ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3188/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: European aid for development of industrial sites

In paragraphs 17 and 18 of Parliament's resolution of 16 January 2001 on Court of Auditors' special report No 7/99 concerning the development of industrial sites, the Commission was asked to encourage regional coordination between the various actors to avoid competition being created between promoters, to promote the simplification of national and local purchasing procedures and to investigate to what extent, and how soon, the Commission can phase out its activities relating to industrial sites, observing the subsidiarity principle.

Has the Commission already taken action on these three requests?

If so, how and to what extent?

If not, when and how does the Commission plan to act?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission has already expressed its view before the Parliament that it does not consider measures to avoid competition between potential promoters of industrial sites to be appropriate per se. Competition is an essential element of the single market and plays an important role as a motor in regional and local business development.

As far as financial support for actions in this field are concerned, the frame of reference is that of Regulation (EC) 1783/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the ERDF(1). This foresees the granting of support for the provision of infrastructure on a scale appropriate to local and employment development (Article 2(1)(c)) in the context of the economic development programmes supported by the Structural Funds during the period 2000-2006.

In accordance with the decentralised management of these programmes, the selection of individual projects such as those concerning the development of industrial sites, is a matter for the designated authorities in the Member States.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, the data for Objective 1 suggest that around 1 % of total Structural Funds expenditure is earmarked for actions relating to business parks and business incubators, while a further 2,7 % is earmarked for the refurbishing and rehabilitation of industrial and military sites

and for urban areas. For Objective 2, the figures are somewhat higher, namely 6,8 % for business parks and incubators and 7 % for refurbishing and rehabilitation of industrial and military sites and for urban areas. The figures are illustrative only since they cover activities other than the development of industrial sites.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/343

(2004/C 78 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/01

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2001)

Subject: Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal

In his recent speech to the European Parliament, President Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia declared his commitment to democracy and the rule of law as the way in which his country should develop. What view are we to take of his statement that the Djindjic Government's extradition of former President Milosevic in defiance of the ruling by the Constitutional Court was a violation of his country's laws?

Did the European Union or its Member States promise the Djindjic Government advantages in return for surrendering Milosevic to the tribunal in The Hague?

What are the Commission's views on the danger of a further disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission, and the Union, warmly welcomed the decision by Belgrade to comply with its international obligations in handing over another indictee (ex-President Milosevic) to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the Hague.

Cooperation with ICTY is an international obligation on all United Nations (UN) Member States and on the signatories of the Dayton Agreement. As such, neither the Union, its Member States, nor the Commission made any promise to any state in relation to their compliance with such international obligations. Cooperation with ICTY, like respect for other international obligations (Dayton, UNSCR 1244, obligations of membership of international organisations) is, furthermore, one of many conditions set out in the Union Stabilisation and Association process and as such has an effect on the development of political relations and the delivery of Community or Member States' assistance. The Commission and the World Bank had already decided to organise a Donors' Conference for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), held in Brussels on 29 June 2001. Participants welcomed the fact that the Belgrade authorities had decided to comply with their international obligations by transferring Mr Milocevic to the Hague.

Regarding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Union policy was clearly stated in the Conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 22 January 2001, where the Union urged Belgrade and Podgorica to agree on an open and democratic process, within an overall Federal framework, to decide on a new constitutional arrangement for relations between the components of the Federation, acceptable to all the parties, and reaffirmed that this must be consistent with the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of SouthEastern Europe. The Union will continue to develop its relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0388/02

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: New system of controls and sanctions concerning food safety

On 12 January 2002, in his speech during the Green Week in Berlin, Commissioner Byrne outlined a new approach to official controls on food in the EU, which was to be presented in writing within a few months. This reform would include the possibility of imposing effective and proportionate sanctions at both national and EU level. The Commission was also considering, in addition to administrative remedies, the possibility of criminal sanctions and withholding certain EU payments.

Can the Commission confirm at this stage that these reformed and strengthened controls will range across the entire food chain from farm to table in Europe, and will therefore also cover stock farming? Can the Commission also say more about the implications of this reform for the authorities currently responsible for controls at Community level and in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The proposal to which the Honourable Member refers is the follow-up to the Commission's announcement in the White Paper on Food Safety(1) that it would submit to the Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a Regulation on official feed and food controls (Action 4 in the Annex to the White Paper).

