ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/189

(2004/C 33 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1909/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Natura 2000

In the view of the Commission, can the rigid policy of the Flemish government on Natura 2000 areas situated in the VEN (Flemish Environmental Network) be reconciled with the provisions of the Natura 2000 directive?

The Flemish policy is based on a whole series of orders and prohibitions, with inadequate and inappropriate compensation, which furthermore take no account of socio-economic factors.

The existence of two parallel network structures in Flanders — one Flemish and one European — causes a great deal of unnecessary confusion and complication. In practice it seems that an excessively large part is incorporated in the VEN, the IVON (Integraal Verwevings- en Ondersteunend Netwerk, Integrated Interrelation and Support Network) or the nature association areas. In implementing the Nature Decree of late 1997 the Flemish government therefore took care to ensure that the two types of area overlapped as much as possible. Is it sensible for two different types of policy to be implemented in areas where there are overlaps?

The result is that there is confusion among the Flemish public and great dissatisfaction among the rural population, who associate Natura 2000 with the patronising policy of the Flemish government in the VEN.

What is the Commission's view of the compatibility of the Flemish policy on environmental networks with the Natura 2000 directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Both Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (‘Habitats Directive’), and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) (‘Birds Directive’) aim at ensuring the conservation of natural habitats and species at European level. The creation of ‘Natura 2000’, a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation, is an important tool to achieve this objective.

National or regional networks of protected areas such as the Flemish Environmental Network represent important complements to the European ‘Natura 2000’ network, as they allow to integrate more local and regional aspects of nature conservation. Neither the ‘Habitats Directive’ nor the ‘Birds Directive’ foresee any restrictions as to Member States introducing stricter protective measures than those provided for under these Directives.

The provisions of the Habitats Directive clearly make Member States responsible for the management of Natura 2000 sites. The responsibility for the management of regional and national networks is a fortiori a matter of national or regional competence.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/274

(2004/C 65 E/289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Rhineland-Palatinate between January 1997 and December 2002

1. For what measures was EU funding paid to Rhineland-Palatinate between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from the following programmes and funds: (a) the European Social Fund; (b) the Fifth Framework Programme for Research; (c) the European Regional Development Fund; (d) EU environmental and energy programmes; (e) the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section and Guarantee Section); (f) other EU programmes?

2. How much was paid from the programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Rhineland-Palatinate and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lorraine and Alsace? What are the projects involved in each case?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/122

(2004/C 65 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2270/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Bari as the seat of the European Bank for the Mediterranean

Southern Italy is becoming a powerhouse for development projects, and the human resources to be found there have an increasingly high degree of professional expertise.

The authorities in southern Italy have undoubtedly matured and are able to respond to the call to cut through the red tape and speed up the procedures.

Apulia in particular has shown itself to be capable of genuinely meshing with European programming.

Will the Commission support Bari's application to become the seat of the European Bank for the Mediterranean, bearing in mind the strategic geopolitical position of Apulia within the Mediterranean region?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

On 14/15 March 2002 the Ecofin and European Council decided to establish an investment Facility with the aim of enhancing European Investment Bank (EIB) operations in Mediterranean Partner Countries, with the clear priority of private sector development. They also decided to examine one year after the creation of the Facility whether to incorporate it into an EIB majority-owned subsidiary.

The Facility was established in Autumn 2002 and the decision on whether to create an EIB majority-owned subsidiary is now expected to be taken in Autumn 2003 by the Council, in liaison with the Commission and the EIB and after consultations with Mediterranean Partner Countries.

The Commission appreciates the Honourable Member's interest in this matter and in the location of such a bank in Bari. While it is at this stage premature to enter into such considerations, should a decision to create a subsidiary be taken in Autumn 2003, its location will have to be chosen taking into account the respective advantages of each possible location.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/109

(2004/C 65 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/03

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Rules on ships' crews

National legislation in Denmark on the national fleet makes it impossible for a German master, for instance, to find employment on a Danish-flagged vessel. For mariners, this very much constrains the freedom of movement for workers which is enshrined in the European Treaties. Many European mariners, particularly those from countries with small fleets, have no alternative but to switch to vessels flying flags of convenience, with corresponding loss of prestige and poorer working conditions and pay.

