ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0011/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Value of the euro against other world currencies

The Commission informs me in its answer to my question No E-0177/02(1) of 5 February 2002 that the European Central Bank (ECB) publishes reference values for 28 currencies.

Can the Commission provide a list of those currencies among the 28 which appreciated or depreciated against the euro between its introduction on 1 January 1999 and the end of 2002, indicating the percentage change in the exchange rate between the currency concerned and the euro?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Given that it is the ECB that collects and publishes this information, it may be better to consult the source directly. At the ECB web site (http://www.ecb.int/stats/eurofxref/) information can easily be found about reference rates, based on the regular daily concertation procedure between central banks within and outside the European System of Central Banks. Historical series of a subset of the reference rates are also published in the Monthly Bulletin.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia

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 Pistoia, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0600/03

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Electricity connections between the Iberian peninsula and the Balearics

One of the priority projects listed in the Council common position of 6 February 2003 on guidelines for trans-European energy networks is a project to increase electricity interconnection capacities between France, Spain and Portugal and for the Iberian peninsula and grid development in island regions.

Can the Commission confirm that electricity connections between the peninsula and the Balearic Islands are considered a priority project within the framework of the trans-European energy networks?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Within the framework of the codecision procedure currently under way, and on the basis of the Council's common position of 6 February 2003 on a series of revised guidelines on trans-European energy networks(1), endorsed by the Commission(2), electricity connections between the Balearic islands and the mainland are considered a priority project.

(1) COM(2001) 775-2 final.

(2) Communication from the Commission to Parliament on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Decision of Parliament and of the Council laying down a series of guidelines on trans-European networks in the energy sector SEC(2003) 164 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Availability of research grants in aquaculture

The UK statutory body responsible for regulating and developing the seafish industry the Seafish Industry Authority has decided to sell or close their aquaculture research plant at Ardtoe, Ardnamurchan, Scotland. The timing of the announcement seems most unfortunate given the huge reduction in wild-caught cod and haddock quotas, and the need for further research both on reducing the environmental impacts of aquaculture and diversification into species now threatened in the wild.

Could the Commission inform us on the availability of research grants in aquaculture?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

In general terms, European research, including on aquaculture, is supported by Commission through the Research Framework Programmes.

Under the Sixth Framework Programme, research in aquaculture is covered by Thematic Priority 5 Food quality and safety, the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) specific measures, and in particular Priority 8, Scientific support to policy.

Under priority 5, issues related to the quality and safety of aquaculture products, relying on fully controlled and integrated production systems, are included.

SME's specific research activities are designed to expand the knowledge base of large communities of SMEs (collective research) and to meet specific problems or needs of a more limited number of SMEs by performing transnational Research and Technological Development (R & TD) projects (cooperative research CRAFT).

The objectives of policy-oriented research under Priority 8 are defined to support the Common Fisheries Policy including issues related to the improvement of health and environmental standards of aquaculture production.

It should be noted that Community funding is granted on a project basis, and can not guarantee the long-term operation of research facilities.

All information related to the Sixth Framework Programme is available at: http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/home.cfm.

Moreover, Concerning fellowships, there are a number of possibilities of training and transfer of knowledge fellowship schemes within the Human Resource and Mobility actions (Marie Curie Actions) of the framework programme. All of these actions are bottom-up, i.e. they are open to all fields of research, whether or not within the priority areas of the framework programme. Information of Marie Curie actions is available at: http://europa.eu.int/mariecurie-actions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Visit to Galicia by the President-in-Office of the Council in order to assess at first hand the effects of the Prestige disaster

Is the President-in-Office of the Council thinking of immediately visiting Galicia and the other affected areas in order to experience at first hand the effects of the accident involving the Prestige and so as to ensure that the Council can no longer ignore the disaster?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council devoted a large part of its time to discussing the Prestige affair at its meetings on Fisheries on 28 November 2002, on Transport on 5/6 December 2002 and on Environment on 9 December 2002. The Council was on this occasion extensively briefed about the details of the accident by the Spanish(1), French and Portuguese Ministers and by the Commission, in particular Mrs Wallström who has visited the spot. The Council also availed itself of the Commission communication of 4 December 2002 on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident(2).

