ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0326/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission, for a great variety of religious organisations

In the answer to Question E-0291/01(1), it was stated that a great variety of religious organisations may be eligible for small grants from Community funds, managed directly by the Commission. These are of two types: firstly there are subsidies to help cover the running costs of coordination and representation activities, at European level, of not-for-profit organisations; and secondly there are specific grants for individual projects.

Will the Commission provide details of the amounts and the names of the organisations which received such small grants in the period 2000-2002 for the coordination and representation activities at European level of not-for-profit organisations and for individual projects?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 78.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Only the Brussels-based organisation Church & Society Commission, which provides the secretariat for A Soul for Europe covering the main faiths (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) as well as humanism, received financial assistance for activities involving the coordination and representation of religious organisations at European level during the period 2000-2002. This was a result of earmarking by Parliament for budget heading A-3021. The grant amounts awarded in 2000, 2001 and 2002 were EUR 44 000, EUR 41 000 and EUR 39 780 respectively.

Heading A-3024 of the Union's general budget makes provision for grants for specific projects organised by associations and federations of European interest.

This budget heading was allocated an identical amount for each of the three years 2000, 2001 and 2002, namely EUR 1 260 000 per year.

This appropriation was exclusively intended to support activities and projects with a European focus as well as activities connected with reflection at European level on the ethical and spiritual foundations of the building of Europe.

Lists of beneficiaries during the three years in question are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the General Secretariat of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Proposed Swedish ban on cod fishing

With respect to the proposal by Sweden to not participate in the cod fishery on several stocks, the Commission is encouraging Sweden to consider adopting technical measures as an alternative. Both Reg. 88/98(1) (technical measures in the Baltic) and Reg. (EC) 850/98(2) (technical measures in other areas) include provisions for Member States to take measures going beyond the minimum requirements set out in these Regulations (Art. 13 of 88/98, Art. 46 of 850/98).

Could the Commission please provide a list of the cases in which Member States have availed themselves of this possibility? For each instance, could the Commission please specify:

- the fishery/fisheries involved, in terms of target species, area and gear type,

- when and for how long the measures were enacted,

- what measures were adopted by the Member State compared to the CFP requirement,

- whether any analysis has been conducted to ascertain if there was any impact from these measures.

It is interesting to note in this respect that, in the Commission's proposal for a new technical measures regulation(3), to replace Reg. (EC) 850/98, there appears to be no article corresponding to Art. 46. Yet in the explanatory memorandum, it is stated that the Commission has ensured that all relevant provisions of Reg. (EC) 850/98 have been maintained. Could the Commission please explain why the article has been dropped?

(1) OJ L 9, 15.1.1998, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1.

(3) COM(2002) 672, 3.12.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/03

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Fisheries agreement between Spain and Morocco

In 2002 Parliament granted a total of EUR 197 million to be used for structural modernisation of the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets and to reduce the number of vessels. The reason was that no fisheries agreement was concluded between the Union and Morocco.

Only about a month ago reports emerged (for instance as published in the Financial Times on 13 January 2003) that Spanish fishermen had been given permission to fish in Moroccan waters.

That being the case, does the Commission still intend to use appropriations for structural adjustment of the fishing fleet, and, if so, how can such action be justified in the present circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

The authorisation from Morocco to give access to a limited number of Spanish vessels to fish in Moroccan waters, was granted for a three month period starting 14 December 2002.

This was a solidarity gesture from Morocco following the Prestige disaster in order to help out Spain and in particular the Galician region and fleet, during a period of exceptional hardship and is, as mentioned, both very limited in time and for a limited number of vessels. In this sense, the present circumstances are of an exceptional nature.

Thus, the structural adjustment of the fishing fleet continues as scheduled and remains a priority of the fisheries policy. The appropriations for the structural adjustment of the fishing fleet remain fully justified.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0546/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Crash of third helicopter belonging to the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAB) in Greece

On 11 February 2003, the third EKAB helicopter in the space of a few months crashed in the area of Ikaria. It had been bought (as indeed had the previous two) to provide an emergency airlift for patients from the remote Greek islands and regions. Following this third crash, the tragic death toll totals 14 (doctors, nurses, pilots and patients).

Has the European Union provided funding for these helicopters through any form of Community initiative, fund or low-interest loan (e.g. from the European Investment Bank, etc.)? If so, what representations has the Commission made to the Greek authorities, and when, to establish the reasons for these constant accidents?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, two of the three helicopters that have crashed over the last months had been co-financed by the Community through the Community Support Framework 1994-1999 for Greece, in particular under the Operational Programme Health and welfare. More precisely, the programme mentioned financed the procurement of five helicopters with a total cost of EUR 17,8 million, of which EUR 13,3 million were contributed by the Community. The delivery of helicopters began on 24 December 1999 (first helicopter) and was completed on 29 March 2000 (fifth helicopter).

