ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Unused EU funding in Bavaria totalling EUR 17 million for 2002

The German Bundesland Bavaria was unable to commit funding of EUR 17 million from the rural development programme, provided under the 2002 EU budget, and returned it to Brussels.

1. Has funding from the European Social Fund also been returned by Bavaria?

2. What are the sums involved?

3. What areas of assistance are affected?

4. Does the Commission have a summary of current projects under other Community programmes, such as Leader+?

5. What projects funded by these programmes are there for Bavaria?

6. Does the Commission have a summary of assistance provided under other Community programmes and projects, such as Daphne, or training programmes?

7. What projects are affected and what is the level of assistance?

8. What cross-border projects are in progress involving Bavaria and the Czech Republic?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0839/03

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Alterations to the technical and administrative structure of Genoa airport

In 1980 there came into being in Italy a flight-handling authority which in 1981 was succeeded by a flight-handling company organised as follows:

- four regional flight-handling centres, each run by an executive director;

- two main airports (Rome-Fiumicino and Milan-Linate), each run by an executive director;

- all other airports, large or small, each run by non-executive staff.

When the technical and administrative structure of the Directorate-General was recently overhauled (on 11 February 2003), airports were subdivided into different categories, even though they all had the same role and tasks:

- four ACCs (Rome, Milan, Padua and Brindisi regional control centres), each run by an executive director;

- three SAAVs (Rome-Fiumicino, Milan-Linate and Milan-Malpensa airports), each run by an executive director;

- eight CAAVs (Bari, Bologna, Catania, Naples, Olbia, Palermo, Turin and Venice airports), each run by an executive director;

- fifteen UAAVs (all other airports which provide control-tower services, including Genoa), each run by an official;

- thirteen NAAVs (airports at which control-tower services are not provided, only an information service).

The exclusion of Genoa from the CAAVs defies all logic:

- Genoa is one of the few Italian airports at which comprehensive services (including a radar service) have always been provided;

- although the airport is not one of the busiest it should undoubtedly be regarded as one of the most important on account of the fact that it provides comprehensive services, is conveniently situated and enjoys a good weather record (which means that it has always been used when necessary as a diversionary airport in northern Italy);

- of the eight CAAVs, Bari airport has no radar and in terms of movements is no busier than Genoa, Catania, although busier, has no radar and provides only control-tower services, whilst Olbia is similar to Genoa in terms of facilities and number of aircraft movements.

Would the Council say why it was thought that such restructuring was called for?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

With regard to the facts set out in the question regarding the administrative structure of flight-handling authorities within Italy, and in particular the place of Genoa airport in these arrangements, the Council informs the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that such matters do not fall within its competencies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1645/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Methods to reduce unemployment in labour-intensive industries

In order to try and alleviate unemployment there was a decision to look at a reduced rate of VAT on labour-intensive industries. I understand that there have been pilot projects in the building industry in France. What have been the results?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

In line with the recommendations of the Vienna European Council of 11 and 12 December 1998, and in particular the Vienna Strategy for Europe, the Council adopted Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experiment [sic] basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services(1). This amendment to Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(2) (the Sixth VAT Directive) enabled Member States wishing to do so to test the effects of a reduced VAT rate on certain labour-intensive services in terms of job creation and curbing the black economy.

In view of the experimental nature of the measure, Directive 1999/85/EC stipulated that Member States taking part in the experiment were to carry out a detailed assessment of its impact in terms of job creation and efficiency. Nine Member States took part. The Commission was required to submit a global evaluation report on that basis to the Parliament and the Council. The report was adopted on 2 June 2003(3). It can be found with the Member States' reports on the Commission's website at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/taxation/labour_intensive/labour_intensive_en.htm

The following table sets out the services concerned and the Member States' choices:

>TABLE>

(1) OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.

(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive last amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002.

(3) COM(2003) 309 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1144/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Welfare of broiler chickens

1. Given the EU's commitment to the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (defined in Council Directive 98/58/EC and the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes), does the Commission intend to bring forward any new measures to improve the health and welfare of broiler chickens?

