ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1406/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Territorial employment pact at Lamezia Terme (Italy)

Knowing that:

- Over the period 1996-2001, under the Structural Funds, 89 territorial employment pacts were financed in the EU, among them that for Lamezia Terme (Italy), adopted via Decree No 948 of 29 January 1999 of the Italian Finance Ministry, on the basis of a total investment of approximately EUR 48 million funding 66 business initiatives, 30 of them dispersed over the territory of Lamezia Terme.

- The company responsible for implementing the Pact is the consortium Sviluppo ex-area Sir, also known as LameziaEuropa.

- The projects funded concerned 49 new initiatives, 16 extensions and one reopening. Thirty seven were in the manufacturing sector, 12 in the agri-industrial sector, 15 in the tourist sector and two in the services sector.

- 903 jobs were to be involved, 699 of them newly created.

- The management of LameziaEuropa claims success for the Pact, purely on the grounds that on 29 January 2003 the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti savings bank granted a new tranche of financing to the undertakings concerned.

- Lamezia Terme has a high rate of unemployment, especially among women and young people, and job security is increasingly under threat: employers are failing to honour their contracts, health and safety rules are being flouted, and moonlighting is on the increase.

- These circumstances of illegality are being exploited by organised crime in order to fund its own activities. In consequence, businesses in the area are being forced into uncomfortably close relations with local politicians, and one result of this has been the recent resignation of the municipal council.

- If there is to be proper monitoring of the investments made, job creation and full respect for the legal procedures as laid down in the Pact need to be ensured by the institutions as a matter of priority.

Can the Commission provide information on:

1. the amount invested to date;

2. the monitoring mechanisms adopted, including at EU level, with a view to verifying businesses' observance of their commitments;

3. the number of posts involved in each undertaking, and whether the possibility of those undertakings employing black labour can be excluded;

4. the measures that will be taken if it is found that the commitments made are not being observed?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the territorial employment pact for Lamezia Terme was financed not by the Structural Funds but by national resources.

The Commission is therefore not in a position to answer the Honourable Member's questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0734/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Imposition of a right turn ban

The local council of Sutton, Surrey is trying to install a right turn ban at a junction on a major local road. By their own admission, Sutton Council say that this will have a minimal effect on accident prevention (less than one collision per year). In fact the introduction of the right turn ban is likely to have an adverse effect on accident prevention as up to 140 000 vehicles a year would be forced into residential streets, which are not suitable for such an influx of traffic.

Local residents are very much against the scheme and are looking for ways to prevent it going ahead.

Does the Commission believe that there is any provision under EU law to help local residents use litigation to stop this right turn ban?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The organisation of traffic on local roads falls within the jurisdiction of the national authorities. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe there is any provision under Community law to help local residents with the problem raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Prestige: additional European compensation fund

On 21 November 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Prestige disaster off the coast of Galicia. Paragraph 6 reads:

Calls for the Commission proposal establishing an additional European compensation fund of EUR 1 billion for oil pollution damage to be implemented immediately.

What is the Commission's current view of this request from Parliament?

Does the Commission intend to adopt a fresh initiative in this connection, which would be more than justified in the wake of the Prestige disaster?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about the need to ensure that sufficient compensation is available for all victims of oil pollution incidents.

Therefore, the Commission proposed on 6 December 2000 to establish the COPE Fund, which would raise the overall maximum compensation to EUR 1 billion instead of the current international limit of around EUR 185 million. Such a measure would ensure that all victims who have a legitimate claim for compensation will be fully compensated in case of an oil spill in Union waters and would also serve to speed up the compensation of victims.

However, the Council decided not to proceed with the proposal, but instead to promote the establishment of a similar fund at international level. The Diplomatic Conference on the Supplementary Fund takes place on 12 to 16 May 2003. The Commission has repeatedly insisted, the International Supplementary Fund can only be accepted as an alternative to the COPE Fund if its overall limit is set at the same levels as proposed by the Commission and that it shall be fully operational by the end of 2003. Should this not be the case, rapid adoption of the Commission's proposal for a COPE Fund, as amended following the support of the Parliament, is essential.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Access to documents

Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(1) on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, can the Commission clarify whether Reasoned Opinions sent by the Commission to Member States, in the context of infringement procedures, are or will be available in the public domain at any stage, either in whole or in part?

In general, which kind of Commission documents are available as a result of the Regulation which were not available before?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents provides for a case-by-case assessment: access to a document will be granted upon request, unless its disclosure would undermine the protection of a public or private interest as foreseen in Article 4 of the Regulation. Reasoned Opinions are no exception to this rule.

Under the Regulation the scope of the right of access has been extended to documents received from third parties and held by the Commission. In addition, some of the exceptions to the right of access, which were mandatory under the Code of Conduct implemented through Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents(1) are now subject to a public interest test e.g. the protection of commercial interests, of Court

proceedings and legal advice and of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. Even when exceptions to the right of access apply, the possibility of granting partial access to a document will have to be assessed. All these improvements have significantly widened the public right of access to Commission documents.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject: Attacks on Italian tourists in Nice

For some months, Italian tourists travelling along the Côte d'Azur by motorway have been met at the Nice motorway exit by organised gangs of robbers, probably of North African origin, who attack drivers, including women and old people, giving them a rather unpleasant welcome to France.

