ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with the Comoro Isles and the coelacanth

The European Parliament asks that in approving the above agreement, the Commission provide resources and cooperate with the Comoro Isles Government to look at ways of protecting this unique fish and its habitat.

What steps has the Commission taken in this regard since the agreement came into force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Fisheries Agreement between the Community and the Comoros is not currently being adopted. The current Protocol, covering the period 28 February 2001 to 27 February 2004, was adopted by Council Regulation (EC) No 1439/2001 of 10 July 2001 on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros on fishing off the Comoros for the period from 28 February 2001 to 27 February 2004(1).

The Protocol to the Fisheries Agreement in force stipulates that any coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) accidentally caught by a Community vessel authorised to fish in Comorian waters under the Agreement is the property of the Comoros and must be turned over immediately, without charge, to the port authorities of Moroni, Mutsamudu or Moheli, in the best state possible.

It is worth pointing out that the fishing activities of the Community's tuna seiners and longliners do not usually interfere with the coelacanth or its natural habitat.

(1) OJ L 193, 17.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1464/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Council

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Planespotters' trial in Greece

On 8 November 2002, 12 British citizens and two Dutch nationals were arrested in Greece for allegedly taking photographs inside a military base following an air show. They were kept in prison in Kalamata without charge or trial for a period of almost six weeks.

They were eventually released on bail and went to court on charges of espionage. Some of them were convicted to 3 years imprisonment and others to one-year suspended sentences.

The behaviour of the Greek military led to a number of irregularities in their trial.

The prosecution's case was based on an anonymous document from the security services and was supported in court by a middle-ranking Greek Air Force officer. He refused however to answer any pertinent cross-examination points by the defence on the grounds that he did not know or that they were matters of national security. Moreover all the oral and written evidence given by three experts was rejected in favour of this anonymous document.

Will the Council agree that the Greek security officers are overreacting by pushing forward with this case based on an anonymous document?

While, in the light of principles of democracy and the Rule of Law, the Greek Government cannot intervene in a court case, isn't it worrying for the Council that, in the light of the same principles, the government of a Member State is not able to control the actions of their own military and security officers?

Will the Council request information about this from the Member State concerned?

Doesn't the Council believe that a proper programme with a defined goal for ensuring that all EU states bring their justice systems up to the standard of the European Convention of Human Rights is necessary and needs to be commenced immediately?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that each Member State is responsible for the respect for and and safeguard of fundamental human rights, including the right of any person to a fair trial.

The Union's responsibility in this case, as set out in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, concerns situations where the Union acts in the exercise of its competence.

Launching investigations into a Member State of the kind suggested by the Honourable Member does not fall within the competence of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1248/02

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Subject: State aid

Is it true that the European Commission has decided on an extension of the current framework for state aid for R & D for another three and a half years?

Can the Commission explain why it will be continuing with the old framework, knowing that the framework is old-fashioned and that it was decided in Barcelona to stimulate the increase in spending on R & D in the Union to at least 3 % of GDP by 2010, with two thirds of this new investment having to come from the private sector?

Can the Commission promote adaptation of the old framework in such a way that it will be compatible with the new ambitions of the EU Council in Barcelona with regard to higher spending on R & D? If so, what are the changes necessary with respect to this framework?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Yes. On 24 April 2002, the Commission decided to prolong the existing State Aid framework for Research and Development(1) without any modification until the end of 2005. A communication to this effect is published in the Official Journal(2).

While it is well aware of criticism expressed against the framework, the Commission is of the view that, on the whole, the current framework has functioned satisfactorily and that in particular the aid intensities permitted by the framework have proven to be favourable for research and development. Furthermore, the framework is also suitable for supporting the objective adopted by the Barcelona European Council (15 and 16 March 2002) which is to increase investment in research and development in Europe to 3 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2010. This objective should in the first place be achieved by efforts coming from the private sector directly. State aid for research and development is only one instrument among others to achieve this objective.

