ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1325/01

by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: 15-month prison sentence handed down to Mr Sotiris Bletsas for distributing information material financed by the Commission

In a resolution of 3 February 2001 the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL) in Dublin condemned the sentencing of Mr Sotiris Bletsas, a Greek national, by a court in Athens to 15 months' imprisonment. Mr Sotiris Bletsas was convicted of disseminating false information about a European minority language in Greece. However, this allegedly false information consisted of a reference to the existence of the Vlach language in information material produced by the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages concerning minority languages in Europe. This material is financed by the Commission. Moreover, the existence of Vlach is recognised in the Commission's Euromosaic report.

Is the Commission aware of the conviction of Mr Sotiris Bletsas?

If so, does the Athens court's decision violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression?

Is the Commission considering taking steps against Greece, a Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-0487/01 by Mr Wyn and Mr Knörr Borràs(1), the Commission is following this matter closely and has asked the Greek Government to provide it with further information and in particular a copy of the ruling.

The Commission is not in a position to comment until it has all the necessary information and is fully aware of the facts.

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 125.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0394/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: ETA terrorist operations

According to information from the reputable Spanish newspaper El Pais, police sources and the public, the terrorist organisation ETA has extorted substantial sums of money from small businessmen and small businesses in the Basque country by sending them letters threatening their lives. Recently, a death-threat against the famous French footballer, Lizarazu, was also given wide publicity. Furthermore, the newspaper Diario 16 revealed that many Basque footballers have received similar threats from ETA and pay extortion money to avoid assassination by that organisation. Apparently, the extortion money paid by the terror victims to avoid assassination is used to finance ETA's deadly terrorist operations and to enable the terrorists to live in comfort without having to work.

Does the Council not think that, instead of confining itself to condemning violence and expressing its sorrow for the victims every time that ETA commits an assassination (which the European Parliament also does, of course), it would be more effective to point out that the terrorists concerned - claiming that they seek the independence of the Basque country - are also fighting for their own personal wealth? Would not such an accusation severely undermine their standing since it would discredit their alleged revolutionary selflessness and their patriotic aspirations?

In the light of these facts, will the Council draw up an integrated policy to combat terrorism?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Council is working towards an integrated approach against the scourge of terrorism. Every six months a paper on the threat that it poses is drawn up and exchanges of views on recent incidents take place regularly.

One of the objectives of European security and defence policy is to combat terrorism. More specifically, the Council Recommendation of 9 December 1999 provides for cooperation between Member States' authorities in financing the fight against terrorism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0641/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Milk brand names

In Italy cartons of milk are marketed using the names of specific geographical areas (for example, Busto Arsizio milk or Brianza milk) without there being any connection between the area mentioned on the packaging and the area in which the milk is actually produced, which may be different.

Can the Commission say whether or not such commercial practices are in breach of the regulations in force in this area?

Answer given by M. Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The milk brand names to which the Honourable Member refers are not registered as Protected designations of origin or Protected geographical indications within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1).

Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(2) provides that the labelling and methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser () as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular () the origin or provenance (of that foodstuff).

A name or indication in the labelling referring to a specific region would therefore be admissible only if the foodstuff was actually produced in that region.

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to obtain further information so that it can look into the case reported by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/01

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Commission's services initiative

In some Member States, access to and exercise of some trades and professions are still subject to state regulation. Such state regulation, the German Chimney Sweeps Act for example, provides inter alia for territorial protection and fixed fees which are higher than those for similar activities. That results in disparities in regulation within the European Union and in the partitioning off of national and regional markets.

As part of its services initiative, does the Commission intend to propose an opening up of markets in this area?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Communication from the Commission of 29 December 2000(1) sets out a strategy for creating an internal market for services, in order to ensure that services can move as freely from one Member State to another as they can within an individual Member State.

This strategy has a two-step approach: the first step (2001) will consist of a comprehensive, systematic identification of the barriers to free movement of services across national frontiers, irrespective of the sector involved. The second step (2002) will focus on proposals for appropriate solutions.

The analysis which the Commission is currently undertaking is therefore also concerned with restrictions on the free movement of services which may be caused by regulations concerning conditions of access to and exercise of certain professions.

As regards the German Law on Chimney Sweeps, the Commission has received a number of petitions drawing its attention to the need to analyse in detail requirements such as those arising from the German legislation on chimney sweeps, which restricts to the profession of district master chimney sweep the exercise of an activity which, in other Member States, may be carried out by professions with the same qualifications.

(1) COM(2000) 888 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1460/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Budget Line A-3022

1 500 000 was allocated both for 2000 and 2001 to Budget Line A-3022, Study and Research Centres.

Could the Commission confirm which organisations and centres have benefitted from this line in the past, giving full details of the projects that were carried out?

