ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Interreg III

The Inforegio/News bulletin of January 2002 reports that the Commission has approved 36 Interreg III programmes. According to the newsletter, these include a Spain/France programme with a contribution of 84,3 million.

Can the Commission provide information on this programme's objectives and the territory covered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

On 13 December 2001 the Commission approved the Interreg III A Community Initiative programme Spain/France(1), to which the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will contribute 84,3 million.

The programme concerns the Spanish border provinces of Girona, Guipúzcoa, Huesca, Lleida and Navarre and the French departments of Ariège, Haute-Garonne, Hautes-Pyrénées, Pyrénées-Atlantiques and Pyrénées-Orientales. The following areas, which do not lie on the border and where the measures to be financed do not account for more than 20 % of total expenditure under the programme, may also benefit: Barcelona, Tarragona, Zaragoza, Rioja, Vizcaya and Alava, in Spain, and Aude, Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Gers and Landes, in France.

Following an examination of the area and its socio-economic characteristics, the two Member States and the regions concerned, in partnership with the Commission, agreed to establish the following three priorities (plus technical assistance) for the programme:

- structuring and strengthening cross-border areas (including the joint management of the countryside, the prevention of natural disasters, urban and rural development and improved cross-border transport and infrastructure);

- expanding activity and employment (including the development of cross-border tourism, the exploitation of local products, research and the transfer of technologies and the stimulation of cross-border economic activity);

- open and supportive societies: exchanges, social integration and equal opportunities (including the promotion of joint training, the development of joint instruments for employment, health, equal opportunities for men and women and joint action on culture).

The Commission believes that this programme could make a significant contribution to improving cross-border cooperation in the Pyrenees in economic, cultural and institutional terms, and that it offers an opportunity to solve the problems which have sometimes hindered the development of these areas.

(1) Commission Decision C(2001)3616.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0954/02

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Health and safety in agriculture

Bearing in mind that the mid-term review of Agenda 2000 will shortly get under-way, and given that farming per se is an activity with inherent safety risks, would the Commission support a call by the European Parliament to include under the Rural Development pillar of the CAP a measure which offered incentives to farmers to improve the safety environment of their farmyard and farm?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding the high level of accidents recorded on farm and notes his request to introduce a new measure under the 2nd Pillar (rural development) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to provide incentives to farmers to improve farm safety.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the already existing possibilities for Community support for actions to improve farm safety under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)(1).

Two of the measures offered under the above Regulation are of particular relevance. These are first, the measure concerning support for vocational training for farmers and other persons involved in agricultural activities, under which training actions designed to increase farmers knowledge and skills related to health and safety on-farm would be eligible and, second, the measure providing support for investment in agricultural holdings, which makes reference to eligibility of investments to improve the living and working conditions on farm, which could encompass investments required to improve health and safety.

Community rural development policy is implemented in a decentralised way, in line with the principle of subsidiarity and in order to take account of the diverse situations of Europe's rural areas. It is therefore the responsibility of the Member States to decide which of the menu of twenty-two rural development measures offered in Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 are best suited to the particular needs of their rural areas and the share of the financial resources they wish to allocate to each measure (including, for example, any more-targeted schemes to improve farm health and safety) from within the funding envelope allocated to them at Community-level.

The Commission is open to suggestions on any additional action which might be required at Community level to promote farm safety. However, given the possibilities already available to Member States under Community rural development policy, the Commission does not currently consider there is a need to introduce a separate and specific measure devoted to farm safety within the 2nd Pillar of the CAP.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0924/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: A Commission Deputy Director-General in Miami

The following information about a Commission Deputy Director-General appeared in the October 2001 issue of the University of Miami magazine Euroforum:

The North-South Center is the recipient of a major recognition bestowed by the European Union. This is an official program sponsored and fully funded by the European Commission that places EU high-level officers in U.S. universities. The original list of universities (limited to eight centers) has been exceptionally expanded by an application to host Santiago Gómez-Reino, Deputy Director of External Relations, for a two-year period (an expansion of the basic one-year program). Mr. Gómez-Reino will reside at the North-South Center and be available for the European Union Center and the Jean Monnet chair of the School of International Studies. Among the experiences of Mr. Gómez-Reino are: founder and first director of the Humanitarian Office of the European Community (ECHO) and Director of all operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

1. Can the Commission confirm that this is a special measure for the benefit of a Deputy Director-General which departs from the customary rules (limited to eight universities plus no more than a one-year secondment)?

