ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2081/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Leader+ programme delay

Given the significant benefits that have accrued from previous Leader programmes in fostering partnership, sustainable agricultural enterprises, local economic growth

and social inclusion throughout Ireland and the European Union; and given the current delay in the approval of the Leader+ operational programme guidelines and the subsequent difficulties which this is causing to groups and companies on the ground in Ireland; could the Commission explain the undue delay in the approval of the guidelines, and can it confirm that it will approve the Leader+ programme guidelines in the very near future, before further jobs are put in jeopardy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2001)

The Commission has tried, as far as possible, to avoid any lack of continuity in programming between the 1994-1999 period and the new 2000-2006 period. In the case of Leader, the Commission Notice to the Member States setting out guidelines for the Leader+ Community Initiative was published in the Official Journal on 18 May 2000(1). Member States (and regions) were asked to submit their programmes under Leader+ within six months from this date (i.e. by mid-November 2000). The Commission indicates within the Leader+ guidelines that it will approve such programmes within five months of their receipt (but respect of this timescale is clearly subject to a receipt of an admissible programme, and to satisfactory progress in subsequent negotiations). The selection of beneficiaries (the Leader Local Action Groups (LAGs)) should take place within a maximum two-year period from the date of approval of programmes.

It is understood that the Irish authorities provided funding to maintain group capacities in the interim period. That said, given that the selection of LAGs (to be undertaken by the competent national authorities) must be by open and competitive procedures, in order to ensure the selection of the highest quality LAGs, there should be no assumption that LAGs which received financing under Leader II will automatically be re-selected under Leader+. This decision should depend upon the quality of their bids alongside competing applications.

Turning to the specific example of the Irish Leader+ programme, the programme has been submitted to the Commission on 15 November 2000 and has just been approved on 3 July 2001. This approval took place after a complex negotiation procedure. The initial proposal submitted by the Irish authorities has been completed and amended, and this required a considerable effort from both parties. The scope for selection of LAGs will be large enough. It will to a large extent depend on the specific timetable and selection procedures envisaged by the Irish authorities, whom the Commission suggests to contact direct for further details on these matters.

(1) OJ C 139, 18.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Treasures from the Kushan tombs in Afghanistan

The criminal acts recently perpetrated by the Taliban government in Afghanistan are the most dramatic proof of the danger facing the cultural treasures located on Afghan territory. The Greek archaeologist Viktoras Sariyannidis has carried out excavations in the Tilla-Tepe region at the foot of Aï-Haïnoum hill in northern Afghanistan, a region previously excavated by the French archaeologist Bernard who had found a perfect miniature Greek city, one of the 1 000 cities founded in ancient Bactria by Alexander the Great and his successors.

At the end of the 1980s the Greek archaeologist had discovered at the foot of this hill the tombs of five Kushan leaders together with 25 000 golden and other precious objects. He handed these objects over to the Afghan State to be preserved at Kabul Museum.

After the excesses committed by the Taliban there is now concern about the fate of this very important cultural treasure which sheds light on the history of one of the main junctions on the ancient Silk Road between China and Spain and gives us valuable information about the culture which flourished there after the passage of Alexander the Great and his successors who spread Greek and thus European culture in Asia.

Will the Commission say whether it has any information about the fate of this treasure since the recent actions by the Taliban? Could the European Union buy up this treasure to save it from the destructive frenzy of fanatical Islamic fundamentalists?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission currently has no information on the fate of the specific objects referred to by the Honourable Member. There have been recent reports coming out of Afghanistan of exhibits in the Kabul Museum being destroyed by the Taliban. However, the Commission has had no confirmation of this.

As indicated in reply to the Honourable Member's Question E-0822/01(1), the budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the world cultural heritage. There are at present no plans by the Community to create a special fund to buy cultural treasures threatened with destruction.

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1634/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Execution of Commission initiatives over the period 1994-1999

The Community initiatives created in 1989 enable the Commission to play a more active role, on the supposition that it has an overall vision allegedly lacking at the level of the Member States. The Commission has, in these Community initiatives, a leading role in dealing with specific problems affecting the EU as a whole.

Over the programming period 1994-1999 13 initiatives were adopted, with a total budget of 13 450 million. These initiatives were characterised by a value added element vis-à-vis the other measures financed by the Structural Funds, since they were aimed at encouraging transnational, crossborder and interregional cooperation, the participation of local economic and social agents, and aid to real cooperation among all interested parties.

In view of all the above, the Commission and the Member States may logically be expected to have made efforts to execute, in their entirety, the resources allocated to each of the 13 initiatives for the period 1994-1999.

Can the Commission state the real execution level of the appropriations earmarked for this set of initiatives over the period 1994-1999?

