ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1094/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Management of ESF funds by the Madrid Institute for Employment and Business Training (IMEFE)

What is the situation as regards the public accusations of misappropriation of ESF funds at the IMEFE relating to the 1994-1999 programming period, in particular with regard to:

1. financial corrections;

2. suspected fraud;

3. action taken by the authorities responsible for combating abuses?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2002)

The Unidad Administradora del Fondo Social Europeo (UAFSE) has informed the Commission that the Intervención General de la Administración del Estado (IGAE) has finalised its audit report on the Madrid Institute for Employment and Business Training (IMEFE), in which this department discovered irregularities during the period 1994-1997 concerning a sum of EUR 3 783 033 from the European Social Fund (ESF).

Following the IGAE audit, the UAFSE began a further audit of the IMEFE (internal and external actions), the financial conclusions of which could lead to even more significant corrections, although the provisional report has not yet been sent to the Commission.

Following these provisional conclusions, the UAFSE informed the Commission that a further audit was currently being carried out on the external courses Asistencias Técnicas in order to increase the size of the sample it had initially audited.

The UAFSE also informed the Commission that once it has the final audit reports it should be able to establish the total amount concerned and to submit the relevant financial correction dossier to the Commission at that stage.

In the meantime, the Commission is going to initiate a suspension procedure in application of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88(1).

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments. OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3538/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: Trade in military material

Will the Commission give the figures for exports and imports of military material (including aerospace) for each Member State and for the EU for the last ten years, and state these figures as a percentage of the total value of exports and imports in each case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The figures for imports and exports of military material, which the Commission has at its disposal and can make available, represent only a small proportion of actual trade in the products in question. This is because of the confidentiality at the highest level (confidential data for all users) which the Member States attach to most of these products.

Regarding exports of conventional arms from the Member States, information is given in the Annual Reports according to the operative provisions of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports for the years 1999-2002 (breakdown by country in terms of number/value of licences and value of exports, where available; data do not correspond to uniform standards).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/02

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Illegal driftnetting

European press reports and anecdotal information point to the continued use of pelagic driftnets by boats of at least two European Union countries, despite the full prohibition coming into force in January 2002.

Can the Commission include whether it has any additional information on the continued use of such driftnets, what measures are being adopted by Member States to ensure compliance with Regulation (EC) 1239/98(1), and what measures the Commission intends to take against Member States that still allow fishing boats to use driftnets?

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

The Commission is engaged in a programme, covering the whole fishing year, of ad hoc missions by its inspectors to verify on the spot that Community vessels (and non-EU vessels operating in Community waters) are complying with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98(1) prohibiting driftnet fishing for highly migratory species. It wishes to stress the cooperation extended by the Member States' authorities in execution of this programme.

Despite the provisions adopted by the Member States to ensure respect for the rules a number of infringements have been detected.

At the end of the inspection programme a comprehensive assessment will be made on the basis of which the Commission will decide on any action to be taken against Member States.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for conservation of fishery resources, OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3086/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Professional drivers with poor eyesight

Swedish newspapers report that professional drivers with poor eyesight are forced to use contact lenses instead of spectacles. This has affected some drivers adversely as they are unable to wear lenses for various reasons.

The Swedish National Road Administration considers that the rules on vision standards are cumbersome but that the EU directive must be strictly adhered to and that it is not possible to grant exemptions for spectacle lenses over eight dioptres. However, the Administration has also said that lawyers and doctors on the traffic medicine council are gathering arguments to persuade the European Union to raise the limit.

In the Commission's view, is it possible for the Swedish National Road Administration to grant exemptions to allow professional drivers to use spectacles which exceed eight dioptres?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

As regards driving licences, Council Directive 91/439/EEC was adopted on 29 July 1991(1) and entered into force on 1 July 1996. Article 7(1)(a) of that Directive lays down that holders of driving licences must meet medical standards, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III, which states that any driver in group 2 must have a visual acuity, with corrective lenses if necessary, of at least 0,8 in the better eye and at least 0,5 in the worse eye.

Such a defect of vision may be corrected with the aid of contact lenses for any level of correction. However, where glasses are used, the corrective power could not exceed four dioptres until 1996. Since 10 July 1996, this maximum power has been increased to eight dioptres(2) to take account of scientific progress.

Annex III lays down the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving a power driven vehicle, which allows Member States to apply stricter standards, but not less rigorous ones. However, Member States may, with the agreement of the Commission, derogate from the provisions of Annex III where such derogations are compatible with the development of medical science and with the principles laid down in that Annex (Article 7(3) of the Directive).

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) Commission Decision 96/427/EC of 10 July 1996 concerning a derogation from the provisions of Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EECl, OJ L 175, 13.7.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Marína II and southern Europe

The Marína II project seeks to analyse radioactivity in the waters of northern Europe up to the mid-1980s.

