ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/878

(2004/C 78 E/0931)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3927/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject: Modular road trains on European roads

At present it is only Sweden and Finland which are taking advantage of exemptions to use modular road trains up to 25,25 m in length.

Two modular road trains take up less space than three normal lorries, which help reduce the congestion on the European road network. It also means a reduction in the number of drivers and thus in the risk to road safety.

The introduction of modular road trains will also mean lower emissions per tonne of transported goods, with clear benefits to the environment.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to introduce modular road trains into transnational transport throughout the EU — with a view to reducing emissions in the transport sector and congestion on the European road network?

What is the Commission doing to incorporate the environmental dimension into regulations on weight and dimensions?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Although economic considerations could support the argument for increasing the weight and dimensions of road haulage vehicles, such a measure would very probably have a negative overall impact, in that instead of encouraging modal transfer from road to rail (as recommended by the Commission in its 2001 White Paper on common transport policy) it would do the opposite. The environmental consequences would therefore be uncertain and the increase in the number of longer and heavier lorries on the road could have a negative impact on safety.

The last time the Directive on weights and measures (1) was amended, the Member States and the Commission took the view that the rules on weight and dimensions should remain stable in the long term. (The amendment concerned buses and coaches only.)

The Commission is still exchanging views on the subject with the Member States within a group of experts.

(1) Directive 2002/07/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councill of 18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/887

(2004/C 78 E/0938)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3954/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Issue of one-euro banknotes

In many countries, and especially in Italy, the introduction of the euro and the accompanying replacement of national currencies has led to a significant rise in inflation, particularly in consumer and retail prices.

The rise in inflation is depressing consumption and significantly reducing the purchasing power of the most vulnerable sectors of Europe's population, especially pensioners.

Consumers often still find themselves unprepared for using the new European currency.

Had the Commission anticipated these consequences?

Does the Commission not consider that it would be desirable to allow the issue of one-euro banknotes, thus giving consumers the instant psychological impression that the notes are in fact worth more, particularly in Italy?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission's analysis of the evolution of the harmonised consumer price index shows that the introduction of the euro impinged on the inflation rate, although the effect has been very limited. In the euro area as a whole, only up to 0,3 % rate points at most of the euro area inflation rate of 2,3 % in 2002 (2,6 % for Italy) can be attributed to the introduction of the euro. Price increases in certain sectors were somewhat higher (e.g. restaurants, hotels, services, etc.), although their impact on the overall harmonised consumer price index is rather small since such items only represent a small share of the overall consumer basket.

The latest Eurobarometer survey (published on 15 December 2003) indicates that consumers appreciate the euro. In particular the results concerning the euro banknotes and coins show that in general citizens handle the single currency very well. 92 % (92 % in Italy) do not have any problems in handling the euro banknotes, while 71 % (75 % in Italy) find it easy to distinguish and use the coins.

The same survey also points out that only 31 % of the euro area citizens are in favour of a one-euro banknote. Support for such a banknote only originates from two countries, where a majority (76 % in Italy, 70 % in Greece) would welcome the introduction of a one-euro banknote. However, in the ten other euro-area countries, there is a clear majority (exceeding 60 % in all cases and even reaching almost 90 % in a number of countries) against the introduction of such an additional banknote.

In accordance with the EC Treaty, any decision on banknote denominations would have to be taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) which has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes. The ECB has decided to look into the matter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/160

(2004/C 78 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Leader+: pre-financing by promoters

Under the Leader+ programme, proof of the completed implementation of the intended measures must be provided following the project's approval. This includes producing receipted invoices, meaning that the promoters must settle the bill before being reimbursed and must therefore be able to pre-finance their own measures. For financially weak promoters, however, this is often not possible.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Is it possible for promoters who are not able to provide upfront funding for their measures to be exempt from the requirement to produce receipted invoices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission knows about and regrets the difficulties spoken of by the Honourable Member that recipients of assistance under the Leader+ programme may encounter. The rule of reimbursing only expenditure actually incurred is, however, a common one for all payments from the four Community Structural Funds, including the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guidance Section, and applies to all types of programme. It is a matter of compliance with Article 32(1) third subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), which states that ‘interim payments and payments of the balance shall relate to expenditure actually paid out, which must correspond to payments effected by the final beneficiaries, supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value.’ There is no provision for any exception to this rule.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/658

