ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Unemployment statistics

Among the information that Eurostat sends by e-mail to the Members on Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs are details of the unemployment rates in the Member States. It is with astonishment, however, that the readers of these statistics note the habitual absence of figures for Greece, although Greek Ministers often announce the rate of unemployment when taking part in public events. Why has the EU's statistical service not reported any figures for the levels of employment in Greece for at least two years? Do the Greek authorities forward such figures? If so, why are they not published, as I am informed is the case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Two sources are used to calculate the seasonally-adjusted monthly unemployment figures disseminated by Eurostat:

(a) the labour force survey results (normally quarterly) transmitted by the Member States in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community(1);

(b) a monthly indicator (generally the monthly number of people enrolled in the public employment services).

In the case of Greece, the quarterly labour force survey results are currently available for the period from the first quarter of 1998 to the second quarter of 2000. Because of the number of quarters surveyed (fewer than 13), seasonal adjustments are not possible.

Enrolment in public employment services does not seem to be a suitable indicator of unemployment trends in Greece, and no other monthly indicator is available.

The unemployment rate in Greece (quarterly only) will be disseminated by Eurostat as soon as the labour force survey results are available for the last quarters of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2877/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: State aid for Ryanair at Charleroi airport

In answer to question P-1767/01(1), the Commission says that that in the light of recent press articles (author's note: concerning assistance from the Region of Wallonia for Ryanair's operations at Charleroi airport) it intends to check whether the information it obtained earlier is still valid. However, other regional airports are querying the aid from the Region of Wallonia; according to them, there is a flagrant breach of Community competition rules.

Apparently the Region of Wallonia grants the following assistance to Ryanair at Charleroi Airport:

- funding of training for cabin and check-in staff;

- a fee of BEF 5 000 per aircraft is charged for handling (sorting of baggage, accompanying passengers etc.) which does not even cover costs whereas other airlines were previously charged BEF 60 000 per aircraft;

- free handling for the third daily flight to Dublin; BSCA (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) staff are placed at the disposal of Ryanair and paid for using public funds;

- concealed subsidies through which the Region of Wallonia enables Ryanair to offer free tickets to passengers.

After checking whether the information obtained earlier is still valid (relating to state aid from the Region of Wallonia for the activities of Ryanair at Charleroi airport), does the Commission still consider that the assistance provided by the Region of Wallonia is compatible with Community competition rules? If so, on what arguments does the Commission base this view? If not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that the Region of Wallonia and Ryanair comply with Community competition rules as soon as possible?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 222.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2877/01 and E-2941/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

Acting on information published in the press at the beginning of the summer concerning possible advantages connected with the operation of air services allegedly enjoyed by Ryanair at Charleroi airport, in September 2001 the Commission requested information from the Belgian authorities in order to assess the nature of possible advantages enjoyed by Ryanair in relation to the rules of the EC Treaty on State aid. On the basis of the information that it receives, the Commission will decide what action to take in this connection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/01

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Roma activist Rudko Kawczynski

Is the Council aware of the German authorities' intention to imprison the Roma activist Rudko Kawczynski on 19 November for taking part in a human rights demonstration in 1990?

Will the Council urge the German authorities not to do so?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has no authority to interfere in the administration of justice in a Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/01

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for sea transport in the Canaries

Can the Commission say what criteria and conditions are applicable for the granting of subsidies to shipping within in the Canaries and between the islands and continental Europe? Is any distinction made between publicly and privately owned companies operating such services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2001)

The criteria and conditions governing subsidies to shipping to which the Honourable Member refers are laid down in the Community guidelines on State aid to shipping(1), which apply both to links between the Canaries and the rest of the peninsula and to links within the Canaries archipelago.

These guidelines define the conditions under which public, national and regional aid to shipping companies is considered to be compatible with the common market. The Commission does not make any distinction between publicly and privately owned companies. Any discrimination would be contrary to the principle of neutrality as regards property ownership in Article 295 (formerly Article 222) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ C 205, 5.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3038/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: History books

With reference to the choice of history books for schools, the Commission is asked to state whether an initiative exists to harmonise the content of history books for schools within the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission knows of no such initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Activities of OLAF

As the OLAF Supervisory Committee explicitly recognises(1), the institutions have long been concerned about the need to strengthen the means of combating fraud affecting the Community budget. For many years it seems there were no reliable estimates of the sums wrongfully taken from the Community (and the European taxpayer). It was roughly calculated as amounting to 10 % of the budget, while at the same time the Community institutions had virtually no powers in this area. The Supervisory Committee goes on to say that only in the early 1990s, a number of high-profile cases of fraud led to a strengthening of the powers of UCLAF, the office responsible for coordinating the exercise of the various powers conferred on the Commission in the area of administrative controls. Although this was a worthy intention it did not come to anything, since Parliament and the Council came across instances of irregularities and fraud in the course of the discharge procedure for 1996. This led to the decision to set up OLAF, which came into operation in 1999.

In view of the above, can the Commission state the exact amounts, for each Member State, recovered by the EU budget as a result of OLAF's work over the last few years?