What was the real execution level for each of the initiatives (Interreg II, Leader II, REGIS II, NOW, Horizon, Youthstart, Integra, ADAPT, Rechar II, Resider II, Konver, RETEX, SME, URBAN and PESCA)?

What is the Commission's assessment of the execution percentage? Why were the remaining funds earmarked for each initiative not executed?

In particular, what was the total amount of funds under these initiatives executed for Spain? What amount was executed in Spain under each initiative, and what percentage of the total allocated for the programming period does this represent? What is the Commission's assessment of the execution percentage? Why were the remaining funds earmarked for each initiative not executed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 April 2001)

Subject: Blurring of interests and distortion of competition with the Sensus project

The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for the European police and intelligence services. The search for interesting language technology is an important part of this project. Sensus is subsidised by the Commission. The reply to Question P-0009/01(1) shows that Sensus and Aventinus I and II have been financed from budget line B6-6121 113 of the telematics applications programme (1994-1998). A maximum contribution of 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus I, and of this 2 341 190 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of 550 000 was approved for Aventinus II, of which his 513 777 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which 478 753 was paid on 31 December 2000.

Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. He is also behind three language Development Companies of Lernout & Haspie (L & H). Thanks to his dual role, the Bundesnachrichtendienst can have access to L & H's language technology. It is immediately apparent that the Sensus-Bundesnachrichtendienst-L & H set-up results in (a) a dubious blurring of interests between the private and the public sector, (b) an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services and (c) unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not.

1. Does the Council acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator leads to a blurring of interests between the public and the private sector (in this case the Bundesnachrichtendienst)? If not, what guarantees does the Council have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this blurring?

2. Does the Council acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services, in particular in favour of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, what guarantees does the Council have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this imbalance?

3. Does the Council acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not? If not, what guarantees does the Council have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in unfair competition?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01 and E-1083/01

(16 July 2001)

The events mentioned in the three Questions E-1064/01, E-1081/01, E-1083/01 are not within the competence of the Council of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Denmark)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Denmark have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Denmark have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/01

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: The single market

Some of my constituents have been experiencing problems in using payment cards outside the UK, apparently because different systems are in use across the Union.

Is the Commission satisfied with the norms that exist for electronic payment cards? Do different systems exist within the Union? Is the Commission satisfied that those different systems are truly compatible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

In each of the Member States there is a variety of payment cards in use. The payment industry has answered to the needs of the market in very different ways. Some payment cards can be used only domestically, others internationally.

With regard to those destined for international use (e.g. MasterCard, Eurocard, Visa, Amex, Diners ) they are generally accepted where their label is displayed. Whether or not to accept such cards is a decision for the merchant and the merchant's bank. Although some of the international cards are widely accepted, there is no obligation to do so.

The Commission is aware of the existence of different electronic payment card systems and initiatives have been taken in order to improve the situation. The objective is to reach an adequate level of interoperability between different electronic payment systems.

It should be noted that standardisation is a voluntary and market-led process. Thus, the use of common standards and specifications strongly depends on the willingness of the different market players to co-operate in this domain.

The Commission is promoting payment systems interoperability in different ways:

- by supporting standardisation initiatives or similar developments (eEurope smart card charter),

- by funding research projects e.g. cross-border electronic purse,

- by urging the banking industry to develop a single payment area (Communication on retail payment in the internal market(1)).

(1) COM(2000) 36 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Number of slaughterhouses

Will the Commission list the number of licensed slaughterhouses in each Member State in the most recent year for which figures are available, five years ago, 10 years ago and 15 years ago?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Member States are required to maintain a list of approved establishments under a range of Community legislation on veterinary health and food hygience. These lists include, for example, slaughterhouses, meat processing plants and rendering plants. These lists are required to be updated and circulated to the Commission and the Member States. Examples are to be found on the website of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection at the following address (http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/sanco/vets/info/data/listes/public-ms.html). This site is under further development and will be expanded in scope and coverage in line with information requested from the Member States.

However, there is no historical data available on the evolution of the number of slaughterhouses over the past 15 years, as requested by the Honourable Member. The purpose of the lists is to ensure that the relevant products in Community trade are produced in approved plants and that this can be verified by the relevant authorities. It had not been the intention to provide statistical information on the number of plants.

The Commission will review future possibilities for making better use of these lists for statistical purposes, in line with its resources and other competing priorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: The Swedish exemption concerning the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers

On accession Sweden was given an exemption for its maximum values for the cadmium content in phosphate fertilisers until 31 December 1998. Nothing then happened, but the Commission has since proposed as a compromise that the exemption should be extended for a further three years while the Commission reviewed the need for common measures in this field. Sweden also had its exemption regarding the use of cadmium as a pigment extended by three years while a further review took place.

