ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2646/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Civil aviation services and meteorological services in the EU

In her reply of 26 July 2002 to my question No. E-1689/02(1), Commissioner de Palacio did not provide any information on the issue that I raised and I would therefore reiterate my questions and request a specific answer.

Are there civil aviation services in the Member States which suspend operations during the weekends? Are there national meteorological services which do likewise? If so, in which countries do those services close at midday on Friday and reopen on Monday? Might those services also include the Greek Civil Aviation Service or, possibly, the Greek National Meteorological Service (EMY)?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 237.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

The Member States are Contracting Parties to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, and as such determine in which areas of their territory and at what times they provide air navigation services.

Annex 15 to the Convention, on aeronautical information services, requires Contracting States to include in their Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP) accurate and up-to-date information on the availability of air navigation services, including the interruption of such services in airports or traffic centres during weekends.

The Contracting States thus inform air transport operators whenever an air navigation service e.g. meteorological services is introduced, withdrawn or altered, including the availability of such services throughout the day (in aeronautic jargon this is known as notice to airmen or NOTAM). This information should be constantly adjusted to reflect the current situation.

The Commission is unable to provide comprehensive, up-to-date information on all the air navigation services provided in Greece. Such information can be obtained from the aerodromes concerned and, centrally, from the national civil aviation authority, which maintains an on-call service (tel. +30 10 89 16 000). By way of example, however, the Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the information valid at the end of September 2002 for certain specific airports, in order that he may assess the extent of the services available.

There are no Community rules at present on the availability of air navigation services, and the only constraints applicable in Greece are those deriving from international agreements, including the Chicago Convention, and from national Greek law. The Commission would point out, though, that these services are included within the scope of the single sky rules it has put forward(1) to improve the functioning of air traffic management and on which Parliament delivered an opinion(2) at first reading on 3 September 2002. Once adopted by the Community legislator, these rules will make it possible to introduce quality and continuity requirements.

(1) COM(2001) 564 final.

(2) P5_TA-Prov(2002)0392.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(12 September 2002)

Subject: French legal provisions on rave parties

French legal provisions on free and underground techno music events are extremely repressive. For instance, as part of this war on rave parties, the Subprefect of Limoux took the questionable decision of forbidding Radio Ballade to broadcast techno music on 6 July 2002.

Does the Council consider that these legal provisions comply with European standards?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2544/02 and E-2546/02

(19 December 2002)

The Council would point out that measures taken by or in Member States to maintain public order do not come within its purview.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2039/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Structural Funds: closure of operational programmes dating back to before 1993

According to the Commission's Twelfth Annual Report on the Structural Funds(1) at the end of 2000 35 operational programmes dating back to before 1989 and 73 to the period 1989-1993 remained open.

Can the Commission say:

- what total amount all the open programmes represent and for what Member States they were destined;

- what the causes for the delay were and what the current situation is;

- what steps it will take to ensure these programmes are closed?

(1) COM(2001) 539.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The total amount of the open Structural Funds programmes, projects and other interventions from the period before 1994 was EUR 991 million at the end of 2000. Since then, considerable progress has been made in reducing this figure as shown in the table. By June 2002, the amount outstanding in unclosed programmes was reduced by nearly two-thirds to EUR 370 million. This sum is equivalent to 0,6 % of the resources made available for 1989-1993.

>TABLE>

Among the principal causes for the delay in closing the programmes are: the existence of legal procedures relating to programmes and projects in the Member States, over which the Commission has no control; the failure of the authorities in the Member States to provide a final report in accordance with the requirements of the regulation; the need to ensure the necessary followup to controls by the Commission services, the Court of Auditors or by the European Anti-Fraud Office.

The progress that has been made to-date results in large part from the priority given to this work by the Commission including the establishment of specialist taskforces. The Commission will maintain this effort in order to ensure that the remaining programmes are closed as quickly as possible(1).

