ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/22

(2004/C 78 E/0023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

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 Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds for measures to enhance the spirit of partnership and cooperation created between the Commission and the Member States, for monitoring and anti-fraud measures and in order to improve the tools used by customs authorities in their work, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/318

(2004/C 78 E/0320)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3767/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Livorno municipality

In response to my previous question E-1065/03 (1) asking whether the Livorno municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Livorno had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/740

(2004/C 84 E/0835)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Global Drug Facility

Is the Commission aware that the Global Drug Facility which has provided 1,9 million patients in 46 countries with free anti-TB drugs in only 26 months, now faces a financial shortfall of USD 27,7 million? What are the present and planned levels of EU support for the GDF? What assurances can the Commission give that the EU is providing sufficient resources to deal with the GDF's present financial shortfall?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the role of the Global Tuberculosis (TB) Drug Facility and its constraints.

As regards tuberculosis in developing countries, the Commission developed in 2000 a broad and strategic approach towards confronting human immuno deificiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis. The consultations around the High Level Round Table held in September 2000 led to the Programme for Action: Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a coherent Community response for 2001-2006 (1). The Communication's groundbreaking strategy builds on the experience of a comprehensive approach, the principle of country-led development process — ownership — and the interrelationship of health and poverty and its implications for macroeconomic policy and development. It incorporates the crucial global elements of partnerships in development, trade and research. Within this policy framework, the Commission uses a number of instruments in the fight against tuberculosis in developing countries: national and regional indicative programmes through programme, sector or budget support; emergency interventions by the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO); research programmes by the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD); the thematic budget line to fight poverty-related diseases and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) co-financing budget lines. Altogether, the various development, humanitarian and research EC programmed support to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1 200 million (annual average of EUR 300 million) for the period 2003-2006. This represents a four-fold increase from the annual average of EUR 73 million in the previous 1994-2001 period.

Regarding the request for the Community to increase the support to the Global Drug Facility (GDF), the Commission has to consider many competing demands. The Commission is at present discussing the content of the Strategic Partnership with the World Health Organisation, which includes the priority area of communicable diseases where issues related to the GDF could be considered.

(1) COM(2001) 96 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/814

(2004/C 78 E/0864)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3452/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Exclusion of environmental NGOs from environmental education

Under the terms of a decision (47587/G7/15.05.03) by the Greek Ministry of Education, NGOs are not authorised to engage in any teaching or coordination activities and are thereby excluded from environmental education, an area in which many of them have for many years been making an effective contribution in Greece, as is the case in other Member States of the Union. The NGOs affected are the Arktouros Organisation, the Greek Association for the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage, the Wild Life Protection Association, the Leftist Ecological Library, Medasset, SOS Mediterranean, the Association for the Study and Protection of the Mediterranean Seal, the Ecological Recycling Association and WWF-Greece. Many of the educational programmes and initiatives launched by these organisations are funded by the Community. Under the above ministerial decision these associations are now directly answerable to the Ministry of Education, which is not the case in other Member States of the Union. Does the Commission consider that the above decision complies with the letter and spirit of the environment and environmental education programmes funded by it and in which NGOs are fully entitled to participate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Environmental education is very important and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) often play a significant part in this field. In the ‘Community action programme promoting nongovernmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection’ one of the priority areas eligible for funding is environmental education.

It does not, however, fall within the competence of the Commission to comment on the policies and practices of individual Member States in this field.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/322

(2004/C 78 E/0331)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3798/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona

In its answer to question E-0978/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/97

(2004/C 84 E/0128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Florence under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1094/03 (1) asking whether the city of Florence had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/814

(2004/C 78 E/0863)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3444/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Teaching Portuguese language and culture in the Netherlands

Various Portuguese immigrants to the Netherlands have informed me that the Dutch Government wishes to abolish the subsidy for teaching Portuguese language and culture from 1 August 2004, thus jeopardising the teaching of the children of Portuguese residents of that country.

Portuguese is an official language of the European Union, and has one of the largest numbers of speakers in the world. What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to take due account of this situation, and guarantee that Portuguese citizens and their children are not discriminated against, and can continue to have free access to the teaching of Portuguese language and culture in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Article 149 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Member States are responsible ‘for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’. The Commission is therefore unable to take any action regarding the situation referred to by the Honourable Member.

