ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: The Kapittelduinen (dunes)

When notifying (new) areas to be covered by the Habitats Directive, the Netherlands Government failed to classify the Kapittelduinen as an area covered by the Habitats Directive. In its report entitled Classification of the Kapittelduinen as an area to be covered by the Habitats Directive, the South-Holland Countryside Foundation urged the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries to regard the line of dunes running the length of the Dutch coastline as one single area forming part of the National Ecological Network. Virtually all the other dunes are covered in this way. This exception is bewildering.

Does the European Commission agree with me that the Kapittelduinen should be included in the new list of areas to be covered by the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

According to Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) (the Habitats Directive) the Member States propose to the Commission a list of sites to be included on a list of sites of Community importance. The national lists are established on the basis of criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive and of relevant scientific information. As far as natural habitat types are concerned, the criteria for selecting sites at the national level include the degree of representativity, the area and the degree of conservation of natural habitat types that are present on a site, as well as the value of the site for the conservation of these habitat types. While applying and interpreting the criteria, the Member States have a certain degree of discretion, allowing them for example, to select only the most representative sites for a given natural habitat type.

On 19 May 2003, the Netherlands transmitted to the Commission a new list of proposed sites of Community importance. This list includes several thousands of hectares of coastal dunes, including inter alia the main habitat types that are also present in the Kapittelduinen. Furthermore, in June 2002, at the second bio-geographic seminar for the Atlantic Region in Den Haag, it was concluded that the Netherlands had proposed a sufficient number of sites (in area and geographic distribution) for the three major habitat types which cover altogether 90 % of the area of the Kapittelduinen, namely the fixed coastal dunes, the shifting dunes and the dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that there is no further obligation for the Netherlands to include the Kappittelduinen in the list of proposed Sites of Community Importance according to the Habitats Directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Disability Directive

EP resolution A5-0377/2001(1) of 15 November 2001 called on the Commission to issue during 2003 a draft directive based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty, aiming at equal treatment for people with disabilities, whilst recognising their individuality and their right to be different.

What action has the Commission taken in response to this call and when will it be in a position to come forward with such a directive?

(1) OJ C 140 E, 13.6.2002, p. 589.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The Commission has taken note of Resolution A5-0377/2001 adopted by the Parliament. However, it considers that the current priority is to ensure that the existing Community legislation is fully transposed into national law.

Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty enables the Community to combat discrimination, inter alia, on the grounds of disability. On the basis of this Treaty article, on 27 November 2000 the Council adopted Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1). With regard to disability, this Directive recognises that the failure to provide reasonable accommodation in the workplace can constitute discrimination. In practical terms such accommodation includes measures to adapt the workplace for people with disabilities, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time in order to facilitate their access to employment. The Directive must be transposed by Member States by 2 December 2003, unless they decide to avail of an additional period of three years to transpose the disability and age provisions of the Directive. The Directive will provide people with disabilities with a very clear legal framework to protect them from unfair treatment and discrimination in employment.

The Commission's focus will therefore remain on ensuring that the legal acquis in the field of fighting discrimination is transposed within the deadlines agreed by the Council. Employment is a major element in achieving the inclusion and integration of people with disabilities into society.

The Commission has, nevertheless, proposed to the Member States that, in the report to the Parliament and the Council to be produced by the Commission in 2006 on the implementation of the Equal Treatment Directive, the case for using Community legislation to combat disability discrimination in areas outside of employment should be examined. It has therefore requested Member States to take this issue into account in the reports on the application of the Directive which they must provide to the Commission by December 2005.

Furthermore, the Commission has started to prepare a Communication on the follow up to the European Year of People with Disabilities. In this respect, contributions from the various stakeholders to the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 will play an important role.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1674/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Closure of CSF and Community initiatives

Under Council Regulation 1260/1999(1), Member States are required to submit applications to the Commission no later than 31 March 2003 for final payment in respect of programmes approved by the Commission between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1999 (CSF and Community initiatives).

Can the Commission answer the following:

- in respect of which programmes funded from the ERDF, ESF, EAGGF and FIFG has Greece submitted applications for final payment and what is the sum involved for each application;

- when does it expect that these sums will be paid to Greece;

- in respect of which programmes have these sums already been paid?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

The annexed table gives the 1994-99 Operational Programmes for which the Greek authorities have submitted final payment applications, the amounts claimed and the payments already made.

The applications that have not yet resulted in payment are being examined by the Commission under the provisions in force applicable for all countries receiving Structural Fund assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/03

by Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Advances Objective 2 research projects

What is the Commission's interpretation of Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1), and what is its final position on the payment of advances and whether or not they must be included in the calculations for the N+2 rule as regards research projects co-financed by the Structural Funds as part of the Objective 2 operational R & D programme in Spain in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Written Question E-1376/03(1) on the same topic but with reference to Objective 1 in Spain.

As Objective 2 assistance in Spain is being given through seven SPDs there is by contrast with Objective 1 no multiregional research and development Operational Programme.

The research projects are part-financed from the ERDF under measure 3,2 of each SPD. For these SPDs the first date for the purposes of application of the N+2 rule is 31 December 2003.

(1) See page 178.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme 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 to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Composition of the control services in Greece

It is well known that Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(1) of 21 July 1999 set up the framework for the administration, monitoring and financial control of the third CSF. The requirement for effective and efficient management of Community funds derives from the letter and the spirit of this regulation. In order to ensure that this Community requirement is adhered to, each Member State is obliged to create an independent service which can intervene, detect and correct any irregularities and which will keep the Commission informed.

