ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci programme by the City of Frosinone

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 City of Frosinone, 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 City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Leornardo da Vinci programme?

2. whether the City of Frosinone 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 P-0292/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Tony Blair's comments on 26 January 2003 on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty

On 26 January 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested via the media that he considers ending compliance with the commitments under the ECHR (in particular Article 3 thereof) or revoking the ECHR to be serious options in order to force down the number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.

Article 6(1) of the new Union treaty, which is entering into force shortly, states that the Union is built on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Pursuant to Article 6(2), the EU must respect the fundamental rights laid down in the ECHR as general principles of Community law.

Article 7(1) empowers the Commission to submit to the Council a proposal determining that a breach by a Member State of the principles under Article 6(1) is imminent.

In the Commission's judgment, would ending compliance with the commitments under the ECHR or revocation of the ECHR on the part of a Member State constitute a breach of the principles under Articles 6(1) and (2)?

In the Commission's judgment, would ending compliance with the commitments under the ECHR (in particular Article 3 thereof) or revocation of the ECHR on the part of the United Kingdom give rise to a Commission proposal to the Council as referred to in Article 7(1)?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Commission has noted the comments made by the UK Prime Minister.

The Commission recognises the relevance of the question put by the Honourable Member in view of the special role assigned to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights by Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union and by Court of Justice case-law relating to the protection of fundamental rights in the Union.

However, before adopting a position on the substance of the question, the Commission would like to consider the matter further in the light of any subsequent developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Comitology

The committees established pursuant to Decision 1999/468/EC(1), laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, comprise one representative per Member State, plus a Commission representative who acts as chairman.

Can the Council tell me whether there is any problem in Member States' sending representatives of regional governments as members of these committees? How many regional representatives, if any, are currently members of these committees?

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the Commission is responsible for determining the number of regional representatives who are currently members of committees established pursuant to Council Decision 1999/468/EC. Moreover, it is for each Member State to define the composition of its delegation within those committees.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/03

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Treatment of the outermost regions of the European Union under the mid-term reform of the CAP

The Commission has put forward a proposal originating from the Berlin European Council to implement a mid-term reform of the CAP that will amount to a minor agrarian revolution in the medium term and will impact on the various regions of the European Union.

Moreover, the agricultural POSEI programmes for the outermost regions of the European Union have recently been the subject of a review. In the light of the Commission's development strategy for these regions, and of Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, which lays down that specific measures shall be adopted when implementing Community provisions in those regions, precisely in the context of the CAP, will the Commission apply special treatment to the outermost regions when implementing the CAP reforms and if so, what measures will it adopt?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

In drafting the regulations designed to give the European Union a long-term perspective for sustainable agriculture, the Commission has safeguarded and taken full account of the specific features of Community assistance intended to support agricultural production in the outermost regions.

As a result, in these regions the decoupling of aid will concern only a limited range of assistance from the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the additional aid provided under the POSEI programmes. Integrating this aid into the decoupled envelope will permit a substantial simplification of administrative management procedures.

By introducing the single payment, the Commission is also proposing to give the Member States more freedom in terms of the territorial level for implementation. That provision could prove particularly useful in enabling the Member States concerned to take account of the particular situation of these regions.

The Commission would also stress that one of the aims of its proposals to reform the CAP is gradually to reduce direct aid in order to free up additional finance for rural development. This is also likely to benefit the outermost regions.

In accordance with Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission will continue to ensure that what has been achieved by the measures planned for the outermost regions is preserved and takes full account of the their special needs. Where necessary, it reserves the right to propose any adjustments which may be required to that end.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1598/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: Animal Transport Directive

Further to my question H-0180/03(1), when will inter-departmental consultations commence on the draft proposal on the protection of animals during transport?

In the experience of the Commission how long do such inter-departmental consultations take?

(1) Written answer of 8 April 2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission has initiated the inter-service consultations.

The standard period for an inter-service consultation for a document of this size is 15 working days. After this period additional time may be necessary to adjust the text to take into account all relevant observations in order to ensure the agreement of the relevant Departments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1229/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Enhanced legal cooperation

Following a visit to a Danish national who is imprisoned in Spain, I now realise that European legal cooperation leaves much to be desired. The person concerned has been in prison since 28 November 2001 accused of murder. On 14 January 2002, the accused's lawyer sent an international court order to the Spanish Ministry of Justice, to be forwarded in turn to the Danish Ministry of Justice, with a view to summoning a witness for questioning. More than a year later, this international court order has still not left the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

It is appalling that such sluggish procedures can delay and prolong legal cases. To date, no formal charge has yet been made against the accused.

Will the Council therefore say what initiatives it intends to take to enhance European cooperation in this field?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council cannot comment on matters that are pending before national authorities.

Provisions aiming at speeding up procedures of mutual co-operation in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union are contained in the 1990 Schengen Convention (Article 53) and in the Convention adopted on 29 May 2000 on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union(1). (Article 6, which will in due time replace Article 53 of the 1990 Schengen Convention).

The European Judicial Network, introduced by Joint action 92/428/JHA of 29 June 1998, has, as its mission to local judicial authorities of different Member States, to establish the most appropriate direct contacts, and to enable local judicial authorities to prepare effective requests for judicial cooperation.

At present no further proposal or initiative has been submitted to the Council dealing with procedures as described by the Honourable Parliamentarian in his question.