As a result, the Council Transport adopted, on 5-6 December 2002, conclusions on Ship's safety and pollution prevention(3). The Council Environment adopted, on 9 December 2002, conclusions on the environmental disaster caused by the accident of the Prestige(4). The Justice and Home Affairs Council of 19 December 2002 adopted a statement on the Protection of the Environment through criminal law

in the context of the Prestige(5). The Council also adopted, on 20 December 2002, a Regulation instituting specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture, affected by the oil spills from the Prestige(6). For its part, the European Council of Copenhagen of December 2002 also expressed its grave concerns(7).

The Council is at present working towards adopting, at its meeting (Environment) on 4 March 2003, conclusions that will react to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment(8). This communication was already discussed at length at the Stakeholders Conference organized by the Presidency and the Commission in Køge (Denmark), on 4-6 December 2002(9).

(1) Doc 14945/02 MAR 147 ENV 719.

(2) Doc 15301/02 MAR 153 ENV 747.

(3) Doc 15626/02 MAR 159 ENV 767.

(4) Doc 15477/02 ENV 757 MAR 157.

(5) See 15691/02 PRESSE 404.

(6) Doc 15836/02 PECHE 257 and 15837/02 PECHE 258.

(7) SN 400/02, Nos 32-34.

(8) Doc 12815/02 ENV 554 MAR 124 PECHE 149.

(9) Doc 1555/02 ENV 764 MAR 158.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1168/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Tempus III programme by the municipality of Pesaro

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 Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to help promote cooperation between university students across Europe, and to foster cultural and scientific exchange in higher education,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Tempus III programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0827/03, E-1164/03, E-1165/03,E-1166/03, E-1167/03, E-1168/03, E-1169/03 and E-1170/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

As a rule, a project funded under the Tempus programme will involve several universities both in Member States of the Union and in the partner countries.

It is very difficult to identify the amounts retained by universities in Europe which, for project reasons, were granted to universities in the partner countries.

However, to give an indication, please find below the amounts granted under Tempus III to establishments in the municipalities of Frosinone, Ancona, Florence, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa and Siena. Additional information has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

1. The University of Ancona received EUR 1 739 in 2002 for a Tempus project (grant).

2. The establishments in Florence obtained funding of EUR 832 014,98 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

3. The University of Macerata obtained funding of EUR 112 257,80 for a Tempus project in 2002.

4. The University of Perugia obtained funding of EUR 546 452,10 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

5. The University of Pisa obtained funding of EUR 285 178,80 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

6. The University of Siena obtained funding of EUR 63 050 for a Tempus project in 2002.

7. There are no Tempus III projects in Frosinone and Pesaro.

The Honourable Member might also wish to contact the above-mentioned local authorities for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0486/03

by Giuseppe Brienza (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Management of European Funds by the Basilicata Regional Council

Does the Commission know why, in the context of the 1994-1999 Regional Operational Programme (ROP), the regional government of Basilicata, an Objective 1 region:

1. used the entire funding of ITL 41 billion covering a six-year period (1994-1999) for payments requested up to September 1997;

2. used a further ITL 13 869 370 279 billion, granted by virtue of the Decree of the Minister for Labour of 5 June 2001 to make unofficial labour more transparent in the period 2000-2003, to cover payments for starting up work due for the period from October 1997 to 31 December 1997;

3. currently owes payments already granted to the beneficiaries of over ITL 113 298 590 000 in respect of employment and self-employment measures for 1998 and 1999;

4. apparently plans to use the funds which the Commission will allocate for the 2000-2006 Regional Operational Programme to cover these commitments made without financial cover?

Does the Commission intend to ascertain and clarify in what way the Basilicata Region has been managing and utilising European Union funding? Will it verify how and with what funds the Region intends to meet the financial commitments it has made in such an offhand manner, without having the necessary funds, and will avoid seeking to meet its commitments for 1997-1999 with resources granted by the European Union for an altogether different purpose?

What action will the Commission take, and when will it do so, to verify the above facts and to prevent the Basilicata Region's favouritism and unlawful management of funds over the last few years from undermining the benefits expected from aid officially granted for the 2000-2006 period?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0227/03 and E-0486/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Responsibility for the management of Structural Funds programmes is decentralised to the Member States once the Commission has approved their strategic priorities. The system for funding projects part-financed by these Funds is governed by national legislation on budgetary matters.

As regards finance for projects in 2000-2006, Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) states that expenditure, including that on projects begun earlier, is eligible from the date of submission of the programme to the Commission. The starting date for the eligibility of expenditure under the Operational Programme for the Basilicata is 5 October 1999.

