ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/232

(2004/C 33 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Discrimination against pregnant women in grants made by the Ministry of Labour in Spain

The Institute for Women, which is a subsidiary organisation of the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, has recently called for applications for training placement grants whose application regulations include a clause suspending the placement and salary if participants give birth and decide to look after the baby for the subsequent 16 weeks (Regulation TAS/939/2003 published in BOE [Official State Journal] 93 on 18 April 2003).

Does the Commission consider that this condition in the regulations governing the award of these grants complies with Directive 92/85/EEC (1)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

With regard to the matter brought to its attention by the Honourable Members, the Commission intends to contact the Spanish authorities to find out how these grants are awarded.

At first glance, it would appear that the possibility of an infringement of the Community legislation governing the equal treatment of men and women cannot be ruled out in this case.

(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/230

(2004/C 65 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2838/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject: Destruction of the road linking Paradisia and Tsakona in Messinia

The 13-kilometre road linking Paradisia and Tsakona in Messinia was funded under the 1st and 2nd Community Support Frameworks and was opened in April 2000. In 1995, the road was already found to have geological problems and the regional authorities asked the Ministry for the Environment, Planning and Public Works in July 1995 to carry out a geological study with a view to repairing the road as there was a landslide problem. Those authorities were ignored.

On 20 March 2000 a report by an advisor to the Ministry stressed the seriousness of the problem. A study was commissioned and delivered on 29 April 2002, which confirmed that a landslide of 3 000 000 cubic metres had taken place. No action had been taken to repair the road by 15 January 2003 when the mountainside collapsed rendering the road unusable.

1. Can the Commission confirm or deny the above? Were the studies relating to the construction of the road put into effect? Were satisfactory geological studies carried out?

2. Was a report drawn up by the Special Quality Control Council (ESPEL) on the qualitative shortcomings of the above road? Were similar measures taken by the body responsible for inspecting public works?

3. Can the Commission jointly finance the reconstruction of the road if the Member State so requests?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The information provided by the Greek authorities responsible for the day-to-day management of projects supported by the Structural Funds confirms that a report was submitted on 29 April 2002 indicating the existence of a landslip affecting the route in question. On the basis of this report a further examination was carried out in order to evaluate, among other things, the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the problem. While this examination was being carried out, on 12 January 2003, 15 days before the landslip, it was decided to close the road due to safety concerns.

The organisation for control, ESPEL, performed two visits to the project in question, documented in two reports. The phenomenon was not detected during these two visits and the project was classified as clear from any technical problems or insufficiencies. Following the landslip, the Body of Inspectors of Public Works inspected the project and the circumstances surrounding the landship, and provided a report which cleared the managers of the project from responsibility for the damage.

The reconstruction of the road is to be financed entirely from national resources.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/66

(2004/C 33 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Fraud against the EU budget involving 514 companies based in Italy and Luxembourg

Knowing that:

— on 18 February the Italian judiciary arrested 10 people charged in connection with false invoices and fraud against the EU budget, involving 514 companies based in Italy and Luxembourg;

— those arrested include the managing director of Maguro SpA, which has its registered office in San Prospero Parmense (Parma) and operational base in Sant'Ilario d'Enza (Reggio Emilia). He had already been cautioned in 2001 in connection with attempted embezzlement of Community funds from the Banco di Sicilia.

Can the Commission say:

— whether it knows about the two investigations and, if so, whether OLAF has launched inquiries;

— whether it has obtained or intends to obtain a list of the 514 companies implicated in the fraud;

— whether it has a data bank concerning individuals and companies who have defrauded or tried to defraud the EU and, in the case of companies, data concerning the people in charge of them?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that the facts in question are under criminal investigation in Italy and currently subject to judicial confidentiality (Article 329 of the Italian Criminal Code on preliminary investigations).