The aim of this proposal is to lay down the general principles for the performance of official controls with a view to verifying compliance with all feed and food law. This implies that the proposal covers the entire range of activities covered by feed and food law from farm to table, including stock farming.

The approach of the proposal would be holistic. The effect thereof would be that feed and food controls must not be approached sector by sector, but as an entity where all controls are integrated into a global system. This will require fluent communication between and coordination of the control services in the Member States, highly qualified staff performing official controls and the availability of documented control procedures.

In addition, the Commission is considering including enforcement measures that should be taken in cases of non-compliance with feed and food law. Such measures could be envisaged at both national and Community level. Discussion on this matter is ongoing.

The preparation of this proposal is well advanced and it is the intention to submit it formally after all the consultations within and outside the Commission have been finalised.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0204/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Subject: Electro-shock equipment

An Amnesty International report published last year showed that chemical and electro-shock technology is being used for torture in 76 countries. There is no monitoring and evaluation of such equipment. Its safety has been questioned by human rights organisations, medical experts and prison officials. It has emerged that some manufacturers of such products have been granted the CE certification and use this as a selling point.

Could the Commission establish the name and number of companies manufacturing the products which have been granted the CE certification in the past five years and indicate the process by which the CE mark is granted to such products?

Can the Commission also confirm that the safety of the victim as well as of the user of the product is guaranteed? Does it not believe that additional regulations with stringent export controls and an evaluation and monitoring system should be put in place as part of the CE certification process in order to oversee manufacturers' exports policy and prevent such gross abuses of human rights?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2783/01 by Mr Ford(1)

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p.209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0224/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Barbados

In relation to Barbados can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0056/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Complaints against solicitors and legal professionals

Are there any European guidelines regarding how to handle complaints against solicitors and other legal professionals?

In the case of misconduct such as solicitors acting in a conflict of interest situation, has the European Union expressed any view on third party complaints?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

There are no specific guidelines regarding the treatment of these kinds of complaints.

At all events, professional conduct of lawyers is a matter falling outside the present scope of Community law. Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services(1) and Directive 98/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained(2), refer to national legislation in this field.

Community law provides no basis on which the Commission could take a position on third party complaints.

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1977.

(2) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Damage to agriculture due to snowfall and frost in regions of Greece

Last week Greece experienced an unprecedented spell of harsh weather bringing heavy snowfall and frost which destroyed a large proportion of agricultural production (citrus fruits, olives and fruit and vegetables) in the regions of Crete, Attica, Viotía and Evia.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to take measures through the EAGGF to support the farmers affected by this bad weather?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

The Commission has not yet received official information from Greece concerning the impact on agriculture of the adverse weather conditions that affected in particular Crete, Attica, Boeotie and Euboie the first week of January 2002.

Depending on the importance of these damages, Community solidarity and funding may be proved to be indispensable to overcome as soon as possible the problems rural areas confronting with and to rebuild production potential. This applies as well for the production of citrus, olive oil, fruits and vegetables that may have been more vulnerable to these weather conditions.

It is not up to the Commission to take measures for the compensation of the affected rural areas and population but up to Greece to submitted relevant requests within the context of the current programmes and mechanisms of the 3rd Community Support Framework (2000-2008) for Greece.

European Agriculture Guidance and Garantee Fund (EAGGF) contribution should be designated within the total financial allocation attributed for structural funds intervention to Greece within the programming period 2000-2006 by redefining of the programme's priorities approved by the Commission. The current National Operational Programme Rural Development (2000-2006) for Greece with a total financial allocation of 1 233,42 million also covers the issue of natural disasters and emergencies with a credit of 14 million. Should this amount not be sufficient, the Greek authorities are entitled to submit a request for a redefinition of the programming priorities and of the corresponding financial allocations.

In addition, the Greek authorities may consider the possibility to use the programming reserve of the 3rd Community Support Framework (2000-2003) for Greece.