(1) OJ C 197, 12.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1415/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Closure of the newspaper Egunkaria

On 20 February this year the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria was closed down in an operation ordered by the judge of the Spanish National Court Juan del Olmo. The Civil Police Force arrested 10 people responsible for the newspaper, among them its director, Martxelo Otamendi, because of his presumed entanglement with ETA. At present, three of them are still in prison.

On 10 March the same judge of the National Court decided to close temporarily for six months the trading companies Egunkaria Sortzen SL and Egunkaria SA and the daily newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria, and its premises, headquarters and establishments, and to suspend its activities for the same period. The magistrate justified his decision arguing that the whole framework or project is supposedly managed and generated by ETA and responds to a terrorist strategy. The charge that the newspaper is part of the project and of the economic and cultural framework of the etarra cupola is based on documents that had been seized from terrorists during 1992 (date of foundation of the newspaper).

Egunkaria was the only newspaper published completely in Euskera. The legal and political decision to close it can entail a breach of freedom of expression if there is no specific evidence. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU on freedom of expression and information reads as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

On 26 March the Association of minority daily newspapers in Europe, which includes 32 newspapers, gathered in Brussels. The Spanish authorities banned the director of Egunkaria, Martxelo Otamendi, from attending.

Only two years ago the EU held the European Year of Languages, of all languages, with the aim of promoting linguistic diversity. Today, in view of this situation, we regret that a minority language such as Euskera is suffering an additional problem and is encountering difficulties with expressing its identity after the closure of the only newspaper published completely in this language at that moment. I would like to point out the special importance that having a newspaper in your own mother tongue has for this type of minority communities.

In view of this situation I would like to know: has the European Commission so far asked the pertinent Spanish authorities for explanations, or is it planning to do so in the near future, in order to make sure that no fundamental right is being violated and that this action has not been contrary to the EU policy of promotion and respect for linguistic diversity in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-0641/03 and E-0672/03 by Mr Ebner and others(1).

(1) See page 75.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Comitology

Article 7(4) of Decision 1999/468/EC(1), laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission lays down that the Commission shall, within six months of the date in which the decision takes effect, publish in the Official Journal of the European Communities, a list of all committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of implementing powers. The decision came into force on 18 July 1999, but the Commission finally published the requisite list over a year later(2). Why was there this delay?

Article 7(5) lays down that the references to all documents sent to the European Parliament [] shall be made public in a register to be set up by the Commission in 2001. In its most recent report on the work of the committees for 2001(3), the Commission indicates that this register will become operational at the beginning of 2003. Why has there been a delay of two years?

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(2) OJ C 225, 8.8.2000.

(3) COM(2002) 733.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the delays incurred for establishing the list of committees assisting the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers(1) and the register with references of documents transmitted to the Parliament.

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that these two obligations were not foreseen in the proposal of the Commission for a Council decision laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(2), but have been inserted into the final text of Council Decision 1999/468/EC on specific request of Member States' delegations. The Commission accepted the obligations in the negotiations subject to the availability of sufficient staff and budgetary resources, which it is still awaiting. This has been, by the way, also expressly mentioned in the unilateral commitment made by the Commission to amplify the register with an internet-based public repository of the documents transmitted to the Parliament.

Of course, the Commission takes its obligations emanating from Council Decision 1999/468/EC(3) very seriously and is giving a high priority to them within the limits of the resources it has available.

The list of committees has been published in the mid of the year 2000. The planning for both the register and the repository was initiated in 2001 and the preparatory work was realised in 2002. Both instruments are planned to become operational within the next few months.

(1) OJ C 225, 8.8.2000.

(2) OJ C 279, 8.9.1998.

(3) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0522/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 February 2003)

Subject: Women's rights in Zambia

Cooperation between the EU and Zambia takes place on the basis of ACP-EU partnership. In the Cotonou Agreement, which outlines the general framework for ACP-EU relations for the next 20 years, respect for human rights and the equality of women and men are stressed repeatedly by both parties.

In spite of the fact that Zambia subscribes to these principles, the rights of women in Zambia are not always respected. According to a report of 28 January 2003 by Human Rights Watch, girls in Zambia are five times more likely to be infected with the HIV virus than boys, because they are the victims of widespread sexual abuse.

Has the EU yet reacted to these grave infringements of women's rights? If not, does it intend to do so?

Is there any provision for a mechanism to systematically monitor and enforce respect for women's rights in Zambia? Is there provision for the possibility of suspending cooperation between Zambia and the EU if women's rights, and human rights in general, are continually violated in Zambia?

If not, will the EU make provision in future for such possibilities?

If there is provision for the monitoring and enforcement of respect for human rights and for the possible suspension of cooperation between Zambia and the EU, does this apply to all the countries which have signed the Cotonou Agreement?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

As pointed out in the question, cooperation between Zambia and the EU takes place in the framework of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000. Respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms is an essential element of this Agreement, as foreseen in its Article 9. Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement opens the possibility for the signatories of the Agreement to engage in consultations when a Party has failed to fulfil an obligation stemming from inter alia respect for human rights. These consultations occur if political dialogue has failed. If consultations are refused or fail, appropriate measures may be taken which may include the suspension of development cooperation.

The EU remains concerned about the spreading of the HIV virus in Southern Africa, often due to widespread sexual abuse.

Specific consultations with Zambia under Article 96 have however not been considered on this matter. The question of respect of human rights, including women's rights, is part of the dialogue with the Zambian Government, and the EU will continue to use its political dialogue with Zambia to press for further progress in this matter. It urges the Zambian authorities to fully respect human rights and human dignity with particular reference to women.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, 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 preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.