Should it emerge that Community funding has been affected, the Member State will have to notify the Commission of that fact, in accordance with the sectoral and general rules, following prior authorisation by the competent judicial authority. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) could establish from the notification whether there was any damage to the Community budget, as well as gathering information on the companies and individuals involved. At this stage, OLAF has indicated that no investigations are ongoing.

Finally, the Commission states that it has no register of individuals and companies guilty of fraud or attempted fraud against the European Union. However, depending on how the Community funds in question are managed, there are several databases with information on irregularities relating to Community funds.

It should also be noted that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is the Member States which are principally responsible for the financial control of Community funds.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/93

(2004/C 65 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Iraq — serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities

According to Human Rights Watch, following the end of the recent war in Iraq, civilian casualty figures have shot up compared with the number of casualties during the war itself, principally because of the large quantities of unexploded ordnance — landmines, grenades and other explosive devices — left behind in residential areas following the sudden collapse of the Iraqi military command and control structure and the resulting flight of military personnel who abandoned their equipment. Many of the victims are children who suffer serious injury from playing with explosive devices. At the same time looting is continuing, while snipers, conjectured to be Baath Party members, seeking to destabilise the country, are injuring and killing many innocent civilians. In addition, countless documents are being destroyed in Iraq. According to Amnesty International, British troops were involved in the mass destruction of electricity supply company documents in Basra.

At the same time, American armed monitoring forces in Iraq are ignoring appeals for mine clearance and more patrols. Appeals by international human rights organisations for at least some level of policing have also been disregarded.

What measures will the Council take in an effort to ensure that the occupying and monitoring forces in Iraq comply with international agreements and effectively protect the Iraqi civil populace from the above dangers which are threatening not only their individual lives and welfare but also the very structure of the State?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council agrees with the Honourable Parliamentarian that the issue of unexploded landmines and other ammunition is a serious danger to the population. It is well aware of the security situation in Iraq, which causes severe difficulties to both the population of Iraq and to the occupying forces in the country, who have the responsibility at this point of time of securing the country and protecting the population. The European Council in Thessaloniki welcomed the improving humanitarian situation but expressed concerns by the continuing challenge to provide security to the civilian population.

The Council has, however, no reason to doubt that the occupying forces comply with international agreements and obligations relating to the protection of the Iraqi people.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/247

(2004/C 33 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign — indirect discrimination

On 16 June 2003, Mrs Diamantopoulou, Member of the Commission, launched her ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign. One of the aspects of discrimination referred to on the campaign website is what is known as indirect discrimination. The following instance is quoted: An example of indirect discrimination is requiring all people who apply for a certain job to pass a test in a specific language, even though knowledge of that language is not necessary for the job. This test might exclude more people whose first language is not the language tested.

That concerns a problem which, to date, has indeed been neglected. Quite a number of undertakings and organisations active on the margins of the European institutions in Brussels apply language criteria to job applicants which discriminate against the local populace. Furthermore, as regards job advertisements, the practice is widespread of applying the criterion not that the person appointed must have a knowledge of languages as such but that he/she must be a native speaker.

How is Commission planning to resolve the problem of indirect discrimination based on unfair language requirements in its ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign? What specific measures are planned in this area?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/127

(2004/C 33 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1518/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Delays in the construction of the Figueres to Perpignan section of the high-speed rail link

According to various reports in the Spanish media, the Franco-Spanish intergovernmental commission for the construction of the high-speed rail link between Figueres and Perpignan has broken off negotiations with the Euroferro group, formed by the companies Dragados and Bouygues, which had been chosen in July 2002 to build and operate this section of the track under a concession contract.

This section figures among the 14 projects adopted almost a decade ago by the Essen European Council of 10 December 1994.

