ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: ERDF project rehabilitation of the Los Filtros district of Manises (Valencia, Spain)

In the town of Manises (in the Region of Valencia) a project entitled restoration of the environment in a run-down area, with protection of a natural area the urban surroundings of Los Filtros in Manises. This project, which benefits from Community funding via the ERDF, has led to the disappearance of architectural features dating from the beginning of the last century, which were hitherto protected by the competent authorities as part of the historic and artistic heritage, in accordance with the Manises PGOU (general town-planning project).

Furthermore the project has received ERDF funding for supposed restoration of the district, whilst in fact what is happening is that a wooded area is being replaced with modern design features which improve neither the landscape nor the urban environment.

Both Regulation No 1260/99(1) on the structural funds and Regulation 1783/99(2) on the ERDF specify that the Funds will not finance projects which interfere with the protection of the natural and cultural heritage. Article 2(2)(d) of the ERDF Regulation specifically mentions the need to protect the cultural heritage.

Since one of the uses of the ERDF is to rehabilitate run-down areas, can the Commission say:

- on the basis of what criteria funding was granted for the above project, which includes the demolition of architectural features protected by the Manises PGOU;

- what supervision mechanisms were used to ensure correct allocation of ERDF funding in this particular case?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1.

Supplementary answerby Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that under the subsidiarity principle both the choice of the individual projects part-financed by the Structural Funds within each programme and their execution are an exclusive Member State responsibility. It does however exercise vigilance that, in line with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), all projects part-financed by them comply with Community law. Should they not do so it would withdraw the aid and take steps for recovery of the amount paid.

The information received from the Spanish authorities is that the restoration project to which the Honourable Member refers is part-financed under the local Operational Programme for the period 2000-2006 and that its execution is in line with the general redevelopment plan for level II protection.

The project's primary goal is a harmonious architectural solution for the Los Filtros area that enhances its visual integration with the adjacent urban area. The solution adopted by the responsible authorities allows incorporation of the architectural features of the entry portecol, which is in a good state of preservation. Within the site the primary work is restoration of landscape zones and new planting in keeping with the pine trees already present.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3709/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Free-trade agreement with Mercosur

Does the Commission consider it possible to reach a settlement regarding a free-trade agreement between the European Union and the South American customs union Mercosur in the near future, and is anything currently happening in the negotiations between the Union and Mercosur?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Union has long supported a strengthening of the process of regional integration represented by the Mercosur(1) initiative which it has supported since its inception in 1991. Notwithstanding the current cyclical downturn on both sides of the Atlantic, the Union continues to work towards a stronger relationship with Mercosur and a deepening of the Mercosur process internally. According to the Directives for the negotiation by the Commission, this Association Agreement has three pillars: political, co-operation and trade.

Six rounds have already taken place in the negotiation of a biregional Association Agreement between Mercosur and the Union. The 7th round of negotiations will take place in Buenos Aires on 8-12 April 2002.

Substantial progress has been achieved on the political and co-operation chapters.

Concerning the trade negotiations, a comprehensive and ambitious agenda is under negotiation, including inter alia liberalisation of goods and services, investment, government procurement, intellectual property rights, competition, a dispute settlement mechanism. Important progress has been registered so far, especially in the second half of 2001, with the exchange of tariff offers and of negotiating texts for the chapters on goods, services, and government procurement. The nature of these negotiations and the number of partners involved means that time is needed for these negotiations. The progress of these negotiations is at least in part linked to the evolution of economic integration within Mercosur.

The current situation in the region and, in particular the crisis in Argentina, is clearly a cause for concern: nevertheless, it is clear that both sides are determined to carry out their work programme in these negotiations and ensure that further progress is made. The General Affairs Council of 28 January 2002 adopted a political Declaration in favour of Mercosur as the Union believes that a strengthened Mercosur will be the key to the development of the region. At this meeting, the Union also reiterated the commitment to continue to make further progress in the negotiations.

(1) Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3645/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 January 2002)

Subject: Nitrogen oxide emissions in Spain

The environmental group Ecologists in Action recently condemned the fact that in 2000 Spain exceeded the nitrogen dioxide (NOX) emission limits for large-scale old power plants (existing prior to 1988) laid down in Directive 88/609/EEC(1). The directive stipulated that, from 1988 onwards, emissions from such plants in Spain should not exceed 277 000 tonnes.

Is the Commission aware of these emission levels? What will it do to ensure that Community legislation on this matter is observed?

