ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0851/03

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Morocco's intention to sign a free-trade agreement with the United States

Might Morocco's intention to conclude a free-trade agreement with the United States affect the association agreements and negotiations between it and the European Union?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not hitherto discussed this matter and is therefore unable to give a reply. However, the Council has been informed of discussions on the negotiation of a free-trade agreement which have been initiated between the Kingdom of Morocco and the United States.

The Council will naturally remain attentive to any implications of such an agreement for the Association Agreement that Morocco concluded with the European Union and its Member States and which has been in force for almost three years now, and for the new agricultural concessions which the two Parties are in the process of negotiating.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

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 Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds to support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Fiumicino.

In particular, he asks the Commission whether the municipality of Fiumicino submitted projects for the Leader+ programme, whether it obtained funding for those projects and whether that funding was used.

The documents in the Commission's possession show that the municipality of Fiumicino forms part of the territory participating in the Leader+ CIP for Lazio, which the Commission approved by its Decision C(2001) 3626 of 26 November 2001. The Lazio region has not yet selected the LAGs which will take part in the Leader+ programme.

It should be noted that the Commission does not decide on specific projects or on the selection of the LAGs. It decides to contribute to a programme which includes criteria for selecting the groups using procedures which will guarantee the Leader approach. The final selection of the groups and the projects part-financed is made by the Member State or regional authority responsible in accordance with the conditions laid down in the programme.

As a result, the Assessorato all'Agricoltura of the Lazio region, which is the authority responsible for managing the programme, could provide specific details of the various beneficiaries and the deadlines for the calls issued by the region, including those specifically for the municipality of Fiumicino.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

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

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 Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport, can the Commission state:

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

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino 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 P-2201/03

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject: Observation of the presidential elections in Mauritania

Presidential elections are scheduled to be held in November 2003 in Mauritania. Preparations for these important elections are being hampered by an unprecedented wave of repression which is affecting every political and religious grouping.

Mauritania constitutes a bridge between the Mediterranean and Black Africa and is an essential factor for regional stability.

These presidential elections must constitute a decisive step along the road to stability and to the restoration of the rule of law in Mauritania.

That means that the preparations for and the conduct of the elections must be free, transparent and democratic.

As a supporter of democratic processes, the European Union must monitor the proper conduct of the ballot by providing logistical support and sending observers.

Is the Commission planning to send an election observation mission to Mauritania?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's analysis of the issues at stake in the presidential elections scheduled for November 2003 in Mauritania. It is also concerned about the wave of arrests made before the attempted coup at the beginning of June and the conditions in which the arrests and dismissals that have taken place since then have been conducted.

More specifically on the question of sending an election observation mission to Mauritania, the EU deploys between eight and ten election observation missions a year. Indeed, the Commission communication on election assistance and observation, and the Council conclusions and Parliament's Fava resolution, stress the need for the EU to observe a limited number of elections each year. A list of priority countries for election observation is therefore drawn up, after consultations with Council's geographical groups and Parliament's electoral coordination group. Mauritania was not included among the priority countries for election observation in 2003. In addition, the Commission has received no official request from the government of Mauritania to send international observers, an essential prerequisite for sending an EU election observation mission.

The Commission is in favour of stepping up the political dialogue with the Mauritanian authorities in order to make them aware of the importance that the EU attaches to compliance with the basic rules of law and the organisation of free, transparent and democratic elections.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the C. & J. Clark footwear factory in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal)

On 10 January 2003 the multinational company C. & J. Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda, a maker of footwear located in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal), announced the closure of its factory, thus making 588 workers redundant.

The decision to close this factory is justified by the company itself on grounds relating to imports of vamps from India and Romania and the objective of maintaining a competitive price structure (cf. press release issued by the Clark management on 10 January 2003).

Clark set up operations in Castelo de Paiva in 1988, with both national and Community aid. In May 2000 the company signed a protocol with the local municipal council in which it undertook to continue operations up to at least 2007, in return for a significant level of investment from the municipality.

Castelo de Paiva is a municipality located in the Portuguese interior, with a very fragile economy. The closure of this undertaking will bring in its wake disastrous economic and social consequences.

Given that this decision to close runs totally counter to the notion of corporate social responsibility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What sums were granted from Community funds, and when, to the company Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda in Castelo de Paiva?

- What conditions were required from this company in relation to the above Community funding?

- Should it be established that Clark is in breach of its obligations regarding its receipt of Community support, what action will the Commission take to prevent the factory's closure and ensure the continuation of its activities in Castelo Paiva, guaranteeing the workers' jobs?

- What political measures will the Commission take in order to prevent, and, ultimately, penalise actions of this nature, as frequently perpetrated by companies which establish themselves in the EU, receive Community funding and then, having exhausted its advantages and benefits (above all on the human level), relocate their operations?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0286/03, E-0287/03,E-0288/03, E-0289/03, E-0290/03, E-0301/03 and E-0441/03given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Members are kindly asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1).

