ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

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

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 Fiumicino, 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 Fiumicino has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino 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-1064/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci programme by the municipality of Florence

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 Florence, urgently need to use European funds to enhance quality, promote innovation and support the European dimension of vocational training systems and practices, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Florence has submitted projects for the Leonardo da Vinci programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0833/03, E-0890/03, E-1062/03, E-1063/03,E-1064/03, E-1065/03, E-1066/03, E-1067/03, E-1068/03, E-1069/03,E-1070/03, E-1071/03, E-1072/03, E-1073/03 and E-1074/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Some of the funds awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme are managed decentrally by national agencies, in particular the transnational mobility projects, whose total budget takes up almost 40 % of the total for the programme.

For these projects, please contact the national agency in Italy for further information:

ISFOLVia G.B. Morgagni 30/eI-00161 Romatel. (+39-06)44.59.01fax (+39-06)44.59.04.75.

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumincino, Ancona, Carrara, Florence, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni showed that:

- only Pesaro has submitted a proposal for a pilot project under the Leonardo programme. This project is entitled: Laboratori Tematici Virtuali: Metodologia di Supporto alla Formazione Nel Sel (Sistema Economico Locale) (virtual thematic workshops: methodology for fostering training in local economies);

- it obtained funding of EUR 264 161 for this project, which began at the end of 2002.

The Honourable Member could contact the local authorities mentioned above for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0963/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

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

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 Florence 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 Florence has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Florence 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-0604/03

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Council

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Establishment of an agency for the promotion of linguistic diversity

At the beginning of February 2003 the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) held a special meeting in Charleroi at which it adopted a resolution calling in particular on the European Union to set up an agency responsible for promoting linguistic diversity and language learning (a model for which could be the Vienna-based European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia).

In view of the particular wealth and variety of languages in the European Union and the fact that, in a little over a year, 10 new countries will join the EU, and given that over 40 million people in the EU currently speak a minority language on a daily basis (whereas for want of a legal basis, amongst other things there is no real policy for protecting and promoting minority languages in the EU), what does the Council think of the proposal adopted by the EBLUL? Does it not consider the establishment of such an agency in the EU to be essential as a means of implementing a proper policy designed to promote linguistic diversity and language learning in an enlarged EU? Would it be willing to consider such a proposal with an eye to the future?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

Since the Council has not received any proposal concerning the establishment of an agency of the kind advocated by European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, it is not in a position to make any comments.

The Council would however stress that it has frequently acknowledged the importance of linguistic diversity within the European Union, as last reaffirmed by its resolution of 14 February 2002(1) on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001. Improving foreign language learning is also included among the objectives of the Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe(2) adopted within the context of the Lisbon strategy.

The Commission's forthcoming communication concerning an action plan on linguistic diversity and language learning will be examined with interest by the Council.

(1) OJ C 50, 23.2.2002.

(2) OJ C 142, 14.6.2002 (Objective 3.3).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1445/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: European citizens' right to health Charter of EU Citizens' Health Rights

The EU institutions have not yet recognised the right to health for all European citizens. There are still unacceptable disparities between the health services provided by the different Member States. For instance, the average number of hospital beds per 1 000 inhabitants is 4,1 in Spain, as against 9,4 in Germany, 8,3 in France, 10,1 in Ireland and 11,3 in the Netherlands. The United Kingdom average has, as a result of the Thatcher Government's ultraliberal policy, stagnated at 4,4 beds. In Spain, Central Government policy has tended to favour private management of hospital centres and has reduced the number of health professionals per bed. There is even a trend, promoted by the governments of certain countries, towards privatisation of public health services, along the same lines as the United States, which is the developed country with the poorest health standards and the lowest life expectancy.

The European Union should therefore adopt a Charter of Health Rights and a European Health System, with due respect for the autonomy of each Member State. The Charter has already been promoted throughout the European Union by various citizens' groups, as well as political and trade union organisations. The Charter would be based on the principles of universality of health care and equal quality of services in all Member States, guaranteeing equal and free access to such services for all citizens through public funding.

Is the Commission prepared to promote the adoption of such a Charter of EU Citizens' Health Rights? Is it also prepared to promote a European health system?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Article 152(5) of the EC Treaty clearly states that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. Issues such as the average number of hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants, are therefore the responsibility of the Member States, not of the Community. In light of this, the Commission does not have the competence to come forward with proposals for a Charter of Union Citizens' Health Rights and for a European Health System.

Although we are not about to see the emergence of a Europe-wide health system, the coming years will see growing co-operation between Member States on healthcare issues. Issues in relation to this are currently under discussion by Health Ministers and other stakeholders in the high level reflection process on patient mobility and healthcare developments in the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1602/03

by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: Toys in foodstuffs

In view of the fatal accidents in which children have died of asphyxia in the last few years, some of the more conscientious manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn potentially dangerous products from the market.

Nestlé withdrew its Magic Ball (a chocolate-covered plastic ball containing a figurine of a Disney character) because toys inside food products are considered extremely dangerous.

In Denmark and the United Kingdom a yoghurt containing a toy (Onken) was also voluntarily withdrawn from the market.

In Finland a chocolate egg containing a novelty toy manufactured in Austria was withdrawn from the market.

Meanwhile, unscrupulous manufacturers continue to advertise and sell their food products under the pretext of offering a toy (which is of course just another marketing gimmick to promote the food product), which can cause fatal accidents and irreparable damage to the lives of families.

What specific action will the Commission take with a view to protecting European consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to Written Questions E-1475/03 by Mr Carlos Lage, E-1505/03 by Mr Arlindo Cunha, E-1552/03 by Mr Paulo Casaca and E-1591/03 by Mr Antonio Campos(1).

