ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/00

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Failure by DG XIII to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival

In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of ECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and requests for payment, the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997. In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. The requisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient. However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombudsman, no money has yet been forthcoming.

In reply to a previous question by a Member of the European Parliament (E-2730/98(1)) on this subject, the Commission wrote that it would await the close examination by the European Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's reply has been known for a long time now: he delivered a moral victory to the Netherlands Film Festival, while addressing a critical remark to DG XIII and referring to bad governance. A further question to the Commission by the same Member, of 20 April 1999, has never received a reply.

1. Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?

2. Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver?

3. Does the Commission feel morally obliged to pay the Netherlands Film Festival the sum promised, since the Ombudsman has upheld the complaint by the Netherlands Film Festival? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 106.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

1. The Commission is aware of the situation which resulted in the non-granting of a second subsidy to the Netherlands Film Festival. The facts are set out in detail in the decision delivered on 20 October 1998 by the European Ombudsman, which closed a detailed enquiry undertaken in response to a complaint lodged on 23 January 1997.

2. The Commission has accepted the decision, including the critical remarks contained in the Ombudsman's conclusion, which describes the procedure applied in this instance as bad governance.

3. The Commission grants subsidies in accordance with precise legal rules relating inter alia to substance, form and deadlines. It cannot but comply with those rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1070/00

by Gianfranco Fini (UEN) and Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 funding for Viterbo and the surrounding province

As a result of the delay on the part of the Italian Government and the Lazio region in presenting the Commission with the list of eligible zones under Objective 2, the territory of Viterbo and its province have been prevented from receiving Community assistance in the current year.

Would the Commission redefine the areas fulfilling the Objective 2 requirements with a view to reintroducing the excluded territory of Viterbo and its province into the list?

Will the Commission also verify as a matter of urgency the proposal by the Italian authorities regarding the zones defined as eligible under Objective 2 of the structural funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Italian authorities sent the Commission their Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission rejected this on 11 October on the grounds that it did not comply with Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1). This requires areas meeting the criteria set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at least 50 % in population terms of the Objective 2 zones.

The Commission accordingly asked Italy to send as soon as possible an amended proposal which complies with the Council Regulation by adding new areas meeting those criteria and dropping others which do not.

The Province of Viterbo in fact meets the criteria set out in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

The Commission regrets that no new proposal has yet been received. It has reminded Italy several times of the need to send a proposal urgently so that the regions in question are not penalised. Italy is the only Member State where the Objective 2 zoning has not been adopted.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0729/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Subject: EU-Korea meeting and the European shipbuilding industry

When appearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Industry in December 1999, the Commissioner responsible for enterprise, Mr Liikanen, said that the Commission was to meet with Korea to discuss current problems affecting the shipbuilding industry at international level and, specifically, the unfair competition practised by Korea in this sector.

Has the Commission held any meetings with Korea to discuss these problems?

If so, at what level were the meeting or meetings held, what was on the agenda and what were the results?

What strategy and what measures has it adopted or will it adopt further to the contacts it has had with Korea?

What is the schedule for future meetings with Korea, at what level will they be held and what is on the agenda?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2000)

In line with the conclusions of the Industry Council of 9 November last year, a dialogue between the EU and Korea has got under way in an effort to find solutions to the problems of unfair competition in the shipbuilding industry. The Commission has pointed out that, in the absence of satisfactory results, the Community industry could very quickly lodge a complaint with it under the Trade Barriers Regulation which could lead in due course to proceedings in the World Trade Organisation.

Following initial contacts in Paris on 14 December last year, a Commission delegation went to Seoul on 10 and 11 February seeking clear commitments whereby the Koreans would acknowledge their responsibility in the crisis currently affecting the sector, undertake not to intervene to rescue bankrupt shipyards and promise to implement transparency rules, in particular international accounting standards ensuring that ships are priced so as to cover all costs. At this stage, Korea did not accept the EU proposal.

In response to the threat of proceedings by the Community, however, Korea proposed holding a third round of discussions from 14 to 16 March to look for a way of avoiding a possible trade dispute. Finally, on 29 March, Korea agreed to give virtually all the commitments the Commission had called for.

Should an agreement be reached in the near future, the Commission together with the Community industry and the Member States would check very carefully that Korea was fulfilling its commitments. In this context, the Commission could very quickly ask for consultations with Korea to find concrete solutions to the difficulties facing our industry.