It should be emphasised that EAGGF intervention will be limited to the reconstitution of production potential and not to the income losses which are not eligible. If aid will be necessary to compensate income losses, national aid scheme should be notified to the Commission for approval.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Intra-Community repatriation of the bodies of dead EU citizens

The fact that a growing number of European citizens are established in a Member State other than their country of origin has led to an increase in the number of corpses needing to be repatriated from one Member State to another. However, repatriation raises all sorts of problems, in particular financial difficulties for the families, faced with bureaucratic obstacles, which vary from one country to another. The rules on cross-border carriage of human remains are based on the 1937 Berlin agreements and the 1973 Strasbourg convention. However, these agreements are based on the assumption that border checks are carried out and are therefore becoming more difficult to apply as borders are abolished.

In the light of the above, the Commission is requested to provide the following information:

1. Does the Treaty authorise the free transfer within the Community of the corpses of people who have died on EU territory?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the rules on such transfers are not more complex or more restrictive than those in force in a Member State?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0073/02, E-0087/02,E-0210/02, E-0344/02, E-0346/02, P-0407/02 and E-0679/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, No 4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event it should be recalled that Member States which regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice, apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not envisage any specific initiative for the moment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0037/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 January 2002)

Subject: Regulation governing ski instructors in Italy

The long-awaited regulation which, under the agreements reached between the Commission, a number of alpine countries and national ski instructors' associations, is to govern tests for the recognition of the qualifications of ski instructors wishing to establish themselves in Italy, and to lay down rules governing the free provision of such services, is still under preparation at the Italian Ministry for Community Affairs. Can the Commission provide information on the delays that have occurred in Italy in this area?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

The agreement to which the Honourable Member refers was concluded, under the aegis of the Commission, between ten professional ski instructors' associations on 28 March 2000. The Commission and the alpine countries are not signatories to this agreement. Consequently, Italy is in no way required to incorporate the provisions of that agreement into its national legislation. Italy is only required to observe the provisions of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC(1). However, it is our understanding that the Italian authorities have accepted the above-mentioned agreement on an informal basis. Moreover, to date, we have not received any complaint from ski instructors from other Member States who have encountered difficulties in exercising their profession in Italy.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Collective rights management and intellectual property

Broadcasting by the media of the works of composers and authors without payment of royalties has, understandably, caused annoyance and raised a number of issues. The European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers (GESAC) has drawn up a code of conduct which it has submitted to the Commission.

Can the Commission provide me with a copy of this code? What is its view of the code? Does the Commission have details of the tariffs requested by the societies responsible for the collective management of composers' and authors' rights for radio and television broadcasting of their works in each Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Honourable Member's question concerns collective management bodies and certain aspects of the collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe. The Commission would like to offer the following information in response.

The broadcasting of copyright works is subject to the exclusive right of authors to communicate their works to the public, as harmonised by Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society(1), which must be transposed by 22 December 2002.

The right of communication to the public is generally administered by collecting societies, which have also set up a network of agreements in order to distribute collected rights on their respective territories on behalf of foreign rightholders.

The level of tariffs requested may differ according to the collecting societies based in the different Member States. In addition, neither the activities of collecting societies, nor collective management as such, are harmonised at Community level. Nor have any specific studies been conducted into the price levels of licences granted by collecting societies.

Finally, the Honourable Member's question mentions a code of conduct which the GESAC is supposed to have drawn up. The Commission knows of discussions which were held a number of years ago within the GESAC on such a code. However, according to the information at its disposal, these discussions did not lead to anything and the GESAC has not submitted a code of conduct to the European Commission.

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/02

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Discrimination in fees for Union residents

According to the website www.maratonasant-antonio.com, the organisers of the Padua Marathon, to be held on 28 April 2002, are charging people resident abroad, including those residing in the Union, a higher enrolment fee than those resident in Italy.

Can the Commission say whether this differentiation is fair?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission was unable to verify whether the organisers of the Padua marathon, which is to be held on 28 April 2002, are in fact applying higher registration fees for non-residents than for those resident in Italy. No information on this matter could be accessed on the website indicated by the Honourable Member.

However, if this information were to be confirmed, the Commission would strongly urge the organisers of the marathon not to discriminate between participants, as this could be contrary to the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. This principle, which is enshrined in Article 12 of the EC Treaty, prohibits not only any discrimination on grounds of nationality but also the application of any other criterion which, as in the case in point, directly or indirectly produces the same result.

Moreover, if it were to emerge that the authorities were involved in organising the marathon in that way, the Commission, after examining the relevant circumstances of the case in point, could initiate an infringement procedure against Italy under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.