Does the Commission have a similar project regarding the waters of southern Europe principally the Mediterranean Sea and, if not, does the Commission intend to launch an initiative along these lines?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Several studies regarding radioactivity in the marine environment have been conducted on behalf of the Commission until now.

Regarding the Mediterranean Sea the project Marína-Med was initiated in 1992 and finished in 1994.

The following reports were published by Directorate General Environment:

- The radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea Project Marína-Med;

Report by a group of experts convened by the European Commission.

Luxembourg, 1994. (Doc. XI-094/93).

- The radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea Project Marína-Med;

Proceedings of a seminar held in Rome, 17-19 May 1993.

Luxembourg 1994 (EUR15564EN).

Other projects dealt with North European marine waters (Marína, Report EUR12483EN, 1990; Marína II, draft report on the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/radprot, 2002) and the Baltic Sea (Marína-Balt, Report EUR12483EN, 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Desecration of Jewish graves at the Rome Verano cemetery

On 18 July 2002, a date corresponding to the Fast of Ab 9, a day of mourning in the Jewish calendar, more than 40 Jewish graves were desecrated at the Verano cemetery in Rome. The entire city was appalled at this despicable act, the first anti-Semitic attack of such alarming seriousness to have occurred in Rome in many years.

What action will the Council take in the wake of the barbaric desecration of the Verano cemetery?

How will it prevent and respond to the long series of anti-Semitic outrages of the kind perpetrated, before the Rome incident, in Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Brussels?

How will it combat the crazed subculture which, by fomenting hatred of the Jews while demonising the state of Israel, leads to shameful episodes of the sort that occurred in Rome?

Is in a position to ascertain whether anti-Semitic organisations are pursuing a calculated strategy and perhaps cooperating on an international basis?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any form of racism or xenophobia. At its meeting on 25/26 April 2002, the Council adopted conclusions in which it indicated its wish to step up preventive action against racist violence and antisemitism, and advocated closer cooperation between the police forces of the Member States. In addition, a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia is currently being drawn up at the Council. The purpose of this Framework Decision is to establish minimum common standards as regards criminalising conduct motivated by racism or xenophobia and to improve cooperation between the authorities of the Member States in combating this type of crime. However, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union states that the exercise of responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security lies with the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3775/02

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Common agricultural policy

On 11 October 1999, in my Written Question E-1766/99(1), I asked the Commission for information concerning the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The Commission's reply of 16 December 1999 failed to supply some of the information requested.

In order to be able to perform my duties as an MEP I require the following information to be made available to me:

- the total amount of money spent each year by the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100 largest beneficiaries in each Member State;

- the percentage of total EAGGF Guarantee Section spending received by each Member State and assigned to those 100 largest beneficiaries.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3013/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Sugar subsidies and the mid-term review of the CAP

Why has the question of sugar subsidies not been more radically addressed in the mid-term review of the CAP?

When will we see a reduction of the scandal of export refunds making up to 80 % of the subsidy to sugar?

Would the Commission make a list of the top 100 companies who receive export refund payments?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

In October 2000, the Commission proposed a prolongation of the sugar quota system for two additional marketing years together with some modifications in the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. The proposal was an interim solution and the Commission intended to reconsider the situation in context of the Mid Term Review foreseen under Agenda 2000. In May 2001, the Council decided, in accordance with the opinion of the Parliament, that the quota system would be maintained up to the 2005/2006 marketing year. While rolling-over the sugar Common Market Organisation (CMO) for another five years, the Council requested the Commission to submit a report in 2003 together with any appropriate proposal. Taking into account these decisions, the Commission did not propose any change for sugar in its July 2002 Communication on the Mid Term Review(1). The Communication announced next steps. In this context, sugar was explicitly mentioned among sectors scheduled for review in 2003. This revision will take account, among others, of the consequence of the future opening of the sugar market to the imports from Least Developed Countries.

While being maintained up to 2005/2006 quotas were cut by 115,000 tonnes to allow for respecting World Trade Organisation commitments on subsidised exports. An additional reduction of 862,000 tonnes is required for the 2002/2003 marketing year. When they launched the Doha Development Round in November 2001, Ministers committed themselves, without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations, to comprehensive negotiations aimed at, among others, reductions, with the view of phasing out, all forms of export subsidies. Modalities for commitments have to be agreed by the end of March 2003. In this context, it is too early to specify the timing and the modalities for reducing export subsidies.

The relevant Community legislation requires the Commission to keep the accounting information it receives from the Member States confidential and secure. The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the Framework Agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission of 5 July 2000 which contains specific provisions in respect of the transmission of confidential information.

In addition, the Commission recalls the specific financing mechanism applying for sugar exports. Only expenditures for exports corresponding to a quantity equivalent to preferential imports are financed by the Community budget. Export refunds for quota quantities have to be covered by producers' levies, that are part of the Union own resources.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2913/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Niue

Will the Commission say what projects in Niue were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2919/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Rwanda

Will the Commission say what projects in Rwanda were funded from the EU budget during 2000?

