ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Women and the euro

In reference to the project Women and the euro:

- As some of the booklets the Euro puts a new value in your pocket and accompanying posters are written in English, are there any plans to distribute them in Britain?

- Are there any plans to distribute these posters and the booklet in Britain in the run-up to the British referendum on the euro?

- Has any money been spent in Britain as part of the campaign Women and the euro?

- How much of EU money was spent on this project, and which budget line did it come from?

- Are there any plans to produce similar material for other target groups, such as the elderly? If so, are there any plans to distribute it in Britain?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The project Women and the euro was submitted in the framework of the Prince programme in 1999 and was retained, thereby receiving a financial contribution from the Commission.

This was done, because a Eurobarometer survey published in July 1999 confirmed what other surveys have shown before that women were less enthusiastic about the introduction of the euro and felt less well informed about it than men. Only 39 % of women felt, according to this Eurobarometer survey, well or very well informed about the Euro, as compared to 51 % of the men.

Three Member States were involved: Belgium, Germany and Italy. Consequently, the United Kingdom was neither a partner to the project, nor a target country. The English version of the booklets and the posters was destined for Ireland (and non governmental organisations (NGOs) dealing with equality and women's issues).

There are no plans whatsoever to distribute the posters and the booklets in the United Kingdom in the run-up to the British referendum on the euro. The project has come to an end, the stocks have been used up, and the target groups were exclusively women.

No money was spent in the United Kingdom as part of this campaign, as there was no partnership with Britain, hence no financial contribution from a British partner.

A grant agreement was concluded and the contribution by the Commission amounts to 152,400 on a total eligible cost of 304,971 on budget line B-33060. The Commission is currently assessing the final report and the cost-benefit ratio of the project.

There are no plans to produce similar material for other target groups, such as the elderly, and to distribute them in the United Kingdom: these groups were targeted in other projects submitted either in 1999 or in 2000 in the framework of the second and third calls for proposals on information and communication initiatives aiming at specific audiences about the euro(1). Most 1999 projects have come to an end, whereas the 2000 projects are now in an implementation phase. No new initiatives are to be expected until 2002, as no new calls for proposals are planned.

(1) OJ C 212, 25.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Community funding in Greece

Greece receives funding from the Union through its participation in Community initiatives, Community programmes and the Community Support Frameworks (CSF).

Will the Commission say in which Community initiatives, programmes, actions and CSF operational programmes (from 1989 to the present) its services have detected financial irregularities and defective or substandard implementation of projects, and in which cases (give specific details and names) it asked for the Community appropriations disbursed to be returned?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

The Commission has effected decommitments and recoveries where financial shortcomings (ineligible projects or expenditure, failure to comply with original objectives, inadequate final declaration of expenditure) have been detected, in partnership with the Member State, in operational programmes under the Community support framework and Community Initiatives for the 1989-93 programming period in Greece. A list of such cases has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Any shortcomings in the 1994-99 programming period will be corrected when the files are closed. This is expected to be at the end of 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1872/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Germany)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Germany have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Germany have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Military operations in West Papua

Is the Commission aware that the Indonesian police and security forces are carrying out operations with increasing frequency in the Indonesian province of West Papua (Irian Jaya), including in the regency of Manokwari?

Is the Commission aware that during a conflict between local residents and a logging company, in which Indonesian security forces and police intervened, at least four people were killed in Nabire and that since then yet more Papuans have died in circumstances which have not been clarified?

How will the Commission make clear to the Indonesian Government its disapproval of these military actions and human rights violations, inter alia because the military actions are contrary to President Wahid's promise to engage in political dialogue over West Papua?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission is informed, through both its own sources and media reports about the ongoing conflict in Irian Jaya/West Papua, and especially about the operations of security forces in this Indonesian province.

The problems of violent regional unrest and structural economic and social problems are discussed frequently with the Indonesian Government, at all appropriate occasions and at various levels. In parallel, the Commission maintains contacts with representatives of the local population in Irian Jaya/West Papua.

It is to be hoped that the Indonesian Parliament will shortly consider proposals for a substantial autonomy for the province. In the meanwhile, the Commission intends to focus its 2002-2004 work programme for development assistance on a number of provinces, including Irian Jaya/West Papua, covering health, education and institutional strengthening.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/01

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Waste disposal in Chalkidiki, Greece

I have been informed about possible infringements of Community environment and hygiene rules in Chalkidiki, Greece, where slurry is reportedly dumped regularly into the sea near beaches. Slurry is reportedly also stored there with various types of waste on dried-out river beds.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents? If so, what steps are being taken in this connection?

