ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The number of trained economists in the Commission dedicated to the monitoring of the economic situation of individual Member States typically ranges from two (for the four largest economies) to one (for the other Member States). This would compare with a range from three to one in the geographical departments of the Fund. This number does not include either support staff (secretaries, assistants) or managerial staff (Heads of Unit and Director for the Commission, Heads of Division, Head of Department for the Fund). Concerning the Commission's missions dedicated to the specific follow-up of the economic situation in Member States, these include routine mission typically undertaken in connection with the Autumn and Spring forecasts and the preparation of the Report on the Implementation of the Broad Economic policy Guidelines, and ad hoc missions, undertaken on specific policy occasions (for example, in preparation of possible steps to be taken in the framework of the Excessive Deficit Procedure). The former typically include the economist(s) following the Member State in question and may or may not include the responsible Head of Unit. They last between one and three days. The programme typically includes meetings with the finance ministries, the Central bank and forecasting institutions, at operational and middle management level. The latter are typically headed by a Director (or the Director-General) and include the responsible Head of Unit and the economists following the Member State in question. They last between one and two days. The programme typically includes meeting with the finance ministries at senior management level. It needs to be noted that the resources and the contacts outlined above are supplemented, as far as the Commission is concerned, by the resources in the ‘horizontal’ (non-geographical services) and the contacts with officials from Member States on the occasion of official and unofficial meetings taking place at the seat of the European institutions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/186

(2004/C 78 E/0192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Animal by-products

How many incinerators are there in Europe burning animal by-products and in which countries are they?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission does not have the information requested. However, according to the draft report on Best Available Techniques for waste incineration (1), about 421 installations are in operation in the Member States, and about 106 installations in the Candidate Countries. These installations burn mainly municipal waste, non-hazardous and hazardous industrial waste, sewage sludge and clinical waste. Among these waste types could also be fractions of animal by-products.

(1) http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/Factivities.htm.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/40

(2004/C 78 E/0039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1596/03

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Closure of ‘Schuh-Union’ located in Ponte de Lima, Portugal

The German shoe company Schuh-Union closed its factory in Ponte de Lima and more than 180 workers lost their jobs. Management informed staff about the definitive closure by simply putting up a notice at the entrance to the factory.

The company had drawn up a protocol guaranteeing that it would stay in Ponte de Lima for at least 20 years, but it closed down after only 12 years.

Management blamed the closure on a shortage of orders, but in actual fact the orders had been passed on to other factories in Romania and Turkey, where labour is cheaper.

In May 2002 Schuh-Union already closed the factory at Maia (Portugal) in order to relocate to Romania, depriving 460 workers of their jobs. At that time management claimed that the closure would enable the factory at Ponte de Lima to maintain its full production capacity and retain all the staff.

Nevertheless, in October 2002 Schuh-Union closed the cutting and stitching section of its Ponte de Lima factory, which immediately made 172 workers redundant.

It should be noted that 97 % of the staff are women aged between 40 and 50, who will naturally find it difficult to find other jobs, especially in a town where there are few job opportunities.

Can the Commission therefore say:

— whether Schuh-Union has received any Community funding;

— if so, how much it received, when, and what conditions were imposed on the company?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Schuh-Union received no aid from the European Social Fund but did receive from the European Regional Development Fund PTE 199 431 000 (part-financing of a total cost of PTE 280 735 000) for two projects, one approved on 12 November 1992 under the PNICIAP programme and one approved on 2 March 1998 under the programme for modernisation of the economic fabric.

These aids was allocated by Portugal under aid schemes approved by the Commission. Portugal is, however, responsible for seeing that the Community rules on competition are respected and the Commission will ask her authorities to check if this has been the case in connection with the aid granted to Schuh-Union.

The location of enterprises is primarily a matter for those who head them. However, under the new regulatory provisions on Structural Fund financing for the 2000-2006 programming period, Member States are to ensure that during the five years following the decision to grant aid no substantial project modification, including no ‘change of location in a productive activity’, occurs (1). The Guidelines on national regional aid adopted by the Commission on 10 March 1998 require both capital assets financed and jobs created to be maintained for at least five years from the time at which the aided investment was made.

(1) Article 30(4)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/78

(2004/C 88 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2321/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Number of Commission officials dealing with external relations

Could the Commission please provide a list of the number of Commission officials in DG-aidco, ECHO and DG-dev broken down per programme and per country both in headquarters and in beneficiary countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

The table (Annex 1) which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, shows for each operational directorate of the EuropeAid Cooperation office the total number of officials dealing with each programme. Auxiliary staff has not been included in the total number reported. All figures relate to the situation at the end of June 2003 unless otherwise stated.

A second table with the requested information from the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) (Annex 2), a third one concerning the Delegations (Annex 3) and a fourth one concerning the Directorate General Development (Annex 4) are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat as well.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/715

(2004/C 78 E/0763)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1441/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Tyres: application of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC

The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC (1) introduces a ban on whole used tyres in landfill starting from July 2003, with a ban on shredded used tyres in landfill starting in July 2006.