(1) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Spain has submitted the following information regarding the emissions of nitrogen oxides from existing large combustion plants:

>TABLE>

In the case of Spain, the ceilings in Annex II of Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, for emissions of nitrogen oxides below which emissions are capped are 368 000 tonnes for 1993 and 277 000 tonnes for 1998. Emissions of nitrogen oxides from this category of plants will be reduced further as a result of the recently adopted directive on large combustion plants, Directive 2001/80/EC of

the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants(1). This new directive will require that more stringent environmental standards apply to existing plants from 1 January 2008. The Commission is enquiring with the Spanish authorities regarding more recent emission data and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings(2).

(1) OJ L 309, 27.11.2001.

(2) existing plants are defined as those for which the original construction licence or, in the absence of such a procedure, the original operating licence was granted before 1 July 1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3201/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Substandard work in the region of Malakasa

In the recent flooding in Greece (4.11.01) the section of the Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Evzoni highway in the region of Malakasa was again seriously damaged so that it had to be closed to traffic. In response to an earlier question on this topic (E-3481/00(1)), the Commission had answered that the Greek authorities had notified it that the contractors responsible were being obliged to repair the construction faults detected in the project out of their own pockets before the end of 2000.

Will the Commission say:

1. When did the contractors hand over the section of the project in question?

2. Do any rules exist about the provisional delivery of a project to ensure that it meets safety standards so that citizens do not suffer the consequences of substandard work?

3. Why has the repeated reconstruction of the section in question on each occasion been marred by substandard work?

4. What specific penalties have been imposed on the contractors?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 62.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The Commission was not informed of the date when the section of the Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Evzoni motorway around Malakassa was handed over but it has asked the Greek authorities for this information.

The procedures relating to the provisional acceptances of works are a matter for national legislation and are not therefore the responsibility of the Commission.

The work relating to the section of this motorway was part-financed under the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece for 1989-1993 and the corresponding operational programme (OP) was closed in 1995. The corrective measures taken by the Greek authorities to remedy the defects caused by the geological and technical problems encountered after closure of that OP were part-financed under the Greek CSF for 1994-1999. This work has not yet been finished and so it is premature to evaluate the outcome.

With regard to possible penalties to be imposed on the contractors, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question P-2890/01(1).

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2890/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Substandard work on public projects funded under the 2nd CSF

In its answer to my question No E-3481/00(1), the Commission recognised that there were a wide range of problems concerning substandard work on public construction projects in Greece funded under the 2nd CSF.

Does the Commission have any more recent information regarding the number of instances of substandard work since April 2000, and the total for all projects funded under the 2nd CSF? Is the Commission satisfied with the measures which Greece has taken to remedy such substandard work? If not, what measures will the Commission take to tackle this wide-ranging problem?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 62.

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions P-2890/01 and E-3197/01given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Members that, despite the reminder sent on 2 July, it has not yet received an answer to its letter of 29 January 2001 to the Greek authorities asking for precise information on action taken on files in categories 2 and 3 and any financial, administrative or other penalties imposed.

The Commission will repeat its request to those authorities and in all cases undertake a detailed examination of these files when the Community support framework for 1994-1999 is closed.

The Honourable Members are requested to refer to the answer which the Commission gave to Written Question E-1894/01 by Mr Hatzidakis(1) concerning communications by the Greek authorities under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field(2). Some of the additional information requested has meanwhile been received under Article 5 of that Regulation.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 5.

(2) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0228/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Benin

In relation to Benin can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Antigua and Barbuda

In relation to Antigua and Barbuda can the Commission specify which projects were funded from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it indicate the total volume of aid for 2000 under all the headings relating to this country?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0398/02

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: The myth of Icarus and European cultural policy

The forthcoming production of Icarus by British director Peter Greenaway does not mention the island of Ikaria onto which Icarus fell and where he was buried, according to the ancient myth of the fall of Icarus. This has caused considerable indignation among the island's residents and the Greek public in general.

The fact that this production is funded by Cultural Olympiad resources prompts concerns and doubts over the content and aims of its cultural policy and its capacity to protect and promote the particular cultural heritages of different peoples.

What is the European Union's financial and political contribution to the Cultural Olympiad programmes? What is the Commission's view of the above information and how does it intend to react?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The Commission does not in any way censor works produced with the support of national Ministries. Moreover, the Commission does not finance the Cultural Olympiad programmes and cannot therefore comment on the omission referred to in the British director's production.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0250/02

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Freedom of movement for workers

Freedom of movement for workers is covered by Articles 39 and 40 of the Treaty, Directives 91/533/EEC(1) and 96/71/EEC(2), Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(3), Regulation (EEC) No 1612/1968(4) and the judgments of the Court of Justice relating to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

The Commission was to have submitted a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing Directive 96/71/EEC in December 2001. There are a large number of cases where EU workers have been adversely affected by illegal recruitment, unequal pay and working conditions, and violations of the principles of national and Community legislation on social protection and contracts and of fundamental rights. Moreover, the integration of the labour market implies worker mobility.