Will it say how much aid in total was given to the country in all forms during 2000?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Chromium pollution in Albania

An article has appeared in an Italian weekly drawing attention to the serious environmental and health problems existing in Albania thanks to the existence of the chromium mining industry. Along the Albanian coast, where Italian fishermen ply their trade, 345 mg of chromium have been found in every litre of water. The risk exists that Albanian chromium will appear on Italian beaches in quantities of up to a hundred times the legally permitted limit. The Tirana Oncological Institute has stated that there has been a considerable and inexplicable increase in numbers of tumours throughout Albania. It is clear that the main cause of this is chromium, of which Albania is the third-largest world producer, with mining activity concentrated in the Dibra and Mat areas.

The Commission:

1. Is it aware of this situation in Albania?

2. Is it in possession of the data established by the Tirana Oncological Institute?

3. Can it state whether economic cooperation relations exist with Albania under which funds may be used to tackle the serious pollution problems existing in that country?

4. Does it not consider that, should that not be the case, contacts must be established with the Albanian government with a view to determining the situation and finding a solution which would not involve closing down production but would, through regional planning measures, ensure the protection of the environment, given that pollution is the root cause of the serious health crisis which is being created and is liable to affect the Italian coastal areas?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission is aware that Albania needs to adequately address a number of critical environmental issues. The current situation is the result of the lack of any compulsory environmental standard in the country before the mid-nineties. Some efforts have been recently made to tackle environmental concerns and to avoid further deterioration, but much remains to be done to ensure proper implementation and enforcement by Albania of its own incipient environmental legislation. In such a context, the risk of pollution deriving from chromium mining activities certainly exists.

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member and will therefore request detailed information to the Albanian authorities in this respect, including the report produced by the Tirana Oncological Institute.

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to stress that the field of environment is one of the priority areas identified in the framework of the CARDS programme, the main co-operation instrument between Albania and the Community. For the period 2002-2004, EUR 11 million have been earmarked address environment-related issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3125/02

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Dismissal of Augusto Fichtner

Knowing that:

- on 1 November 1999 the official Augusto Fichtner was dismissed from the Joint Research Centre in Ispra (Italy) where he had been employed since 2 May 1967;

- his dismissal was the result of a clash between him and his superiors, prompted by the fact that Fichtner had alleged that contracts worth millions had been awarded to fictitious or non-existent companies since 1981;

- the official justification for the dismissal was that Fichtner was doing two jobs simultaneously, but he had applied to work as an official receiver and had been duly authorised to do so by his superiors. However, the document proving this was not considered valid by the committee set up to examine the official's case;

- Fichtner's staff reports, drawn up every two years, were always excellent, but were concealed and later found in the archives in the office at Ispra after being replaced with other falsified reports supplied to the examining commission.

- in order to justify the dismissal a case was fabricated against Fichtner on the basis of false evidence and contrary to the most basic rules governing privacy.

- the commission had originally been set up to verify the accusations made by the official regarding the work of a number of offices and managerial staff in the European Commission. During the initial hearings Fichtner was warned that if his allegations proved to be unfounded he would be subject to severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal and loss of his pension rights;

- the file containing all the evidence was handed over to the then Commissioners Monti and Bonino and the President Romano Prodi.

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to verify the serious allegations made by Augusto Fichtner, which are supported by documentary evidence, and what action it will take if the accusations which led to his dismissal prove to be unfounded?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Mr Fichtner was dismissed without loss of pension rights for what the Appointing Authority considered to be serious infringements of Article 12(3) of the Staff Regulations, which prohibits outside activities without prior authorisation.

The decision was taken after a full disciplinary procedure in which the Disciplinary Board, which is independent, found the facts proven and recommended dismissal. Mr Fichtner appealed to the Court of First Instance, which has recently held a public hearing. The Commission cannot, therefore, comment in detail on the case since it is sub judice. The Commission notes, however, that the allegations made by the Honourable Member were not advanced by Mr Fichtner in his application to the Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2269/02

by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: European funding for cities bidding for Capital of Culture status

Is it acceptable to the Commission that European funding (such as the Regional Development Fund) be used by cities bidding for Capital of Culture status between the years 2005-2019, for the preparation of their bid, while other competing cities from the same Member State are perhaps not in receipt of such funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission draws attention to its reply to Written Question E-3490/01 from Mrs Kinnock(1).

Under the subsidiarity principle, selection of projects to be part-financed from the Structural Funds is the responsibility of the national and regional managing authorities. This principle covers any use of these resources for preparation of a European City of Culture bid.

Many programmes adopted contain measures aimed at boosting a region's image and identity so leading to attraction of outside investment and creation of new jobs. Accordingly the managing authorities may select projects relating directly or indirectly to preparation of such a bid.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 122.