Can the Commission say:

— whether the Member States involved have received or will receive Community grants for the completion of this rail project, and

— what steps it will take to ensure that the Member States concerned speed up the completion of this project, which is a priority for the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Perpignan-Figueras link is part of a trans-European transport network priority project, and is one of the projects eligible for funding from the trans-European networks budget under the multiannual indicative programme. Accordingly, EUR 64,5 million is being made available over the period 2001-2006 to complete the programme of studies and to build the infrastructure. In 2001 the project was awarded a study grant worth EUR 1 million, shared equally between Spain and France. Previously, over the period 1995-2000, it had already received financial support — again from the trans-European networks budget — for technical and legal studies prior to launching the invitation to tender for the concession contract.

The delays in bringing the international link into service are basically due to the difficulties inherent in setting up the concession for the international section between Perpignan and Figueras. The chosen mode of financing is based on a public-private partnership. Accordingly, the Commission is bound to support the French and Spanish authorities' decision to seek innovative financing formulas, which is something it encouraged in the communication ‘Developing the trans-European transport network’ adopted some weeks ago (1). This support takes the form of the maximum Community contribution to the financing of the international section currently authorised by the trans-European networks financial regulation, i.e. 10 % of the total cost of the work. To facilitate the financing of trans-boundary sections of major infrastructure projects, the Commission has proposed that the financial regulation be revised to allow a co-financing rate of 20 % for work on trans-boundary rail projects which cross natural barriers. This proposal, which Parliament adopted at first reading in July 2002 (2), is still waiting for a common position from the Council.

(1) COM(2003) 132 final.

(2) COM(2003) 38 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/160

(2004/C 33 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/03

by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Funding the VMS vessel monitoring system for fishing boats

Under Article22 of Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 (1) all fishing vessels over 18 metres in length must be equipped with a satellite-transceiver ‘blue box’ by 1 January 2004, and those over 15 metres in length by 1 January 2005.

In the case of fishing vessels over 24 metres long, for which VMS has been mandatory since July 1998, 100 % of the cost of acquiring the equipment was refunded on request by the European Union. In the case of cutters under 24 metres in length, however, all that will be paid, under the FIFG, is a subsidy equivalent to 25 % of the cost of acquisition. As well as the cost of purchase, there are running costs of up to EUR 500 per annum, representing an additional burden for fishermen.

Leaving aside the fact that this additional expenditure is hard to justify in the case of off-shore and one-day fisheries, can the Commission say whether it is prepared to eliminate the clear discrimination against cutters under 24 metres in length as regards the purchase of the ‘blue box’, for example by amending the regulation, by supporting relevant initiatives through the budget or through an EU contribution to the Member States' monitoring costs, which would also enable a refund to be paid for satellite monitoring equipment installed in 2003 or as of 2004?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

The Commission shares the concern that fishermen shall be treated equally during the extension of Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to smaller vessels.

In this respect, the assumption that the equipment for bigger vessels was funded at 100 % and that the equipment for smaller vessels can only be funded at 25 % does not correctly reflect the actual situation. In fact, for vessels already subject to VMS, a Community financial contribution has been paid proportionally to the expenditure incurred for the acquisition of the equipment up to a maximum amount. The maximum contribution in 1999 and 2000 was EUR 3 400.

For the vessels smaller than 24 metres overall, the Commission will grant aid under similar conditions as it did in the past for the bigger vessels, within the budgetary constraints.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/144

(2004/C 65 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/03

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Network and information security

The European Parliament together with industry have welcomed the Commission proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency.

What other steps is the Commission envisaging in order to accelerate the Union's network and information security agenda? Can we expect any initiatives taking a global approach to these issues?

Can we expect the dialogue between policy-makers and parties with an interest in the field to continue and even intensify, e.g. within such fora as the Cybercrime Forum?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the interest in the network and information security agenda. As she is aware, the Commission's proposal to establishing a European Network and Information Security Agency will be discussed shortly in the Parliament. The Commission hopes it can count on the Honourable Member's support for a swift adoption of the Regulation.

Already a substantial amount of activities have been deployed in the area of network and information security and cybercrime following the Commission's Communications ‘Network and Information Security: proposal for a European policy approach’ from June 2001, and ‘Creating a Safer Information Society by Improving the Security of Information Infrastructures and Combating Computer-related crime’ from January 2001.