According to Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents(1), every accident has to be investigated by an independent body established in each Member State with the sole objective of preventing future accident. A report containing, where appropriate, safety recommendations has to be published, if possible within one year of the accident, and a copy has to be sent to the Commission. It will be the exclusive responsibility of the Member State to enforce the possible safety recommendation to prevent re-occurrence of these accidents.

Moreover, in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(2), if in the light of the circumstances of these accidents the Greek authorities conclude that the expenditure on helicopters constitutes an irregularity because of deficiencies in the tendering or contracting process (as distinct from operational issues), it is the Member State's responsibility to communicate to the Commission this irregularity, and this before the submission of the final payment claim for the related programme (Health and welfare).

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0525/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the BAWO factory in Portugal

Another German multinational, BAWO Confecções, Lda, is preparing for the possible closure of its factory in Estarreja, Portugal.

The workers, numbering about eighty, have had to cut short their enforced leave in order to prevent the closure of the factory and the resulting removal of the machines, these being the company's only assets, given that the premises are rented.

1. Has BAWO received any form of Community aid in Portugal or other Member States? If so, what amounts were granted and under what conditions?

2. In the light of corporate social responsibility, what steps can the Commission take to defend the rights of the workers concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

1. The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, in line with the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, the company in question has not received any Community funding from either the European Social Fund (ESF) or the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

2. The Commission would like to point out that several Directives provide for information and consultation with the workers' representatives(1). In particular, Directive 98/59/EC(2) concerning collective redundancies provides for information and consultation with the workers' representatives in cases where the employer is contemplating such redundancies. These consultations should be carried out in good time with a view to reaching agreement and cover, at least, ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected as well as of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures. These measures aim, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant.

Furthermore, the Commission has called on the European social partners to engage in a dialogue on anticipating and managing change with a view to applying a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate restructuring. The social partners have agreed to incorporate this issue in their recently adopted pluriannual work programme.

(1) Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees OJ L 254, 30.9.1994; Directive 2002/14/EC of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community OJ L 80, 23.3.2002. The latter Directive has to be transposed by 23 March 2003.

(2) Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0626/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: European Commission's proposal for a regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use

European Commission's proposal for a regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use In its resolution of 14 December 2000 on paediatric medicinal products(1), the Council invited the European Commission to make appropriate proposals as soon as possible in order to improve the availability of suitable medicines for children.

Medicinal products for children need to be tested scientifically before widespread use. This can only be achieved by ensuring that medicines which are likely to be of significant clinical value in children are fully studied.

In February 2002, the European Commission launched its public consultations on Better Medicines for Children. In the summary overview of responses in June 2002, it was stated that an overarching concern expressed throughout the comments was the urgency of this matter. In its working plan for 2003, the Commission announced the release of the legislative proposal by March 2003, more than two years after the Council resolution.

Can the Commission guarantee that the proposal will be released without further delay so that there is at least a chance of an adoption under codecision procedure before the enlargement of the European Union?

(1) OJ C 17, 19.1.2001, p. 1.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0564/03 and P-0626/03given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission intends to present a final text of the proposal for a Regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use as soon as possible. A first draft had been prepared in September 2002. On the basis of this draft, the Member States and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency were consulted. This consultation process took longer than expected as the Member States during the Pharmaceutical Committee of November 2002 asked for a prolonged deadline for comments.

The Commission has decided that this proposal should be among the 43 important proposals within the framework of the 2003 legislative and work programme, which should undergo an extended impact assessment. The extended impact assessment is an important element of the Commission's better regulation action plan.

The Commission has now started preparing this impact assessment and intends to as swiftly as possible to conduct it in order to be able to adopt the proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0456/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Delays in the Information Society operational programme in Greece

Apparently, the Information Society programme an operational programme in the third CSF which is crucial for the development of the Greek economy is experiencing serious delays, prompting the undertakings which might have taken advantage of it to protest.

The Commission:

1. Could it give the amounts for commitments and uptake of appropriations for this programme?

2. What are the reasons for the serious delays?

3. What action has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to accelerate implementation of the programme?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer to question E-3331/02.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0527/03

by Norbert Glante (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Introduction of the software component palladium and the microprocessor TPM (Trusted Platform Module)

Does the Commission have any information concerning the technical data-security questions linked to the introduction of the software component palladium and the microprocessor TPM (Trusted Platform Module) by the consortium Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TPCA), and if so, what information does it have?