Should Korea fail to deliver on its commitments or should there be no real impact on the market, the Community industry has said that it would lodge a complaint with the Commission (under the Trade Barriers Regulation) regarding Korea's subsidy practices. If the complaint provided sufficient evidence, the Commission would be prepared to initiate an investigation. This could end up before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, thus offering the EU the prospect of the practices being penalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1493/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Use of ESF for vocational retraining courses in Italy

On 25 May 1999 a trade-union agreement was signed between the Regional Transport Division of the Italian Railways and the National federal trade union secretariats on courses for retraining, technological innovation, company reorganisation and occupational reskilling, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the Ministry of Labour. The programmes under way involve approximately 2 165 employees from all the FGCGs (railway companies for which government trustees have been appointed), at different stages of training. For the purposes of co-funding from the ESF, in selecting the staff that would attend the courses, priority had to be given to the requirements of innovation, reorganisation and vocational retraining and participation had to reflect the various levels of workers in the firms concerned. However, the government trustee for the Circumvesuviana line in the Campania region has applied for and obtained funding exclusively for advanced level courses (management, coordinators, project analysts, supervisory and managerial staff, etc.) neglecting retraining courses for those at a lower level. Participants in the courses have been chosen directly by the company's management. Eight courses have taken place so far and it is not clear on the basis of what criteria the company applied for funding for the courses concerned.

The Commission:

1. Will it therefore check whether this is the actual position?

2. Will it ascertain whether the criteria applied for selecting participants in the courses are in breach of the rules governing the use of ESF funds?

3. If appropriate, will it establish where responsibility lies for any mismanagement of ESF funds?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Judging from what the Honourable Member reports, the Commission considers that there have been no irregularities or infringements of Community law. The party who wants to develop certain job skills in a productive sector is the only one responsible for such a choice.

The matter must ultimately be addressed in the context of regional vocational training policy, which lays down criteria for access to Community co-funding.

The Commission has no role to play in this decision-making process, because these areas do not come within the Commission's remit in managing the structural funds.

That said, the choice of the job categories to be trained seems to be unclear, judging from the information provided by the Honourable Member.

Hence the Commission will request information from the Campania regional authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1720/00

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 May 2000)

Subject: IGC

In his speech at Humboldt University on 12 May, the German Foreign Minister suggested that the European Commission might be replaced by the European Council as the executive of the Union.

He also said that enhanced cooperation means nothing more than increased intergovernmentalisation.

Does the Commission agree with Mr Fischer on either of these points?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2000)

The Commission welcomed in a first reaction the direction in which the speech declared as a private statement by Mr Fischer is oriented. It remains however the Commission's steady line not to comment on isolated points taken out of their context.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: The provision of public toilets throughout the EU

Throughout the EU, there are varying standards as regards the provision of public toilets. Does the Commission share my view that members of the public should not be obliged to purchase food and drink in an establishment in order to use its toilets?

Will the Commission please advise me whether there are any proposals to make it a requirement of EU Member States to provide an adequate number of public toilets, in which a high standard of cleanliness should be maintained?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0914/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Volume of EU legislative proposals

How many new legislative proposals (for directives, regulations and decisions) have been made by the Commission in each year for the last ten years?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation of the second Community support framework

The second Community support framework for Greece is already drawing to an end and during the year 2000 work will be carried out only on projects agreed up to the end of 1999.

In view of this:

1. What is the take-up rate for national and regional programmes under the second Community support framework?

2. In which programmes has the take-up been slowest and what are the main reasons for the delay?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

1. On 15 January 2000, the average implementation rate (in terms of payments) of the different operational programmes under the Community support framework for Greece during the 1994-1999 programming period, taking all Structural Funds together, was 72,5 % in the case of the national OPs and 76,8 % in the case of the regional OPs.

As a result of reprogramming exercises undertaken up to the end of 1999, the commitment rate for all programmes should very soon reach 100 %. On the payments side, the rules allow for an additional two-year period for implementing payments on the sums allocated to the Greek CSF.

2. The programmes covering postal services and privately owned infrastructure in Northern Greece are showing a rather low payment rate but the amounts involved are not very substantial and can thus be easily taken up in the near future. The causes of these delays are mainly to be found in the difficulties at the start-up of the postal services programme and in the late adoption in 1997 of the aid for private infrastructure in Northern Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Asylum levels and moves towards a common asylum and immigration policy

Would the Commission provide a summary of the overall level of asylum-seekers entering the EU over the last year, comment on the trend in levels of asylum-seekers into the EU over the past five years, list the level of asylum seekers per capita, per Member State, and comment on recent developments in forging a common asylum and immigration policy.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The recent developments in forging a common asylum and immigration policy include Title IV of the new EC Treaty which entered into force on 1 May 1999; the presidency conclusions of the special European Council in Tampere of 15-16 October 1999, and in particular points 3, 4 and 10 to 27; and in particular Commission initiatives such as towards Common standards on asylum procedures a Commission working document dated 3 March 1999(1), a proposal for a Council regulation concerning the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain other aliens, 26 May 1999(2), a proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification, 1 December 1999(3), and a proposal for a Council decision creating a European refugee fund, 14 December 1999(4). Finally there is the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the Union, presented by the Commission to the Council and the Parliament.