2. In particular, is the Commission aware of the problem of overcrowding of broiler chickens, which can lead to birds being unable to reach food or water and sometimes starvation or heart failure?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

In an /sc/scah/out39_en.pdf adopted in March 2000, the aw_scahaw_en.html (Scahaw) described welfare problems of broilers kept in intensive conditions(1). Having regard to this opinion, the Commission is in the process of elaborating a proposal for the protection of chickens kept for the production of meat. In doing so the Commission will also take into account the Scahaw recommendations addressing the questions related to the rapid growth rate of these animals.

The Commission is examining the possibility of following an integrated approach in its proposal, by promoting good management practices and monitoring the welfare status of the animals via integrated veterinary controls carried out at slaughterhouses. Concerning the specific question referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission foresees to include in its proposal standards for the stocking density in order to enable the animals to perform natural behaviour patterns and to avoid problems in relation to the access to watering and feeding devices.

(1) The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1030/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 March 2003)

Subject: The first CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) Review Conference

With the approach of the first CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) Review Conference, scheduled for April 2003, I'd like to draw the attention of the Council to reliable information that the US military has initiated research and development of so-called non-lethal chemical agents for a wide range of possible civilian and military purposes. Moreover, during a meeting of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee (on 5 February 2003) Mr Donald Rumsfeld not only announced his wish to use chemical weapons in a possible war against Iraq but also attacked the straitjacket imposed by bans in international treaties on using those weapons. This would be illegal under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits development, production and use of chemical weapons and the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical weapons as a method of warfare.

In the light of these developments:

- Is the Council aware of this problem?

- What is its position towards such an anachronistic position (when on the one hand UN Resolution 1441 tries to disarm Iraq of exactly those weapons (among others), and on the other hand the US Government threatens to use them)?

- What does it intend to do to encourage the active defence of the CWC against attempts to undermine this unique international disarmament instrument and to uphold the rule of law?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council considers that the first Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention is a key event in the life of this multilateral instrument, which is virtually unique in many respects.

Member States have reiterated their commitment to several key aspects of the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Among these key aspects are the universality of the Convention, the principle that all countries having ratified the Convention must adopt national implementing legislation for the Convention which is as complete as possible, and the principle of compliance (and possible use of challenge inspections).

The Conference also provides for the opportunity to uphold the prohibition on use, as defined by Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The prohibition is the very basis of the Convention. Member States are of the view that there can be no room for compromise in this area. This means that monitoring compliance with the Convention, even by countries that are not States parties, is a key and irreplaceable task.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0642/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Tax treatment of research spending

The Lisbon process stresses that technology-based firms are expected to provide a positive impetus, particularly as regards the creation of new jobs. It is also explicitly pointed out that Europe has some way to go to catch up with Japan and the USA in the area of research.

How are research spending and operational investment treated for tax purposes in the current and future EU Member States and in the USA, Japan and Australia?

What impact does taxation have on the credit-worthiness of SMEs and research bodies?

How does the Council assess these factors? Will it draw on them in its preparatory work on the implementation of Basel II in the EU?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council shares the importance that the Honourable Member attaches to the Lisbon process and the role of SMEs and technology based firms.

In this context, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the report by the Council (Competitiveness) of 3 March 2003 to the Spring European Council, which, amongst other things, states that:

Systematic and comprehensive impact assessment of proposed Community legislation, as well as consultation of business and all other interested parties, must be carried out by the Commission and, subsequently, taken into account at the decision-making level, to ensure that a balanced approach is maintained in the EU framework and that European enterprises remain competitive and operate on a level playing field in the global economy;

A coordinated approach to entrepreneurship policy, providing a comprehensive response to the needs of entrepreneurs, such as eliminating barriers to business creation, development and growth and balancing the risks and rewards, is required;

Effective involvement and consultation of small businesses in the policy-making process must be ensured.

