ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2527/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Collapse of Attica Road Bridge

The Commission's reply(1) to my question E-2176/98(2) on quality control in respect of projects undertaken as part of the Second CSF states: mldr on the basis of Greek law 2372/96, a specialised undertaking with an international reputation selected on the basis of a general competition has been charged with carrying out spot checks on the basis of a range of samples of co-funded projects.

In view of the collapse of the Attica Road Bridge, will the Commission say:

1. Which specialised undertakings with an international reputation have undertaken the supervision of the Attica Road projects?

2. On the basis of which competition and on what grounds were the specific undertakings selected?

3. How many experts are employed to monitor the quality of the projects, who are they and what is the evidence of their experience?

4. What is the cost of allocating the supervision of the Attica Road projects to the specific companies concerned, and how does their remuneration compare with that of other undertakings which have undertaken the supervision of the Egnatia Road projects, for instance?

5. Does the Commission consider that there has been any mismanagement or waste of Community and national funds as regards the supervision of the Attica Road projects?

6. Following the tragic collapse of the Attica Road Bridge, does it intend to impose sanctions, and if so, what kind of sanctions on those responsible, so as to protect the reputation of its project?

7. Who, in the its opinion, should assume responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by the collapse of the bridge and how will compensation be provided as a minimum form of recognition for the victims or their families?

(1) P-2120/98, OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.

(2) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission does not have the information required under items 1 to 4 of the question put by the Honourable Member, which concern the contractual relations between the Greek state, the concession-holding group and any subcontractors it engaged.

The Commission is not in a position to decide whether this accident demonstrates possible bad management of the Community funds allocated to supervision of the construction of the bridge and work on Via Attica, because it does not know the circumstances and the causes of the accident. If the Greek judicial system established facts revealing a misuse of these funds, the Commission would then draw the requisite conclusions and would consider any recovery of funds required.

The Commission regrets the deaths and casualties caused by this tragic accident. The allocation of responsibility, penalties and compensation for the victims are matters for the Greek authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2580/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Community programme ECIP

The European programme ECIP has been enormously successful, with over 3 billion euro having been distributed by the Commission for the cofinancing of actions provided for by Facilities 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Following the internal reorganisation of the Commission, the procedures for selecting and evaluating projects submitted have slowed down considerably, which a few months ago led to payments being suspended, despite the availability of funds, for projects already approved by the Commission.

Furthermore, the imminent expiry of the Council Regulation and the overall reorganisation of the investment aid programmes for third countries are likely to result in further delays for the beneficiaries who, moreover, have not been told when the procedures are likely to be concluded.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. Whether it has informed citizens of the decision to suspend payments, the reasons behind the suspension and the measures it intends to take to streamline procedures;

2. Whether it intends to provide for the release of financing for projects submitted and/or approved in the course of 1999;

3. What guarantees does it intend to give the beneficiaries of the projects that have already been lodged (and which are awaiting evaluation) and those that have already been selected, regarding the speedy resolution of the above problems;

4. Whether the ECIP programme will be renewed or replaced by a other programme;

5. Whether any transitional measures are planned in order to ensure continuity in the various procedural phases?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2580/99 and E-2599/99 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

In recent years, a backlog of outstanding files has accumulated under the European Community Investment Partners (ECIP) programme. For this reason it was decided in early 1999 that the Commission would prioritise the use of its limited resources towards the closure of the existing contractual files, making outstanding payments, and the recovery of unused and reimbursable ECIP funds.

The Commission has recently decided to propose to the Council and the Parliament that the ECIP Regulation should continue for a transitional period of one year to 31 December 2000 to allow for operational follow-up of actions already financed and amendments to contracts already signed, and for technical assistance to ensure the completion and closure of ongoing actions. New projects will not be financed after 31 December 1999 and any financing requests which were not the subject of formal Commission approval before that date will be returned to the applicants.

