ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0305/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Price increases resulting from the introduction of the euro

In his answer to Written Question E-0928/02(1), Commissioner Solbes Mira said that the changeover to the euro had not resulted in across-the-board price rises: the impact of the changeover on monthly inflation is estimated at between 0 % and 0,16 %.

In late December 2002, the President of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg, painted an entirely different picture when he was forced to admit that the changeover had resulted in price increases to some extent.

Can the Commission indicate whether the data on which it based its original answer dated 5 June 2002 is still valid? If so, how does it account for the remarks made by Mr Duisenberg? If not, can it provide me with a fresh and, this time, detailed overview of price increases, one which is based on up-to-date figures from Eurostat?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 69.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The basis for the reply of the Commission to Written Question E-0928/02 by the Honourable Member were figures published by Eurostat on 28 February and 16 May 2002, which estimated the likely impact of the euro cash changeover on overall euro area harmonised indices of consumer prices (HICP) inflation between December 2001 and January 2002 to be within a range of 0,0 and 0,16 %.

On 17 July 2002, using data for the first six months of the year compared to the last six months of 2001, Eurostat released figures showing a likely range of 0,0 and 0,2 %. This latest study therefore again showed a limited impact from the changeover on overall HICP inflation.

It should be noted that the three Eurostat studies mentioned above contained a detailed account of price increases in the sectors covered by the HICP basket. In the coming weeks, Eurostat intends to publish further analysis using data for the whole of 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1787/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Open coordinated method

What is the view of the Commission on the Report of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee on the open coordination method (A5-0143/2003 Smet, EPP-ED, B)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to consult the results of the discussion on the Smet Report which was held during the plenary sitting of 4 June 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0133/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Portuguese on Euronews

On 20 November 2002 I tabled a priority written question on the above subject P-3364/02(1).

In that question, I expressed concern at recent press reports which do not appear to have been denied that 16 Portuguese members of staff responsible for Portuguese-language Euronews broadcasts were about to be dismissed. Apart from the social issues raised by such action, it would jeopardise the broadcasting of Euronews in Portuguese, and it appeared that such broadcasts would cease in the near future.

I also expressed concern that the information in Portuguese currently published on the website www.euronews.net may likewise be under threat.

With more than 200 million speakers, Portuguese is the sixth most widely spoken language at world level and stands in third place among European languages used as world languages, after English and Spanish.

The answer already provided by the Commission and forwarded on 6 January 2003 states, inter alia, that the Commission is involved in ongoing discussions about the evolving structure of Euronews. To date Euronews has been uniquely pan-European in its coverage and the Commission would like to ensure that this continues under the new regime, together with the use of a maximum of Union languages, including Portuguese.

This clear position is to be applauded, and it is to be hoped that it is a firm position.

However, the Commission did not answer the question relating to the alleged dismissal of 16 Portuguese members of staff.

Does the Commission have any information on the alleged dismissal of 16 Portuguese members of the Euronews staff? What measures has it taken or will it take to ensure, in line with its stated intention, that Euronews services continue to be provided with the use of a maximum of Union languages, including Portuguese?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The Commission would like to remind to the Honourable Member that Euronews has no obligation to report on its staff policy since the Convention signed with the Commission does not cover any questions related to staff, which remain an internal matter for EuroNews.

Moreover, the Commission can advise that EuroNews and the public broadcaster Radiotelevisão Portuguesa (RTP) have just concluded the renewal of their 1999 agreement to pursue their co-operation and continue with the production of EuroNews' Portuguese language version.

This agreement also allows the channel to maintain its current multilingual character.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0121/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(28 January 2003)

Subject: North Korean refugees

The European Union is the UNHCR's second largest donor after the United States. The recently published UNHCR Annual Statistical Yearbook makes no mention of the estimated 200 000 North Korean refugees in China. According to the UNHCR, China is denying the UNHCR access to the region where many North Koreans are hiding, thereby violating international law on refugees. Under a seven-year-old agreement between China and the UNHCR, the latter is supposed to have free access to refugees. So far the UNHCR has refused to invoke the arbitration clause in the agreement.

When making budgets available to UNHCR, donor countries can earmark their contributions. Will the European Union make use of this option in order to make funds available to provide for North Korean refugees in China? If not, why not?

Will the European Union urge the UNHCR to make use of the option of submitting disputes between the UNHCR and China to binding arbitration? If not, why not?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that both the EU Member States and the Community make substantial financial contributions to the UNHCR, despite the fact that the Community as such as not a member of the UNHCR.

As far as the use of national contributions is concerned, it is not for the Council to set the conditions for such use, nor is it for the Council to interfere with the UNHCR's evaluation of its bilateral relations with China. With regard to the use of Community contributions, the Council invites the Honourable Member to put his question to the Commission directly.

The EU has on numerous occasions raised the question of China's treatment of North Korean asylum-seekers in the context of its biannual political dialogue on human rights with China. At the most recent round of the dialogue, on 5 and 6 March 2003, the EU also urged China to cooperate with the UNHCR.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: European Commission's Business Environment Simplification Taskforce

Can the Commission indicate the expenses and salaries received by the members of its Business Environment Simplification Taskforce, which operated from October 1997 to April 1998?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

The members of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST), operating between October 1997 and April 1998, did not receive a salary, but were reimbursed for their travel expenses and were entitled to a daily allowance of maximum ECU 221,84(1). In addition, the entrepreneur/non-governmental members were entitled to a fixed amount of ECU 400 per day, compensating for a maximum of two days per meeting (including time for preparation of the meeting where applicable)(2).

