoutendangeringhumanhealthortheenvironment.SpecialrequirementsforthelandfillingofwastearesetoutinCouncilDirective1999/31/ECof26April1999onthelandfillofwaste(
2).
TheCommissionhasthetaskofensuringthecorrectapplicationofCommunitylaw,inthelightofthe
powersconferredonitbytheECTreaty.AstheguardianoftheTreaty,itdoesnothesitatetotakeallnecessarymeasures,includinginfringementproceduresunderArticle226oftheECTreaty,inordertoensuretheobservanceofCommunitylaw.
TheCommissiondoesnothaveanyknowledgeofthespecificwastedisposalplantsreferredtobythe
HonourableMember.
However,asregardstheissueofthenumerousuncontrolledwastedisposalsitesinItaly,theCommission
hasrecentlyinitiatedaninfringementprocedureagainstItalycoveringthewholeoftheItalianterritory,forbreachoftheprovisionsofDirectives75/442/EECand1999/31/EC.
(1) OJL194,25.7.1975,asamendedbyCouncilDirective91/156/EECof18March1991,OJL78,26.3.1991,and
CommissionDecision96/350/ECof24May1996,OJL135,6.6.1996.
(2) OJL182,16.7.1999.C58E/166 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/051) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1035/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(28March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheLeader+programmebythemunicipalityofCarrara
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofCarrara,urgentlyneedtouse
Europeanfundstosupportinnovativeruraldevelopmentmeasuresaimedatenhancingtheculturalandnaturalheritage,creatingnewjobsbystrengtheningthelocaleconomyandimprovingtheorganisationalcapacityofruralcommunities,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofCarrarahassubmittedprojectsfortheLeader+programme?2. whetherthemunicipalityofCarrarahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/052) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1036/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(28March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheLeader+programmebythemunicipalityofFlorence
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofFlorence,urgentlyneedtouse
Europeanfundstosupportinnovativeruraldevelopmentmeasuresaimedatenhancingtheculturalandnaturalheritage,creatingnewjobsbystrengtheningthelocaleconomyandimprovingtheorganisationalcapacityofruralcommunities,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofFlorencehassubmittedprojectsfortheLeader+programme?2. whetherthemunicipalityofFlorencehassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?6.3.2004EN C58E/41 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
MemberStateleveltoreducethepotentialforcriminalmisuseofRohypnol.Theseincludereformulating
themedicinetomakeitmoredifficulttoadministercovertlyandinforminghealthcareprofessionalsandthepublicoftheriskofmisuse.
(2004/C58E/216) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2716/03
byKathleenVanBrempt(PSE)totheCommission
(11September2003)
Subject:Radardetectors
AwholerangeofdetectorsystemsforspeedchecksareavailableontheEuropeanmarket.Oneoftheseis
theBritishRoadPilot,anewhigh-techGPSreceiverwhichwarnsmotoristswhentheyareapproachinganunmanned camera and tells them whether or not they need to reduce their speed. Unlike all otherdetectors,theRoadPilotisnotbannedinBelgiumbecauseitdoesnotdetectpoliceradarwhichisillegalinBelgium.However,BelgianscanacquirepoliceradardetectorsintheNetherlandswheretheyarelegal.Asaresult,manymotoristsaredrivingaroundwithradardetectionsystems.
Roadsafetyexpertshavedrawnattentiontothedangersofdetectionsystemsofthiskind.Theypointout
thattherearedriverswhobrakesuddenlywhentheyreceiveasignalandthenspeedupagainoncetheyhavepassedthespeeddetectiondevice.
WhatistheCommission’sattitudetoradardetectors?