In 2000, an independent evaluation of ECIP will be completed which will allow the Commission to define a more co-ordinated strategy for the various instruments intended to promote investment in developing countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2495/99

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Legal certainty in the information society

The Commission has made impressive steps (through its proposals COM(98) 586 and COM(96) 392) towards giving participants in e-commerce and the information society a firm legal basis and legal scrutiny.

Can it confirm that it will do nothing which would undermine this legal security, for example by making Internet Service Providers liable in all countries, purely on the grounds that websites are accessible in those countries?

Will it ensure that future initiatives concerning extra-contractual liability will be in line with the abovementioned proposals and avoid the possibility of lawyers being able to shop around for the national law most beneficial to them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission's objective with its proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market(1) and proposal for a Parliament and Council directive amending for the third time Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(2), has been to create a coherent and predictable legal framework for the development of e-commerce within the internal market. The recognition that a clearly defined legal framework based on established internal market principles is an essential element to promote e-commerce in the internal market is reflected in the political agreement on the common position on the proposed e-commerce directive reached by the Council on 7 December 1999.

The directive is based on the principle of country-of-origin control of information society services, particularly Internet service providers. This principle, together with the exemption from liability for mere conduit and caching and the limitation of liability for services consisting of hosting information for third parties, will create the required legal certainty and will stimulate investments. The proposed e-commerce directive does not establish rules on private international law nor does it deal with the jurisdiction of courts.

The Commission is analysing the information it has received from business and consumers alike in the context of a public hearing on the subject of electronic commerce jurisdiction and applicable law and will take it into account in presenting any new initiatives in this area.

(1) OJ C 30, 5.2.1999.

(2) OJ C 307, 16.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1930/99

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Prosperity of euro countries

Can the Commission report on the success of the Single Currency to date? How does the prosperity of the euro countries, and EU non-euro countries, compare with the rest of the world?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

As a result of economic and monetary union (EMU) the Member States which have adopted the euro as the single currency are able to return to the path of growth and to benefit from the positive impact of the expansion in the international use of the euro.

These Member States have already thoroughly overhauled their public finances. This culture of stability, adopted in order to comply with the Maastricht criteria and move to the euro, is beginning to bear fruit. 1998 returned the best economic results of the decade: 2,8 % growth and 1,7 million net jobs created. The economic fundamentals of the euro zone are satisfactory: low inflation, low interest rates. The Commission's autumn forecasts, which are now being prepared, will probably confirm that Europe is in the process of reversing the trend of rising unemployment.

The euro is already standing shoulder to shoulder with the dollar on the international bond markets. The statistics available for the first half of 1999 show that euro issues account for some 44 % of total world bond issues. By comparison, the proportion of issues in the eleven euro zone currencies was 30 % of the total in 1997. The euro is therefore more than a simple sum of the currencies it replaces. It is becoming a major international currency. The constitution of a wide, deep and liquid European financial market means that businesses in the Community can obtain finance more easily. For example, the corporate bond market has expanded rapidly since the beginning of the year. The share of companies in total euro bond issues is three times their share in 1998 in European currencies. This trend will also help increase Europe's importance on the monetary stage and by extension redress the balance of the international monetary system.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2017/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 1999)

Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects

On 13 October 1998, in reply to my question No E-2176/98(1), the then Commissioner, Mrs Wulf-Mathies, said that the first ESPEL quarterly report had found that quality problems did exist in various projects and that ESPEL would proceed to carry out systematic and in-depth checks on 2nd CSF projects.

In the light of the large number of accidents on Greek motorways caused by substandard work and inadequate checking systems, will the Commission say what the results of ESPEL's checks are to date? In which specific projects have substandard work or shortcomings been identified? Have those been rectified by the contractors and at whose expense? What financial, disciplinary, penal or other administrative consequences (e.g. blacklisting) will be imposed on those responsible for the failings and substandard work?

