ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Russian Federation international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Russian Federation international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in the Russian Federation?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Community and the Russian Federation are currently negotiating a cooperation agreement on fisheries. The negotiations are still ongoing, however, so an agreement does not yet exist. The Community has taken over the earlier bilateral agreements between Sweden and the Russian Federation and Finland and the Russian Federation. Those agreements provide for an exchange of quotas rather than a financial contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR)and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Introduction of a national definition of veal by France

At the end of 2002 the French Government introduced a national definition of veal, which applies to all veal marketed in France. The rules say that only meat from calves less than 195 days old may be marketed under the name of veal. Meat from calves older than this arbitrary 195-day ceiling may no longer be sold as veal, as was usual before the new definition was introduced. This is causing a substantial loss of earnings for the Netherlands veal sector in particular, which has exports to France valued at EUR 300 million a year.

1. Can the Commission say whether it was notified of this measure by France in accordance with the relevant procedures?

2. Does the Commission share the view that a unilateral definition of this kind, based on an arbitrary age of 195 days not justified by any European regulations or standard practice, is in breach of European law? This conclusion is based on the case law in the Cassis de Dijon case concerning the free movement of goods in the internal market, which says that a product marketed under a specific name in one Member State can also be marketed under that name in the other EU Member States.

3. In view of the major commercial interests at stake here, can the Commission give a ruling on the regularity of this unilateral measure by France and also indicate what possibilities there are for claims for damages by the Netherlands export industry and what support the Commission can provide in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

The Commission was informed on 7 January 2003 of the serious concern of Netherlands veal producers at the adoption by the French authorities of provisions on the labelling of veal in France.

Under Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97(1), the French authorities adopted a set of specifications restricting the age of bovine animals whose meat may be marketed as veal in France to six months or 195 days.

The Commission asked the French authorities for clarification regarding the justification and legal basis for these provisions, in response to which it received a written reply. During discussions in the Management Committee for Beef and Veal, the Commission expressed reservations about the legality of the French provision.

In close cooperation with the French and Netherlands authorities, the Commission is making a detailed examination of the legal aspects of this matter and more particularly of the provisions on the voluntary labelling system provided for by the above Regulation.

In view of the serious impact the French provisions could have on trade in calves raised in the Netherlands, the Commission will endeavour speedily to obtain a legal opinion on their validity and reach an appropriate decision.

(1) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Oil tankers in the Gulf of Finland

The sinking of the Prestige caused an enormous environmental disaster on the coast of Spain. In the Gulf of Finland, which is set to become virtually an internal sea of the EU, the damage might be even greater if a similar incident were to occur, because in cold conditions the sea recovers more slowly. In January and February, when the sea was frozen, supertankers which were not suitably reinforced

to resist ice pressure were admitted to Russia's Koivisto oil terminal on the Gulf of Finland. The Finnish Government was unable to prevent the movement of these potential bringers of environmental disaster. Can the European Union help the Finnish authorities in such a case?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions E-0384/03 by Mrs Myller, P-0408/03 by Mr Vatanen, E-0410/03 by Mrs Korhola and E-0420/03 by Mrs Matikainen-Kallström(1).

(1) See page 191.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Health spending

How much did the Commission spend on health in 2002? How much was spent by State and by beneficiary (public bodies, companies, individuals)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

In 2002, the amount spent on the public health programme was EUR 44 936 129 for the operating appropriations and EUR 1 419 918 for the administrative appropriations, making a total of EUR 46 356 047.

The Commission does not currently have any statistics on the breakdown of these amounts by Member State or by type of organisation. In fact, many of the projects are submitted by coordinators of networks which include organisations of varying status (public and private) based in different Member States. This is an important aspect of the Community added-value of these projects.

The Honourable Member may wish to consult the following website for a description of each of the eight programmes and projects on health-related issues:www.europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_overview/previous_programme/Previous_programme_en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0041/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: European In Town Without My Car Day

On Sunday, 22 September 2002 many European towns and cities organised European In Town Without My Car Day.

Which towns and cities in Belgium ultimately received the In Town Without My Car quality label?

From which Belgian towns and cities did the Commission receive an assessment report?

How does the Commission itself assess the results of In Town Without My Car Day in towns and cities in Belgium?

How does the Commission assess the results of In Town Without My Car Day in Antwerp?

How much did the 2002 campaign cost?

What is the focal point of the 2003 campaign? What budget has the Commission set aside for the organisation of the campaign in 2003?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Car Free Days concept was initiated in France and is supported by the Commission, Directorate General for the Environment. It must be noted, however, that the label In town without my car is issued by the national authorities and not by the Commission. Some 50 cities in Belgium participated in the Car Free Day 2002.