IstheCommissionawareofthecommercialsuccessofthesespeedcameradetectorsystems?Doesitnotagreethatradardetectorsaredangerousforroadsafety?
DoesitintendtodrawupEuropeanregulationsonthismatter?
AnswergivenbyMrsdePalacioonbehalfoftheCommission
(21October2003)
TheCommissioniscollectingtheinformationitneedstoanswerthequestion.Itwillcommunicateits
findingsassoonaspossible.
(2004/C58E/217) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2719/03
byMargrietusvandenBerg(PSE)totheCommission
(11September2003)
Subject:Follow-upquestionontheproblemsoffrontierstudents
Fromitsanswerof27AugusttoWrittenQuestionE-2534/03(1),itappearsthattheCommissiondoes
havetheauthoritytoencouragecooperationbetweenMemberStatesintheareaofeducationandtheorganisationofeducationsystems.Whatstepsisitpreparedtotakeinthissphere?
(1) OJC33E,6.2.2004.6.3.2004EN C58E/201 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/065) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1151/03
byRichardCorbett(PSE)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:Pricingofmedicinessoldindevelopingcountries
InOctober2002theCommissionsubmittedaproposaltoCouncilbasedonArticle133oftheTreaty
relatingtothetieredpricingofmedicinessoldindevelopingcountries.Theproposalisnowsubjecttomassive, negative and highly inappropriate industry lobbying based on the pharmaceutical industry’scontinuingdesiretobeabletochargehighpricesinpoorcountries,thereforedenyingaccesstomedicinesformillions.Theunderlyingphilosophyoftheproposalisessentiallydevelopmentalandnotonlytraderelated.However,theCommission’schoiceoflegalbasehasresultedinindustrylobbyingbeingconducted
inclosedmeetingsandentirelyoutofpublicview,withMemberStateofficialsandtheCommissionbeing
almostbesiegedbypharmaceuticalindustrylobbyists.
ShouldCouncilseektoamendtheproposalsignificantly,willtheCommissionconsiderre-submittingthe
proposalbasedonjoinedlegalbasesofArticles133and179,therebyallowingtheproposaltobeadoptedbycodecision,whichwouldsurelyhavebeenamoreappropriatelegalbaseinthefirstplace?
AnswergivenbyMrLamyonbehalfoftheCommission
(30April2003)
TheCommissionconcurstothestatementoftheHonourableMemberthattheproposalforaRegulation
to avoid the trade diversion of certain key medicines, submitted to Council on 30October 2002(
1),
continues to be the subject of massive industry lobbying, addressed to both Member States and theCommission.
TheCommissionisconfidentthatMemberStates’governments,liketheCommissionitself,maketheir
decisionsnotonlyonthebasisofinputfromlobbyists,butarecapabletofindthenecessaryequilibriumbetween all interests and policy objectives concerned. Moreover, in addition to industry input, the
Commissionhas,ofcourse,equallytakenintoaccounttheviewsexpressedbyotherinterestedparties.
ConsideringthatthediscussionsintheCouncilarestillongoing,theCommissionconsidersthequestion
submittedbytheHonourableMembertobepremature.
(1) OJC45E,25.2.2003.
(2004/C58E/066) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1179/03
byMaurizioTurco(NI)andMarcoCappato(NI)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:Operating systems, software and programming and development environments used for the
operationofthesystemsusedbyEuropol
CantheCommissionanswerthefollowing:
1. Whataretheoperatingsystems,softwareandprogramminganddevelopmentenvironmentsusedfor
theoperationofthesystemsusedbyEuropol?
2. WhatlegalrulesonintellectualpropertyapplytotheseITprogrammes?
3. DoestheEuropeanUnionhavetherighttocheckthesourcecodesofallsoftwareinfrastructures,and
havesuchchecksactuallybeencarriedouttoascertainthatthesystemsarenotdefective,donotgenerateerrors(withparticularreferencetomistakenidentity)anddonothavesecurityfailingswhichcouldjeopardiseEuropol’sobjectives?6.3.2004EN C58E/49 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/159