(1) See page 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1191/03

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 Ancona

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

can the Commission state:

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

2. whether the municipality of Ancona 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-1002/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Siena

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 Siena, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Commission communication with citizens

On 27 June 2001 the Commission adopted the Communication on a new framework for cooperation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the European Union.

Part of this process included the sending out of personalised letters, whose success on the few occasions on which it has been used has proved to be a revelation, given how it was welcomed by the citizens concerned.

Does the sending out of personalised letters as a means of direct communication with citizens represent a practice which will be continued by the Commission's information policy, so as to get closer to our citizens, who already know how important the Commission is in their daily lives?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

As the Honourable Member pointed out in his previous question E-2552/01(1) direct communication with citizens by means of personalised letters can be an effective way of communicating. Targeted mailings, therefore, remain an option to be used when appropriate.

It must be pointed out, however, that the costs incurred with such mailings are rather high and recent polling confirms that for the majority of citizens (64 %) television is their preferred means of receiving information(2). The Commission is, therefore, focusing more efforts on audio-visual means of communication. In addition, as proposed in the Communication on An information and communication strategy for the European Union(3) the Commission is increasingly working in partnership with the Parliament, the Council and Member States on priority themes in order to generate awareness about the Union. Decisions as to the most appropriate means to be used to reach out to citizens are naturally considered in the context of these partnerships.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.

(2) Standard Eurobarometer 58 released in March 2003 http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/.

(3) COM(2002) 350 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Financial subsidy for Grundig AG

The 14 December 2002 edition of Europolitique mentions that the Commission has authorised the Bavarian Government to put some EUR 40 million of subsidy into the German company Grundig AG.

The point is made that this subsidy's sole objective is to allow the company to continue operating for six months, during which it must reach a decision on its future, and present a plan for its restructuring or liquidation.

It is also noted that Grundig AG was close to bankruptcy in August 2002.

Given that this is a company which owns factories in various EU countries, and specifically in Portugal, and that it employs some 5 000 workers, can the Commission inform me as to the company's current financial situation and its future prospects?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission approved rescue aid to the Grundig AG, Nürnberg, on 11 December 2002. The notified aid, a 90 % guarantee for a EUR 45 million loan from the German State of Bavaria, was destined to allow Grundig to continue activities during six months while deciding about the future of the company.

The Commission considered that the 90 % guarantee constituted State aid in the sense of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and had to be assessed as ad hoc aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. Under these Guidelines, the Commission approves rescue aid as one-off support to an ailing firm during the period needed to devise a restructuring or a liquidation plan. The aid must consist of liquidity help at market conditions and must be the strict minimum to keep the firm in business during a maximum period of six months.

Since the rescue aid for Grundig fulfilled the conditions set out in these Guidelines, the Commission authorised the guarantee for the period requested by Germany. At the same time, Germany committed to notify a restructuring plan or liquidation plan to the Commission or proof that the loan has been reimbursed, the latest six months after approval of the rescue aid. Until this notification, the Commission does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0831/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme 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 to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/03

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: EU support for urban renewal and redevelopment

Some 1,3 million flats in east Germany are currently standing empty, mainly as a result of high unemployment, migration caused by unemployment, and the demographic trend. The redevelopment of empty houses and whole districts is expensive: not only do buildings need to be demolished, but existing supply networks (water, sewage, gas etc.) for the whole city have to be rescaled, schools closed and administrative capacities reduced. Municipal authorities are in no position to take on this financial burden, as their budget, and their room for manoeuvre, are restricted, mainly because of a decrease in income tax revenue. Large-scale urban redevelopment resulting from a fall in population is not solely an east German problem, however. It is growing more and more prevalent in the applicant countries of Eastern European and can only worsen in the coming years. Therefore it constitutes a problem for the whole of Europe.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to tackle the issue of urban renewal and redevelopment? How does the Commission view the possibility of creating a support instrument within the structural funds to help finance urban renewal and redevelopment, given the fact that the Community initiative Urban, for example, can only be used for targeted, innovative projects? Does the Commission consider it possible or rational to introduce a remodelled horizontal measure or to support affected towns with Objective 1 funding? How does the Commission view the possibility of organising meetings of people affected by urban redevelopment to discuss potential solutions and strategies, and to encourage the exchange of experience or best practice?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The Commission considers that, in general, the problem of the renewal and redevelopment of cities is a matter for the local authorities operating in accordance with the national provisions laid down by each Member State.

The Structural Funds, and in particular the ERDF, have hitherto concentrated on support more directly related to socio-economic development, i.e. productive investment which creates or maintains permanent jobs, investments in infrastructure and investment to develop locally-generated potential.

However, the Commission does not exclude considering whether the Structural Funds could in future, under certain conditions, provide assistance for housing as part of an urban renewal programme, provided that this option could apply in all the Member States.

Through programmes such as Urbact and ESPON, the Commission is already providing support for exchanges of experience and good practice between cities and is believes that this approach should be continued, or even stepped up, in future.