The Commission therefore believes that the framework as it stands supports the achievement of the Barcelona objective, and no changes are necessary in this is respect.

(1) OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, as amended by the Commission communication amending the Community framework for state aid for research and development, OJ C 48, 13.2.1998.

(2) OJ C 111, 8.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2951/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Allocation of structural funds

Would the Commission please give details of the allocation by each local authority in Galicia (Spain) of the monies invested by the structural funds over the 1994-1999 programming period?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1492/02

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Administrative capacity of competition authority in Estonia

The Commission has indicated on a number of occasions that Estonia's administrative capacity is not totally adequate.

Does the Commission know how many civil servants are dealing with matters concerning competition at the competition authorities in Luxembourg and in Estonia?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

In the latest Regular Report on Estonia's Progress Towards Accession, published on 13 November 2001(1), the Commission stated that:

The Competition Board is a fully independent authority and has sufficient resources and expertise in place.

The Estonian Competition Board employs 42 civil servants, including 13 lawyers.

A comparison with Member States is not relevant in view of the present legal framework: Under the rules for the implementation of Article 63(1)(i), (1)(ii) and (2) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Estonia, of the other part, it is explicitly stated that cases falling under Article 63(1) and (2) of the Europe Agreement are dealt with by the Commission on the Community side and the Competition Board on the Estonian side. Inside the Community, on the other hand, Member States do not at present have a legal obligation to have national competition authorities (although most of them have found it useful to establish such an authority).

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0821/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 March 2002)

Subject: Payments by airlines for security officers on flights since 11 September

Since 11 September various airlines in the EU have employed on-board security officers in order to make flying safer for passengers. Airlines have also been required to adopt extra security measures on the ground. In some countries airlines have had to meet the extra costs themselves, which means that ultimately these have to be passed on to their customers. However, in France and Germany for example the State has been reimbursing such expenditure.

Is protecting the security of the public the task of the national authorities, and ought they therefore to pay for extra security measures on board aircraft?

If so, how will the Commission draw the attention of the Member States to their public responsibility? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Since the terrorist activities of 11 September 2001 additional security measures have been applied in the aviation sector. These, undoubtedly, have resulted in extra costs.

However, it is outside of the remit of the Commission to instruct Member States to meet the costs in full or in part through funding from the state.

Nonetheless, the Commission has looked sympathetically to requests from the aviation sector for flexibility in interpretation of Community rules governing state aids with regard to additional costs post-September 11. This was reflected in the Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council dated 10 October 2001 on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry(1).

The Honourable Member should also be aware that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) at its special high-level, ministerial conference on aviation security held on 19 and 20 February 2002 in Montreal adopted a recommendation that ICAO would elaborate on its policy and guidance material on cost recovery of security services, notably to include development of policy and guidance material on cost recovery, through charges, of security measures with regard to air navigation services.

The Commission intends to review the issue further on the basis of the outcome after the Second Reading of the legislative process for a Regulation of the Parliament and the Council on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1204/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(26 April 2002)

Subject: ACP debt relief

Would the Council clarify whether the proposal to settle all outstanding special loans to each least developed ACP country after the full implementation of HIPC means full cancellation of stock (after completion point)?

In the light of the limited cost of such a proposal, and the specific nature of these loans, does the Council agree that anything other than full cancellation of stock would in fact be considered as a lack of political will to tackle the debt problem of low income countries?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1. As concerns special loans to the least developed ACP countries, attention is drawn to the Decision No 2/2001 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers of 20 December 2001 on settling all ACP HIPC LDCs'(1)(2) special loans remaining after full application of HIPC debt alleviation mechanisms. Article 1 of this decision states that after completion point, the Community will settle all special loans to least developed ACP countries qualified within the HIPC Initiative which will remain after full implementation of existing enhanced HIPC mechanisms. According to Article 2, the necessary estimated EUR 55-60 million will be financed through resources of the 8th EDF or previous funds, or from the 9th EDF. The 8th whereas and Article 3 set out in particular that, in case the settlement of all ACP LDCs HIPCs special loans should exceed this amount, the appropriate steps should be taken to provide for appropriate funding from EDF resources. The text of this decision appears in OJ L 56, 27.2.2002, p. 19.