These activities range from an increased emphasis on security within the eEurope 2002 and 2005 action plans, through sustained research efforts in the Information Society Technology (IST) research programmes and the review of existing legislation (e.g. the new electronic communications legal framework and the Electronic Signatures Directive (1)) to supporting standardisation efforts at European level and increased security requirements for the exchange of data between public administrations, and a proposal for a Framework Decision on attacks against information systems (2).

The broader approach on cyber-security mentioned by the Honourable Member consists in the Commission's view of the three categories of actions conducted respectively in the areas of the electronic communications and data protection legal framework, the network and information security activities and the policy on cyber-crime and information infrastructure protection.

Concerning cyber-crime related activities, the Commission intends to intensify the discussions on the security and protection of information infrastructures between involved parties of the public and private sector through the organisation of workshops and expert meetings in fora such as the Forum on the prevention of organised crime. An initial workshop with the private sector is scheduled to take place in October 2003.

(1) Directive 1999/93/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures, OJ L 13, 19.1.2000.

(2) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/79

(2004/C 65 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1411/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Implementation of Interreg programme in Albania

Representatives of the Greek ethnic minority in southern Albania and Mr Karamelos, a Member of the Albanian Parliament, claimed in a recent press conference at the European Parliament (2 April 2003), that only 30 % of the funding under the Community's Interreg II programme for measures on both sides of the Greek-Albanian border has been utilised, while Interreg III (which was set up for the period 2000-2006) has not yet begun. Consequently, no support has been received from Community sources for projects and initiatives to improve the position of the internationally recognised Greek minority in southern Albania. The Greek minority suffered persecution at the hands of the tyrannical totalitarian regime of Enver Hoxha for decades and still does not enjoy the fundamental democratic rights that are its due, as the EU institutions have repeatedly pointed out. During their visit to Parliament, these same representatives stressed that, twelve years after the collapse of the above regime, no census has been taken of the Greek population of Albania as a whole in accordance with practices in all well-governed European countries.

Are these claims concerning the implementation of Interreg II and III correct? If so, what is the reason for this delay, which is having an impact on the quality of life of thousands of Greeks and Albanians living in southern Albania? How does the Council intend to exert pressure on Albania to carry out a credible census of the Albanian population, along European lines, in order to determine the size of the Greek and other minorities (gypsies, Roma, Slavs, etc.) living in that country?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

1. The Council is not in a position to confirm the information reported by the Honourable Members. According to Chapter III ‘Community Initiatives’ of Title II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the Commission is to lay down guidelines describing, for each initiative, the aims, scope and the appropriate method of implementation. In compliance with these rules, the Commission approved a communication on 28 April 2000 laying down guidelines for Interreg III. In accordance with that communication, it is the responsibility of the Commission to monitor, implement and evaluate the interventions covered by this Community initiative.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/127

(2004/C 65 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2288/03

by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject: Treatment of third-country nationals in prisons in the EU Member States

The Turkish daily newspaper Hürriyet carried an article drawing attention to restrictions on the rights of third-country nationals held in prisons in the EU.

Those restrictions concerned the right to visits, to make complaints and to day release.

To what extent is the Commission aware of these problems? What areas are affected by these restrictions? What is the legal basis for their imposition? Are these restrictions being dealt with as part of the process of approximating home affairs policies, or will they continue to differ from Member State to Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission does not have a copy of the article to which the Honourable Member refers and so it is unable to reply in detail to the questions, which are based on information contained in that article. Matters relating to the way in which penalties (including those affecting conditional release) are enforced will be the subject of a Green Paper (on the approximation, recognition and enforcement of criminal penalties in the Union) that will probably be adopted by the Commission in October. As things stand, the right of appeal of detainees is not governed by any specific rules of Union legislation and is essentially covered by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe (Article 6), and by the Member States' national law.