The participating cities do not need to provide a project proposal/report for assessment and/or approval to the Commission. The national partners and co-ordinators carry out the assessment of the proposals.

The budget for the European Mobility Week adds up to EUR 551 573 by means of a subsidy to Eurocities for a period of 28 months, which started on 1 January 2002 and covers Mobility Week 2002 and 2003. The Car Free Day initiatives do not have any repercussion on the Community budget. Local and regional authorities and other actors cover the costs of their respective event(s).

The Car Free Days never really had a particular theme. However, because 2003 is the European year for people with a handicap, the theme for the European Mobility Week 2003, which will run from 16 to 22 September 2003, is accessibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Council

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Green light for alcohol advertising

Sweden has a long-standing restrictive alcohol policy, which has had a positive effect on public health and led to lower average alcohol consumption compared with the rest of Europe. Swedish alcohol policy is now under threat, however. In a judgment in the Gourmet case, the Swedish Market Court has ruled that the Swedish ban on advertisements for alcohol in newspapers and magazines is contrary to EU rules on freedom of movement for goods and services. It is claimed that the implication of the judgment is that the Swedish Parliament will have to amend the law on alcohol, which will inevitably lead to a rise in alcohol consumption in Sweden as that is the purpose of the advertising.

The ban on advertisements for alcohol in newspapers and magazines affects all alcoholic drinks (spirits, beer and wine) equally. It is therefore doubtful whether the ban affects the free movement of goods and services. The justification does not carry much weight compared with the adverse effects on public health resulting from an increase in alcohol consumption. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Market Court points in the opposite direction.

Is it the Council's view that Sweden will be compelled to allow advertisements for alcohol in newspapers and magazines despite the fact that they will have a negative impact on public health?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council is not in a position to pronounce itself on the issue raised by the Honourable Member regarding the possible consequences of a ruling by a Swedish national court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Council

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Mismanagement at Europol

In its Internet edition of 22 January 2003, Stern magazine reports irregularities in the management of Europol and breaches of its financial regulations. For example, a former high-ranking Europol employee is said to have received a settlement of EUR 280 000, for which there was no legal basis.

Can the Council state from which Member State this employee was seconded to Europol and what position he held?

Is it correct that in this high-ranking employee's area of responsibility there had been incidences of fraud and falsification of documents in connection with the purchase of computer systems?

Has the Council granted discharge in spite of the irregularities in management described in the Europol audit report? If so, why?

Can the Council forward me a copy of the previously confidential audit report, now that the document is clearly already in the hands of journalists?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

At its January 2003 meeting the Article 36 Committee decided, before submitting Europol's discharge in respect of its 2001 budget to the Council, to request Europol to forward further information regarding the comments made in the audit report referred to by the Honourable Member. This information was presented by the Europol representative at the meeting of the Committee on 19/20 February 2003. Since the Europol Directorate has undertaken to improve the management system so as to avoid further financial irregularities arising, the Article 36 Committee decided to recommend that the Council grant a discharge for the 2001 Europol budget.

At its meeting on 18 March 2003, the Council gave a discharge to the Director of Europol in respect of implementation of the 2001 Europol budget.

The Council, however, wishes to point out that the Europol budget is financed by the Member States and that Europol is answerable for its financial management to the representatives of the Governments of the Member States only.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1164/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Tempus III programme 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 to help promote cooperation between university students across Europe, and to foster cultural and scientific exchange in higher education,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Tempus III programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0827/03, E-1164/03, E-1165/03,E-1166/03, E-1167/03, E-1168/03, E-1169/03 and E-1170/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

As a rule, a project funded under the Tempus programme will involve several universities both in Member States of the Union and in the partner countries.

It is very difficult to identify the amounts retained by universities in Europe which, for project reasons, were granted to universities in the partner countries.

However, to give an indication, please find below the amounts granted under Tempus III to establishments in the municipalities of Frosinone, Ancona, Florence, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa and Siena. Additional information has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

1. The University of Ancona received EUR 1 739 in 2002 for a Tempus project (grant).

2. The establishments in Florence obtained funding of EUR 832 014,98 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

3. The University of Macerata obtained funding of EUR 112 257,80 for a Tempus project in 2002.

4. The University of Perugia obtained funding of EUR 546 452,10 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

5. The University of Pisa obtained funding of EUR 285 178,80 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

6. The University of Siena obtained funding of EUR 63 050 for a Tempus project in 2002.

7. There are no Tempus III projects in Frosinone and Pesaro.

The Honourable Member might also wish to contact the above-mentioned local authorities for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0691/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: State of slaughterhouses in Greece

In its reply to my question (H-0942/01)(1) the Commission stated that the results of inspections at slaughterhouses in Greece had been far from satisfactory and pointed out that only 47 met the requirements for the export of meat to the Community market.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

- What is the current state of slaughterhouses in Greece as regards compliance with Community legislation?