How many new and existing organisations applied for this funding for 2001, and in what way does the Commission audit the use of Community money from this line?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it produces an annual report on all the grants awarded under Chapter A-30, listing the beneficiaries, the amount of the grant and the percentage co-financed. This report, which has already been sent to Parliament this year (to the Secretariat of the Committee on Budgets) contains information on the beneficiaries of grants made from budget line A-3022.

The projects to be funded under the 2001 budget are currently being selected. Of the 136 proposals received by the Commission, 21 come from organisations (universities or associations of university teachers) selected in previous years.

Line A-3022 is used to fund not the operating costs of the organisations receiving the grants, but costs directly linked with the projects funded. Monitoring the use to which grants are put requires analysis of the final report and the financial statement which all organisations are required to submit at the end of the project. This analysis is conducted before the balance of the grant is paid out. In some cases it may result in recovery of part of the advance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Cost of the Dehaene Group in 1999

In October 1999, the three wise men Dehaene, Simon and von Weizsäcker submitted a report to the Commission on the institutional implications of enlargement ahead of the intergovernmental conference.

In September 1999, the three wise man had been asked by the President of the Commission completely independently to identify institutional problems and to set out arguments as to why those issues should be dealt with by the intergovernmental conference.

Did the Commission bear the costs of the three wise men's work and how much were those costs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2595/99 by Mr Hannan(1)

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0556/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Statement of Assurance for DG Development

At the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control of 7 February 2001, Commissioner Fischler stated that the exact error rate in 1999 for financial transactions within DG Agriculture was 3,06 %.

In the spirit of cooperation and transparency between the European institutions, could the Commissioner with special responsibility for Development provide a similar figure for financial transactions within that Directorate-General? If not, why not?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-0553/01, E-0554/01, E-0555/01, E-0556/01, E-0557/01, E-0558/01, E-0559/01, E-0560/01, E-0561/01, E-0562/01, E-0563/01, E-0564/01, E-0565/01, E-0566/01, E-0567/01, E-0568/01, E-0569/01 and E-0570/01 given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Auditors does not provide an error rate in the framework of its Statement of Assurance for the general budget as it considers that it is an oversimplification to gauge the success of the Commission's financial management on the basis of this single indicator.

Thus the Court decided three years ago to stop the publication of a global error rate and to develop its Statement of Assurance methodology in order to provide to the Discharge Authority with more detailed descriptive information.

Moreover, the Court of Auditors has said on several occasions that if it was to generate error rates at a lower level (eg. by sector or by Directorate general) from a general error rate, these would be wholly misleading. The restricted number of transactions that the Court audits does not make it possible for it to determine a valid error rate at this lower level.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to provide to the Honourable Member the requested information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), Den Dover (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE), Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Bashir Khanbhai (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 February 2001)

Subject: The role of the Economic and Social Committee and the prioritising of expenditures within the European Union

Can the Council state what role it sees the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) as having now that the European Parliament is directly elected, and whether it believes that the continued expenditure of hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayers' money on the Committee is justified and likely to command the support of the European taxpayer if knowledge of these levels of expenditure was better publicised?

In particular, in view of Commission President Prodi's statement last year to the effect that the European Commission needed more funds to carry out its core tasks and the Commission's refusal at the end of last year to take on certain new tasks until it had received additional funds, does the Council feel that if the Commission cannot find additional funds through elimination of wasteful expenditure within the Commission itself that the Member States should agree to wind down the Economic and Social Committee and use part of the savings (including, where appropriate, the transfer of staff from ECOSOC) to pay for the additional tasks which the Commission may in the future be asked to carry out?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

It is not for the Council of the European Union to give an opinion on the role of a Community body provided for by the Treaty. However, the attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the relevant provisions of the Treaty (Articles 257 to 262) defining the role and function of the Economic and Social Committee. These provisions were basically confirmed by the Treaty signed in Nice on 16 February 2001, which extends the composition of the Committee by referring to organised civil society and by specifically mentioning consumers. This Treaty is currently subject to ratification by the Member States.

With respect to the second part of the question, the Honourable Members are invited to consult the European Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Complaint regarding the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in San Fernando de Henares (Spain)

The El Molino cultural association has issued a complaint regarding the go-ahead given by San Fernando de Henares town council (Community of Madrid, Spain) for a project to build an industrial estate on a site set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142. The partial encroachment into and alterations to the area would be in breach of the European legislation in force, not least Council Directive 92/43/EEC(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

According to the local media, the complaint was lodged with the Commission on 2 September 2000, and in a written reply dated 16 January 2001 the Commission reportedly stated that the complaint was admissible and that a procedure was being launched to ascertain and investigate the facts referred to in the complaint (Crónica de Madrid, 12 February 2001).

In addition, the socialist group on San Fernando de Henares council has approached the mayor and council leader with an urgent request for proper clarification of this matter, which has naturally provoked legitimate concern and alarm amongst the local residents.

What measures has the Commission adopted with regard to this matter?

What is the state of play as regards the aforementioned procedure to ascertain and investigate the facts referred to in the complaint?