(2004/C 78 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3849/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Compilation of information on organ transplants in Europe

Further to its answer to my Written Question E-1666/03 (1), could the Commission indicate if it has now concluded the compilation of information on the situation in respect of organ transplants in the Member States and applicant countries. If so, what conclusions has it drawn, and what action does it now propose to take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The Commission has compiled data on the current practices and legal requirements related to organ transplantation in the Member States and the Acceding Countries and it is in the process of analysing the results. These results will be integrated in a more comprehensive report on a Community approach to be taken in the field of organ transplantation that the Commission will bring forward when the necessary analysis and preparation has been undertaken.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 122.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/97

(2004/C 84 E/0127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3780/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Caraira under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1092/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Cararra had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/670

(2004/C 88 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4081/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Tuberculosis

The Global Drug Facility (GDF) has been successful in providing a reliable and cheap supply of high quality TB drugs, serving nearly two million patients in 46 countries over the past two years.

However, the GDF is in urgent need of additional funding if its work is to continue.

Does the Commission recognise the role of the GDF in combating TB and does it intend to provide the organisation with funding to enable it to continue its work?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Commission recognises the important role the Global Tuberculosis (TB) Drug Facility (GDF) plays within the Stop TB partnership to expand access to, and availability of, high-quality TB drugs to facilitate global Directly Observed Treatment Short-regime (DOTS) expansion to control TB worldwide.

The Commission already provides support for the fight against TB as part of the Programme for Action: accelerated action on Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a broad and coherent Community response for 2001-2006. Community programmed support through the various financial instruments to confront HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1,2 billion for the period 2003-2006. This figure includes support to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The Commission has disbursed EUR 120 million to the fund for 2002 and has programmed support of EUR 340 million for years 2003-2006, out of which 170 million have already been paid. 17 % of the funds allocated in the initial rounds went to TB control programmes. It is estimated that these projects will provide Directly Observed Treatment Short-Regime (DOTS) coverage for 2,8 million patients as compared with a coverage of 830,000 in 2000. Furthermore, 46 % of the funds for all diseases are allocated to providing drugs and commodities. Given this, the Commission does not intend to provide direct support to the GDF.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/97

(2004/C 84 E/0126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3779/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Terni under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1103/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/323

(2004/C 78 E/0336)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3803/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni

In its answer to question E-0990/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/681

(2004/C 78 E/0726)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4031/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Language programme for minority languages

In July 2003, the Commission published a call for proposals (GD EAC/45/03) to prepare the ground for the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity (1).

One of the aims explicitly mentioned in the call for proposals was to disseminate information and raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages. Following the deadline for the submission of project proposals at the end of September(!), seven of the thirty-three project proposals received were accepted.

How many of the 33 project proposals submitted were specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and minority languages, which, as reflected by the Action Plan's inclusive approach, contribute as much to linguistic diversity as the official languages of the European Union?

How many of the seven project proposals selected are specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and minority languages, which, as reflected by the Action Plan's inclusive approach, contribute as much to linguistic diversity as the official languages of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Call for proposals EAC/45/03 aimed at funding:

— projects to disseminate information and raise awareness of the potential of existing programmes, and

— activities to promote regional and minority languages as well as to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the future Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity.

The Commission received a total of 33 project proposals. A large majority of projects did not target specific languages. However, 10 proposals were specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and minority languages.

Out of the seven project proposals selected, three were aimed specifically at promoting regional and minority languages:

(a) ‘Cramlap — Celtic, Regional and Minority Languages Abroad Project’ (University of Belfast).

(b) ‘Network of European Language Planning Boards — Developing a structure for co-operation’ (Welsh Language Board, Cardiff).