- What is the source of the problems and what measures does it intend to take to prevail upon Greece to comply with Community requirements?

(1) Oral reply of 11.12.2001.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

During a meeting between the Commission's services and the Greek authorities on 21 February 2003, the situation regarding red meat slaughterhouses was reviewed. The Greek authorities indicated that there are 43 premises approved according to Article 10 of Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat(1) (as amended by Directive 2000/15/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 10 April 2000(2)) and 110 premises approved according to Article 4 of this Directive in Greece.

The Greek authorities acknowledged that standards in some premises approved under Article 4 of the Directive fall short of those required by Community and national legislation. They indicated that a programme of inspections of all of these premises is under way, with a view to identifying the upgrading actions required or withdrawing the approval of premises that are unable to satisfy the required conditions. They expect this process to be completed by the end of 2003. They undertook to provide details of all approved slaughterhouses in Greece to the Commission by the end of April 2003.

During the above meeting, the Greek authorities explained that, in their view, many of the problems with the slaughterhouses approved under Article 4 of the Directive can be attributed to their remote locations, either on small islands or in mountainous regions, lack of funding for improvements and difficulties in obtaining adequate levels of veterinary supervision.

The Commission considers it unacceptable that slaughterhouses in Greece still fall significantly short of the required standards, and that consumers may be exposed to risk as a result of this situation. It considers that Greece must take urgent, corrective action to identify and address these failures, so that all such premises meet Community requirements without further delay.

The Commission's position was made clear to the Greek authorities during this meeting, and it has subsequently written to them, confirming its view and emphasising the importance of an urgent solution being found to this problem. It will continue to monitor the situation very closely to ensure that the required actions have been taken.

(1) OJ P 121, 29.7.1964.

(2) OJ L 105, 3.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1167/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Tempus III programme by the municipality of Perugia

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 Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to help promote cooperation between university students across Europe, and to foster cultural and scientific exchange in higher education,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Tempus III programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0827/03, E-1164/03, E-1165/03,E-1166/03, E-1167/03, E-1168/03, E-1169/03 and E-1170/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

As a rule, a project funded under the Tempus programme will involve several universities both in Member States of the Union and in the partner countries.

It is very difficult to identify the amounts retained by universities in Europe which, for project reasons, were granted to universities in the partner countries.

However, to give an indication, please find below the amounts granted under Tempus III to establishments in the municipalities of Frosinone, Ancona, Florence, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa and Siena. Additional information has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

1. The University of Ancona received EUR 1 739 in 2002 for a Tempus project (grant).

2. The establishments in Florence obtained funding of EUR 832 014,98 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

3. The University of Macerata obtained funding of EUR 112 257,80 for a Tempus project in 2002.

4. The University of Perugia obtained funding of EUR 546 452,10 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

5. The University of Pisa obtained funding of EUR 285 178,80 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

6. The University of Siena obtained funding of EUR 63 050 for a Tempus project in 2002.

7. There are no Tempus III projects in Frosinone and Pesaro.

The Honourable Member might also wish to contact the above-mentioned local authorities for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0235/03

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Greek Council Presidency's plans for the outermost regions

The exchange of views held in January 2003 between the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the President-in-Office of the EU Ministers responsible for regional policy established the need to focus on the regional diversity of the European Union.

In this context, what plans does the Greek Council Presidency's work programme contain for the outermost regions of the European Union?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0235/03 and P-0352/03

(13 May 2003)

In the context of the report(1) from the Commission on implementation of Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty: measures to assist the outermost regions, the Council, during the first semester of 2003 has planned to examine the Commission proposals concerning on the one hand modifications to the POSEI regime(2) and on the other, the modification of the Regulation(3) introducing a scheme to compensate for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the outermost regions. These proposals have not yet been officially presented to the Council.

Furthermore, the Council will examine the 2nd Interim Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which presents an update of the analysis of the situation and trends emerging in the regions, along with the main topics of the debate on future cohesion policy after enlargement.

(1) COM(2002) 723 final.

(2) Regulations 1452/2001, 1453/2001 and 1454/2001.

(3) Regulation 579/2002.