This situation, which has been widely reported by the press in France and Italy, has been taken up directly with the Prefecture of Nice by a number of mayors from the neighbouring Italian region of Liguria.

Does the European Union not intend to make representations to the French authorities in Nice, including the border authorities, to call for action to be taken to guarantee the safety and freedom of movement of tourists from other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

In the context of the Convention of 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, Member States have committed themselves in stepping up law enforcement co-operation across their internal borders for the purposes of preventing and detecting criminal offences. To this end, the Convention has provided Member States with new instruments, and also allows in Article 39 that arrangements are made and agreements concluded between Member States with a common border.

An example of such agreement is the one concluded between the governments of France and Italy pertaining to police and customs co-operation, signed on 3 October 1997 in Chambéry.

By virtue of this agreement, a joint French-Italian police and customs station (CCPD) has been set up in Ventimiglia. This joint station can not only gather and exchange all useful information to detect and prevent criminal offences, but can also on request- give assistance to local police to address threats to public order and fight criminality more effectively.

The Commission is convinced that the French authorities will use the means at their disposal to protect citizens against the forms of crime that the Honourable Member has mentioned. Co-operation with Italian law enforcement authorities is an important means available to the French authorities in this context.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0968/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Pesaro

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Pesaro are in great need of European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Pesaro has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was not selected for support.

1. The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal Resred did not succeed and was not granted support.

2. The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals 2002. This proposal Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing (APPEEL) was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406 and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia's share of the budget is EUR 42 000 and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0964/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Livorno are in great need of European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was not selected for support.

1. The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal Resred did not succeed and was not granted support.

2. The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals 2002. This proposal Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing (APPEEL) was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406 and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia's share of the budget is EUR 42 000 and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1091/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1439/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Reform of the disciplinary procedure

As part of the reform of the Staff Regulations, the Commission has proposed changes to the disciplinary procedure.

At present, disciplinary proceedings that have been concluded can be re-opened, at the request of the official concerned, and also on the initiative of the Appointing Authority, if there are new facts, supported by relevant evidence, that cast a different light on the official's behaviour.

Under the Commission proposal, only the official concerned will in future be able to have disciplinary proceedings re-opened.

In practice this would mean that the Appointing Authority's hands would be tied if it came upon new, incriminating evidence of misconduct by an official who previously had been cleared and not subject to any disciplinary measures.

Why has the Commission proposed this change, which would mean that, even in important cases, it would be unable to take action?

Does the Commission stand by its proposal, or will it change it?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

In the version of the Commission proposal for amendment of the Staff Regulation which the Honourable Member has apparently seen, the words on its own initiative or were inadvertently omitted from the new Article 25 of Annex IX. The relevant article in the revised Staff Regulations was subsequently corrected. The text agreed with the Council consequently reflects the current Staff Regulation as follows: Where new facts supported by relevant evidence come to light, disciplinary proceedings may be re-opened by the appointing authority on its own initiative or on application by the official concerned(1).

(1) see doc 5752/03 STAT 10 FIN 31 of 6 February 2003 of the Council of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Construction of a hotel complex on the islet of Alata and environmental consequences

Local municipalities, environmental organisations and the Technical Chamber of Commerce of Magnesia have expressed alarm at the environmental damage likely to be caused by the tourist development of the small island of Alata in the Pagasitikos Gulf.

Given that:

- Agenda 21 considers small islands sensitive and fragile ecosystems where strict environmental protection measures are necessary and only sustainable development is permissible;

- A small island of 50 hectares clearly cannot accommodate a 1 000-bed hotel and a whole complex of facilities covering 33 000 square metres without suffering serious environmental consequences and damage to the landscape;

- The small island in question is designated a natural protection area in the special regional planning study for Pilion and the Northern Sporades;

- Water supplies for the complex are problematical, given the shortage of local resources;

- The collection of waste and traffic and the parking of lorries, tourist buses and private cars on the mainland opposite the island pose serious problems;

Will the Commission say whether it considers that the investment in question contributes to the sustainable tourist development of the region and is compatible with Recommendation 2002/413/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe?

(1) OJ L 148, 6.6.2002, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Recommendation 2002/413/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 on integrated coastal zone management in Europe contains general principles for sustainable development of Europe's coastal zones, one of which is respecting the carrying capacity of ecosystems. But the Recommendation also recognises the need for sustainable economic and employment opportunities, in which the tourism sector has an important role to play. While it is internationally recognised that small islands are particularly fragile, development projects are thus not precluded, but the acceptability of a specific local development scheme depends on the balance between environmental, social and economic aspects. Technical guidance for local carrying capacity assessment is provided in studies by the Commission and, specifically for the Mediterranean area, in the Mediterranean Action Programme(1).

As for the specific environmental impact of the construction project referred to by the Honourable Member, Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2) as transposed into the Greek law requires a complete environmental impact assessment for construction of hotels of this size.

(1) See respectively http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm/home.htmand http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/activities.html.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.