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 202.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Methyldibromo glutaronitrile

I understand that this preservative, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, used in cosmetics and toiletries, is currently being investigated by the EU Scientific Committee on Cosmetic and Non-Food Products. Its use is said to be associated with a rise in incidences of allergic contact dermatitis.

What investigations into this substance are being carried out by the Scientific Committee, and has it so far reached any conclusions?

In the meantime has the Commission so far expressed any concerns about the use of this substance in cosmetics, toiletries or other products, and if so with what response from industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane) is regulated in the Cosmetics Directive(1) Annex VI, part 1, reference 36 and can therefore be used as a preservative up to a maximum concentration of 0,1 % in the finished product. It shall not be used in cosmetic sunscreen products at a concentration exceeding 0,025 %.

The Commission received a letter from the chairman of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) with data demonstrating the rising incidence of contact allergy to methyldibromo glutaronitrile. These data were given to the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) for their expert review.

In its Opinion on Methyldibromo Glutaronitrile Colipa No P77 SCCNFP/0585/02, final, adopted during the 20th plenary meeting of 4 June 2002 the SCCNFP stated that until appropriate and adequate information is available to suggest a level of the preservative in leave-on products that poses an acceptable risk to the consumer (compared with the risk to the consumer from other preservatives), its use should be restricted to rinse-off products at the current maximum permitted level of 0,1 %.

Based on this scientific opinion and following the Comitology procedure the Commission will submit a proposal to the Standing Committee and will take the necessary measures in order to modify accordingly the Annex VI of the Cosmetics Directive.

(1) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0365/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Risk of expulsion of Mr Aldamov and situation of Chechen leaders

On 18 January 2003 Mr Lom-Ali Aldamov, Minister of Trade from 1997 to 1999 in President Maskhadov's Chechen Government, a refugee in Georgia, submitted an application for asylum in France. The application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior on the grounds that Mr Aldamov had not provided formal evidence of his identity. On 25 January the French authorities sought to put Mr Aldamov on a plane to Georgia, but he refused to board the aircraft. Five testimonies from journalists, heads of associations, relatives and the French Foreign Ministry certify that Mr Aldamov is in fact Mr Aldamov. Furthermore, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has stated once again that Chechens are not safe in Georgia. Pending consideration on 5 February 2003 of the decision on the validity of the rejection of his application for asylum, the Ministry of the Interior has asked the Bobigny court to keep the former minister in the waiting area at Roissy airport.

Is the Council aware of Mr Aldamov's situation and the fact that he risks being expelled from EU territory? Given the increasing number of obstacles to freedom of movement and residence within the EU faced by Chechen personalities including, in addition to Mr Aldamov, Mr Zakhaiev, Minister of Culture, threatened with extradition in the UK, Mr Akhmadov, Foreign Minister, who is unable to leave the United States without a passport, Mr Khanbiev, Minister of Health, whose Schengen visa is no longer being renewed, and Mrs Dudaeva, widow of President Dudaev, whose passport has not been renewed does the Council not consider that it should, as a matter of the utmost urgency, draw up a white list of Chechen personalities, pursuant to Article 14(3) of the Treaty, on the basis of which the Union, as such, could grant visas, residence permits and other documents which would enable these Chechen leaders to pursue their activities under the best possible conditions with the aim of seeking a political solution to the tragic events afflicting their country?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The examination of individual applications for asylum is the responsibility of the Member States.

As regards the granting of entry visas, Article 5 of the 1990 Schengen Convention provides that Member States may grant entry to aliens applying for visas, provided they are not, inter alia, considered to be a threat to public policy, national security or international relations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/03

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara

The administration of Western Sahara by the Moroccan Government has been disputed ever since Spain left in 1975.

Despite the various political agreements established at UN level for decolonising the territory, it is public knowledge that in October 2001, the Moroccan Government granted licences to two international companies, one French and the other American, to test drill for energy resources in the territorial waters of the Western Sahara. These companies entrusted the Norwegian company TGS-NOPEC with making the preliminary seismic investigations.

In view of the UN Security Council Legal Services' report of 29 January 2002, the licences granted by the Moroccan government could be understood as infringing international law, which means that should such energy resources be exploited, they would belong to the Saharan people.

Public opinion in Norway has recently denounced TGS-NOPEC on the grounds that its activities in the waters of Western Sahara infringe international law with regard to prospecting for and possibly exploiting the natural resources of a non-autonomous territory pending its decolonisation.

Given the Lalumière Report by the European Parliament on the situation in Western Sahara, and the circumstances surrounding this long-standing dispute and the presence of a Community undertaking in this prospecting for energy resources and their subsequent exploitation, what position does the Council take with regard to the current situation of test drilling and possible exploitation?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

Discussions on the final settlement of the Western Sahara question are being conducted within the United Nations Security Council, as well as with the parties concerned, and are currently at a decisive stage. The Council is following these discussions closely and wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General's Personal Envoy, Mr James Baker, in the quest for a lasting solution fully observing international law, human rights and democracy. The discussions taking place within the framework of the United Nations have now reached a critical point for securing a positive outcome to a conflict dating back almost 30 years.

Mr Baker visited the region in January 2003 to present the parties and neighbouring countries with the terms of a proposal for a political solution to the conflict, ensuring self-determination in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1429 (2002). Minurso's mandate has been extended until 31 May 2003 to give the parties sufficient time to examine the proposal and submit their responses. The Security Council has requested the Secretary-General to provide it with a further report by 19 May 2003.

The Council has not so far discussed the specific matter raised by the Honourable Member.