2. If so, what is the justification for these exemptions?

3. Were they approved by the Commission Vice-President with responsibility for staff?

4. Can the Commission forward a copy of the relevant provisions on secondments under this programme?

5. Can the Commission quantify the additional Community budget costs of this secondment from Brussels to Miami?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

1. The Commission can confirm that, following the inclusion of the North-South Center of the University of Miami in the Commission's fellowships programme, a fellowship was granted to Mr Gomez Reino for a one-year period, renewable at his request.

2. This individual decision was at the discretion of the appointing authority, which took into account Mr Gomez Reino's professional situation and profile and the interests of the Institution.

3. The Commission can confirm that this decision was taken at the appropriate level in accordance with the empowerment given by the College in March 2001.

4. A copy of the brochure on fellowships is sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat.

5. The cost to the Commission of a one-year fellowship in the US is estimated at around 50 000.

The total cost of Mr Gomez Reino's fellowship for the period from 8 August 2001 to 28 February 2002 is 37 428. Expenditure for the period from 1 March 2002 to 1 August 2002 is estimated at 21 500. The amount for one year will therefore be about 59 000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1364/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Review of the common fisheries policy

Could the Commission please indicate how fisheries policy would be regulated within European Union waters in the event of a failure to agree on the review of the common fisheries policy by 31 December 2002?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1332/02, E-1346/02, E-1364/02 and P-1387/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

If the review of the Common Fisheries Policy is not agreed by 31 December 2002, with the sole exception of the rules relating to access to the 12 mile zones of Member States, the existing rules will remain in force unless the Commission proposes and the Council adopts other amending Regulations prior to or following that date.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0313/02

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2002)

Subject: ACP resolution on the rights of disabled people and older people in the ACP States

What action has the Commission taken on the resolution on the rights of disabled people and older people (ACP-EU/3313/01/fin.) which was adopted unanimously at the third session of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in October 2001? Has the Commission now appointed a specialist officer in that area?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The general objective of the Development Co-operation Policy of the Community is to encourage sustainable development leading to a reduction of poverty in developing countries.

The Commission sees social policies and improved access to, and quality of, basic social infrastructures and services (health and education in particular) as one of the best means to take account of specific demands of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

The Commission considers that the rights of disabled people and older people should be taken in consideration in this context. However, it does not specifically target these groups as beneficiaries from development co-operation activities. The Commission has nevertheless financed specific programmes for the benefit of handicapped people, especially in post-conflict situations and countries.

The Commission does not intend to appoint a specialist officer in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1749/02

by Ian Paisley (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Criteria for evaluating medical devices

1. What are the criteria used in evaluating artificial medical devices (i.e. heart valves) manufactured in the USA or outside the EU for use within the EU?

2. Why should these devices be used in the EU prior to approval in the USA, or country of origin/manufacture?

3. What analysis/testing was done in the case of the St. Jude,MastersSeries, silzone-coated artificial mechanical valve prosthesis prior to approval for use in the EU?

4. Why was this device accepted and approved in Europe for over a year before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA?

5. Considering that EU citizens are not in a position to file for punitive damages, what steps can be taken to ensure that these citizens are not being used as human guinea pigs in an effort to provide a cheap testing ground for these prototypes?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

Medical devices intended to be placed on the Community market imported from a third country must meet the same requirements as devices manufactured in the Community for the Community market. These are laid down in Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 on medical devices(1) (hereafter Medical Devices Directive), and relate to substance and conformity assessment.