However, by virtue of the powers conferred on it, the Commission is committed to promoting linguistic diversity and language learning. In July 2003, it adopted an action plan setting out the measures to be put in place at Community level in the period from 2004 to 2006 (1).

(1) COM(2003)449 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/238

(2004/C 84 E/0281)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3415/03

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR) to the Council

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Statements made by the Presidency at the EU-Russia Summit of 7 November 2003

The Joint Statement of 31 May 2003 issued at the EU-Russia Summit in St Petersburg expressed the hope that ‘the recently started political process as well as the economic and social reconstruction will lead to the restoration of the rule of law, thus promoting the protection of human rights, and to a genuine reconciliation in Chechnya’.

The Declaration of 8 October 2003 made by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the presidential elections in Chechnya stated that ‘the EU had already noted negative developments as, inter alia, the lack of real pluralism of candidatures to the presidency and the absence of independent media’ and that ‘considering these developments, the EU expresses serious concerns regarding the conditions in which these elections were held.’

In the same Declaration the Presidency said ‘the EU once again would like to express its hope that commitments will be followed by their implementation and that an immediate, significant improvement of the human rights situation in Chechnya will bridge the divide between the authorities and the population. The EU urges the Russian authorities to do their utmost to advance a genuine political process and to intensify its cooperation with international organisations, and in particular with OSCE, as agreed in the EU-Russia Joint Statement at St. Petersburg.’

Can the Council say what new facts the Presidency has in its possession that allowed Mr Berlusconi to claim that the problems linked to Chechnya can be considered as ‘tales’ put about by the international press?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/223

(2004/C 84 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 October 2003)

Subject: EU preparedness in the event of biological attack

The Commission adopted a Communication on Cooperation in the European Union on Preparedness and Response to Biological and Chemical Agent Attacks on 2 June 2003 (1).

In its Communication, the Commission recommends stockpiling at EU level, but Member States have shown preference for the development of national stockpiles only. The Communication states ‘the sizes of the national stockpiles in relation to the national population range from enough to provide a dose for every citizen in the Member State to enough for one citizen in thirty’ (page 15).

Can the Council explain the reasons for not taking into account the Commission recommendation for a coordinated Community-level stockpile of smallpox vaccines?

Based on the Council approach, how does the Council intend to guarantee an equal supply and distribution of vaccines for all EU citizens, including those in the accession countries, in the event of a bioterrorism attack?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

Article 152(5) of the Treaty states that Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

As mentioned in the Commission's Communication which the Council received on 5 June 2003, the Member States have through the Pharmaceutical Committee network and through the Health Security Committee considered the need for the establishment of a Community stockpile of, inter alia, smallpox vaccines with the Commission services-pharmaceutical industry task force. As mentioned in the same Commission Communication, consultations on options for a Community stockpile or virtual reserve or a strategic sharing of national stockpiles showed that most Member States would not support either the establishment of a Community level stockpile of smallpox vaccines or formal arrangements for sharing national stockpiles. Indeed for different reasons different Member States have until now considered that a Community level stockpile would not provide added value over the existing and planned national stockpiles.

Given that this consultation process concerns an area of strictly Member State competence and given that it took place under the auspices of the Commission and not the Council, the Honourable Member may wish to take this matter up with the Commission and/or the individual Member States.

(1) COM(2003)320.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/382

(2004/C 78 E/0404)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Baku-Ceyhun oil pipeline

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline is a proposed pipeline that would span 1 760 kilometres from the Azerbaijan capital of Baku to the Mediterranean city of Ceyhan, Turkey. A gas pipeline also is planned to follow the same route. British Petroleum (BP) is the lead sponsor; there are nine other participants in the consortium. The BTC consortium is seeking the political and financial support of their countries' export credit agencies, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group.

A HGA Agreement has been signed by the consortium with the Turkish government which is extremely far-reaching, effectively prohibiting the Turkish government from introducing any laws which might undermine the economic success of the project (e.g. laws to protect the environment or for social goals).

The Agreement also paves the way for the consortium building the pipeline to demand unlimited protection from Turkish security forces, without safeguards against human rights abuses. Under the vague wording of the agreement, paramilitary units could be placed along the pipeline route to pre-empt ‘civil disturbance’ or ‘terrorist’ activities. The record of the Turkish military on human rights — particularly in the Kurdish areas — gives serious cause for concern.