The Commission:

1. Is it aware of the precarious competitive situation with regard to European mariners?

2. What does it intend to do to eliminate such distortions of competition in Europe?

3. Would the introduction of an EU flag and/or a European register be a suitable measure to improve matters in this connection? What are the pros and cons?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Commission would like to give the following information:

— in relation to the question on free movement of workers, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-1740/02 of Mr Pronk, Mrs Martens, Mrs Peijs and Mr Maat (1). As the two preliminary questions (2), in which the nationality condition for captains and first officers is concerned, are still pending before the Court of Justice, the Commission continues to refrain from making any form of prediction as to their possible outcome;

— the Commission considers that the introduction of a Community register would, inter alia, have contributed to the free movement of seafarers within the Community. However, its related proposal on the creation of the ‘Euros’ register for sea-going merchant vessels (3) was not accepted by the Member States and was subsequently abandoned. Since then, the Commission proposed other measures aimed at fostering the competitiveness of the European shipping industry, in particular the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, which are in the process of being revised.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

(2) Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española v. Administración del Estado and Case C-47/02 Albert Anker v. Federal Republic of Germany; the Advocate General gave her conclusions on both cases on the 12.6.2003.

(3) COM(89) 266, OJ C 263, 16.10.1989 - COM(91) 483, OJ C 19, 25.1.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/226

(2004/C 33 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2148/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject: Non-profit-making bodies

Non-profit-making bodies, in particular ones set up by young people and active in the cultural sphere, incalculably enrich European society and constitute a basic force for socio-cultural development and integration.

However, even though it is considered important that non-profit-making bodies should tender for and run EU projects, such bodies find it difficult to secure access to programmes co-financed by the EU on account of the procedural problems they encounter and, in particular, the fact that they cannot implement projects without having money to spend in advance.

In view of the above, is the Commission intending to propose a scheme whereby funding could be made available in advance, subject to the performance of qualitative and quantitative checks on the bodies concerned and the status thereof?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the fact that bodies active at European level in the field of youth are essential in the socio-cultural development of European society and therefore considers that participation by young people in civil society should be encouraged. More generally speaking, the Commission's administrative and financial procedures, in conformity with the Financial Regulation and the relevant legal basis, allow for support to youth groups through appropriate grant schemes and payment mechanisms (e.g. simple application forms, prefinancing payments up to 80 %, use of lump sums).

The Youth Programme has five application deadlines per year with the objective of ensuring that grants are paid before the start of the projects concerned.

Regarding the support for operating costs to bodies active at European level in the field of youth, prefinancing payments are in fact made on a regular basis. The Commission also makes every effort to ensure that organisations receive the grants as soon as possible in the year they are going to incur the expenditure. In 2003 all pre-financing payments to non-governmental youth organisations were made before April.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/121

(2004/C 65 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2232/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Council

(3 July 2003)

Subject: Euro-Mediterranean Bank in Sicily

At the request of the Laeken European Council of December 2001, the Commission and the Council have examined the possibility of setting up a Euro-Mediterranean Bank. The Barcelona European Council of 15/16 March 2002 approved the creation of a reinforced Euro-Mediterranean investment facility within the EIB, complemented by a Euro-Mediterranean partnership arrangement and an EIB representative office in the area.

Could the Council therefore indicate:

1. what criteria will be adopted for selecting the country in which to base the Euro-Mediterranean branch of the EIB;

2. whether it does not consider that Sicily might be the most appropriate region in which to site that bank, given its geopolitical position in the Europe-Africa-Asia basin and its age-old historical, cultural and religious tradition?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

As noted in the Member's question, the European Council, in Barcelona on 15/16 March 2002, approved, in paragraph 52 of its Conclusions, the Ecofin Council's decision on the creation of a reinforced Euro-Mediterranean investment facility within the EIB. This facility was established by the European Investment Bank in accordance with the Council decision as the ‘Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership’ or ‘FEMIP’.