(1) Small balances from Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and some Interreg programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Making it impossible for firms to continue using existing Microsoft licenses by restricting add-on and upgrade options

1. Has the Commission now taken note of the complaint made by NGN, the Dutch user group network, against Microsoft because:

(a) since 1 October 2001 upgrades at 50 % of the normal licence fee for applications (such as MS Office) and workstation access licenses (CALs) have no longer been available to firms with several licenses, which means that users have to spend more to stay up-to-date;

(b) the upgrade advantage under which for a period of two years customers are entitled to obtain the latest versions of software at a price only between 5 and 8 % higher than the old upgrades will only remain valid until 1 August 2002, after which it will not be possible to upgrade any licenses that do not have an upgrade advantage or a software assurance, which means that 66 % of Microsoft licenses will then be downgraded to throwaway software;

(c) the software assurance solution offered costs at least 25 to 29 % more than before, while the alternative option of an annual subscription programme proves even more expensive in many cases?

2. What can Commission do to ensure, in a virtual monopoly situation, that it is possible to go on using and upgrading software purchased earlier, particularly in the light of the letter of 22 May 2002 from the Dutch Competition Authority to NGN and the answer given by the Netherlands Government to parliamentary questions by members of the national assembly on 2 November 2001 (TK No 198), in which it suggested that the matter be referred to the Commission because of its transfrontier nature?

3. What is the current position regarding the points raised in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of my written question E-3111/01(1) on Microsoft's bundled sales policy, most of which the Commission left unanswered on 14 January 2002 because Microsoft's replies were still being examined and it had therefore not been able to reach any conclusions?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 97.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

1. The Commission has taken note of the complaint by NGN against Microsoft. Moreover, the Commission is aware of the general terms of Microsoft's revised upgrade licensing policy.

2. For reasons of efficient allocation of its limited resources and in light of its ongoing case against Microsoft, the Commission agreed with several national competition authorities in 2001 that these competition authorities would conduct the first analysis of Microsoft's upgrade licensing policy. Taking into account the work that has been done by the relevant national competition authorities on this issue, the Commission is currently examining with these authorities the most efficient way to carry the investigation forward.

3. As regards the Commission's ongoing investigation, Microsoft made its final submissions to the file in April 2002. The Commission is now completing its analysis of this file (20 000 pages).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Failure to award Urban II funding for the city of Rome

In the context of the last Urban programme the city of Rome accumulated severe delays in the execution of the project and this even led to a partial reduction in the funding initially granted. Under the current Urban II the city of Rome, according to information issued by the Italian Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport and data supplied by the Commission website, is totally excluded from any funding, since it is not included either among the first 10 European recipient cities or the 20 cities subsequently included in the Urban II programme for Italy (Law 388/2000). The city of Rome is apparently in 39th place on the official list. Urban is undoubtedly one of the most efficient EU programmes so far and is a valuable instrument for the development of the suburbs of major metropolitan areas and, in general, the urban areas affected by environmental and social problems for example, Milan is the second city on the list.

In view of the above, can the Commission say for what reasons (defects in form or substance, delayed submission of the application, inappropriate or inadequate documentation, etc.) the project submitted by the city of Rome proved unsuitable to receive funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

After the Commission issued its Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the Urban II Community Initiative(1), the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport published, in the Italian Gazzetta ufficiale No 168 of 20 July 2000, a call for proposals in order to select the Italian towns eligible for finance under the Urban II Community Initiative.

This announcement correctly reflected the eligibility criteria set out in the above Commission Communication and further specified the arrangements for evaluation and selection used by the Italian Ministry for the general ordering by merit of the applications received. On that basis, the national authorities classified these applications, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Given the amount of funding

allocated to Italy for Urban II and the aim of concentrating assistance on a limited number of areas, Community finance was allocated only to the towns and cities in the top ten places; the Italian authorities have submitted the relevant programmes to the Commission in accordance with Article 19 of the Communication.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(20 August 2002)

Subject: Possible execution of Mr Omori Katsuhisa in Japan

Mr Omori Katsuhisa, 53, who is under sentence of death, could be executed within the next few days. As more than one execution is usually carried out at the same time in Japan, there are fears that other executions will take place in August. Executions are carried out in secret; there is consequently no official confirmation of the names of individuals scheduled to be executed.