What is now happening on this matter? Will the EU bring itself into line with the Swedish exemptions or vice-versa, or will there be a compromise between the two positions?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission, together with the Member States, is currently evaluating risks to health and the environment linked to the presence of cadmium in fertilisers. When this evaluation is complete, the Commission will, if necessary, issue a proposal concerning any measures at Community level.

A study of the use of cadmium as a pigment, a stabiliser and for plating metals was recently completed, and is currently being examined by the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE). This study aims to update previous evaluations of risks to health and the environment.

In the light of these results and any other relevant information, the provisions of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(1) could be amended by 1 January 2003.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1686/01

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Video monitoring in nursery schools

In 1998, in connection with Netdays '98, the European Union funded a project in Spain that involved the video monitoring of various nursery schools and allowed video footage of the children and nursery school staff to be accessed by parents via the web (www.baby-net.org).

On what grounds was this project in Spain deemed eligible to receive funding?

Were its stated objectives achieved, and is the project to be regarded as a success?

If other European countries also use video technology in the education sector (including schools, school buses etc), should this kind of video use be extended in the EU, and are such projects subject to scientific monitoring?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission contributed to the funding of the Netd@ys project, BabyNET, as it fulfilled all of the selection criteria which had been set for the consideration of Netd@ys projects in 1998.

The project was well presented and it contained much interesting and relevant information. The evaluators were particularly impressed with the clarity of the project's objectives, the quality of the content, the pedagogical effect, the European added value, the potential impact and the proposals for its wider dissemination.

From the information provided, it appears that the project has met its objectives and it is considered to be a success.

The project was promoted on the Netd@ys Europe 1998 Netd@ys website which a large number of people, including educational specialists, had access to. It was for them to decide if the project could be adapted to meet their specific needs and if this method of using video as an educational tool could be effectively extended in the Community. The Commission currently has no plans to extend the use of the video as set out in the BabyNET project. The pedagogical impact of the project was monitored by specialists.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1161/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Implementation of the Bathing Water Directive

What is the Commission's policy regarding the enforcement of the provisions of the Bathing Water Directive in instances where the Member States have taken all the necessary measures but still do not comply with the legal requirements?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water(1) provides that Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that, within ten years following the notification of that directive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values set out in accordance with Article 3, or in other words with effect from 10 December 1985.

If, despite any Member States' efforts and initiatives, the quality of bathing water at a specific location does not meet the values required by the directive, the Commission considers that bathing in any such water constitutes an infringement of the directive and may activate an infringement procedure on that matter.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0452/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: EU and third-country fisheries agreements

1. How many fisheries agreements are currently in force between the EU and third countries on a cash-for-fish basis?

2. What is the total cost of these agreements?

3. Which Member States benefit from these agreements in terms of access to fishing opportunities?

4. What are the main conservation arrangements applied to each agreement?

5. How does the EU monitor the effectiveness of these conservation measures?

6. Does the Commission have a list of privately negotiated and privately funded fisheries agreements between EU fishermen and third countries? If so, can answers be given to questions 1-5 above with regard to those private arrangements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

As at January 2001 the Community had concluded or was negotiating a total of 23 fisheries agreements, 19 of which include financial compensation.

The appropriations committed for fisheries agreements came to 121,6 million in 2000, given that the Community was not able to conclude an agreement with Morocco and that the appropriations for the agreement with Angola ( 13 975 million) could not be committed in 2000. For the 2001 financial year, 290 499 978 in commitment appropriations have been entered.

All the Member States except Austria and Luxembourg benefit from the fishing rights obtained within the framework both of fisheries agreements and of regional fisheries organisations. About 2 800 Community vessels operate entirely or partially in third-country and/or international waters.

In accordance with the Community's international commitments, the protocol to each fisheries agreement stipulates the conditions governing Community vessels' fishing operations, including as regards areas, technical measures and monitoring fisheries activity (catch reporting, landing requirements, observer boarding, vessel monitoring system (VMS), etc.).

The Community is not empowered to monitor the implementation of conservation measures in third-country waters. However, it is subject to a number of obligations with regard to monitoring the activities of its vessels operating under the agreements as provided for in the agreements' terms.

The Commission does not have an exhaustive list containing specific information on existing private agreements between European shipowners and third countries in the fisheries sector. However, where those private agreements have resulted in joint enterprises being established and receiving Community aid, the Commission possesses information in accordance with the requirements stipulated by the corresponding legal bases. But in order to maintain the confidentiality of personal data, the Commission is not permitted to disclose that information.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has carried out an Assessment of joint enterprises in the context of structural operations in the fisheries sector, a copy of the summary of which will be sent to him direct and to Parliament's Secretariat.