ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3106/01

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Impact study on the EBA initiative

The Everything But Arms initiative was adopted by the Council on 26 February 2001. It allows duty-free and quota-free access to the Community market for all products originating in the last developed countries (LDCs), except arms and arm munitions; as such, it is not risk-free for producers as a whole in the most remote regions.

It is to be feared, for example, that some rice, sugar, banana or rum producers in overseas departments will be unable to contend with LDC producers on equal terms.

The Commission, being alive to the problem, undertook in its work programme of 12 June 2001 on the sustainable development strategy for the most remote regions to initiate an impact assessment on the Regulation during the second half of 2001.

Could the Commission provide a progress report on the impact assessment and, at the very least, say what its terms of reference are?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2001)

The Commission can confirm that preparations for an impact assessment of the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Community (the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement) and the Everything But Arms initiative are well advanced. It expects to conduct the assessment in early 2002.

In line with the approach set out in the Commission report on measures to implement Article 299(2)(1), the assessment will analyse the possibilities and questions raised by the two instruments referred to above and make recommendations both to the Commission and the outermost regions. The terms of reference are still being defined in detail by the Commission.

(1) COM(2000) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2917/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Incorrect use of Community funds by the Municipal Institute for Employment and Business Education (IMEFE)

Is the Commission aware of the report by the General State Intervention Office (an agency of the Spanish Finance Ministry) which states (cf. today's edition of the newspaper El País) that

the expenditure of EU monies to the sum of ESP 1,2 bn by the Municipal Institute for Employment and Business Education (IMEFE), attached to the Madrid city council, is considered unjustified?

What action does the Commission intend to take under the existing Community legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

In its answers to Written Questions P-0303/01 and P-355/01 and Oral Question H-368/01, the Commission informed the Honourable Member of the steps taken to guarantee protection of its financial interests. In particular, the Commission has asked the Member State to carry out the appropriate checks regarding European Social Fund aid awarded to the IMEFE (Instituto Municipal de Empleo de Madrid).

The Commission has already taken the necessary measures to ensure that the national authorities (Intervención General de la Administración del Estado ((IGAE) and the Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs) check the validity of the information published in the press.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has also indicated that the investigation begun on 27 February 2001, as mentioned in the answer to the above oral question, is still under way.

As soon as the Spanish authorities have officially forwarded the relevant information, the Commission, in close cooperation with the Member State, will take the appropriate financial measures in accordance with the procedures provided for by Community and national rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/01

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Protecting the Sicilian language

Italian Senate Bill No 3366 of 26 November 1999, laying down rules governing the protection of the languages and cultures of the Albanian, Catalan, German, Greek, Slovene and Croat communities and the French, Provençal, Friulan, Ladino, Occitan and Sardinian speaking communities, became national Law No 482 on 15 December 1999.

This law provides the movements for the conservation of Italy's traditional minority groups (i. e. those that have seen themselves as such for many years) with the means to improve their situation. In particular, ITL 2 billion per year is earmarked for national and local projects to study the languages and cultural traditions of the members of recognised linguistic minorities, ITL 9,8 bn per year for public authorities wishing to make it possible for the various communities to use the protected languages and ITL 8,7 bn per year for expenditure incurred by local authorities in meeting the obligations deriving from the law.

As part of action to protect all linguistic minorities, would the Commission seek to ensure that the Sicilian language is brought within the scope of Italian law in this area, given the importance of Sicily's social and cultural traditions and the fact that Sicilian communities are to be found all around the world?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

Any action by the Union to support the cultural and linguistic diversity of the Union is mainly governed by article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty which states that The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. It contains the following limitation: Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action.

The Commission therefore has no remit to take action against a Member State to modify national legislation governing the treatment of linguistic minorities except where such legislation could be said to constitute an infringement of the basic principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law common to the Member States within the meaning of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.

The Commission has received no information whatsoever to suggest that Italian Senate Bill No 3366 of 26 November 1999 constitutes an infringement of this kind.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2001)

Subject: Community provisions to facilitate the movement of patients to help cut waiting-lists

The British National Health Service intends to pay for surgery and treatment in other Member States in order to cut its waiting-lists but will not be able to do so until the relevant British law has been amended.

In a recent ruling handed down in Case C-157/99 the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice stated that Community citizens were entitled to go to other countries for treatment if they would have to wait an inordinately long time to be treated in their own countries.

The above measure will have a considerable impact on all European countries, and its implications will therefore need to be discussed with the Health Ministers of the other Member States.

What is the Commission's attitude to this matter, and what proposals is it drawing up, or will it draw up, to respond to the possibility created by the Court ruling?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2559/01 and E-2586/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-2415/00(1). The Commission is well aware of the problem of waiting lists for patients in several Member States. The new public health programme is currently being discussed by the Parliament and the Council. Once adopted, it will provide an opportunity to monitor and analyse developments in Member States' health systems.