(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51 and OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that between July 1998 and July 1999 the independent quality control body ESPEL carried out 339 systematic checks on road projects part-financed in Greece under the second Community support framework (1994-99 programming period). The results were: 34 % of the projects were in order or suffered from minor shortcomings that would be corrected by the contractors (first category); 61 % suffered from major shortcomings without safety implications but entailing additional maintenance costs that would be deducted from the payments to the contractors concerned (second category); 18 projects suffered from serious shortcomings that could not be corrected and rebuilding would have to be effected at the contractors' expense (third category). A list of these projects, the files for which have been sent to the public prosecutor by the Ministry for Economic Affairs, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

For motorways the situation was: for the Egnatia, of 21 contracts checked 16 fell into the first and 5 into the second category; for PATHE, of 12 contracts checked 8 fell into the first, 3 into the second and 1 into the third category.

The Commission has no detailed information at the moment on the outcome of all these cases. The Greek authorities have told it that in a number of instances the defects have already been corrected or payment for the work in question reduced, and that the checking carried out by the abovementioned inspectors would serve to update the list of public works contractors not conforming with the correct procedures.

The Commission intends asking the Greek authorities for a full review of the situation and detailed information on the penalties to be imposed and their budgetary impact.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1746/99

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from EU aid for firms in Italy

A number of firms in the Tauber district (Baden-Württemberg) and the Heilbron chamber of commerce and industry have complained to me that the Commission is granting financial aid, as a means of encouraging participation at trade fairs (Promotion-Action), to the region of Umbria and that this is being used for the co-financing of the national and regional authorities there. The co-financing is provided as part of an operational programme submitted by the region to the Commission and handled by Directorate-General XVI (or V). The money is being used at Perugia Classico, the musical instrument fair in Perugia, to finance not only the costs of stands and the fair but also travel and accommodation expenses of persons attending the fair (including flights, hotels, meals and tourist attractions).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does the information I have received reflect the real situation?

2. Do you agree that in this case the firms in question enjoy an unacceptable competitive advantage over German firms, for example?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Part of the Umbria region is eligible in the current programming period under Objectives 2 and 5(b) of the Structural Funds, the programmes for which include a tourism promotion measure.

Any grant of aid to businesses under this measure is subject to Community rules, the ones on competition in particular. The authority responsible for managing the programmes, in this case the Umbria region, must ensure that these rules and the rules on the eligibility of expenditure as laid down in the relevant decisions are all observed.

According to the information in the Commission's possession, the Perugia Classico event is being entirely funded by the municipality of Perugia. It should also be noted that the municipality is not in an area eligible for the Structural Funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1933/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Progress in implementing the operational programme concerning education and initial training under the Community Support Framework for Greece

From the Commission's answer to one of my previous questions(1) it emerged that there were problems involved in implementing the operational programme concerning education and initial training under the Community Support Framework for Greece and that appropriations were moving very slowly. Can the Commission say what the current take-up rate of scheduled appropriations is? Have the problems associated with the implementation of the programme been overcome and, if not, to what are such long delays attributable?

(1) H-411/97, Debates of the European Parliament (June 1997).

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

There has been considerable recent acceleration in the implementation of the operational programme (OP) in question.

As far as the European social fund is concerned, 100 % of the planned appropriations have now been committed and 78,86 % have already been paid to Greece. The European regional development fund (ERDF) has committed 82 % and paid 48 % of the planned ERDF credits. All ERDF credits will be committed before 31 December 1999.

All national legal commitments have to be undertaken by the end of 1999, while implementation can continue until December 2001. A final internal reprogramming of the OP Education and initial training will be made in this year, with a view to correcting programming and ensuring full absorption of all available credits.