Taking into account all the elements cited by the Member in his question, the FEMIP was established with a financial facility, complemented by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership arrangement, which pursues co-operation in the region through its ‘Policy Dialogue and Coordination Committee’, with co-operation further enhanced by the establishment of a representative office of the EIB in the Euro-Mediterranean region.

Such a regional office was opened in Cairo in July of 2003.

On the same occasion, the European Council Conclusions also noted in paragraph 52 that ‘On the basis of an evaluation of the Facility's performance, and taking into account the outcome of consultations with our Barcelona Process partners, a decision on the incorporation of an EIB majority-owned subsidiary dedicated to our Mediterranean partner countries will be considered and taken one year after the launching of the Facility.’ As the FEMIP was launched in October 2002, the evaluation of its first year of operation is expected to be completed in the Autumn of this year, with the associated decision on the incorporation of a subsidiary to be taken in light of that evaluation.

The Council is expected to discuss the evaluation and the outcome of consultations with Barcelona Process partners in November, at which point it may consider the question of the incorporation of an EIB majority-owned subsidiary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/34

(2004/C 65 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0556/03

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: European funding and the banning of women from Mount Athos

The European Parliament has recently adopted two motions for resolutions (Swiebel and Izquierdo Rojo reports) in which it opposed the banning of women from Mount Athos. It should also be borne in mind that the monastery region of Mount Athos has been granted aid to restore and renovate monasteries and preserve cultural treasures, which belong to both men and women.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How much European funding has been allocated for this purpose?

2. Does the Commission not take the view that it is mandatory for the acquis communautaire to be applied, in line with the EU's fundamental principles?

3. What European Economic Area funding mechanism has been used to benefit the region economically?

4. Under the Community support framework for Greece, in what specific way is such aid granted through the structural funds? What criteria have been used to define the fields of structural adjustment and economic development?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

1. The Honourable Member is referred to the table which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, submitted by the Greek authorities, and containing a list of the projects in the monastery region of Mount Athos that have been co-funded by the Structural Funds.

2. The Honourable Member is referred to the reply given by the Commission to Written Question No E-1055/01 by Mr Glyn Ford (1).

3. The Honourable Member is referred to the second table which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, submitted by the secretariat of the European Economic Area and containing a list of the projects in the monastery region of Mount Athos that have been funded by its Financial Mechanism.

4. Under the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework for Greece, projects being proposed for inclusion in Community programmes and for co-funding by the European Structural Funds, are selected by the Greek authorities in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Community Support Framework for Greece and the individual operational programmes (agreed with the Member State and adopted by the Commission), as well as those set out in the Programming Complement document and in the criteria for the selection of projects (adopted solely by the Member State).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/102

(2004/C 65 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Trade intensity in euro area

Will the Commission please estimate the relationship between trade growth and GDP growth in each of the Member States and indicate whether the advent of the euro has yet had any effect in increasing the trade intensity of GDP growth in participating Member States, compared with non-participating Member States, since its introduction on 1 January 1999?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission has conducted research in the past into the effects of the creation of the internal market on trade and gross domestic product (GDP) growth but has not recently updated these estimates.

Although to date the Commission has not made estimates for the specific contribution of the euro's introduction on trade developments, a number of studies indicate the introduction of the single currency has led to a significant increase in trade as stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1883/03 (1).

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 106.
1.