Should the Commission not have any knowledge of the incidents, is it planning to investigate them?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The water quality in the Greek area Chaldiki is monitored according to the Bathing Water Directive(1). On 75 beach locations in the area, water quality is examined throughout the bathing season. According to these measurements water quality has been excellent in all locations since 1993.

The Commission is not aware of cases where slurry or waste would have been poured into the sea or dumped into dry river beds. It would be grateful to receive further information relating to such activities (time, location, volume). When such information is made available, the Commission would be better placed to pursue the issue with the local authorities.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/01

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Financial implementation of the Community Support Framework for Portugal

On 3 May 2001 the Council and the European Parliament approved the transfer, to the 2002-2006 period, of the Structural Fund appropriations which had not been authorised in 2000 and which could not be transferred to the 2001 financial year. On account of the delay which occurred in the adoption of certain programmes co-financed by means of the Structural Funds, 6 152 billion euros of the appropriations earmarked for 2000 could be neither authorised nor transferred to 2001. Of the 26 297 billion allocated under the 2000 budget, only 12 107 billion was actually authorised and 8 038 billion was transferred to the 2001 financial year.

In view of the fact that the 2000-2006 financial regulation restricts such transfers to the appropriations which were not used in 2000, and since appropriations which were not authorised in previous years cannot now be entered in the budget, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What was the financial-implementation rate of Portugal's CSF in 2000 and the first half of 2001?

2. If a lower financial-implementation rate is recorded for Portugal's CSF in 2001, what implications would this have? Will Portugal lose any funding which is not used in 2001?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The rate of implementation of commitment appropriations under the Community support framework (CSF) for Portugal in 2000 and 2001 was 100 % because all the programmes in the CSF were adopted and committed. Commitments totalled 3 202 million in 2000 and 3 125 million in 2001. Payments totalled 1 337 million in 2000 and 254 million up to 20 June 2001. The initial payment of 1 378 million was fully paid for all the programmes.

It is still too early to assess progress in the actual implementation of this CSF. When the Monitoring Committee met on 6 July 2001, the Portuguese authorities told the Commission that the implementation of programming for 2000 was 28 % on 30 June 2001. They expected full implementation by the end of 2001.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1) ensures the commitment of the Community appropriations for each programme adopted, irrespective of the progress of implementation in any given year. There is therefore no direct risk of losing funds in the situation described by the Honourable Member in his question. However, delays in implementing programmes may result in the loss of funds for those programmes as a result of automatic decommitment: this rule applies when applications for payment made up to the end of year n+2, including the initial advance, do not absorb the commitment made in year n and previous years.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2327/01

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Animal testing in the 6th Framework Programme

In its proposal for a 6th Framework Programme the Commission appears to have ignored its legal obligation under the Treaty Protocol on Animal Welfare and also the increasing concern expressed by the European Parliament and EU citizens about the slow rate of progress in developing non-animal alternatives to animal tests used for assessing toxicological hazards of chemicals.

What steps will the Commission be taking to amend this 6th programme and ensure that financial resources are made available to research into the development of non-animal toxicological tests?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

In the process related to the preparation of the new Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, the Commission adopted, on 30 May 2001, proposals for the Specific Programmes(1).

This text clearly mentions the development of new in vitro tests to replace animal experimentation in the research priority (ii) of the thematic priority 1.1.1 Genomics and biotechnology for health (see pages 20 of the text).

Furthermore, it includes several general statements regarding the respect of animal welfare, which concern all activities of the new Framework Programme (see footnote 14, page 18 of the text).

Additionally, flexibility for policy-related research is offered under the heading Anticipating the EU's scientific and technological needs(3) which covers policy-orientated research and could include non-animal testings.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) will continue to undertake the validation of these tests, which is currently performed at ECVAM (the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods). Additionally, the European Chemicals Bureau, the JRC, and Directorate General (DG) Environment will keep promoting acceptance of alternative methods in the regulatory context.

The Commission's White Paper on a strategy for a future chemicals policy(2) clearly states the commitment of the Commission to the legislation on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes and establishes as Action 3 F: To foster research on development and validation of alternative methods both at the Community and at the level of Member States and to enhance the relevant information that can be obtained from testing without simultaneously increasing the number of animals involved.

In view of the above, it appears that the subject, raised by the Honourable Member is well covered in the Specific Programme's proposals. The Commission will continue the policy of reduction refinement and replacement of animal tests.

(1) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(2) COM(2001) 88 final.

(3) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2199/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Soil standards and biowaste

The Commission has published two outlines of a proposed draft directive on the biological treatment of biowaste, but it has now been suggested that this work may be superseded and overtaken by preparation of a draft directive on soil standards.