Most of the problems of the past, which had seriously delayed the financial implementation of the programme, seem to have been overcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1742/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Construction of nuclear power plant in earthquake zone at Akkuyu, Turkey

The recent disastrous earthquake measuring 7,4 on the Richter scale in north-east Turkey and last year's earthquake measuring 6 on the Richter scale at Adana have provoked further alarm over the risk of a future earthquake in the region of Akkuyu, where Turkey plans to build a nuclear power plant. This area is only 27 kilometres from the active seismic fault known as Ecemis. We are aware that the European Union is not empowered to participate in procedures for selecting sites for nuclear reactors but that does not reassure the populations of Turkey and its neighbouring countries about the risk of a nuclear accident owing to the exceptionally high level of seismic activity in the region.

What means does the Commission have at its disposal to persuade Turkey to devise other solutions to its energy problem? What initiatives does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-1423/99 by Mr Trakatellis(1).

(1) See page 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Canadian Fisheries Act C-27

The Commission has acknowledged that the Canadian Fisheries Act C-27 is inconsistent with international law. It has not been amended during its passage through Parliament, as called for by the EU on many occasions, and the recent EU-Canada Summit in June 1999 failed to make any progress on this serious issue, with the result that the extraterritorial aspects of Canadian fisheries legislation, which were described by the Commission in its answer to my previous question, prior to the Summit (E-0942/99)(1) as being a matter of grave concern for the Community, remain.

Can the Commission say what fresh action it will take in response to Canada's lack of will to resolve this serious dispute which will hinder the smooth progress of EU-Canada relations until it is settled?

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 145.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

Community concerns about the Canadian legislation enabling Canada to implement the 1995 United Nations (UN) agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (Bill C-27) have made this one of the most important topics between the Community and Canada. This led to increased contacts with the Canadian side at both expert and political levels in the wake of the Community-Canada summit in June 1999. In the course of this process, substantial progress has been made. Canada submitted written statements which clarify the respective scopes of the extra-territorial legislation of 1994 and the newly enacted legislation and which confirm that the terms of the new legislation are intended to be fully consistent with the terms of the UN agreement and will be applied accordingly. As these statements meet Community concerns in a satisfactory manner, the most sensitive political issues can be brought to a close. The Commission, therefore, issued Canada with a note verbale on 30 September 1999 setting out the Community's understanding of these political issues and reserving the Community's position on certain other extra-territorial aspects of Canadian fisheries legislation. In the latter context, it may be necessary to address some outstanding legal matters of a more technical nature once the Commission's analysis of the subordinate Canadian implementing regulations has been completed. To this end, Commission and Canadian experts will meet soon.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 93/0104/EC on working time

Because Directive 93/0104/EC(1) on working time has not been transposed into Luxembourg law, employees in certain economic sectors, for example the hotel and catering trade, are obliged to work very long hours far in excess of the norm laid down at European level.

What is the current position, and what steps are being taken to make the Luxembourg authorities transpose the above Directive and comply with Community law?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1999)

The Luxembourg authorities have communicated to the Commission their national measures implementing Directive 93/0104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time. The Commission is currently undertaking a thorough analysis of this legislation. A report on the implementation of Directive 93/0104/EC in the Member States is due to be presented early in 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implementation in Greece of Directive 89/48.



Official Journal 170 E , 20/06/2000 P. 0144 - 0144



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 November 1999) Subject: Implementation in Greece of Directive 89/48 In its judgment of 23 March 1995 (Case C 365/93), the Court of Justice ruled that Greece had failed to implement Community Directive 89/48(1) on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration. Since complaints from members of the public have shown that DIKATSA, the Greek public organisation responsible for the recognition of such diplomas, has failed to comply with the Directive in question, will the Commission say whether Greece is implementing the ruling of the Court of Justice? If not, what measures will the Commission take to bring Greek legislation into line with Community law? (1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (30 November 1999) As a result of Greece's failure to comply with the Court of Justice judgment of 23 March 1995, the Commission initiated new infringement proceedings against Greece on 10 December 1997, accompanied by a request for a periodic penalty payment, for its failure to transpose Council Directive 89/0048/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration. The hearing at the Court of Justice took place on 20 October 1999.