Taking this into account, can the Commission assess the irregularities detected in the Member States as regards national and Community legislation, as well as the measures taken to prevent and punish these practices, particularly on the part of agencies supplying temporary staff, which are operating both legally and illegally on a large scale?

(1) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(4) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to various practices, which she describes as illegal, being carried out in violation of the various Community instruments.

It is up to the Member State concerned, through its competent national authorities and ultimately the national courts, to check that operators established in that State comply with national provisions implementing the Community measures in question.

With regard to Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(1), Article 8 provides that the Commission shall review the operation of the Directive with a view to proposing the necessary amendments to the Council where appropriate. The task of reviewing the Directive began in 2001. Reports on the transposition of the Directive in the fifteen Member States are being prepared and a survey has been carried out among national administrations concerning practical implementing measures. On the basis of this work, the Commission will be able to decide what action to take in respect of the abovementioned Article.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/02

by Jan Andersson (PSE) and Hans Karlsson (PSE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Difference in cost of closures

The recent events concerning Gislaved in Sweden have shown that when multinationals decide to close an individual unit in any Member State, one of their motives may be that it costs more to do so in some Member States than in others. The fact that certain Member States require for example retraining of the workforce or impose sanctions distorts competition to the detriment of countries which do not.

What is the Commission's view of this problem?

Will the Commission be submitting proposals to harmonise rules in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

Several Community Directives lay down procedures for informing and consulting workers' representatives and may be applicable to company closures: Council Directive 98/59/CE of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(1) and Council Directive 94/45/CE of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(2). Another Directive on employee consultation and information in the European Community, currently being adopted by the European Parliament and the European Council, will complete the Community's provisions on this matter.

On the other hand, the material requirements that companies need to observe when they close down production units are not covered by any Community instrument.

Nevertheless, on 15 January 2002, the Commission decided to initiate a Community-wide consultation process with the social partners on the possibility of establishing a set of principles that companies must follow when restructuring. Among the subjects referred to in the consultation document are the measures required to increase the adaptability and employability of workers, including vocational retraining. The first phase of the consultation process will conclude at the beginning of March 2002, and the Commission will carefully examine the social partners' replies before deciding on a course of action.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0227/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Benin

In relation to Benin can the Commission provide a list of projects approved for funding from the EU budget for 2001 and indicate the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0215/02, E-0216/02, E-0217/02,E-0218/02, E-0219/02, E-0220/02, E-0221/02, E-0222/02, E-0223/02,E-0224/02, E-0225/02, E-0226/02, E-0227/02 and E-0228/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0245/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Clarifications concerning the answer to the written questions on the review of action taken in Afghanistan pursuant to the various objectives set out in the Council common position of 22 January 2001

The Commission decided to provide a single answer to written questions E-3220/01-E-3252/01(1) on the review of action taken in Afghanistan pursuant to the Council common position of 22 January 2001. It emerges from this answer that, apart from humanitarian aid and a number of declarations, the commitment entered into has not been fulfilled (the Commission intends to direct its action towards achieving the objectives of the common position Article 7).

Therefore, the simple question posed in each of the written questions is being asked once again:

- What practical action did the Commission take prior to the events of 11 September with a view to achieving the individual objectives stated in the Council's common position?

- In particular how much European funding (in euro) was spent between 1 January and 11 September 2001, how much was earmarked for activities in Afghanistan and under what heading (budget item and project title), to whom were the sums paid and which of them were subject to controls and/or checks and by whom, and what were the results?

(1) See page 76.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of programmes under Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 in Greece

Serious irregularities have been reported in the press concerning the implementation of programmes under Regulation (EEC) 2078/92(1) and in particular the scheme for long-term set-aside of agricultural land. In fact the Ministry of Agriculture has announced that investigations would be held into the implementation of the programmes in the Prefecture of Ioannina to establish whether any maladministration occurred during the period 1996-1999.

1. Has the Commission evaluated the implementation of the programmes under Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 in every Member State except in respect of 1997 (COM 94/620)?

2. Is it aware of and has it investigated the allegations of maladministration in the implementation of the programme for the long-term set-aside of agricultural land in the Prefecture of Ioannina?

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

The Commission published a document (No VI/7655/98) on the evaluation of agri-environment programmes, which is available from the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm

In addition to this evaluation, the Commission asked the Member States to assess the progress of their earlier agri-environmental programmes in the new rural development plans for 2000-2006. The Commission also considered this particular issue when making a general assessment of these plans with a view to their approval.

The Commission knows about the problems in implementing the programme for the long-term set-aside of arable land, particularly in the prefecture of Ioannina. On 9 January 2002 it sent a letter to the Greek authorities asking for thorough controls of all beneficiaries and a detailed report on the matter. The Commission is also preparing to undertake its own control visit.