ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3148/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Use of Community funds

The Portuguese company Electro Moagem do Marco S.A., which has approximately 70 employees, has been active for over 70 years in the food sector and is based in Marco de Canaveses (Portugal), an inland region with little industrial development.

The company, which holds a quality certificate issued by the Portuguese Quality Institute in 1999, has allegedly received a significant amount of Community funding for modernisation purposes. However, its employees are not being paid at the moment and the company is threatened with bankruptcy.

Would the Commission provide the following information: Did Electro Moagem do Marco S.A. actually receive Community funding? If so, how much? Has the use to which that funding was put been monitored, with particular reference to the protection of jobs?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

Electro Moagem do Marco SA has received Structural Fund aid as follows:

- Two projects were approved under the PNCIPA/SIBR (regional incentive scheme included in the Community support framework for the Objective 1 Portuguese regions during the 1989-1993 programming period. The European Regional Development Fund's contribution to these was PTE 51 and 98 million respectively (about 750 000).

- Under the Industry (PEDIP) subprogramme of the Economic fabric operational programme included in the Community support framework for the Objective 1 regions during the 1994-1999 programming period two projects were approved:

- an enterprise certification project (included in measure 3.7) the ERDF contribution was PTE 5 700 000 (about 28 500);

- an investment project (included in measure 3.3) casting PTE 1 400 000 000 with an ERDF contribution of PTE 406 000 000 ( 2 030 000) in the form of reimbursable aid. This project is now being cancelled owing to the promoter's failure to meet his contractual obligations. The payments made amount to PTE 324 800 000 (about 1 620 000).

Lastly three projects were approved under the RETEX Community Initiative (for diversification in regions heavily dependent on the textile and clothing sector) during the 1994-1999 programming period:

- a technological modernisation project for the company (included in subprogramme A Access to capital); the ERDF contribution was PTE 25 000 000 ( 125 000);

- a strategy formulation study (ERDF contribution PTE 3 400 000/ 17 000) and a project to identify the company's strong and weak points the ERDF contribution to which of 6 500 has not been paid since the project is being cancelled. Both these projects fell under subprogramme C Productivity and technical assistance.

As with all projects aided from the Structural Funds these aids were examined in line with the Fund regulations. Since job creation was not an immediate purpose of any of the projects the job protection aspect was not specifically checked on.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Basketball

A group of professional basketball clubs belonging to the European Union of Basketball Leagues (UEBL) recently set up the European League, a league outside the structures of the Federation, after the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) repeatedly refused to negotiate with the clubs. They had called for the review of a number of aspects linked to the existing competition (which is to be called Suproleague in the coming year), such as the competition system and the distribution of television and photo rights.

When it was announced that this new European Basketball League was to be set up under the auspices of the UEBL, FIBA threatened to suspend any referees officiating at games in the competition, and has even threatened to penalise those French clubs which had expressed an interest in taking part in the new league, with the result that no French teams are represented in that league.

What is the Commission's view of these threats and coercion against teams and referees on the part of FIBA, a body which is made up of national basketball federations, including those of the 15 Member States, which have a duty to respect free enterprise and which, moreover, subsidise the federations concerned from their budgets?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

The Commission has always respected the freedom of sporting organisations to organise their sport. This is because most of the rules issued by these organisations are not based on economic grounds but concern the specific nature and objectives of the sport concerned. It is quite a different matter when a sporting organisation takes a decision on economic grounds. In this case, as the Court of Justice has pointed out on several occasions since 1974, the sporting rules come under Community law, and the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty, must ensure that these rules are complied with.

The Commission(1) has already informed the European sporting federations that even if the tradition of sport is for only one federation to manage a given sport a form of organisation that is fully compatible with the EC Treaty there is nothing to rule out other ways of organising sport. In the Helsinki report on sport, the Commission stated its attachment to the traditional organisation of sport and its values. However, the Commission would be unable to oppose changes, since it has neither the will nor the legal means to impose a single vision of sport.