2. The ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement sets out in Article 66 our general approach concerning the support for debt relief. Paragraph 4 of Article 66(3) stipulates that given the seriousness of the international debt problem and its impact on economic growth, the Parties declare their readiness to continue to exchange views, within the context of international discussions, on the general problem of debt, and without prejudice to specific discussions taking place in the relevant fora.

(1) Highly Indebted Poor Countries.

(2) Less Developed Countries.

(3) OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 30.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2366/02

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Decline in newspaper circulation figures

During the five years from 1997 to 2001 circulation figures for European daily newspapers fell by 11,4 %, and the viability of many dailies is thus threatened.

1. Has the Commission examined the present state of the European daily press?

2. Does it intend to take measures to reverse this negative trend?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

It may be that between 1997 and 2001 some newspapers in Europe have suffered from a decline in sales as indicated by the Honourable Member. However, without more precise information it is not possible to say whether this decline concerns cross-border sales and, if so, whether the decline is the result of trade barriers or of worsened economics of sales. Only in case of a decline in cross-border sales resulting from trade barriers the Commission is empowered to act.

In 1997 the Commission commissioned a study on Newspaper distribution and pricing structure of cross-border printed press.

The main findings of this study show that 50 news and general interest titles account for 80 % of total cross-border press trade within Europe. However, cross-border trade of these titles seldom exceeds 4 % of a title's circulation and, overall, represents less than 1 % of total Union press circulation.

Publishers interviewed considered that the relatively low levels of cross-border circulation are the results of poor economics of cross-border sales, rather than the effect of trade barriers. In particular, there are additional transport and handling costs, which can represent an additional cost of 5-15 %. There are also higher levels of unsold copies in the case of cross-border sales, which further adds to the poor economics of cross-border sales. Although publishers are keen on cross-border circulation as a means of raising the image of the publication, both with readers and advertisers, cross-border sales are generally not very profitable for the reasons indicated above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council. Use of the euro.



Official Journal 309 E , 12/12/2002 P. 0122 - 0122



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (23 May 2002) Subject: Use of the euro Which countries outside of the twelve have been authorised to issue euro coins, and what procedure is necessary for such authorisation? Reply (3 October 2002) The Vatican City State, the Republic of San Maríno and the Principality of Monaco have been authorised to issue, under certain conditions, euro coins on the basis of monetary agreements concluded on behalf of the Community, respectively by Italy for both the Vatican City State(1) and the Republic of San Maríno(2) and France for the Principality of Monaco(3). (1) OJ C 299, 25.10.2001, p. 1. (2) OJ C 209, 27.7.2001, p. 1. (3) OJ L 142, 31.5.2002, p. 59.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Management of ESF funds by the Madrid Institute for Employment and Business Training (IMEFE) new information

In its answer to Written Question E-1094/02(1) the Commission said that following the audit by the IGAE (General Inspectorate for Economic Activities) the UAFSE (Administrative Unit for the ESF) carried out an additional check on the IMEFE (measures of its own plus external measures), the financial conclusions of which might lead to even more substantial corrections.

In the meantime, according to 28 June edition of the newspaper El Pais, a second assessment by the UAFSE, completed in May 2002, has apparently revealed a much smaller number of irregularities.

Can the Commission confirm that this report is true?

Can it explain the reason for this development?

Can the Commission guarantee that it is monitoring the procedure with all necessary care and that in due course it will forward a detailed report to Parliament in the context of the discharge for the 2001 budget?

(1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 37.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

In addition to the answer given by the Commission to written question E-1094/02 from the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to stress the following points:

- the UAFSE report that was mentioned in the article in the edition of the El País newspaper of 28 June 2002 concerns only the IMEFE's own measures (Medios Propios). Indeed, the final version of this UAFSE assessment report, which was finalised on 29 May 2002, sets out, following the allegations made by the IMEFE, a reduction in the amounts initially calculated in the provisional version of this report;

- an additional report on the activity of the IMEFE concerning the Assistencias técnicas (technical assistance) external courses will have to be submitted to the Commission.

