ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(2004/C58E/063) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1161/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFundbythemunicipalityof
Pisa
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pisa, urgently need to use
Europeanfundsfortheprocessingandmarketingofagriculturalproductsandforruraldevelopment,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPisahassubmittedprojectsfortheEAGGF?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofPisahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/064) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1162/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFundbythemunicipalityof
Pistoia
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofPistoia,urgentlyneedtouse
Europeanfundsfortheprocessingandmarketingofagriculturalproductsandforruraldevelopment,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPistoiahassubmittedprojectsfortheEAGGF?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofPistoiahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?6.3.2004EN C58E/47 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
4. Nodatehasyetbeensetforareporttobedeliveredbythefutureworkinggrouponeyesight.As
indicatedbefore,thesubjectofdrivingwithbiopticlensesisnotaprioritysubjectforthisworkinggroupasitisinanexperimentalstageonly.Itwillcertainlyrequireseveralyearsofresearchandofdiscussionsbeforebeingallowedofficially.
(1) Seepage52.
(2004/C58E/195) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2575/03
byPhilipClaeys(NI)totheCommission
(6August2003)
Subject:SettlementofnewofficialsinandaroundBrussels
InMay2004,tennewMemberStateswillaccedetotheEU.Thatenlargementnaturallygoeshand-in-hand
withtherecruitmentofnewofficialsfromthecountriesconcerned.ExperienceshowsthatmostoftheEU
officialscurrentlyemployedinBrusselsprefertosettleinoneofBrusselsCity’s19municipalitiesoronthe
outskirtsofBrussels.However,anumberofproblemsariseinthelatterarea,whichliesinFlanders,i.e.inaDutch-speakingarea.Therearesocialproblems(thepresenceoflargenumbersofEuropeanofficialsinsomemunicipalitieshasledtoasurgeinrentsandhouseprices,withsomeyoungFlemishfamiliesbeingforcedtomoveawayfromtheirownarea)aswellaslanguage-basedproblems.ManyFlemishperipheralareasarehavingtocopewiththeproblemofFrench-speaking(Belgian)alienswhorefusetoacknowledgethatDutchisthelanguageofthearea.ThegradualFrenchificationofFlemishBrabantisaconsiderablepoliticalproblem.Inseveralmunicipalities,knownas‘municipalitieswith(linguistic)facilities’,theoriginalFlemishinhabitantsarealreadybeingreducedtoaminority.ThepresenceofalargenumberofEUofficialswhocannotspeakDutchhasfrequentlyexacerbatedthisproblem,notbecausetheyareunwillingbutmainlyforotherreasons,suchasalackofinformation.
Waysexistofcombatingthisproblem.New(orevencurrent)officialsmightbeofferedincentivestosettle
innearbyWalloonBrabant.TheymightalsobemadeawareofthepoliticalsituationontheoutskirtsofBrusselsandbeencouragedtolearnDutchatthecoursesorganisedbythelocalauthorities,etc.
IstheCommissionpreparedtoconsidertheseandothermeasures/dashwithdueaccountbeingtakenofthe
dateofenlargement/dashinordertomakeiteasierfornewofficialstosettlein?
AnswergivenbyMrKinnockonbehalfoftheCommission
(29September2003)
At the regularly organised welcome meetings for new colleagues, the Adminfo service (which is
responsibleforboththereceptionofandprovisionofinformationtonewofficials),explainsbothorallyandinitsbrochure‘WelcometotheCommission’thedifferentaspectsrelatedinteraliatosettlinginvarious locationsaround Brussels, the existence ofthree official languages in Belgium and ofDutch-speaking,French-speakingandbilingualareas.
Article20oftheCommission’sStaffRegulationsprovidesthatan‘officialshallresideeitherintheplace
whereheisemployedoratnogreaterdistancetherefromasiscompatiblewiththeproperperformanceofhisduties’.WithintheboundsofthisRegulation,theselectionofaplacetoliveisofcourseamatterofindividualchoice.Inanyevent,theCommissionhasneitherthewish,thepowersnorthebudgettogiveofficialsincentivestosettleinparticularareas.
TheHonourableMemberwillbeawarethatformostofficialsoftheCommissionchoosingtoliveinthe
outskirtsofBrussels,neitherDutchnorFrenchistheirfirstlanguage.C58E/182 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
A grace period is agreed with the Borrower for each tranche, linked to the length of the project
implementation period and the income stream coming on-line, for example, planned commissioningdate+abouttwoyears.
(1) Seepage66.
(2004/C58E/086) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1474/03
byStavrosXarchakos(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(30April2003)
Subject:LanguagepolicyattheEuropeanSchoolsandinEuropeaneducation
InviewoftheforthcomingenlargementoftheEUtoatotalof25participatingcountries,isthereany
proposal,planorintentiontoabolishorreduceteachingofthelesswidespreadlanguagesoftheUnion(Greek, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, etc) in the curriculum of the European Schools, which are
maintainedbytheCommunitybudget?Hastheideabeenmootedofcreatinga‘Europeanschool-leaving
certificate’forsecondaryeducationintheMemberStates,paralleltothecertificateawardedatpresent?Is there any intention of establishing a ‘European curriculum’ in Belgian state schools (initially) andsubsequentlyextendingittothestateschoolsoftheotherMemberStatesoftheUnion?
AnswergivenbyMrKinnockonbehalfoftheCommission
(19June2003)
1. As the Honourable Member may be aware, management of the European Schools is not the
responsibilityoftheCommission,butratheroftheBoardofGovernorsestablishedundertheEuropean
Schoolsstatute. This includes representatives of each Member State: the Commissionhas just 1 voteamong16.Nonetheless,theCommissioncaninformtheParliamentthat,fromtheverybeginning,theEuropeanSchoolshavetaughtpupilstheirnativelanguageifitisanofficialEuropeanUnionlanguage.Further,languagesectionshavebeenestablishedwhenevertherearesufficientpupilsspeakingaparticularlanguagetojustifythis.Thisprinciplehasbeenrespectedfollowingthelastthreeenlargementsandwillberespected onentry ofthe ten new Member States. All officiallanguages ofthe European Unionwillthereforebetaught(providedpupilsofcategory1or2areenrolled)andthereisnointentionofabolishingorreducingteachingofthelesswidespreadlanguages.Indeed,itisproposedthatnewlanguagesectionsbeestablishedinPolish,CzechandHungarianimmediately.
2. FollowingParliament’sResolutionof17December2002theBoardofGovernorsoftheEuropean
SchoolshassetupaworkingpartytoinvestigatethepossibilityofofferingtheEuropeanBaccalaureateinschoolsthatarenotpartoftheEuropeanSchoolsystem.
This group will also be looking at possibilities for co-operation between the European Schools and
nationaleducationalestablishments.