(2004/C 70 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2899/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Public debt and budget deficit in Greece in 2003

What is the Commission's estimate of the budget deficit and public debt in Greece as a percentage of GDP in 2003?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

In the 2003 State Budget and the 2002 Stability programme, the central government debt is projected to be equal to EUR 171,05 billion, whereas the general government consolidated gross debt is estimated to be EUR 150,4 billion, representing 100,2 % of gross domestic product (GDP). According to the Commission Spring forecasts, the Greek general government deficit is projected to be equal to 1,1 % of GDP whereas the general government debt ratio is projected to stand at 101 % of GDP at the end of 2003.

Currently, the Commission is proceeding to the Autumn forecast round and these estimates may be revised.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/83

(2004/C 70 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: ‘Ecstasy’ — Holland

According to the media, the consumption of synthetic drugs, especially Ecstasy, is becoming increasingly popular among young people in the Member States of the European Union.

According to these reports, most of the drugs originate in the Netherlands. Because of a more permissive attitude towards the consumption and sale of drugs in general, the environment is conducive to less public condemnation and vigilance regarding the production and sale of drugs.

Can the Commission say:

— whether it can confirm that the consumption of synthetic drugs, especially Ecstasy, is increasing, particularly among young people in the EU Member States;

— whether it can confirm that most of the drugs come from the Netherlands;

— if so, what measures it has taken or intends to take to prevent drugs being exported from the Netherlands and distributed throughout the EU;

— whether it considers that the policy on drugs and addiction developed by the Netherlands has proved ineffective;

— what measures it recommends the neighbouring Member States should take to prevent the spread of the adverse consequences of the Netherlands' drugs and drug-addiction policy?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2003)

According to the 2002 Annual Report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (Emcdda) cannabis continues to be the illegal substance most commonly used in all Union countries. Substances other than cannabis are used by much smaller proportions of the population. Amphetamines have been tried by 1 to 6 % of the population while ecstasy has been tried by about 0,5 to 4,5 % of the population.

The latest national population surveys among young adults (15-34 years old) report recent use (during the last month) of amphetamines by 0,5 to 6 % and ecstasy by 0,5 to 5 % of the target population in European countries.

The Emcdda in its annual report also indicates that the Netherlands is a major site for the production of ecstasy, amphetamines and related drugs but evidence of production in other Member States and in east European countries is also reported.

The Commission has emphasised that the issue of synthetic drugs must remain a top priority for the Union and its Member States. This has also been emphasised by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the EU. Following on from a meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in September 2002 an implementation plan on actions to be taken in regard to the supply of synthetic drugs has been adopted by the Council. This plan proposes actions to address a number of issues with regard to the supply of synthetic drugs and identifies appropriate bodies to take the work forward.
1.

The siting of mobile phone masts is an issue, which as mentioned by the Honourable Member, is giving rise to public concern in Member States. At the same time, the public perception of the risks posed by masts is at odds with measured exposure levels. The extremely rapid deployment of mobile networks over the last years, in many cases without consultation of the public, seems to be the main reason for this. European citizens have (either directly or through their MEPs) approached the Commission on this matter, notably to enquire about safety standards and the risks associated with electric and magnetic field (EMF) exposure. The Commission consistently responds to these questions and always recalls, that the Community: — has adopted Council Recommendation 1999/59/EEC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Giga-Herz (GHz)) (1); — regulates its products to adhere to these limits, through Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (2) (the R&TTE Directive and Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (3) (the Low Voltage Directive); — requests re-evaluation of the scientific literature regularly in order to review the set safety limits.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/139

(2004/C 70 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Rules governing the staffing of emergency call centres in EU countries

During a holiday in Italy a Danish motorist was run into by an Italian lorry on a motorway. Afterwards, the lorry driver refused to stop on the side of the road and instead drove off. The Danish motorist then tried to contact the Italian police by dialling 113 but there was no-one who could understand either English or German. After four calls the motorist in question had to abandon the attempt to contact the police. The Danish motorist survived this experience without physical injury but things could have been much worse.