(1) OJ C 360, 14.12.2000, p. 14.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2001)

In accordance with Action 96 of the White Paper on administrative reform, the Commission has established guidelines for the recovery of debts in the field of expenditure managed directly by the Commission(1). These guidelines seek to step up the responsibility of the Commission's authorising departments and to increase cooperation between them and the Commission Accounting Officer, the Legal Service and also the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in view of its special investigative role and resulting capacity to instigate legal proceedings.

The Commission would point out that responsibility for recovery related to indirect spending and own resources, including in relation to OLAF investigations, lies primarily with the Member States.

The time periods which may be needed to complete recovery (particularly in cases where the recovery procedure is suspended due to criminal proceedings) must also be taken into account.

Increasing the responsibility of the relevant departments and setting up OLAF should help to clarify the overall situation and thus improve recovery rates.

(1) SEC(2000) 2204/3. Communication on action 96 of the White Paper: More effective management of recovery of unduly paid funds..
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/01

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Objective 3 development programme

The EU Objective 3 development programme in Sweden includes support which may be applied for by various undertakings, organisations and public institutions to help them develop their activities. When EU Objective 3 funds have been approved, receipts entered in the accounts have to be presented before any funds may be paid out. However, small undertakings may find it impossible to hand over large sums of money before they receive the support. The latter can be a crucial factor for small companies' development and livelihood.

The figures show that in Sweden between 80 and 90 % of this support is applied for by large companies. The failure of small and medium-sized undertakings to apply is a clear result of the rule described above.

Enquiries into the procedures for paying support from the EU growth programme in other Member States have revealed that only in Sweden do receipts have to be presented before the support can be paid. In the other Member States an advance of one third of the support is granted to facilitate the start up of the activities in question. The reason for this might be that other Member States have other interpretations of how the EU contributions are to be paid.

Do the rules governing Objective 3 make such demands, or is this an interpretation on the part of the Swedish authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The issue of paying advances to facilitate the start up of activities, financed under the Swedish Objective 3 programme, is a national matter. These national advances are allowed under Community regulations, although they cannot be submitted for reimbursement given that they do not correspond to expenditure actually incurred and paid out.

National advances were not allowed in Sweden in the previous programming period, although they were, in practice, in most other Member States. Instead promoters in Sweden could submit monthly claims. During the present programming period, the Swedish Government is allowing, under certain conditions, an advance payment of 10 % of the funds granted (maximum SEK 10 000) for small local projects by non-governmental organisations or by social economy in order to facilitate their start-up of projects. The Swedish European Social Fund (ESF) Council has proposed to the Swedish government to extend the advance payments to small small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with staff under ten persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: The Commission's efforts to investigate the PerryLux case

In paragraph 14 of its resolution of 4 April 2001 on the implementation of the 1998 general budget (A5-0112/2001) Parliament called on the Commission:

- to clarify why, in the proceedings before the Belgian courts in the PerryLux affair, the Commission has not yet appeared as joint plaintiff and thus has no access to the files; and

- to appear without delay as joint plaintiff in Belgium, as it has already been doing for some time in the corresponding proceedings before the Luxembourg courts.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Who took the decision not to appear as a joint plaintiff from the outset in Belgium, as was done in Luxembourg?

2. What justification was given for this decision?

3. When was Parliament's call to appear as joint plaintiff finally complied with?

4. When the Commission applied to the Belgian court for access to the files, and whether this request has been met?

5. Whether the files have already been consulted, and if so, whether any evidence of misconduct by officials or former Members of the Commission was found?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

At this point, the Commission has not joined a civil action in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, the Commission would point out the dossiers pending before both the Luxembourg and Belgian courts are being closely monitored by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), which is in contact with the national judicial bodies. Since the cases are still under examination, strict confidentiality is being maintained.

When the appropriate time comes, OLAF will provide the Commission with the necessary material to join a civil action. Meanwhile, the Commission does not wish to interfere with the independence of OLAF in carrying our its operational tasks.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3511/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Seed bank for the world's crop species

For several years negotiations have been under way on a charter for a new system which would seek to preserve the stocks of crop seed gathered so far and the complex genetic heritage they represent for the common use of humanity (Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). The Commission is responsible for the whole of the EU's agricultural policy, which includes the proper use and development of crop varieties. Is the Commission a party to the negotiations on the preservation of existing seed banks for free common use, and what stage are these negotiations currently at, with regard inter alia to the issue of whether these genetic resources are for sale to private undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

The Community, represented by the Commission, has been a party to the negotiation of a revised International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These negotiations were finalised with a new International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, approved by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Conference on 3 November 2001. The agreement is open for signature until 4 November 2002. The Community and its Member States are initiating procedures for signature and subsequent accession.

Facilitated access to such genetic resources of the Contracting Parties and in the public domain will be provided through a multilateral system, currently covering 35 of the world's most important food crops and 29 forages. The Contracting Parties also agreed to encourage natural and legal persons within their jurisdiction who hold such resources to include them in the multilateral system. This system shall further include ex situ collections of the International Agricultural Research Centers of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and other relevant international institutions.