What decisions will the Commission adopt, where appropriate, to ensure that, in keeping with the principle of environmental conservation, the ZEPA 142 site enjoys protection from any arbitrary measures adopted by the aforementioned authorities in breach of the European legislation in force?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The area in question is indeed special protection area (SPA) 142 for birds, classified in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1). It is also a site of Community importance (SCI 3110006) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

On the basis of the information received from the complainant, the Commission recently asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the reported situation. It also asked them to send it a copy of the impact statement relating to the project in question, along with a detailed description of the types of habitat to be found in the area concerned.

The Commission will, in any event, ensure compliance with the Community law applicable to this case.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0485/01

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) and Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council

(23 February 2001)

Subject: State aid to support the fishing industry

The Commission recently opened a formal investigation into state aid schemes in France and Spain which are providing support to the fishing industry following recent increases in fuel prices.

Speaking before the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries on 10 October 2000, the French President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Jean Glavany, agreed to ask the Commission about what measures might reasonably be taken to alleviate the pressure of such structural crises in the industry.

Can the Council outline what joint efforts have been made in this regard?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council has received no proposal for any particular action by the Community in this respect. It would, however, recall that any national measures must comply with the Community's competition rules and rules on state aid. Such measures should be notified to the Commission, be degressive and limited in time.

The question was raised on the Presidency's initiative at the Council on 17 November 2000. It has not been further pursued.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2026/01

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Suspension of Schengen Agreement

During the Gothenburg Summit, the Schengen Agreement was suspended by the national police commissioner and the Västra Götaland county police commissioner. On what grounds and by whom may the Schengen Agreement be suspended, and for what duration?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Under Article 2(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (which has been incorporated into the Union framework), a Member State may decide, where public policy or national security so require, and after consulting the other Member States, that internal border checks appropriate to the situation are to be reinstated for a limited period.

If public policy or national security require immediate action, a Member State may take the necessary measures and inform the other Member States thereof at the earliest opportunity.

The reinstatement of checks at internal borders is therefore an exceptional measure, which must be proportionate to the situation confronting the Member State. It must also be limited to the duration of the threat to public policy or national security. The final decision on reintroducing border checks rests with the Member State concerned.

The above explanations reflect the Schengen acquis as it has been incorporated into the Union framework. The acquis as a whole, which is intergovernmental in origin, will have to be replaced by appropriate legal instruments under the first and third pillars.

In its work programme, the Commission announced its intention of presenting a legislative proposal relating to Article 2 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

In the meantime, the Commission considers that it is entitled to receive notifications in the same manner and at the same time as Member States applying the Schengen Agreement, by virtue of its role as guardian of the Treaty. In this capacity it also takes part in the relevant consultations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/01

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Refusal to fund the Algerian Watch web site

The Commission has refused to grant financial assistance to the Algerian Watch Internet portal on the grounds that projects to be funded must be in line with the indicative programme in the areas and sectors determined jointly in advance by the Commission and the Algerian Government.

Is it usually the case under the procedures for selecting projects or activities to be financed by the Commission under the MEDA programme that the governments of the recipient countries sanction the approval of and funding for projects?

Does the Commission consider the Algerian Watch web site to be suitable for Community funding inasmuch as it helps to foster democracy, transparency, and pluralism in Algeria?

Has it been instructed by any Algerian or European authority, institution, or organisation not to finance the web site?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

In Meda co-operation, the Commission and the partner government agree a three-year indicative programme setting out the fields and sectors for Community assistance. All operations must therefore be part of the overall programme agreed with the Algerian government.

Algeria Watch's grant application concerns the development of the English-language version of its website. The aim is to publish information on Algeria throughout Europe.

Nobody has instructed the Commission not to finance Algeria Watch's website.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Public procurement and invitations to tender

Further to Parliament's consideration of the directives on tendering, will the Commission state:

1. the percentage of GDP represented by public procurement in each Member State, and

2. the percentage of the value of public procurement represented by public invitation to tender in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has estimated the value of total public procurement as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) for the period 1993 to 1998.

>TABLE>

These figures are based on the General Government Data as reported to the Commission by Member States' National Statistical Institutes according to the European Standard of Integrated Economic Accounts (ESA)79 accounting rules, and verified by the Statistical Office of the European Communites (Eurostat). They include estimates for the Utilities based on data provided by the entities themselves in 1994 and 1998.

This figures may be revised upwards on the basis of ESA 95 accounting rules, which started being applied practically from 1998.

The Commission has also estimated the value of public procurement advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities Supplement S, as a percentage of GDP for the period 1994 to 1999. The table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The change to the European System of Accounts also affects the estimate of the amount of public procurement published in the Official Journal as a percentage of GDP, since the calculation of GDP has changed, although the estimate of published public procurement has not.

To maintain comparability, therefore, in the following table the figures for 1998 are given both according to the previous accounting rules and according to ESA95.