Will the Commission state what rules exist governing the staffing of emergency call centres in the Member States with persons speaking other languages than that of the country in question? Will it also state whether it feels it is acceptable that citizens from another EU country cannot make contact with the police owing to a lack of language skills on the part of the staff at the host country's emergency call centre?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The Commission's role in the field of police cooperation in the Union is laid down by Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out the areas covered by common action taken by the Member States. The rules and internal organisation of the emergency services is the sole responsibility of the Member States. Under Article 33, the Member States are responsible for the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

There are no Community rules that govern relations between staff in the emergency services in the Member States and persons who do not speak the language of the country. Nevertheless, the Commission feels that if national police officers are familiar with one or more foreign languages so as to handle contacts with citizens of other countries, that is an important factor in establishing an area of freedom, security and justice. The Community financing programme, AGIS, has taken this matter into account and some of its funds are set aside for projects to improve the ability of police forces to meet the challenges of this new European area. The European Police College (Cepol) is also encouraging language learning in training of police officers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/179

(2004/C 70 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2963/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Spending cuts on accident research and prevention

In a letter to the Commission's Health Directorate, the European Accident Prevention Network expresses concern at a 30 % cut in funding for accident research and prevention. According to the Public Health and Epidemiology laboratory, EUR 1,7 to 1,8 million is being earmarked annually for the accident prevention programme over the next five years compared with EUR 2,5 million annually for the previous period, despite an overall increase in the Community public health budget.

Given that in the industrialised countries, accidents are the prime cause of death among productive workers in the under-45 age group and that overall life expectancy is affected more by fatal accident statistics than by other factors (such as cardiovascular disorders or tumours) and in view of the high social and economic cost of serious injury for the Community as a whole:

1. What were the reasons for these drastic cuts in funding?

2. Will the Commission act — and if so how — to ensure that research into accident prevention is stepped up?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission did not recently cut the appropriations allocated to research into and prevention of accidents in the Union by 30 %.

The proposals for financial support regarding accident and injury prevention received in the framework of the 2003 funding round of the Community public health programme are currently being evaluated. A decision on selection of projects to be financed is expected shortly. Several projects dealing with accidents and injuries have been presented in the selection process.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/266

(2004/C 70 E/289)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3537/03

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Hotel fire safety

Given that a report prepared for the Commission in October 2000 analysing the impact of the 1986 Recommendations on fire safety in hotels concluded that the Recommendations had not been effective in providing a uniform level of fire safety, and that in a later report in June 2001 the Commission recognised that more needed to be done to improve fire safety in hotels throughout the EU, when does the Commission intend to introduce a directive on hotel fire safety, to ensure a consistent and adequate level of protection for all Europe's citizens who are guests or who work in hotels?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3172/03 by Mrs Jackson (1)

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 271.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/112

(2004/C 70 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Proposals to do away with the CAP and the Structural Funds — ‘Secret report’

On 17 July 2003 the Portuguese newspaper Público and the French newspaper ‘Le Monde’ carried a story that, at a meeting of the Members of the Commission on 16 July 2003, the Commission President, Romano Prodi, had unveiled a report in which it was proposed to ‘divert’ the agricultural and structural policy budgets from their intended purposes and use them instead to finance what is termed the ‘Lisbon agenda’.

This ‘secret’ report, which the President apparently asked his advisers to produce more than a year ago, is said to have been drawn up under the responsibility of Michel Sapir.

Given that the proposals it contains are a serious matter, especially the idea of abandoning and renationalising the common agricultural policy and structural policy, violating the principles of solidarity among Member States and economic and social cohesion, can the Commission send me a copy of the report?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

The report to which the Honourable Member is referring is in the public domain and is not secret. It has been on the Commission website (1) since it was sent to the Commission President on 17 July 2003.

The report was produced by a group of independent experts asked by the Commission President in July 2002 to examine all the EU's economic policy instruments with a view to stimulating discussion on the future strategies for ensuring rapid growth in an enlarged Union while maintaining stability and cohesion.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/pdf/agenda_for_growing_europe_en.pdf