The Commission has not yet received any formal complaints on this subject. As a result, it is unable at this stage to make a statement on the attitudes denounced

by the Honourable Member. If a complaint were to be submitted, the Commission would examine it, as it has already done in the past, taking account of both the competition rules and the specific nature of the sporting activity.

(1) Speech given by Mr Mario Monti on the occasion of the meeting between the European Commission and the European sporting federations in Brussels on 17 April 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0391/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Commission

(8 February 2000)

Subject: Utilisation of Structural Funds in Italy 1994/1999

Recent statements by the Italian Court of Auditors have reopened the vexed question of the proper use of the Structural Funds in Italy.

According to the information available to the Court, Italy is still seriously behind in the implementation of the 1994-1999 programme.

Are reports to that effect accurate?

Could the Commission provide, as soon as possible, the most recent data at its disposal concerning commitments and payments by region and by objective?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat the most recent data it has received from the Italian authorities showing the practical situation at 30 June 2001 for commitments and payments, by region and by Structural Funds Objective in Italy during the 1994-1999 programming period. The data were provided by the Italian Economics Ministry's monitoring system and can be consulted also at their website at the following address: www.tesoro.it.

The Commission would point out that the deadline for payments for the 1994-1999 programming period is 31 December 2001, save for extensions in exceptional circumstances. The national authorities must then present, for each programme, before 30 June 2002 a final implementation report and a request for payment of the balance. It is only then that the Commission will be in a position to establish precisely the extent to which the appropriations allocated to each programme have actually been used.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Cities benefiting from the URBAN Community initiative

55 cities already benefit from the URBAN Community initiative. According to Commissioner Barnier, this number has now risen to seventy.

Will the Commission say which additional cities now benefit from this initiative and state the criteria on which their inclusion has been based?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

In its communication of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the URBAN II Community Initiative(1), the Commission proposed that total assistance from the European Regional Development Fund would amount to 700 million for the 2000-2006 programming period and that around 55 urban areas, distributed as in Annex II, would be covered.

Under point 28 of that communication, the Commission has accepted requests from the Member States for that number to be increased. In the case of each request for an increase, account has been taken of the number of areas originally fixed, the level of financial resources originally allocated, the extent of the urban problems, the large number of applications received by the national authorities under URBAN II and compliance with the threshold of 500 per inhabitant and 20 000 inhabitants per urban area.

Following the requests sent to the Commission, the total number of urban areas was extended to 70, distributed as follows:

>TABLE>

All the proposals for URBAN II programmes are drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the communication and are submitted to the Commission by the national authorities since the choice of the urban areas is a matter for the Member States.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/01

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Structural indicators report for the Stockholm Council

In view of the diverse nature of the sources used by Eurostat for the purpose of devising the indicators which are intended as a means of implementing the Lisbon strategy and which have now been published in the report for the Stockholm Council, would the Commission say whether or not the national and regional public bodies which are accredited by the Member States for the purpose of supplying statistical data were consulted by the Commission and, in particular, by Eurostat? Does the Commission accept responsibility for the reliability and comparability of the indicators and would it indicate in greater detail both its primary sources and its methods?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

In order to be able to publish the Synthesis Report in mid-February, the Commission (Eurostat) had to compile in a short time period all the data and indicators needed. Eurostat used, to the maximum extent possible, the official harmonised European Statistical System (ESS) data already provided by the National Statistical Institutes (NSI) of the Member States.

All the figures were to be delivered by 19 January 2001. Under this tight time schedule, Eurostat also supplied the national data to those National Statistical Institutes that requested them and set a new deadline that would permit it to take into account as much as possible their remarks. Regional bodies were not contacted in this context as hardly any data is compiled at a regional level.

A final transmission of the data and indicators took place on 26 January 2001. The data was then used in the Synthesis Report, which was presented by the President of the Commission, on 7 February 2001.

The Commission (Eurostat) in co-operation with its network of National Statistical Institutes accepts the responsibility for the structural indicators and its quality. It has however to be noted that in the first exercise of compiling structural indicators, in some cases deficiencies in some quality aspects were noted (e.g. freshness, comparability, completeness).