In the Commission's view, what implications as regards legislation governing competition and cartels will the intended introduction of this hardware specification have for small and medium-sized software companies in particular?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) and related industry initiatives, such as Microsoft's Palladium. This project is still in its early stages. As such, and in the absence of any formal complaint, the Commission is not conducting an anti-trust investigation on the issue. The Commission is, nevertheless, fully aware of the potential impact of technologies such as TCPA/Palladium on a range of areas, including openness of the software markets, user control and user rights issues, privacy issues and content provision. The Commission is actively engaged in dialogue with all parties expressing views on TCPA/Palladium.

It is the intention of the Commission to continue following this development during the next months, also from the data protection viewpoint. The Commission provides the secretariat for the Article 29 Working Party and its sub-groups. In this framework the Commission will participate at the discussions of the Internet Task Force of the Article 29 Working Party, that is intending to explore the issue of TCPA/Palladium during the next months.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: URBAN II initiative

The declaration concerning the URBAN initiative, annexed to the interinstitutional agreement of 6 May 1999(1), states that a budget of up to EUR 200 million may be assigned to URBAN II by mobilising the flexibility instrument.

Does the Commission intend to mobilise this reserve in the framework of the next budgetary exercise?

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Urban II Community Initiative had not been planned when the Berlin financial perspectives were approved in 1999. The Initiative was created in 2000, at Parliament's behest in particular, and its funding comes from some of the budget appropriations initially intended for innovatory measures.

The declaration on the Urban Initiative mentioned by the Honourable Member states: In view of the reduction in the amount provided for innovatory measures, relating to the Urban Initiative, the institutions agree that they will examine the possibility of allocating up to EUR 200 million for this purpose, by mobilising the flexibility instrument during the period 2000-2006.

The Commission believes that the declaration mentioned by the Honourable Member in her written question relates to the possible repayment of EUR 200 million to the innovatory measures budget. So it does not intend to mobilise the flexibility instrument in favour of the Urban Community Initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0367/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Electromagnetic pollution

There have been a series of studies on the phenomenon known as electromagnetic pollution or electrosmog. Can the Commission say what its latest views are on the subject and whether there are any legislative implications?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

As regard the limitation of the exposure of the general public to multiple sources emitting non-ionising radiations kown as electro-smog, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member on the measures taken at European level.

On 12 July 1999, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EEC(1) limiting the exposure of the general public to non-ionising radiation in a view of protecting human health against well-known acute health effects. It also referred the precautionary approach to long-term possible carcinogenic effects by the introduction of safety margins in the exposure limits. The Recommendation calls on the Commission to prepare a report, by 2004, taking into account reports from Member States and the latest scientific data and advice.

The recommended maximum limits are based on the guidelines established by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and endorsed by the Scientific Steering Committee of the Commission. The Scientific Committee on Toxicity-Ecotoxicity and the Environment confirmed on 30 November 2001 that: the additional information which has become available on carcinogenic and other non-thermal effects of radio frequency and microwave radiation frequencies in the last years does not justify a revision of exposure limits set by the Commission. The Commission does not plan to change these limits.

The Commission hosted the World Health Organisation (WHO) /National Institute for Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) meeting on the Precautionary Principle and Electromagnetic fields on 24-25-26 February 2003. This meeting took place within the context of the extensive risk assessment conducted by WHO, with the support of the Commission, on health risks associated with the exposure to electromagnetic fields. First results of this assessment will be available by the end of 2003 for extremely low frequencies, whereas the radio frequencies assessment will be completed in 2005. The outputs of this WHO/NIEHS conference will be posted on the Europa web site of the Commission(2).

(1) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2) http://europa.eu.int.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Carrara

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 EU subsidies include a support programme to foster the twinning of European cities and that many Italian cities, including the municipality of Carrara, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects to benefit from funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0864/03, E-0886/03, E-1017/03, E-1018/03,E-1019/03, E-1020/03, E-1021/03, E-1022/03, E-1023/03, E-1024/03,E-1025/03, E-1026/03, E-1027/03, E-1028/03 and E-1029/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Twinning is funded centrally.

The grants are awarded by the Commission on the basis of projects presented by local authorities or twinning committees.

The grants are not paid until after the event, following submission of supporting documents.

The participation of local authorities in town-twinning activities is arranged via the publication of an annual call for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.

With regard to the Honourable Member's questions the municipalities of: Fiumicino (E-0886), Frosinone (E-0864), Ancona (E-1017), Florence (E-1019), Livorno (E-1020), Macerata (E-1021), Perugia (E-1023), Pesaro (E-1024), Pisa (E-1025) Pistoia (E-1026) Siena (E-1028) and Terni (E-1029) did not obtain funding for the organisation of twinning events in 2000.

The municipalities of Carrara (E-1018) Massa (E-1022) Prato (E-1027) received funding for twinning in 2000. These funds were used.

The Honourable Member might wish to contact the local authorities for further information.