The situation as regards actions to be undertaken in the context of Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty remains unchanged. Community actions in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibility of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

All the ramifications of the case law gradually built up by the Court of Justice concerning the reimbursement of cross-border health care costs are at present being examined by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Negotiations concerning incorrect use, and a claim for repayment, of Dutch ESF funds

1. In accordance with the information given in the Dutch television programme Netwerk on Thursday, 16 August 2001 concerning the report commissioned in the Netherlands by Arbeidsvoorziening an organisation which promotes employment and submitted to the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment by Raymond Potsdammer on 7 June 2001, can the Commission confirm that in 1999 it held discussions with the Dutch ministry concerned about an adjustment for the errors which had been made, with Commission officials informally proposing that the amount of the adjustment should be NLG 92,7 million (nearly 42 million)?

2. Can the Commission also confirm that the Netherlands rejected the offer referred to in question 3, both on account of the expectation that, in the light of further inquiries, the ultimate repayment obligation could not exceed NLG 58 million (a little over 26 million) and because there was a reluctance to accept responsibility for inadequate reporting?

3. Will the amount of NLG 70 million (nearly 32 million) quoted in the Koning report, which was promised to the Netherlands Parliament and published on 27 August, be taken into account in the Commission's eventual assessment if the Minister of Social Affairs incorporates this interpretation in his response to the Commission's previous statement of its position, which he is to give by 24 September?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

In 1999, after the discovery of the irregularities for Gelderland/Rijnmond and after the large scale Dutch investigation for 1997, the Commission decided to put an amount of 42 million in reserve for possible irregularities during the years 1994-1996. This decision, which was probably referred to in the television programme, was officially communicated to the Dutch authorities by means of a letter.

The decision to put money in reserve was taken unilaterally in order to safeguard the financial interests of the Commission. It was never presented as an offer to financially close the years 1994-1996.

The Commission has asked the Dutch government according to Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88(1) to present new information and arguments that can reduce the claim. If the Dutch government decides to use information and arguments from the Koning report, the Commission will certainly consider them.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2428/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Use of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq and the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy

In reply to Question E-0680/01(1) the Council indicated that the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds has not been raised within the Council or Council bodies. The Council has not therefore expressed its views on the issue (sic). This position is very surprising. The 15 EU Member States are refusing to develop a clear view on the use of chemical weapons against, on the one hand, the Kurds in Iraq and, on the other hand, the Kurds in Turkey.

On Friday, 16 February American and British aircraft attacked the region of the capital of Iraq. The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Robin Cook, said that the bombing was necessary to maintain the no-fly zones in the northern and southern zones of Iraq. These zones were needed to protect the Kurdish people in the north and the Shiites in the south. When Saddam was allowed to fly over the northern zone he used chemical weapons on the Kurds. He would do it again if he had the opportunity, Cook said.

Cook's position on the use of chemical weapons in Iraq is in stark contrast to the attitude of the EU Member States on the use of chemical weapons in Turkey. For example, the Council has still not expressed an opinion on the Turkish army's use of chemical weapons on 11 May 1999. Nevertheless, there is a need to develop a clear view of the Kurdish question in Iraq and Turkey in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Will the Commission submit proposals to the Council in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU so that a clear view is reached on the ban of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq? If not, why does the Commission refuse to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU as the question is extremely important for the Common Foreign and Security Policy?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 66.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission notes the suggestion that it should exercise its right of initiative under the Common Foreign and Security Policy so that the Council adopts a position on activities by Turkey and Iraq.

It would point out that the situation in terms of international law is very different for Iraq and Turkey and it would be impossible to establish an identical position for them. The UN Security Council has expressly condemned the repression of the civilian population in Iraq and a number of sanctions have been applied against Iraq under Security Council decisions. Given that no condemnations have been issued or decisions taken against Turkey, similar action against Turkey, which would be against a member of the Atlantic Alliance, would not have the same international legitimacy.

The Commission would, however, draw the Honourable Member's attention to the programme it recently introduced to support regional development in South-East Turkey. A total of 45 million has been allocated for the period 2002-2005. The programme's main objective is to promote the region's economic and social development.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3287/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Refunds for use of potato and cereal starches and aid for potato starch

In accordance with the Court of Auditors' annual report, 900 million have been allocated from the Community budget to refunds for use of potato and cereal starches and to aid for potato starch. This is actually, in a very indirect manner, the only Community instrument relating to potatoes, despite the importance of such crops in overall agricultural production. Since 1994, when the Council rejected the Commission's proposal, the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes has been placed on the back burner.

Against this background, will the Commission specify:

- the annual amount of resources allocated from the Community budget to refunds and aid for potato starch since 1994 and the relevant breakdown by Member State?

- the total number of beneficiaries by Member State and the number of companies which are beneficiaries (stating the names of the companies and the amount of aid allocated to each)?

On the basis of the amount allocated, will the Commission also provide its assessment of this system, especially with regard to the competitiveness of companies using starch, farmers' yield and compensation for the structural disadvantages obtaining in the starch sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

The Commission would like to point out that the budget of 900 million mentioned by the Honourable Member for 2000 includes expenditure of 500 million on direct area-aid for cereals, as the Court of Auditors Special Report indicates in Point I of the Summary and in Table 2 of the Annex(1).