Omori Katsuhisa was arrested on 10 August 1976 on charges of having planted and detonated a bomb in prefectural government offices in Hokkaido in the north of Japan, in March of that year. His death sentence became final when his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court in July 1994. It appears that Omori Katsuhisa's lawyer was preparing a fresh appeal when it emerged that his client's execution was imminent.

Does the Commission realise that Omori Katsuhisa's execution could very well take place within the next few days? Has it already called on the Japanese authorities not to carry out that execution or that of others sentenced to death? What moves has it made, or what moves does it intend to make, to persuade the Japanese Government to introduce a moratorium on capital punishment, as Parliament called for in the resolution it adopted in June 2002?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Commission has actively supported the Union's efforts to work for the abolition of the death penalty in Japan. Union Heads of Mission prepared a report on the death penalty in Japan in December 2001. An Union troika démarche, addressed to the Japanese Minister of Justice, was subsequently carried out on 18 February 2002 with a full explanation of the Union's position on the death penalty.

Moreover, in February 2002, the Union Troika in Tokyo was given a permanent mandate to carry out démarches on the death penalty and is engaged in an active dialogue with the Japanese Parliamentary League for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. The subject is kept under review by the Heads of Mission with a view to further initiatives, including on this particular case.

As regards M. Omori Katsuhisa, the Commission notes that the Japanese Ministry of Justice announces executions after they have taken place. The fact that no such announcement has been made suggests that the execution has not yet been carried out.

Mr Omori Katsuhisa has appealed for a retrial in July 2002, and the Parliamentary League has requested the Ministry of Justice not to execute Mr Omori Katsuhisa before the end of the retrial. Mr. Kamei, the President of the Parliamentary League, has also requested Justice Minister Morayama not to execute Mr Omori Katsuhisa outside the session period of the Japanese Parliament (which has ended).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2442/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Report by the Contraloría de la República on the Plan Colombia

In view of the fact that the Contraloría General de la República Colombiana (Office of the Comptroller General of Colombia) has stated in its third assessment report on the Plan Colombia that:

- the anti-drugs Plan Colombia contains administrative irregularities;

- eradication by force has failed to strike a blow at drug traffickers, so much so that today 163 000 hectares are still under illegal cultivation across the country and cultivation of the crop has outstripped its destruction, since 152 000 hectares were burned between 2000 and 2002, and despite this coca is now being grown in areas previously dedicated to coffee production;

- the Plan Colombia is unsatisfactory from an environmental standpoint;

and since the European Union is contributing 31 million dollars to the Plan does the Council intend to take action to suspend cooperation with this Colombian anti-drugs Plan?

If not, what reforms will it propose to prevent even more European taxpayers' money from being wasted?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

1. While supporting the efforts of the Colombian government to put an end to the violence that affects this country, the European Union is not contributing to the so-called Plan Colombia. The EU has put forward its own support package, made public in Bogotá on 24 October 2000. At the third meeting of the Support Group for the peace process in Colombia, on 30 April 2001 in Brussels, an EC contribution of EUR 140 million (EUR 105 million in programmable aid and EUR 35 million in non-programmable aid) was confirmed. In addition, Member States' contributions amount to up to EUR 230 million.

2. EC assistance is focused on:

- the support of ongoing Colombian activities in the search for peace;

- targeting the roots and causes of the conflict;

- providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict.

3. As concerns its own assistance, the EU closely monitors that its implementation is in line with the established objectives and rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2841/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 October 2002)

Subject: Use of funds from EQUAL, the ESF and the Fourth Action Programme on Equal Opportunities by the City of Rome

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 funds are allocated to projects by regional authorities. For example, spending commitments for the year 2000 account for only 2 % of the entire CSF.