Two tables illustrating asylum applications are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) SEC(1999) 271 final.

(2) COM(1999) 260 final.

(3) COM(1999) 638 final.

(4) COM(1999) 686 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Unsettled property claims between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic

As is well known, the Federal Republic of Germany's government has invariably condemned the expulsion of the Germans from Czechoslovakia and the uncompensated confiscation of German property as an infringement of international law. The German Government has always emphatically upheld this position.

The political significance of these unsettled property claims for the Community's legal system cannot be resolved by referring to Article 295 of the EC Treaty.

How does the Commission view these still unsettled property claims in connection with the accession negotiations with the Czech Republic, and is it prepared to help rectify this injustice?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1068/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Tuberculosis testing in bovine animals

The only test for bovine TB approved in the EU is the single intradermal comparative test as specified in Directive 64/432(1), which is herd specific as distinct from animal specific. Considerable work has been done on laboratory blood tests from TB, with the gamma-interferon test being the most promising of these. Would the Commission indicate when a blood test for TB in cattle is likely to be introduced and give details of the type of test most likely to be employed?

(1) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964, p. 1977-2012.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Annex B of Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine provides for the standards for the manufacture and use of bovine and avian tuberculins. According to Community legislation in force, the tuberculin skin test is the prescribed test. Also the manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines of the Office international des epizooties (OIE) prescribes only the tuberculin skin test for international trade purposes.

Denmark, Germany, the Provinces of Bolzano and Trento in Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, and Sweden have successfully eradicated the disease by using the tuberculin skin test and are recognized as officially free Member States or regions in accordance with the Directive.

In accordance with Article 16 of that Directive the Commission, on the basis of an opinion of the scientific veterinary committee, shall update and if necessary amend Annex B to adapt it to scientific developments. In November 1999 the Commission received the final report of the scientific committee, which is also published on the web-site of the Directorate general for Health and consumer protection.

In this report the scientific veterinary committee confirms the tuberculin skin test as the prescribed test. However, it also refers to serological tests and the gamma-interferon test. With regard to the latter the report concludes, that acceptance of this diagnostic assay as an official supplementary test procedure for tuberculosis should be encouraged to allow its use under local conditions in individual eradication schemes.

The OIE recommends the gamma-interferon test only for animals that are difficult or dangerous to handle, such as vicious cattle or other bovidae.

The gamma-interferon test is so far accepted as an official test for use in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

The Commission will review the technical annexes of Directive 64/432/EEC. However, this review requires further consultation with Member State experts from diagnostic laboratories and veterinary administrations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0560/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: EU fraud

Will the Commission give an estimate of identifiable fraud against the EU budget in each year of the last five available years and also express this as a proportion of the total budget? Would the Commission please give the comparable figures for each of the Member States' own budgets so as to enable a comparison to be made and as an exercise in best practice and benchmarking?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its last two annual reports on the Protection of the financial interests of the Communities Fight against fraud for 1997 and 1998(1).

These reports analyse the cases notified by Member States involving irregularities and fraud against traditional own resources and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee section and structural operations.

The 1998 report shows that on the basis of the cases of irregularities and fraud notified by the Member States and the investigations carried out by the Commission with the help of the Member States, the budgetary impact was 3,8 % for own resources, 1 % for the EAGGF Guarantee section and 0,18 % for structural operations in 1998.

It was also found that one fifth of the cases notified by the Member States in 1998 could constitute criminal offences (fraud).

On the basis of the data concerning investigations conducted by UCLAF (now OLAF, the European Anti-fraud Office), the budgetary impact of cases relating to expenditure managed directly by the Commission for which there is no system of notification by the Member States is put at 0,10 % for 1998.

The Commission feels that fraud against national budgets, for which it has no figures, is something essentially different, thus making any comparison very rash (in the main these are administrative budgets whereas 95 % of the Community budget is grants).

(1) COM(98) 276 final and COM(1999) 590 final.