TheintroductionofaEuropeancertificatealongsidethenationalcertificatewouldrequireadecisionby
eachparticipatingMemberState.
3. ThecontentandorganisationofeducationintheUnionistheresponsibilityoftheMemberStates.
TheBoardofGovernorshasnoauthoritytolaunchaEuropeancurriculuminStateschools.AnydecisiontodosowouldbeamatterfortheMemberStates.TheCommissionforitsparthasnottakenanyactioninrelationtothecreationofaEuropeanschool-leavingcertificateforsecondaryeducationoraEuropeancurriculumandhasnoplanstodoso.C58E/70 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
AnswergivenbyMrProdionbehalfoftheCommission
(16May2003)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Questions
E-0827/03(1),E-0828/03(2),E-0829/03(3),E-0860/03(4),E-0861/03(5),E-0862/03(6),E-0863/03(7)and
E-0864/03(8).
(1) OJC242E,9.10.2003,p.184.
(2) OJC242E,9.10.2003,p.192.
(3) OJC268E,7.11.2003,p.144.
(4) OJC11E,15.1.2004,p.148.
(5) Seepage32.
(6) OJC268E,7.11.2003,p.156.
(7) OJC268E,7.11.2003,p.157.
(8) OJC242E,9.10.2003,p.208.
(2004/C58E/035) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0861/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(20March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsundertheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseoftheInternet
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsbysomeregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchastheCityofFrosinone,urgentlyneedtouseEuropean
fundstopromotethesafeuseoftheInternetandencourage,atEuropeanlevel,afavourableenvironmentforthedevelopmentoftherelevantsector,cantheCommissionstate:
1. whethertheCityofFrosinonehassubmittedprojectsfortheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseof
theInternet?
2. whethertheCityofFrosinonehassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/036) WRITTENQUESTIONE-0884/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(21March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsundertheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseoftheInternetbythemunicipalityof
Fiumicino
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.C58E/32 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/136) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2006/03
byBartStaes(Verts/ALE)
andJanDhaene(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(16June2003)
Subject:Depositchargedforwasteoilfromships/dashEuropeancompetitionrules
Followingtheoildisastersinvolvingthe‘Prestige’,theTricolorandtheVicky,theFlemishgovernment
recentlydecidedthatshipsdockingatFlemishharbourswouldhavetopayadeposittocovertheirwasteoil.Thisdepositisreturnediftheycanshowthattheyhavehadtheirwasteoilprocessedinasustainableway.ThemeasurehasbeenintroducedtocurbthenumberofillegaldischargesatseaandhasreceivedthesupportofshipownerswhostillfaceconsiderableunfaircompetitionfromvesselsregisteredunderthePanamanianorLiberianflag.
The authorities in Flanders are applying the ecologically sound principle that the polluter must pay.
However,otherports,intheNetherlandsorGermanyforexample,providewasteoilprocessingfacilities
freeofcharge.
IstheCommissionawareoftheseregulationsinFlanders?
Whatisitsopinionofthisapproach?Isitprepared tointroducesimilarrulesthroughoutEuropeinordertoensurethattheseecologically
responsiblemeasuresdonotunderminefaircompetitionbetweenEuropeanports?
AnswergivenbyMrsdePalacioonbehalfoftheCommission
(23July2003)
The Commissionsharesthe concernsofthe HonourableMembersaboutrecent shipping accidentsin
Unionwatersandabouttheextentofoperationalship-sourcepollution.TheCommissionhasconsideredthatanumberofmeasures,inadditiontotheinternationalones,areneededinordertostopthedeliberatedischargesofoilandothersubstancesatsea.In1998itmadeaproposalforaDirectiveonportreceptionfacilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues(
1). The Directive, which was adopted by the
ParliamentandtheCouncilinNovember2000(2),hadtobeimplementedbytheMemberStatessince
28December2002.
WhileaDirectiveisbindingastotheresultstobeachieved,itleavestonationalauthoritiesthechoiceof
formandmethods.ThedecisionwhichisreferredtointhequestionformspartoftheBelgianmeasurestoimplementArticle8ofDirective2000/59/EC.Thisarticlesetsdownanumberofprinciplesrelatingtothefees and cost recovery systems for waste reception facilities in ports. The Commission is currentlyanalysingtheimplementinglegislationoftheMemberStates,includingtheprovisionsreferredtointhequestion.ThecorrespondenceofthoseprovisionswiththeprincipleslistedinArticle8onfeesystemswillnaturallyformanimportantpartofthisanalysis.TheCommissionwillensuretheeffectiveapplicationofCommunitylawinthisrespect.
Article8.4oftheDirectivefurtherprovidesthattheCommission,beforetheendof2005,shallpreparea
reporttotheParliamentandtotheCouncilevaluatingtheimpactofthecostrecoverysystemsadoptedatnationallevelonthemarineenvironmentandwasteflowpatterns.Ifnecessaryinlightofthisevaluation,theCommissionwillmakefurtherproposalswithrespecttotheprinciplesgoverningthefeesystemforship-generatedwaste.
(1) OJC271,31.8.1998.
(2) Directive2000/59oftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof27November2000onportreceptionfacilitiesforship-
generatedwasteandcargoresidues,OJL332of28.12.2000.C58E/120 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofPesaro,urgentlyneedtouse
EuropeanfundstopromotethesafeuseoftheInternetandencourage,atEuropeanlevel,afavourableenvironmentforthedevelopmentoftherelevantsector,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPesarohassubmittedprojectsfortheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuse
oftheInternet?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofPesarohassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/045) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1086/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(31March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsundertheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseoftheInternetbythemunicipalityof
Pisa
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pisa, urgently need to use
EuropeanfundstopromotethesafeuseoftheInternetandencourage,atEuropeanlevel,afavourableenvironmentforthedevelopmentoftherelevantsector,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPisahassubmittedprojectsfortheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseof
theInternet?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofPisahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/046) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1087/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(31March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsundertheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseoftheInternetbythemunicipalityof
Pistoia
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.6.3.2004EN C58E/37 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/29