A proposal for a Council Regulation on a common organisation of the market in potatoes(2) was presented by the Commission in 1992. This Commission draft, revived in 1995 and 1996 by the Spanish and Irish Presidencies of the Council respectively, was not adopted because of the opposition of some Member States.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the requested information on potato starch expenditure by Member State. As the beneficiaries are paid by the paying agencies of the Member States, which are in turn reimbursed based on their monthly declarations by budget heading, the Commission does not have the information on beneficiaries requested by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has ordered an evaluation of the potato and cereals starch sector, which is still under way. The Commission expects the final report to be ready within the next few months and, once it has drawn its own conclusions from the report, it will then be able to present its own evaluation of the scheme.

(1) Court of Auditors Special Report No 8/2001 of 1 October 2001 concerning refunds for the production of potato and cereals starch and potato starch aid.

(2) OJ C 333, 17.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Commission projects to strengthen sport

According to Dagens Nyheter of 24 September 2001, the IOC signed a cooperation agreement with the Commission in September 2001on Sport, schools and the Olympic ideals in Europe, the aim being to promote sport's ethical values amongst European schoolchildren. This is intended to help combat bribery and doping scandals in sport.

Dagens Nyheter reported that three pilot projects are to begin, in France, the Netherlands and Germany. In France, for example, the aim is to try to get 500 school classes to illustrate the Olympic ideals through art, whilst Dutch schools are to adopt a global approach and discuss the Olympic ideals in their history, geography and economics classes.

How much money are the above-mentioned projects going to cost the Union's budget?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2001)

The Honourable Member is referring to the action to promote the Olympic ideals in schools, which was launched on 14 September 2001 by the Commission in conjunction with the International Olympic Committee. The aim is to promote the ethical values of sport among European schoolchildren. Initially, pilot actions will be organised with the French, Dutch and Italian Olympic Committees. Depending on the results of the evaluation which will be carried out, the action could then be extended to all Member States.

The budget for the project is 753 215, of which the Commission will contribute 195 215.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3101/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE), Niels Busk (ELDR),Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), Albert Maat (PPE-DE), Catherine Stihler (PSE),Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR), Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE), James Nicholson (PPE-DE),Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) and Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Haddock fishing

What steps will the Commission take to prevent any further wanton destruction of juvenile haddock, given that Danish fishing inspectors last month discovered 114 tonnes of young haddock in a 543- tonne catch of a Danish industrial fishing vessel?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of the problem referred to by the Honourable Members.

Community rules on fishing already severely limit the quantities of fish that may be taken as accidental catches in industrial fisheries.

As part of its current work on redrafting the Community's Regulation on Technical Measures(1) in the context of a recovery plan for North Sea cod, the Commission is considering a further reduction of the permitted percentage of species such as cod, haddock and whiting which may be retained in catches of industrial species. The current by-catch limits for other species would be maintained.

As regards the enforcement of the above Community rules, up to 20 % of the landings of industrial catches in Denmark are sampled by the inspection authorities. The Danish authorities detected this infringement of Community rules and have imposed an administrative sanction on the fisherman concerned. His fishing licence for industrial species has been revoked for one month. If there is repetition of the offence, the sanctions will become increasingly severe.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: African children orphaned by AIDS

The Commission will be aware of the growing problem of children in Africa orphaned by AIDS.

What has the Commission done specifically to assist in tackling this problem?

Would the Commissioner consider asking a group of experts in relief and child care to study orphan relief work and report on best practice?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission is responding to the problem of a growing number of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) orphans in Africa and elsewhere, through a comprehensive, coherent approach addressing the AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis epidemics on a national, regional and global level, through a set of measures related to improving the impact of existing interventions, including health systems strengthening; increasing investment in the affordability of drugs, commodities and supplies, and increasing investment in vaccines and microbicides. This comprehensive policy is spelt out in the Community Programme for Action on Communicable Diseases in the context of Poverty Reduction(1), adopted by the Commission on 21 February 2001. In addition, the Commission addresses the problem of AIDS orphans through improved access to quality education and information about sexual and reproductive health. Life skills are a particularly important part of this effort.

The Commission has declared human immunodeficiency virus (HIV/AIDS) a global emergency. It keeps Africa on top of its development assistance agenda. The Commission wants to ensure that HIV/AIDS is a priority in poverty reduction through debt relief, i. e. that the poverty-reduction strategy papers include significant contributions to the struggle against HIV/AIDS and other major communicable diseases, including service provision for orphans and other children affected by the pandemic. It is also making HIV/AIDS a priority in sector-wide approaches to development.

All its support efforts will be based on best practice. However, the Commission does not intend to specifically contract a group of experts to study orphan relief work, as suggested by the Honourable Member. Long-term, comprehensive, wide-scale efforts are needed to cope with the harsh new reality of AIDS orphans.

Neither does the Commission intend to single out AIDS orphans. Interventions should direct services and community mobilisation efforts at the communities in which children and adolescents are made more vulnerable due to HIV/AIDS. Generally, the people living in these communities are best placed to judge who is at greatest risk and what factors should be used to guide appropriate responses and assistance.

(1) COM(2001) 96 final.