The extension of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to smaller vessels is part of the political agreement on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reached in December 2002. The aim of the extension is to improve the control and enforcement of the CFP in general. From the outset, the Council has chosen not to implement VMS on a fishery by fishery basis. It is believed that VMS is more acceptable to the fishing industry if this type of monitoring applies equally to all fishing vessels based on the length criteria, which has the advantage of being easily identifiable and transparent. This in turn constitutes an important factor in favour of the creation of a Community-wide level playing field for the fishing industry. This approach is consistent with the Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (the so-called ‘Road Map’). Therein, the Commission announced the removal of existing exemptions and the extension of VMS to all fishing vessels exceeding ten metres in length. In order to ease the burden for the fishermen, Member States can apply for a community financial contribution for satellite tracking devices. For vessels already subject to VMS, a Community financial contribution has been paid proportionally to the expenditure incurred for the acquisition of the equipment. For the vessels smaller than 24 meters overall, the Commission will grant aid under similar conditions as it did in the past for the bigger vessels, within the budgetary constraints.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/199

(2004/C 65 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Network of cycle paths

Belgium has an extensive network of cycle paths for tourism and recreation. Many of these cycle routes have been created thanks to European grants. I should like to have more information about the subsidies granted to Belgian cycle routes.

Can the Commission provide details of the EU subsidies granted to Belgian cycle routes in 2002 in 2003?

What amount was allocated to cycle routes in the province of Antwerp?

What are the Commission's plans for the allocation of European funds in 2004 and subsequent years? Will subsidies be granted for measures in the province of Antwerp?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/223

(2004/C 65 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2818/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Commitment and absorption of Cohesion Fund appropriations for Greece in 2003

Can the Commission provide information on the current situation as regards the commitment and absorption of Cohesion Fund appropriations for Greece in 2003? Does the Commission consider the situation to be satisfactory?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, as at 30 September 2003, commitments for Greece in 2003 under the Cohesion Fund were EUR 167 million, to which a further EUR 29 million currently being implemented can be added, plus an additional amount of around EUR 53 million for new projects at the final examination stage.

The Commission has requested the Greek authorities to submit new applications for part-financing as quickly as possible so that EUR 612 million, which is the indicative amount that Greece is supposed to commit under the 2003 budget, can be committed. The Greek authorities have reconfirmed their intention of submitting sufficient new applications very shortly to meet the EUR 612 million target.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/180

(2004/C 65 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2583/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject: Statute of European Schools

Does the Commission believe that the UK Government contracts for UK teachers at the European Schools in Brussels are in conformity with Article 12 of the Statute of the European schools to which all Member States are signatory?

What is the Commission's view of the recent rulings of the UK Employment Tribunal in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member knows, the European Schools are governed by a specific intergovernmental Convention, the ‘Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools’ a revised version of which entered into force on 1 October 2002. Teaching staff seconded to the schools are subject to the ‘Regulations for Members of the Seconded Staff of the European Schools’ which became applicable from 1 September 2000, but they remain employed by the authorities of the seconding Member State.

Article 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention provides that: ‘Staff shall retain promotion and retirement rights guaranteed by their national rules’ and Article 49.2(a) of the ‘Regulations’ stipulates that: ‘The competent national authorities shall pay the national emoluments to the member of staff and shall inform the Director of the amounts paid, specifying all the components taken into account for calculation purposes...’.

The United Kingdom, as the Honourable Member will know, pays a special ‘Threshold’ to teachers employed in England and Wales. In the view of British Department for Education and Skills (DFES), this is a recruitment and retention measure that is not relevant to teachers seconded to the European Schools. In the recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT/0884/02) in the United Kingdom, the Tribunal had to interpret the employment contract between certain British teachers at the European Schools and their employer, the DFES. It concluded that, under that contract, the teachers were not entitled to certain additional incremental salary increases following their appointment to the European Schools. The EAT was not, however, asked to consider whether, thus interpreted, the employment contracts were actually compatible with Article 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention, cited above.

The Commission has asked its Legal Service to examine whether the terms of the UK contract are in accordance with Article 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention.

The Commission will ensure that this issue is appropriately followed up and will readily respond to any further enquiry from the Honourable Member when the legal analysis is available.