(2004/C 70 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Cat and dog fur

Does the Commission have any plans to propose legislation to ban the import into the EU of pelts from domestic cats and dogs?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The cat and dog fur issue is not one of purely external trade but also one of domestic production and use. Indeed the common commercial policy must be seen as a complement to the single market: trade restrictions in the absence of equivalent measures on domestic production and marketing might be contestable as discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

Therefore, the question of a trade policy initiative in the field of cat and dog furs (a ban on import of cat and dog furs) should not be imposed in isolation from the more general issue of a domestic policy concerning the production and marketing of cat and dog furs on the internal market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/169

(2004/C 70 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2933/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Limits on total concentration of DDT in fish

As the Commission will certainly know, the DDT emergency in Lago Maggiore has resulted in all commercial fishing being banned since 1996, causing severe damage to the fishing trade and the tourist economy in the area. The closure of the insecticide manufacturing plants in the second half of 1996 failed to solve the problem, since the ban on fishing in the Italian part of the lake has continued. The total DDT levels found in some species of fish, some of which command extremely high prices, exceed the maximum concentrations provided for in Italian law. In the Swiss part of the lake, on the other hand, these species may be caught and sold, since the legal thresholds are 10 to 20 times higher than in Italy. The same disparity is to be found with all the EU countries which have set total DDT permissible content limits. This means that fish that may be caught and eaten in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands cannot be caught and eaten in Italy.