Access will be provided free of charge, or, when a fee is charged, it shall not exceed the minimal cost involved. Contracting Parties and legal and natural persons under their jurisdiction can be recipients, including private undertakings. However, access will only be provided for research, breeding and training for food and agriculture, and recipients can not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit the facilitated access. Benefits arising from the use of resources accessed under the multilateral system shall be shared through exchange of information, access to and transfer of technology, and capacity building. Moreover, each recipient who commercialises a product that is a plant genetic resource for food and agriculture and that incorporates material accessed from the multilateral system, shall pay an equitable share of the benefits arising to a financial mechanism, except where such a product is available without restriction to others for further research and breeding; in that latter case he shall be encouraged to make such a payment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3040/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Total of repayments required of Greece under the EAGGF

What is the total amount of the corrections (repayments) required of Greece for each of the last four years under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section, and for what reasons?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

A table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat setting out details of the corrections applied to Greece in the years 1997 to 2000 in the framework of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). Definitive figures for the financial year 2001 are not presently available.

The corrections fall into two categories:

- Definitive corrections, such as those relating to the financial consequences of the clearance of accounts decisions which arise as a result of weaknesses in the Member States control systems leading to a financial risk to the Fund.

- Corrections under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2040/2000 of 26 September 2000 on budgetary discipline(1), which are provisional in nature and subject to confirmation in the framework of the Decisions on the clearance of accounts referred to under point 1 above.

Such corrections include three significant areas:

- Reductions for failure to apply the integrated management and control system within the statutory deadlines.

- Reductions for failure to collect the total supplementary milk levy due within the statutory deadlines. Amounts collected by the Member State after the deadline and declared to the EAGGF are refunded.

- Reductions for non respect of deadlines set down in the Regulations for payments to beneficiaries.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2361/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: Increase in Italian payment card charges and the euro

In the run-up to entry into force of the single currency, various professional organisations in the business world in Italy are accusing banks of anti-competitive behaviour and protesting at the indifference of the Italian central bank regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of the higher charges, 0,53 % as opposed to the previous 0,2 %, levied on purchases made with a payment card (Bancomat) or credit card. It has been calculated that the additional cost to firms resulting from this increase will amount to some Lit 600 billion a year, a figure which could easily rise, given that once the euro has been introduced, payment cards will be used more widely because it will be more convenient to do so.

The Commission:

1. Can it say whether payment card charges have also increased in the other Member States?

2. Can it supply a comparative table of charges on payment card purchases in the euro area countries?

3. Is there a difference between the situation in the euro area countries and the situation in countries outside the area?

4. Is it not the case that, by increasing the charges at the same time and by the same rate, the banks are acting in the manner of a cartel and hence in an anti-competitive fashion?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

It should be noted that the fact of charging traders a commission on payment card purchases does not in itself constitute a restriction of competition.

The charges levied on traders are negotiated with the payment-card operators (banks or credit card companies) with reference to the existing business climate. The Commission does not have access to such data or any related information.

The situation referred to by the Honourable Member is currently being examined from a competition law perspective by the body responsible for competition in the banking sector, namely the Bank of Italy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: New unleaded petrol and consumer protection in Italy

Next year, leaded petrol will be officially withdrawn from the market. This will mean that any consumer whose car does not have a catalytic converter will be unable to use the vehicle without a special additive. This additive, when combined with super petrol, makes it possible to use such cars without prejudice to the engine and in compliance with Community environmental legislation. In certain countries distributors will supply the additive directly with the fuel. In Spain, for example, New Super 97 petrol containing the additive will be marketed from next year. In Italy, however, no such initiative has been taken by any oil company based in the country. The cost of the additive will in fact be charged entirely to the consumer, as would the vehicle's adjustment for the purposes of making it compatible with the new standards.

1. Is the Commission aware of the different attitudes of oil companies in the various EU Member States to the withdrawal of leaded petrol?

2. Does it not consider that such companies should take initiatives similar to those taken in Spain, thereby ensuring that compliance with European environmental standards is accompanied by effective consumer protection?

3. Does it not consider that legislation is needed to harmonise the relevant rules in all the EU Member States?

4. Does it not consider that action is needed in such an important area to avoid creating disparities in the way in which consumers are treated within the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Directive 98/70/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998, relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels(1) requires Member States to prohibit the marketing of leaded petrol from 1 January 2000. In the case of Italy the Commission, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 3 of the directive, granted a derogation to permit Italy to continue the marketing of leaded petrol until 31 December 2001.

Directive 98/70/EC does not specify the precise steps which Member States should undertake to phase out leaded petrol and in particular does not specify which additives should be used to replace lead in lead replacement petrol or in what manner such additives should be distributed.

The Commission does not see a need at this point for Community legislation to specify how additives used to replace lead should be distributed in lead replacement petrol as the sale of such petrol will only be necessary for a transition phase until the demand for this product diminishes over time in accordance with the declining number of vehicles requiring this petrol.

(1) OJ L 350, 28.12.1998.