In the light of the above, the following statements should be made:

- the two UAFSE reports referred to in the press are in fact the provisional and final versions of the same report;

- the amounts mentioned in the UAFSE report cannot be compared with those included in the IGAE report, which covered the entire activity of the IMEFE.

In conclusion, the Commission can confirm that it is monitoring this matter with all necessary care.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1482/02

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Council

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Madagascar

For the past two months Madagascar has been on the verge of civil war as it attempts to uphold the results of the elections of 16 December 2001 which, despite extensive rigging by the dictator Ratsiraka, were won by Ravalomanana.

Regrettably, until now the international community has not taken any action to firmly condemn the serious events in Madagascar. The work of defending people's rights and civilised values has in fact been carried out in the country with great courage by missionaries, and in particular by Ursuline nuns who have been present in Madagascar since 1960.

Given the above, will the Council explain what the European Union intends to do to restore democracy and prevent a worsening of the situation in Madagascar?

In view of the important and delicate work done by the Ursuline sisters and the many European missionaries in Madagascar, will the Council explain how the European Union intends to promote the efforts of the religious to uphold democracy and defend the hard-hit populations in the areas affected by the conflict?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The EU has attentively observed recent developments in Madagascar following the Presidential elections. Already on 17 April it issued its first declaration expressing concern over the deterioration of the situation in Madagascar and condemning the outbreaks of violence and human rights violations.

In the light of the impasse the situation had reached, the EU noted with satisfaction the initiative taken by the OAU and the UN with the assistance of Presidents Wade, Kerekou, Gbagbo and Chissano that led to the agreement signed by Mr Ratsiraka and Mr Ravalomanana in Dakar on 18 April. Noting that the implementation of the agreement was lagging and that violence on the island had increased, the EU again on 8 May expressed regrets that certain provincial governors had declared the independence of their provinces and it reiterated its conviction that the Dakar agreement remained the appropriate framework for achieving a solution. In its decision of 9 July 2002, the African Union firmly stressed the urgent need to organise elections and to define institutional arrangements enabling the transition to be ensured.

For its part, in its declaration of 11 July 2002, the European Union supported President Ravalomanana and stated its willingness to support preparations for the Parliamentary elections he announced and the reconciliation process. It will also contribute substantially towards Madagascar's reconstruction.

On 26 July 2002 the World Bank and the UNDP invited donors to meet in Paris with a view to promoting Madagascar's reconstruction. The European Commission took part in that meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1384/02

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Flexibility and employment

According to the conclusions of the Barcelona Summit, the Member States must revise their employment policies with a view to ensuring the necessary balance between flexibility and security and creating more jobs.

Does the Commission intend to carry out comparative studies on the implementation of part-time and/or temporary employment policies in the Member States and the contribution of flexible forms of employment to combating unemployment? Does it intend to draw up a report on the subject or to take any other initiatives?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The balance between flexibility and security has been at the heart of the European strategy since its launch in 1997. It is a major aspect of work quality, as was confirmed by the Council on 3 December 2001. The conclusions of the Barcelona European Council (15 and March 2002) also referred to its importance.

The National Action Plans for Employment submitted by the Member States enable the main political developments in this field to be monitored, and these are summarised in the Joint Employment Report. In addition, the Commission's annual report on employment in Europe contains an analysis of the characteristics of employment, including the use of flexible working arrangements.

The European social partners are involved in the debate about this crucial combination of flexibility and security in the context of their social dialogue and their contribution to the employment strategy. This question is also the subject of work being carried out by the Foundation in Dublin, and was an important element in the discussions of the high-level group of experts concerning industrial relations in the face of change.

The Commission therefore does not currently have any plans for additional work or reports concerning this matter.