Given the above, can the Commission state:

1. whether it would agree that this situation constitutes a distortion of free trade in and production of a foodstuff that is available over wide area?

2. whether it would agree that it should propose that the Member States set uniform threshold values for DDT in fish, possibly based on the permissible doses for humans set by the WHO (the method used by Switzerland when it set its own limits in 1995)?

3. whether a request has been made in this connection by the Italian Government?

4. what stage has been reached in the procedure, if such a request has been made?

5. whether, if such a request has not been made, it is prepared to submit appropriate proposals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The Commission has no evidence to support the hypothesis that the situation in Lago Maggiore described by the Honourable Member constitutes a distortion to intra-community trade.

The Commission agrees that it would be desirable that Member States use similar methodology when setting permissible residue limits at national level for undesirable substances in fish. This could be based on the methodology described by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The Commission is not aware of any request from the Italian Government in this regard.

The Commission has no plans at this time to submit proposals.

Moreover, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to the written question E-1460/98 from Umberto Bossi (1).

(1) OJ C 13, 20.1.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/187

(2004/C 70 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2999/03

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Information brochure

The Commission has recently published an information brochure entitled ‘Panorama of the European Union’. Curiously to relate, this brief history of the European Union makes judicious reference to Robert Schuman and the 9 May 1950 speech from which today's Union grew, but it includes no mention of Jean Monnet. All those involved at the time, and all historical research into the subject, show that Monnet was the ‘inspirer’ of the Schuman Declaration.

How does the Commission explain this oversight? Does it agree that a word in tribute to the original courage of the one in no way diminishes the courage of the other?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The Honourable Member is right to emphasise that any publication, however short, on the historical origins of the Community should not pass over the name of Jean Monnet and the part he played in inspiring Robert Schuman. This omission will be corrected in the online version (1) of the brochure Panorama of the European Union immediately, and in the next printed edition.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/booklets/eu_glance/20/index_fr.htm
2.

The Commission would like to remind that in the field of the administrative procedure instituted under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, it is settled case-law that: ‘the Commission is not obliged to forward to interested parties the observations or information it has received from the government of the Member State. However, it should be observed that the limited nature of the rights of parties concerned does not affect the Commission's duty under Article 253 EC to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its final decision’ (2). In the light of this jurisprudence, the Commission would like to indicate that United Kingdom's comments are all gathered under heading IV of the above-mentioned Commission decision and subsequently analysed under heading VI on ‘assessment of the aid’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/185

(2004/C 70 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2989/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Commission funding for the European Policy Centre

In an invitation to MEPs, the European Policy Centre (EPC), which is situated in Brussels, indicates that ‘His Excellency the President of Northern Cyprus, Rauf Denktas’ (sic) will be a guest at a ‘breakfast policy briefing’ and urges the Members to attend. However, it is common knowledge that no country in the world (apart from Turkey, which is responsible for the military occupation of 37 % of Cyprus) acknowledges Mr Denktas as ‘President’, or accords his pseudo-state any degree of official recognition, while the UN and EU have repeatedly criticised his secessionist ambitions. Furthermore, this event, coinciding as it does with the run-up to the ‘Presidential elections’, could accordingly be interpreted as support for Mr Denktas against his political opponents.

Can the Commission tell me whether the Centre receives Community funding? If so, in which year did it commence and what precise amounts have been paid? If the Centre is receiving European Union funding, what steps will the Commission take to impress upon the recipients the inadmissibility of using the funds to promote recognition of regimes based on the use of violence and disregard for law?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The European Policy Centre (EPC) is an independent think-tank undertaking research on European affairs. It has received Community financial support since it was founded in 1996.

The budgetary authority earmarks appropriations each year in favour of the EPC as a think tank on budget line A-3026 (operating costs grants of EUR 125 000 awarded in 1999, 2000 and 2001, and EUR 150 000 in 2002 and 2003).

The Commission reports in detail each year to the Parliament on the beneficiaries of grants under chapter A-30. The reports can be seen on the Commission's Europa website.

In addition the Commission has supported specific actions carried out by the EPC, with total payments of EUR 90 400 from 1999 to-date.

The Commission understands that the proposed meeting described by the Honourable Member did not in fact take place.