Therefore Eurostat will establish a business plan to tackle these quality issues in the short and medium term. A structure is being put in place that enables the participation of NSIs at the different levels, both in the establishment of indicators and in the process of improving the quality of the data concerned.

An updated overview document of the methodology of structural indicators is already available on the Eurostat website(1) under structural indicators site. Eurostat however intends to extend this methodology to a greater level of detail within the work described above.

(1) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Mussel farming in the EU

Mussel farming is of vital importance in the coastal region of Galicia, where there are some 11 500 jobs directly linked to the sector, of which 8 500 are permanent, as well as 7 000 jobs indirectly related to it. This is particularly important, bearing in mind that the resources generated by mussel production are spread across a broad social base and that decisions are taken locally, with the result that funds are reinvested in the region.

This has a multiplier effect on the local economy, helping to produce socio-economic stability.

As far as aquaculture in general is concerned it is mussel farming which is the backbone of the sector, since between 250 and 300 million kilos of mussels are cultivated annually in Galicia, making it the world's second largest producer after China and the leading European producer, accounting for 50 % of total EU production, with 35 % being sold fresh, 41 % earmarked for traditional processing and 24 % for new alternative processing methods, which are increasingly popular.

Does the Commission not think that the various rules applicable in the EU should be standardised, such as those on biotoxin controls, where the methods and processes used differ from one Member State to another?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

The Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat a list of the Community legislation directly applicable in this sector.

On the second question, the Commission considers that standardisation concerning marine biotoxins is very important in view of their significance to human health. Major efforts are being made to develop standardised methods for this purpose. This is being done with the collaboration of the Community Reference Laboratory for marine biotoxins in Vigo, Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/01

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Cooperation between the European Commission and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (CPBM)

Unlike all other Communist parties in Eastern Europe, the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia not only kept its name but is said not to have changed its policies nor to have distanced itself from its past as the party of the Dictatorship. For this reason, the Czech President, the Czech Government, the democratic opposition in Prague and the diplomatic corps avoid all formal contact with the CPBM.

Is it true that the Commission has forged contacts with the CPBM and that representatives of its delegation attended the Party Conference in May 2000 and visited Party headquarters in December 2000? These meetings, which were brought to light by the press, have given rise to significant political displeasure in the Czech Republic. According to press reports, the Deputy Head of the Delegation, Counsellor Dreyer, noted that there was much common ground.

Did the events in Prague take place with the agreement of the Commissioner and the Directorate-General? If so, who instructed the Delegation in Prague? Are any Commissioners to participate in similar meetings in Future? If not, what has the Commission done to call its delegation to order? What measures does the Commission intend to take to neutralise the false impression given to the Czech public of a legitimisation of the Communist Party?

With what other extreme parties does the Commission maintain contacts?

Are the results of the audit of the Prague Delegation already available? Have any funds been misused or disappeared?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

The Commission and its Delegation in Prague maintain contacts with all parties represented in the Czech Parliament as far as these contacts are useful, in particular to ensure the widest possible consensus on issues related to accession to the European Union.

The Commission can confirm that in this context its Delegation together with a number of Embassies from Member States accepted an invitation to attend the party congress of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM) in the spring of 2000. This type of activity is part of the ongoing process of maintain contacts with the parties represented in the Czech Parliament and is not the subject of individual instructions from the Commissioner or the Directorate General.

As to the second question, internal audits carried out by the Commission are confidential. In this respect, the Commission cannot provide the requested information on the audit concerning the Delegation in Prague to the Honourable Member. However, in the framework of the 1999 Discharge procedure and following the request of the Chairman of the Committee on Budget and Control, an executive summary of the results of this internal audit report was forwarded to the Chairman as well as to the Rapporteur for the 1999 Discharge, on a confidential basis, according to the rules of the Framework Agreement (Annex III) between the Parliament and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/01

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Freedom of association in Bulgaria

On 29 February 2000, the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria declared a Macedonian-based political party, OMO llinden PIRIN, unconstitutional. That party was registered in 1999 and took part in the municipal elections in October 1999. It has always declared that it would respect the constitutional and legal system of Bulgaria and carry out its political activities peacefully. The party has lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.