Access to the European market does not depend on approval in the United States based on American requirements. It is the manufacturer who decides where he wants to sell his product first, and who consequently has to ensure that his products meet all regulatory requirements applicable in the relevant market.

The Commission expects that all analyses and tests were carried out that are applicable to heart valves under the Medical Devices Directive. It is the task of Member States to ensure that products placed on the market effectively conform to the relevant requirements laid down by this Directive.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border railway between Groningen and Bremen; finding a publicly acceptable and appropriate solution for resumption of the service

1. Does the Commission agree that the situation regarding the upgrading and operation of the short cross-border rail link between Nieuweschans and Leer is an example of inadequate cooperation between EU Member States and even creates the impression that there is no EU whatsoever and that EU efforts to overcome the traditional backwardness of border areas and obstacles to cross-border connections are being disregarded?

2. Does the Commission consider that we can continue to accept a situation in which the short cross-border link between the Dutch and German railway networks, both of which operate hourly services, can continue to constitute an unnecessary barrier creating serious problems to the use of the railways for cross-border traffic as a result of misunderstandings, disputes and conflicting interests?

3. Does the Commission consider it acceptable that passenger trains are not returning to this line, or only with a connection that is of significantly poorer quality, because of the need for an extra change, than it was before the old connection was suspended in 2000?

4. Does the Commission agree that the most obvious, publicly acceptable, appropriate and affordable solution is that the existing hourly service between Groningen and Nieuweschans should be extended a short distance over the border to Leer, instead of having a few special cross-border trains a day or a very limited shuttle service between Nieuweschans and Leer?

5. What measures does the Commission envisage taking in order to help bring these protracted and unproductive disputes to an end as soon as possible and ensure that the original objective of the upgrading work, namely a better and more frequent train connection with as few changes as possible between Groningen and Bremen can be achieved without delay?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1078/02, E-1079/02 and E-1080/02given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission is in the process of gathering the information required to answer the question. It will communicate its findings to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0156/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: African children orphaned by AIDS

Could the Commission estimate how many African children are believed to be orphaned by AIDS and in what countries they are living?

Also, how many of those orphaned are housed or receiving other relief and how many have education available?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Joint United Nations Programme on Aids (UNAIDS) estimates that 10,4 million children currently under 15 years have been orphaned by the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), that is these children have lost their mother or both parents to the epidemic. 13,2 million children have been orphaned since the start of the epidemic and this number is forecast to more than double by 2010. In 2000 AIDS related deaths led to an additional 2,3 million orphans with one third under five years old.

Before the advent of AIDS about 2 % of all children in developing countries were orphans but by 1999 in some African countries more than 10 % were orphans. The orphan crisis is located mainly in Africa, however, countries in the Caribbean and Asia will see large increases in AIDS orphans. At the end of 1999 the worst affected countries and estimated numbers of orphans were: Burkina Faso (211 000), Ethiopia (900 000), Namibia (53 000), Nigeria (970 000), South Africa (371 000), Zambia (447 000) and Zimbabwe (623 000).

It is very difficult to quantify how many are housed or receiving education and relief. The epidemic has forced large numbers of children into precarious circumstances, exposing them to exploitation and abuse and putting them at high risk of becoming infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Research shows that orphans living with extended families or in foster care are prone to discrimination including limited access to health, education and social services. Children suffer the trauma of caring for ill family members and seeing parents or caregivers die. They also suffer the stigma so often associated with HIV/AIDS. Many children are struggling to survive in child-headed households while others are forced to fend for themselves on the streets. Consequently, there are increasing numbers of unprotected, poorly socialised and undereducated young people. It is a reasonable assumption that most orphans warrant greater social support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Subsidies for sports clubs

Rumours are circulating that the Spanish football team Real Madrid is subsidised by funding from the European Union.

In general, are subsidies for sports clubs, especially football teams, provided for under European funding policy?

If so, what kind of subsidies are they, under which programmes are they granted and which criteria must be fulfilled in order to apply for them? Which sports clubs in Spain and Austria are subsidised by the European Union?