1. In 2001, 74 % of used tyres in Spain were still going to landfill. Can the Commission give an assurance that it will pursue the Spanish authorities if they fail to meet their obligation under this directive by the due dates, with particular reference to the July 2003 deadline? What action has the Commission taken to emphasise to the Spanish Government the importance of meeting the deadline?

2. In 2001, 69 % of used tyres in Poland went to landfill. Can the Commission state whether the Polish Government has negotiated a derogation from the relevant part of the directive, or will the deadlines apply unaltered from the date of accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Pursuant to Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 1999/31/EC whole used tyres will be banned from landfills as of 16 July 2003 and shredded used tyres as of 16 July 2006.

The Commission is aware that for some Member States the implementation of the ban is a significant challenge. Most Member States have set up or are setting up systems for the collection of tyres, in order to divert them from landfills.

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

Poland has not requested a transition period with regard to the ban of landfilling used tyres. Thus, Poland will have to implement the ban by the date of accession.

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/394

(2004/C 78 E/0417)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1979/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 June 2003)

Subject: Synthetic progestins in contraceptive pills and Hormone Replacement Therapy

There is growing concern amongst users of oral contraceptives and HRT treatments which contain synthetic progestins following reports on possible links between synthetic progestins and breast cancer, as well as other health risks. Synthetic progestins are known to lead to oestrogen dominance which is, in turn, linked with breast cancer.

Can the Commission indicate what research is being undertaken to establish whether women are at risk from synthetic progestins; what guidance is being given to medical practitioners about using products containing synthetic progestins while the safety of these products is in doubt; and what public information is being provided to EU citizens to enable them to make informed choices about pharmaceutical products containing synthetic progestins?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the concern amongst users of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) on 28 September 2001 adopted a Public Assessment Report on ‘Combined oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism’ and a Position statement after its assessment of ‘third generation combined contraceptives containing the progestins desogestrel or gestodene and the risk of venous thromboembolism.’

In this report the CPMP considers that the Summaries of Products Characteristics (SPC) (i.e. the scientific documentation related to the products) and the User Package Leaflets should reflect the precautions for use of these products and should be communicated to the prescribers of COCs as well as the women in need of contraceptive therapy.

Last December 2002 the Member States medicine authorities adopted a core SPC for HRT with information on the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

On the other hand in order to assess the raised pharmacovigilance signals on venous thromboembolism, COCs and HRT are involved in a specific study and review at the Pharmacovigilance working group of the CPMP. There is not yet a definitive scientific position as the evaluation is going on.

In addition, the Commission is financing the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition (EPIC). This study might also contribute to unravelling an increased or decreased, but so far unknown, relative risk for breast cancer linked to COC and/or HRT.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/716

(2004/C 84 E/0804)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Boris Shikhmuradov

Is the Commission aware of the case of Boris Shikhmuradov, the Turkmen opposition leader, charged with the attempted assassination of President Nyazov?

Shikhmuradov has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Halk Maslikhat, Turkmenistan's supreme representative body, and therefore has not received a fair trial through the court process.

Can the Commission bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities requesting observation of international standards in allowing the defendant access to a fair trial?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The case of Boris Shikmuradov is well-known to the Commission. The Union has expressed its concerns in demarches on this case as well as on the other human rights cases in Turkmenistan following the assassination attempt against President Niyazov on 25 November 2002.

Mr Shikmuradov was a direct interlocutor with the Commission at the time he was Foreign Minister of his country. His video-taped confession and his trial, organised five days after his arrest, without proper defence and international assistance, is not in line with Turkmenistan commitments in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Commission agrees with the assessment that Mr Shikhmuradov has not received a fair trial. More generally, the Union's concern, expressed in the OSCE Permanent Council, is with the methods used in the investigation and follow-up to the events of 25 November 2002. While conscious of the absence of political dialogue within our Trade and Cooperation Agreement, with Turkmenistan, the Commission will continue to exert pressure on this and other human rights issues through diplomatic channels.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/433

(2004/C 78 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2799/03

by Domenico Mennitti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject: Development of Pan-European corridors

The process of European integration is now reaching its final stage with the accession of ten new countries to the European Union.

There is therefore an urgent need to develop identified infrastructure to foster economic relations within an area that has expanded enormously in size.

Of particular importance among the types of infrastructure envisaged are ‘Pan-European corridors’, which are considered ideal tools for promoting economic exchange and especially trade.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not feel that the priority criteria should be broadened and special attention awarded to Pan-European corridor No 8 as part of the plans to boost the countries bordering the Mediterranean, which should be flanked with the development of adequate infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The enlargement of the Union will bring a major change into the corridor concept; two-thirds of the existing Corridors will be within the territory of the Union and only one-third of the corridors will be outside the Union territory. Corridors or axes could be seen both inside and outside of the enlarged Union — inside as a framework to channel the new priority transport routes which are emerging as a result of accelerated economic integration and which are one of the subjects of the ongoing revision of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines, and — outside to reflect international trade developments.