How does the Commission view these security commitments being demanded from the Turkish government, especially given this is an area of Turkey where human rights abuses on the part of the Turkish authorities have been common?

Does the Commission believe that this agreement is likely to call into question the accession conditions laid down in the Copenhagen criteria for democracy, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities?

Does the Commission believe, furthermore, that this excessive interference by corporate bodies in the freedom of action of a sovereign state may result in actions contrary to EU standards on protection of the environment?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the proposed construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and of the related Host Government Agreement, signed by the consortium with the Turkish Government. The Commission has received various reports about potentially far reaching effects, and its implications for the environment and for the public.

Any negative development arising from the implementation agreement referred to by the Honourable Member will have to be seen in the light of the Copenhagen criteria for accession, including the political criteria concerning human rights and the protection of minorities.

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of this project in respect of accession conditions laid down in the Copenhagen criteria.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/606

(2004/C 88 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

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

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 Siena, 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 Siena has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Siena has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/544

(2004/C 78 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Did Commissioner Solbes offer to resign at any time following the Eurostat scandal? If so, why did the Commission consider his resignation inappropriate or inopportune?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/56

(2004/C 88 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2004/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject: World Medicines Bank for poor countries

An increasingly broad body of opinion is in favour of setting up a World Medicines Bank for developing countries whose poverty deprives them of even the most basic medicinal products that are taken for granted in any civilised society.

Those in favour of the setting up of such a bank consider that the current attitude of the rich countries — which, totally absorbed by their quest for growth and wealth, are blind to the urgent need to help a large section of the world's population that is suffering from a shortage of medicinal products and is obliged to live with pain on a daily basis as a result — reflects a dismaying lack of solidarity.

What view does the Commission take of the calls by a large section of the world population for the setting up of a World Medicines Bank, and would it be prepared to take the lead in this matter, at least vis-à-vis the current and new EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The Commission has been and is at the forefront of increasing access to affordable pharmaceutical products, especially in the fight against human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis (TB). In 2001 the Commission adopted a Programme for Action (PfA) entitled Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB in the context of poverty reduction. This action plan aims at increasing the impact of existing interventions, increasing the affordability of key pharmaceuticals, and encouraging research in and development of specific global public goods to tackle HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB at the national, regional and global level. This Programme has received more than EUR 1 billion.

Two years after its adoption the PfA remains a comprehensive, forward looking and coherent Union policy framework aimed at making a significant contribution towards improved country, regional and global action against the three communicable diseases. The Commission will continue to work on a long term approach within the framework of the Doha Declaration on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and Public Health. The Commission will continue to promote tiered pricing, technology transfer and local production, to facilitate sustained access to affordable medicines. This approach is complemented by investment in the development of better preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic products through increased funding through the 6th Research Framework Programme. Furthermore, the Union has strongly supported the creation of the Global Health Fund, which targets the financing of specific projects: the Union contributes up to 55 % of the EUR 4,5 billions which are allocated to this Fund.

Given these elements, the Commission does not see the added value of creating new institutions in this field.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/227

(2004/C 84 E/0272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3248/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Possibility of tracking cellphone users

Information has recently come to light regarding the commercial possibilities offered by mobile telephony networks which are being exploited by at least six companies in Great Britain, making it possible to pinpoint the location of a cellphone user at a very low monthly cost (EUR 7,5). Clearly this opens the door to the exploitation of sensitive personal information, for example by employers wishing to know where their employees are at any given moment. A number of ideas were also put forward regarding a code of conduct on the part of these companies which in theory, offer protection to cellphone users who do not wish their whereabouts to be divulged. The arguments put forward however were singularly unconvincing, given the danger of the emergence of a surveillance mentality with unforeseeable consequences.

What action does the Council intend to take to protect European citizens from the use of mobile telephony to track their movements?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

1. Agreements between network operators, service providers and customers of mobile telephone communications are to be negotiated between them, in respect of existing provisions, especially those for data protection.

2. As concerns lawful interception of telecommunications, the Council has adopted a Resolution which reaffirms the need to observe the right of individuals to respect for their privacy (1).

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.