This means that the fact that the Region of Basilicata could begin operations in 1998 and undertake expenditure after 5 October 1999 does not contradict Community rules on the implementation of the Structural Funds.

The Commission is continuing to monitor and inspect the use made of the Structural Funds and compliance with the rules, particularly those on the use made of contributions, and the dates when expenditure begins and ceases to be eligible.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0018/03

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Floods in northern Italy

Following the serious damage caused by severe landslides and overflowing rivers in Italy in the last few days, in particular across the provinces of Varese, Como, Lecco, Bergamo, Brescia and Lodi as a result of the exceptional rainfall in the region, and taking into account the serious financial difficulties the affected areas have to tackle in order to pay for the damage, does the Council, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the disaster, intend to ensure that emergency use is made of the Solidarity Fund (Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/02(1) of 11 November 2002) to help the affected areas cope with the consequences of the serious damage caused?

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Reply

(8 May 2003)

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, assistance from the Fund may be mainly mobilised in case a Member State is struck by a major natural disaster.

A major disaster within the meaning of the Fund means any disaster resulting in damage estimated either at over EUR 3 billion in 2002 prices, or at more than 0,6 % of the GNI of the disaster struck Member State.

However, exceptionally, even when these quantitative criteria are not met, assistance from the Fund may also be mobilised in case a specific region or specific regions within a Member State are struck by an extraordinary disaster affecting the major part of its population with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region or regions affected. Assistance under this specific provision may not exceed 7,5 % of the total annual budgetary resources of the Fund which are limited to EUR 1 billion.

It is for the Member State concerned to initiate the relevant procedure by lodging an application for assistance from the Fund to the Commission within ten weeks after the first damage caused by the disaster in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation 2012/2002.

Therefore, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address his question to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact of the Segarra-Garrigues irrigation project

What criteria have been followed to determine the exclusion zones defined for the Segarra-Garrigues irrigation project? Is the defined exclusion zone the sole habitat for the steppe fauna which is to be protected? Could the exclusion zone not be distributed in a less concentrated and more balanced way?

Is the Commission sure that these zones have been determined using exclusively scientific, and in particular ecological criteria? Is the Commission sure that these zones have not been determined on the basis of political criteria?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

It is for the Spanish authorities alone to determine the exclusion zones defined for the Segarra-Garrigues irrigation project. Nonetheless, as this project could affect the conservation of several bird species referred to in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC(1), the Commission will ensure that the provisions of that Directive and of Directive 92/43/EEC(2) are complied with in this particular case.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0502/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Iberian lynx

In view of the threat to the survival of the Iberian lynx, will the Commission take the initiative to develop a coordinated strategy to secure its survival with the Spanish national and regional Governments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Since 1999, Spain has had a National Conservation Programme for the Iberian lynx. The programme works on both national and international levels, developing projects and undertakings for the conservation of the lynx. The Iberian Lynx Work Group works both in Spain and in Portugal on priority items according to the guidelines set in the Conservation Programme.

The Commission has recently initiated a survey into the large carnivores situation in all Member States and Candidate Countries. When the survey is completed, the next step will be to develop, in co-operation with those countries, co-ordinated guidelines for large carnivores protection and management in the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa

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 Pisa, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0125/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Proposal for a Council regulation banning the export of torture equipment

On 30 December 2002 the Commission submitted the proposal for a Council regulation(1) banning torture equipment. I support this initiative, as exporting torture equipment promotes violations of human rights, whereas respect for human rights is an important element in the principles on which the EU is based.

Given that such equipment is not used in the EU, that its use is not permitted here and that the Council now advocates a ban on exports, it seems appropriate to introduce a total ban (on development, production and sales).

Will the Council revise the proposal accordingly and supply me with an overview of all manufacturers and Member States which have exported such equipment to third countries in the recent past?

(1) COM(2002) 770 final.

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Guidelines to EU policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted by the Council on 9 April 2001, state the EU will urge third countries to prevent the use, production and trade of equipment which is designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the explanatory memorandum to the proposal referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the EU itself should take the very measures that it urges third countries to take.

The discussion of the Commission proposal has not yet begun in the competent Council bodies. Therefore, the Council is not in a position to answer fully to the questions.

The Council does not possess a list of manufacturers and Member States which have exported such equipment to third countries in the recent past.