More specifically, does the Spanish football team Real Madrid receive funding from the European Union?

If so, what kind of funding is this, and what is the total amount of subsidies received by Real Madrid every year from the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to subsidies allegedly granted by the Commission to football clubs, in particular Real Madrid.

With regard to her general question, the Commission would like to point out that it has no policy of providing funding to football clubs. No funding is provided for the general operation of these clubs or their traditional activities, such as participation in competitions, even European ones. However, this does not necessarily mean that a football club cannot receive a specific subsidy under a Commission programme or initiative. To do so, the project submitted must fulfil the criteria laid down in the call for proposals for that programme. Under budget heading B3-2020, projects concerned with the fight against doping were funded by the Commission in 2000 and 2001. Sports organisations, like other organisations, were eligible for funding in this context but, so far, no major football clubs have taken advantage of this opportunity.

Real Madrid itself is not subsidised in any way by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(17 June 2002)

Subject: Rules on tendering

What is the Commission's response to the criticism of the EU's rules on tendering made by Jesper Fabricius and Rene Offersen of Lett & Co., reported in Børsen on 31 May 2002?

Reply by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The Commission obviously does not agree with Mr Fabricius and Mr Offersen's generalisation according to which the provisions of the Directives on public contracts are incredibly rigid and formalistic and constitute the greatest obstacle to an effective policy on public contracts. Nor, incidentally, is this extremely negative view shared by Mr Treumer and Mr Vesterdorff(1), who, among other things, stress the role of the Directives in preventing discrimination between economic operators which is why Mr Vesterdorff is in favour of lowering the thresholds in order to increase transparency and equality in competition.

It should also be borne in mind that a study carried out in 2000 by two French financial inspectors, Mr Bayle and Mr Jochum, in, inter alia, eight Member States has shown that correct application of the rules on tendering permits savings of between 5 % and 30 %, depending on the Member States and the type of goods purchased.

Apart from making this generalisation, the article stresses the need for dialogue with the economic operators, especially where particularly complex contracts were concerned such as contracts for computer equipment and for flexibility as regards technical specifications. The Commission realises that, in certain cases, it would be desirable to introduce scope for dialogue in an appropriate context in order to safeguard the principles of equal treatment and transparency in connection with the award of particularly complex contracts. This is why, as part of the reform of the rules on public contracts currently under way, it has proposed a new competitive dialogue procedure that could be used for the award of such contracts.

The policy agreement reached on 21 May 2002 also confirms the Commission's intention to place technical specifications based on specific standards and those defined in terms of performance on an equal footing, while guaranteeing that the basic principles of Community law on public contracts are respected in both cases.

The Commission can therefore, only endorse Mr Fabricius' wish that the future Danish Presidency will give high priority to this matter and also hopes that this matter will soon receive a second reading.

(1) Mr Treumer, Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School [Handelshøjskole], and Mr Vesterdorff of the Danish Federation of Crafts and Small Industries [Håndværksrådet] are both also quoted in the article.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Participation in the co-ordination of EU nuclear research

In respect of the statement included in the Commission press release IP/02/872 on 17 June 2002 which said The Euratom Research Framework Programme sets the conditions for creating a true European Research Area in the nuclear sector and paves the way for more efficient co-ordination of existing research activities in Member States. Will the Commission state which (a) non governmental organisations; (b) EU-independent research institutes not part of the nuclear industry; and (c) academic institutes not contracted with the nuclear generation industry will be asked to participate in the co-ordination of EU nuclear research?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1961/02, E-1962/02 and E-1963/02given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The Euratom Research Framework Programme contributes to the establishment of the European Research Area in the nuclear sector, and thereby for the efficient pooling of expertise and co-ordination of existing research activities in the Member States. The programme is open to any legal entity, that is performing research in the areas covered by the Programme, and fulfils the Rules for Participation. All legal entities fulfilling these requirements, national waste management agencies, nuclear industry, universities and other research organisations will be invited.