Will the Commission indicate its thinking about the development of policy in these areas, its priorities and its outline timetable for publication of further outlines and final proposals?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

With the adoption of the Communication on the Sixth Environment Action Programme (6 EAP) 2001-2010: Our future, our choice(1), the Commission has indicated a number of areas for priority action in the environmental field. One of these is how to enhance the protection of soil in the Community. The Commission is currently working on a Communication on soil which it is anticipated may be adopted by the Commission during the first half of 2002. At present, Community action specifically aimed at soil is limited (e.g. Sewage Sludge Directive)(2) and there is little information at Community level on the state of soils. The forthcoming Communication will consider soil functions, degradation processes and current policies while outlining some options for the future to be debated with the Parliament, the Council and stakeholders.

(1) COM(2001) 31 final.

(2) Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/01

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Year of Languages 2001

The EU and the Council of Europe have designated 2001 the European Year of Languages. It is dedicated to all languages spoken in Europe. Projects funded by the Commission during the year will, as well as the 11 official languages of the EU, also cover Icelandic and Norwegian, other national languages such as Irish and Letzeburgesch, many regional and minority languages, classical languages and sign languages.

However, for some reason, there is no funding for Esperanto. Esperanto was devised in 1887 with a view to creating a new artificial common language in addition to all other languages. As nobody would have Esperanto as his mother tongue, everybody would start on the same footing. Hundreds of thousands of people in Europe speak Esperanto today.

Why is Esperanto not included in the Year of Languages 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Decision No 1934/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on the European Year of Languages 2001(1) stated that the measures envisaged will cover the official languages of the Community, together with Irish, Letzeburgesch, and other languages in line with those identified by the Member States for the purposes of implementing this Decision. In practice, no Member State imposed any limits on the languages considered eligible for support in the context of this initiative. Projects involving esperanto or other artificial languages were evaluated on the same basis as other projects. Very few applications of this kind were received and none was among those ultimately selected for financing.

(1) OJ L 232, 14.9.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1993/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Distortion of the market in the sale of airline tickets for flights in the EU

Is the Commission aware that certain airlines sell reduced price tickets for flights within the European Union only in the Member State of origin or destination of the flights and not in the other thirteen states of the Union? Can the Commission explain how it can allow this distortion of the market?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1993/01 and E-1994/01given by Mrs de Palacio and Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Commission would first of all assure the Honourable Member that it is extremely vigilant regarding commercial practices which aim to compartmentalise the internal market at the expense of consumers.

The issue the Honourable Member has raised may involve two types of case:

(a) to attract passengers to their medium and long-haul flights, some airlines charge lower fares where the flight involves a connection. For instance, a flight from Amsterdam to New York might cost more than a flight from Frankfurt via Amsterdam to New York;

(b) some airlines reserve their lowest fares for specific Member States. For instance, the lowest fare for a flight between City A and City B might only be available in the Member State of departure or the Member State of arrival (or, in the case of a domestic flight, only within the Member State itself). It would be impossible to obtain the same ticket at the same low fare in another Member State.

The first of these two practices involves distinct products. In example (a) one passenger wants to travel from Amsterdam to New York and the other from Frankfurt to New York. An airline is not acting in breach of the competition rules if it decides, quite independently, to charge different fares for different products.

In example (b), on the other hand, different fares are charged for the same service. Practices such as this may in certain circumstances constitute a breach of the Community competition rules, and in particular Articles 81 and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty. This would be the case if the airline in question had a dominant position in the market concerned. It would also be the case if the commercial practice in question derived directly or indirectly from a horizontal agreement between airlines or from a vertical agreement through which an airline prevented its distributors from selling a particular category of tickets outside the Member State in which they were located.

The Commission is extremely interested in examining any information it might receive on this subject.

The Commission also plans to look into these issues as part of the survey to be carried out on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the implementation of the third package of air transport liberalisation measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2462/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Extinction of languages world-wide

Various studies indicate that if the present rate of language death continues, over half the current 6 800 languages spoken worldwide will have disappeared by the year 2100, a figure which exceeds the forecast loss of plant species. What is the European Union doing to help prevent or palliate this disastrous cultural impoverishment, not only of the peoples concerned but of all human remedy?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2462/01 and E-2464/01given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Article 151 (ex article 128) of the EC Treaty affirms the importance of the Member States' cultural diversity, emphasising that this diversity is the common heritage of all Europeans.

The joint initiative of the European Union and the Council of Europe to declare 2001 the European Year of Languages (on the basis of Articles 149 and 150 (ex articles 126 and 127) of the EC Treaty) demonstrates the same desire to celebrate Europe's linguistic diversity and raise European citizens' awareness of this common treasure.

However, it is up to the Member States themselves or their responsible authorities to determine the language regime at national level.