These 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 City of Rome, urgently need to use European funds for vocational training and employment, equal opportunities and social integration, will the Commission say:

- whether the City of Rome has submitted projects for the EQUAL programme, the ESF and Fourth Action Programme on Equal Opportunities?

- whether the City of Rome has secured funding for these projects?

- whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Within the framework of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 period, the Commission approved the Objective 3 Operational Programme for the Lazio Region on 21 September 2000. The budget available is EUR 884 million (45 % European Social Fund, 44 % national resources and 11 % regional resources), of which EUR 90 million (or 10,3 %) are earmarked for equal opportunities.

Few projects have been selected at this early stage of the programming period, which explains the low degree of completion. Nevertheless, during the 2000-2001 period, 740 projects were submitted under the equal opportunities heading, of which 188 were approved and funded.

The EQUAL initiative, which is also funded through the European Social Fund, enables experimentation with new approaches to fighting discrimination and inequalities suffered by employed persons and jobseekers alike. EQUAL contains nine thematic fields, one of which is equal opportunities for women and men. The City of Rome, in cooperation with the Immigration Office, is taking part in two projects in the field of equal opportunities.

The City of Rome received no funding under the Fourth Action Programme on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2011/02

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Number and scale of Council meetings

A debate is taking place on the number and scale of Council meetings and portfolio-specific Councils.

Does the Council Presidency think that there are too many or too few Council meetings in general and/or portfolio-specific Council meetings in particular?

What changes in this connection would the Council Presidency welcome?

Is the Council Presidency satisfied with the frequency and duration of attendance by heads of government and/or portfolio ministers?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

In its Seville conclusions (21 and 22 June 2002), the European Council adopted a number of measures aimed at improving the functioning of the Council and of the European Council. Among those measures there featured prominently a very appreciable reduction in the number of specialised configurations of the Council, which have now been brought down to nine instead of sixteen; this should lead to a reduction in the number of meetings. At the same time, this measure should contribute to rationalising the work of the Council by concentrating it on essential business, and to increasing the vital consistency between the various policies of the Union on the eve of enlargement. With regard to the presence of ministers or heads of government at the above meetings, the Honourable Member may refer to the press releases in which their presence is recorded and which show, in general, very regular attendance.

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the Council Decision of 22 July 2002 which transposed the new list of specialised configurations into its Rules of Procedure(1).

(1) OJ L 230, 28.7.2002, pp. 7 et seq.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2920/02

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

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Rwanda

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for Rwanda and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3198/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Problems in Belgium in communicating in a language other than Flemish

According to complaints which have also been reported in the Belgian press, French-speaking Belgian nationals as well as other EU nationals who have contact with the authorities of the Flemish region of the country do not receive essential official documents in any language other than Flemish. The same applies to legal proceedings before the courts of the same region (e.g. Antwerp and elsewhere) in which the accused according to the same complaints are required to speak Flemish and only Flemish.

There have also been angry protests against the fact that in the Flemish region of Belgium, account information and official notices are exclusively in Flemish, despite Belgium being a country with more than one official language and hosting thousands of foreign nationals who work for the numerous international organisations and embassies based there.

Is this practice employed by the Flemish authorities consistent with Community law? Does it infringe the right of citizens who are either nationals of that country or have lived for long periods in Belgium to communicate in a language with which they are familiar? How could the Commission intervene to facilitate communication by non-Flemish speaking Belgian nationals and EU nationals who do not know Flemish but live in areas in which Flemish is the official language? What are the Commission's views on the difficulties of communication encountered particularly by anyone taking a case to the judicial authorities in the Flemish region of Belgium?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

The Commission does not have the authority to express an opinion on the language regime in the Member States. This area is the exclusive responsibility of the Member States.