As to the tax treatment of research spending in current and future Member States, as well as the impact of taxation on the credit worthiness of SMEs and research bodies, the Council does not have the necessary information to respond to the questions put by the Honourable Member. The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address directly the Member states, the acceding states and other third countries in this regard.

Concerning the new capital adequacy framework (Basel II) being negotiated in the framework of the Basel Committee with a view to replacing the 1988 Basel accord, the Council is aware of the potential implications for the SME sector. In the negotiating process and the preparatory work done in this respect, every effort will be made to ensure that Basel II should have no negative effects on SME lending. In this respect, however, the Honourable Member is advised to refer the question to the Commission which has observer status in the negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1490/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Impact of the war in Chechnya on the Russian economy

In a recent interview for the Ekho Moskvy radio station, Mr Khasbulatov, former President of the Russian Supreme Council, stated that the first three to four months of the second Chechnyan war (August-November 1999) had cost some USD 3 billion and that the annual cost of the three years of war from 2000-2002 had been USD 10 to 13 billion. As for this year, the cost of the first three months is estimated at USD 3,5 billion.

Mr Khasbulatov also said that Russia's overall expenditure for these three-and-a half years of war, i.e. since the beginning of the second invasion and the occupation of Chechnya in 1999, was USD 40 billion. These are some of the figures contained in a report drawn up by Mr Ruslan Khasbulatov and Mr Ivan Rybkin under the title Economic aspects of the war in Chechnya.

Has the Commission seen the report by Mr Khasbulatov and Mr Rybkin? If so, how does it view the report? Does it not consider that this expenditure is totally incompatible with the Russian economy's current state? Moreover, does it not consider that it is only through the economic and financial aid provided by the EU and its Member States that Russia is capable of spending such huge amounts in order to continue the war in Chechnya?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission deeply regrets the tragic situation which has existed in the Russian republic of Chechnya over the past decade. The ongoing conflict has entailed huge costs for both federal and local administrations and for the civilian population of Chechnya, in human, social and economic terms. The Commission hopes that the constitution adopted during the referendum held on 23 March 2003 will provide a platform for dialogue, reconciliation, restoration of the rule of law and effective protection of human rights in line with the statement made by President Putin on 16 March 2003. It will continue to raise the concerns which it has in this regard with the Russian authorities, in the context of the Union's political dialogue with Russia.

The Commission recalls that it has provided assistance via the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) to promote civil society, media freedom and respect for human rights in the north Caucasus throughout the period of conflict in Chechnya, with the aim of promoting a lasting peace in the region. The Commission notes that assistance provided to Russia via the Tacis programme aims, inter alia, at the promotion of civil society, the rule of law and public institutions, as well as assisting Russia's difficult political, economic and social transition.

The Commission notes the analysis presented by Mr Khasbulatov and Mr Rybkin. The Commission is unable to make a judgement on the estimated costs of the Russian Government's present policy in Chechnya or their impact on the wider economic situation. There is however no evidence that the Russian authorities present policy is dependent on financial assistance from the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/03

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 Pistoia

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

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pistoia 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 Pistoia 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-1049/03

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 Florence

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

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Florence 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 Florence 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-0853/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Auditors' recommendations

In its reply of 8 April 2002 to my Written Question E-0329/02(1) of 12 February 2002 concerning a letter from the Director-General of the Commission's Directorate-General for Regional Policy to the Greek authorities regarding failings in the management of the third ESF, the Commission indicated that in their reply of 14 November 2001 to the Commission's observations, the Greek authorities confirmed that the major part of the auditors recommendations had been implemented'.

How is the Commission ensuring that the Greek authorities have in fact taken account of the auditors' recommendations?

From June 2001 to date, how many checks have been carried out for which programmes or initiatives? What were the findings for each programme or initiative? What were the replies from the Greek Government and what action was taken by the Commission?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 117.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

Since November 2001, there have been three audit missions by the Commission concerning the management and control systems of the Community Support Framework as well as a number of Operational Programmes. Within the framework of the partnerships, the findings of the audits are subject to discussion with the Greek authorities. It is too early to draw conclusions on these findings.