On 4 February 2000, a delegation of this party was prevented by the police from laying flowers on a monument, although the police failed to produce any document in support of its action.

Does the Commission take the view that such decisions may violate the right of freedom of association and constitutes discrimination against a national minority? Has the Commission asked for any explanation from the Bulgarian authorities? Can the Commission indicate any justification received from the Bulgarian authorities?

Does the Commission consider that such a decision is compatible with respect for the democratic criteria established in Copenhagen? Has the Commission any intention of dealing with this kind of attitude in the forthcoming reports on the progress made by the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of the ruling of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court concerning OMO-Illinden PIRIN and that a complaint has been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights.

Regarding the specific incident to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission does not possess further information, and is therefore unable to comment.

In line with the Copenhagen criteria, the Commission follows closely respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It will continue to monitor this and report as appropriate in its next Regular Report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0090/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Cofinancing of anti-BSE measures

The decisions adopted by the EU Council of Ministers under the plan to eradicate BSE and fight its spread to humans are being applied by the fifteen Member States with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some of these measures, such as the transportation of carcasses and the destruction of at-risk material, are leading in a number of Spanish regions, given the repercussions of the costs on stockbreeders, to the further impoverishment of an already disadvantaged sector: farming is essentially based on the family model, while the national and regional governments appear unable to meet the costs of implementing the Union's measures.

Does the Commission intend to provide extraordinary funding with a view to the cofinancing of measures such as incineration, transportation, testing (analysis and acquisition) and construction or equipment of reference laboratories and incinerators, so as to ensure that these costs do not have direct repercussions as is already happening in some cases on the stockbreeders themselves and that the measures are properly implemented and succeed in restoring a climate of confidence among European consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

The Commission is already cofinancing a significant percentage of the cost of this crisis, for example via a specific purchase scheme introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market(1), by funding the purchase of rapid diagnostic tests for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and by applying the public intervention regime to the common organisation of the market in beef and veal.

The financial impact of this series of measures is currently estimated at almost 1 billion.

As part of an initial supplementary and amending budget for 2001, the Commission has asked the budgetary authority to release the sums placed in reserve ( 60 million) for the funding of further testing.

Current budgetary and legal circumstances do not allow the Commission to become involved in funding new measures such as incineration or the transportation of carcasses.

(1) OJ L 321, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/01

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

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Environmental impact of opencast slate mining

In the municipalities of Valdeorras (Ourense/Orense, Galicia) and A Cabreira (León), opencast slate mining is practised on a scale that has a major impact in both production and marketing terms. This mining amounts to what can only be called an ecological crime, since the waste is discharged directly on to the mountainside, with no attempt whatever at ecological recovery. In the municipality of Carballeda, the existence of the waste could lead to the disappearance of the landscape now crowned by the wood known as O Teixadal, a grove of yew-trees unique in Europe. In the locality of Casaio, the authorities are now permitting slate mining within 100 metres of people's houses, allowing the quarry owners to take over their neighbours' irrigation terrains.

Is the Commission investigating whether this mining is in contravention of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) as regards the environmental impact assessment requirement attaching to such projects?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Response given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The Commission had not been aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1), only applies to projects and not to facilities for which an authorisation has already been granted and which are therefore already in operation

On the basis solely of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not able to determine whether the instance mentioned by the Honourable Member involves a project within the meaning of Directive 85/337/EEC referred to above.

Since it is impossible to identify the Community law that might apply in this instance, the Commission cannot state any views concerning any infringement of Community environmental law.

However, the Commission does not rule out the possibility of investigating the problem raised by the Honourable Member, assuming that that Member were able to provide it with information enabling it to presume that there was an infringement of Community law.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.