In total, the payments made amounted to ECU 118 575,83.

In September 1998, the members of the task force were invited to an additional meeting, where they were given the opportunity to give their views on the draft Action Plan that the Commission had prepared following the report by the task force. For this meeting, the members were reimbursed for their travel expenses and were entitled to a daily allowance of a maximum of ECU 221,84.

In total, the payments made amounted to ECU 6 308,36.

(1) This maximum daily allowance, which was double the usual rate, was authorised by the Director-General responsible, applying the conditions of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Rules concerning the reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses of experts from outside the Commission. In order to take account of the very tight time schedule under which the members of the taskforce were obliged to work.

(2) On the basis of contracts established between the Commission and the members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0974/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Council

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Falun Gong

Following the announcement by the Hong Kong Government of substantial concessions in the implementation of the controversial anti sedition laws (Article 23 legislation) after widespread public concern over the possible curtailment of basic freedoms in the territory, what plans does the Council have for monitoring developments in Hong Kong and ensuring that restrictions on freedom of religion and belief in China are a recurrent item on the agenda of the EU-China human rights dialogue?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council recalls that the EU, in all political dialogue meetings with China, underlines the importance it attaches to respect for human rights, including the freedom of religion and belief. It will continue to do so on every possible occasion. At every session of the human rights dialogue with China, the EU urges the Chinese authorities to respect the human rights of the followers of Falun Gong. In addition, the EU Heads of Mission in Beijing and in Hong Kong follow developments in the human rights area very closely.

On 15 April 2003, the EU issued a statement on Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

The European Union will continue to follow this issue closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Macerata

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 Macerata, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0835/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the City of Frosinone

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 City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campiagns?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2044/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Small and medium-sized enterprises

The exclusion of companies owned by more than 25 % by universities from the definition of SMEs has resulted in such companies being debarred from receiving assistance and grants available to other high-technology start-ups, such as SMART awards, and from participating in LINK and TCS projects.

Can the Commission confirm or indicate any forthcoming amendment to the definition of SMEs so that university companies might qualify for this type of assistance? If so, can the Commission provide any timeframe for this?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission can confirm that it adopted on 6 May 2003 a Recommendation for a modified definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises(1). This modification has introduced the possibility for enterprises to be classified as small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) under certain conditions, even if they are for more than 25 % owned by universities or non-profit research centres, thereby facilitating their access to measures favouring SMEs.

The conditions are listed in Article 3 of the annex to the Recommendation. Further details can be found in the following web-site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm.

(1) OJ L 124, 20.5.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1196/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Use of euro and emblems of the Union

'Euro' is used as a prefix in the names of a large number of companies, products and services in many European States (both within and outside the EU), and the same applies to the emblems and other symbols of the Union (stars, flags, etc.). The use of all the above undoubtedly adds to the prestige of the companies concerned, but raises questions about whether official authorisation should be required so as to prevent the symbols of the Union being devalued.

Is authorisation required for the use of the euro prefix and emblems of the Union by enterprises or private individuals? If so, what is the procedure, when has authorisation been granted and by which body of the Union? Is any provision made for sanctions, and in which cases, for the unauthorised use of the euro prefix and symbols of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

According to the information available to the Commission, there is no copyright protection afforded for the term euro or euro cent under the various legal systems of the Member States.

The euro (EUR) has been designed by the Commission departments. The copyright, therefore, belongs to the European Community, which is represented for this purpose by the Commission. The Commission does not, however, object to the use of the euro symbol and wishes instead to encourage its use, but it does not tolerate any kind of exclusive use by any party whatsoever(1).

In this regard, the Commission would also point out that it is not empowered to authorise just any use of the euro symbol. The use it wishes to encourage is its use as a currency denominator. Any other kind of use would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, in particular, account would have to be taken of the possible infringement of a third-party right, e.g. a trade mark right in an identical or confusingly similar sign.

In accordance with the criteria agreed between the Council of Europe and the Commission, use of the euro symbol by third parties may be authorised provided that:

- it is not such as to create confusion between the user and the Union or the Council of Europe;

- it is not linked to objectives or activities that are incompatible with the principles and purposes of the Union or the Council of Europe.

Authorisation to use the euro symbol does not confer any right of exclusivity; it does not permit appropriation of that symbol or of any similar mark or logo, whether by registration or by any other means.

The Secretariat-General is willing to examine with interested parties any practical plans in order to ensure that they are compatible with the above criteria.

There are no restrictions on the use of the term European. Any combination of the terms European Community and European Economic Community as well as the abbreviations EC, EEC, etc. in the different languages are protected by Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention.

(1) Commission communication of 23 July 1997 on the use of the euro symbol (COM(97) 418).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1672/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: ASP in scallops-testing regime operating in France

What information is available from the competent authorities in France with regard to testing for ASP in scallops since 1998?

What is the extent of that information?

What steps have been taken by the Commission to ensure that the French testing regime was adequate since the introduction of Council Directive 91/492/EEC(1) as amended?

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

The last report on an inspection mission carried out in France, from 15 to 29 October 2001, to assess the implementation of Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs, is published in the Union's website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/index_en.html).

In the report some general deficiencies in the biotoxins control are highlighted. However, major problems for testing ASP in scallops were not reported.

Nevertheless, the Commission will contact the French Authorities to obtain more information about this issue.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member as soon as the French Authorities have replied.