However, a fundamental re-assessment of future corridor development and management is needed. The number of corridors should probably remain at a level which is manageable and affordable in terms of financing. These redefined corridors or axes would need close and systematic supervision in order to be realised in a reasonable amount of time. A number of useful management techniques have been developed for the corridors. These structures (Memo of Understandings, Steering committees, etc.) are expected to make progress with the identification of inventories, bottlenecks and priority projects.

In the end, the implementation of the Corridor VIII, which has been signed only recently, depends on the countries concerned in the first place. As the Honourable Member may know, the whole alignment of the Corridor VIII on rail is also mentioned in the Report of the TEN-T High Level Group as an important project for territorial cohesion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/497

(2004/C 84 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject: Revamped Olympic Airlines

On 29 August the Greek Transport Minister, Mr Christos Verelis, tabled an amendment in Parliament announcing the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, to be called Olympic Airlines. This new company will be exclusively concerned with flight operations inherited from the merger of the relevant branches of Olympic Airways, Olympic Aviation and Macedonian Airlines. The minister also said that Olympic Airlines would employ 1 850 people and have capital of EUR 140 million. He stated that Macedonian Airlines provided the legal framework for the creation of the new company, while the procedure for spinning off operations was entirely in line with Community and national legislation.

1. Was the Commission regularly briefed during the procedure for the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, as the Greek Government has declared?

2. To what extent does the Commission consider the specific solution compatible with Community law, and how safe are the jobs of employees in this new company?

3. How and when does the Commission intend to intervene in this specific case?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

The Commission had regular contacts with the Greek authorities regarding the proposed privatisation of Olympic Airways. However, the information received was relatively incomplete. In order to speed up the transmission of information, following passage of the privatisation law on 5 September 2003, the Commission adopted a decision on 8 September 2003 enjoining Greece to send it any relevant information concerning the privatisation of Olympic Airways. The Commission received a reply from the Greek authorities, dated 11 September 2003. This is now being examined.

As the Commission does not have all the details of the proposed privatisation, it cannot give an opinion on its compliance with Community law. Moreover, at this stage no information is available on the social aspects of the plan, or the arrangements for winding up activities which will not be taken over by the new company.

The Commission is still in close contact with the Greek authorities, who have undertaken to send it the final privatisation plan before it is implemented, so that the Commission may give an opinion on its compliance with Community law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/449

(2004/C 88 E/0458)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3080/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Water supply in Palestine

The World Health Organisation's recognised minimum domestic water consumption is 100 litres per capita per day. Figures show that the current domestic water supply for Palestinians is only 57-76 litres per capita per day, whilst Israeli consumption is approximately four times that amount.

Is the EU taking action to encourage a more equitable division of this resource? If not, why not?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/90

(2004/C 84 E/0109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Prato

With reference to question E-0971/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Prato (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/85

(2004/C 84 E/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3689/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1115/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied with two projects in 1999, but that neither of them had received funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3677/03, E-3678/03, E-3679/03, E-3680/03, E-3681/03, E-3682/03, E-3683/03, E-3684/03, E-3685/03, E-3686/03, E-3687/03, E-3688/03 and E-3689/03

given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

Two calls for proposals under the Ecos-Ouverture Programme were made, in 1997 and 1998, but none subsequently. Consequently of the local authorities named eight — Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Pesaro, Pisa and Pistoia — could not be granted funding under the programme after 1999.

The Commission received more than 300 applications in response to these two calls. The selection procedure used the criteria published in them. On that basis the 63 best projects (31 in 1997 and 32 in 1998) were selected.

The reasons for rejection of the projects submitted by local and regional authorities named in the Honourable Member's questions are:

— Municipality of Florence: Innocenters project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented;

— Municipality of Prato: Ecotex project not selected owing to weaknesses in the work programme and budget presented;

— Municipality of Siena: Femeco project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented;

— Province of Siena: the Thermal Management project did not meet minimum eligibility requirements in connection with the legal situation and financial commitment of the partners;

— Provinces of Perugia and Terni (with Umbria Region): the Womanenterprise project could not be financed because the MEDA fund withdrew from the programme financing arrangement and it was consequently impossible to aid projects submitted by a partnership of local/regional authorities from the Union and from MEDA countries;

— Umbria Region: the Record project did not meet the co-financing requirements for eligibility for assistance from the ERDF and Phare resources;

— Bioregionalism regional agency located at Perugia: Bioregional Sudira project not selected owing to weaknesses in the partnership, work programme and budget presented;

The Ecos-Ouverture Programme is actually due to be closed in the first quarter of 2004. At present, and for the entire 2000-06 period, interregional cooperation is assisted under the Interreg Community Initiative.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/94

(2004/C 84 E/0121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Prato

With reference to question E-0971/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Prato (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.