In Greece the competent authorities are the EDEL (Committee on Budgetary Control) and the 51st and 52nd financial control departments, which are part (as is EDEL) of the Greek Ministry of Economic Affairs and are mainly staffed by administrative employees, and not by specialised agricultural technicians, engineers, environmentalists etc., which would have made the relevant checks more substantial and reliable.

Could the Commission forward to me the letters dated 13 June 2001 from the Ministry of Economic Affairs to the Regional Policy Directorate-General, the letter with reference number 107569/14-8.2001 from the Regional Policy DG to the Greek authorities, the reply from the Ministry of Economic Affairs to the Regional Policy DG's document G.3/EM/103141/2-4-2002, D(2002) 830233, and the financial control report by the Regional Policy DG for the Ionian islands ROP and the Epirus ROP?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Honourable Member's question relates to requests for access to documents. Such requests are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(1).

The Commission will appraise the Honourable Member's request in accordance with the procedure laid down in that Regulation.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1379/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Multi-Stakeholder Forum

The Commission has set up a Multi-Stakeholder Forum to ensure, among other things, the exchange of experience and good practice at EU level while seeking to establish common guiding principles for corporate social responsibility also at EU level.

What has this Multi-Stakeholder Forum cost to date? What result does the Commission expect from this forum?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The activities of the Multistakeholder Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are supported from within the existing financial, human and administrative resources of the Commission. For each meeting of the Forum(1) the Commission provides a room, interpretation(2), and covers the reimbursement of 20 experts(3).

The Commission strongly believes that the Union's success in promoting CSR is based ultimately on widespread ownership of CSR principles by business, social partners and civil society. Also, in order to ensure credible and effective CSR policies, it is the Commission's position that these need to be developed, implemented and evaluated with the involvement of the most affected stakeholders.

In this context, the Commission has set up the Multistakeholder Forum to develop a structured and partnership-based approach between business and their stakeholders to raise awareness on CSR, promote the exchange of experience and good practices, and enhance the transparency and credibility of CSR practices and instruments.

The approach is bottom-up: the Commission is not mandating solutions but rather is asking the stakeholders to try to develop common answers through dialogue and partnership. The Commission sees the Forum as a challenging experiment and a great opportunity for the different stakeholders to develop a common approach to CSR and reach consensus on the challenges raised by CSR.

At the launch of the Forum in October 2002, the Forum members adopted the following objectives: to foster corporate social responsibility and to promote innovation, transparency and convergence of CSR practices and instruments though improving knowledge on CSR, facilitating the exchange of experience and exploring the appropriateness of establishing common guiding principles for CSR.

At the beginning of this year, the four Round Tables of the Forum have been launched. They are working on the following issues: improving knowledge on CSR; promoting CSR amongst small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); the development aspects of CSR and transparency, diversity and convergence of CSR practices and tools.

The Forum has a clear mandate: before summer 2004 it is invited to submit a report about its work to the Commission.

(1) In 2002 two plenary meetings took place, while for 2003 two plenary meetings and nine Round Table meetings are foreseen.

(2) Usually French, English and German for the plenary meetings and French & English for the Round Tables.

(3) Plus a Rapporteur for the Round Table meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0433/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of workers and to competition in the taxi business

Why can a dentist from Paris exercise his profession in Milan, whereas a taxi driver from the former city is unable to ply his trade in the latter?

Is this state of affairs compatible with the rules on the free movement of workers and on competition?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Article 39 of the EC Treaty guarantees the right for nationals of the Member States to move freely within the territory of the Member States for work. For self-employed persons the freedom of establishment is laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty. It guarantees the right to take up and pursue activites as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the Member State where such establishment is effected.

On the basis of the question received, the Commission does not know to which difficulties encountered by taxi drivers when moving to another Member State for work the Honourable Member is referring to. If the Honourable Member has any concrete cases of non-compliance with Community-law, he is invited to send them to the Commission to be examined by its services.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1197/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled 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 for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled 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-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1198/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Pesaro

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 Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0286/03

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the C. & J. Clark footwear factory in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal)

On 10 January 2003 the multinational company C. & J. Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda, a maker of footwear located in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal), announced the closure of its factory, thus making 588 workers redundant.

The decision to close this factory is justified by the company itself on grounds relating to imports of vamps from India and Romania and the objective of maintaining a competitive price structure (cf. press release issued by the Clark management on 10 January 2003).

Clark set up operations in Castelo de Paiva in 1988, with both national and Community aid. In May 2000 the company signed a protocol with the local municipal council in which it undertook to continue operations up to at least 2007, in return for a signif!icant level of investment from the municipality.

Castelo de Paiva is a municipality located in the Portuguese interior, with a very fragile economy. The closure of this undertaking will bring in its wake disastrous economic and social consequences.

Given that this decision to close runs totally counter to the notion of corporate social responsibility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What sums were granted from Community funds, and when, to the company Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda in Castelo de Paiva?

- What conditions were required from this company in relation to the above Community funding?

- Should it be established that Clark is in breach of its obligations regarding its receipt of Community support, what action will the Commission take to prevent the factory's closure and ensure the continuation of its activities in Castelo Paiva, guaranteeing the workers' jobs?

- What political measures will the Commission take in order to prevent, and, ultimately, penalise actions of this nature, as frequently perpetrated by companies which establish themselves in the EU, receive Community funding and then, having exhausted its advantages and benefits (above all on the human level), relocate their operations?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0286/03, E-0287/03,E-0288/03, E-0289/03, E-0290/03, E-0301/03 and E-0441/03given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Members are kindly asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1).

(1) See page 67.