(c) ‘ADUM — Working together to promote regional and minority languages in Europe’ (Open University of Catalonia).

The remaining four projects do not aim to promote specific languages.

Information about the seven selected projects is available at the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/ comm/education/programmes/calls/languages/selection.pdf).

(1) OJ C 180, 31.7.2003, p. 34.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/179

(2004/C 78 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Unsatisfactory performance by building and holiday home cooperatives in Greece

Very strong dissatisfaction is being expressed in Greece by members of building and holiday home cooperatives who maintain that, having paid annual and lump sum contributions over long periods, they have not yet obtained building plots. One example of this is the Medical Staff Summer Property Cooperative situated in Athens (Odos Rizari 17), founded in 1965 and officially recognised in 1968 by the Greek Social Affairs Ministry. It has 3090 members. However, after a period of over 35 years its members (doctors and medical staff) maintain that they have not yet obtained building plots despite payment of their annual contributions to the cooperative, together with additional lump sum payments amounting to hundreds of thousands of drachmae each (at early 1980s prices).

What view does the Commission take of the fact that nationals of an EU Member State have for 35 years or more been paying contributions and subscriptions to a building cooperative without yet obtaining from it the building plots to which they are entitled? What legal measures can be taken to protect the interests of the thousands of members of this and other cooperatives which have been collecting subscriptions for years (or, as claimed by the members of this particular association, for decades) without any building plots having yet been obtained?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

There is no relevant European legislation covering the situation described by the Honourable Member. The provisions of Directive 94/47/EC on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis do not apply to cooperatives. Timeshare amounts to buying a right to spend a set period of time once a year in a holiday property for three years or longer. The purchase of a plot in a building or holiday home cooperative does not limit the enjoyment of this plot to a set annual period of time.

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with private matters, such as those raised in the question asked by the Honourable Member, which, on the basis of the information provided, appears to be a contractual matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/581

(2004/C 78 E/0615)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3546/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Using intelligent speed adaptation in road vehicles

Every year, 40 000 people are killed and 1 700 000 injured on Europe's roads. In order to improve road safety in Europe, the European Commission proposes greater use of information and communication technologies. Innovations in terms of the burgeoning technical possibilities in this area are still, however, largely focused on drivers and passengers.

Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is not among the Commission's proposals. ISA prevents drivers from driving faster than the permitted maximum speed. According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, this technology guarantees better protection not only for vehicle occupants but also for vulnerable road users, namely pedestrians and cyclists.

Does the Commission intend to promote and endorse ISA at European level? If not, what measures is the Commission taking to improve the safety of vulnerable road users?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

In its Road Safety Action Programme (1), the Commission announced its intention to examine national trials of Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) devices and to assess their acceptability to the public. In this context, the Commission is giving its support to the development of ISA devices, particularly through the ongoing Prosper and Speed Alert projects. These projects are aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of ISA devices, the cost of introducing them, the industrial implications of creating an infrastructure to support these devices, various marketing strategies and their acceptability.

As regards vulnerable road users, most of the actions announced in the European Road Safety Action Programme will significantly increase their protection. Certain actions are designed specifically to protect vulnerable road users, such as promoting road safety training from school age, encouraging the use of crash helmets by all two-wheel motor vehicle users, continuing to improve cars in order to reduce the severity of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, and improving the safety of motorcycles and their users.

Certain measures are being considered regarding the use of information and communications technologies for the protection of vulnerable road users, some of which also form part of European research projects. These measures, which could help prevent accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, currently remain longer term solutions.

The Commission is therefore supporting research projects on ISA devices, while also assessing other kinds of measures for the protection of vulnerable road users.

(1) Communication from the Commission on the European Road Safety Action Programme. Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility [COM(2003) 311 final].
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/621

(2004/C 88 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards

In reply to my question H-0867/02 (1) the Commission stated that ‘the Union continues to encourage Iran to join the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards. It appears that Iran in general has been complying, including accepting inspections of its nuclear sites’.

In fact, on 17 June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the allegations made by the democratic opposition to the theocratic regime in Teheran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which I referred to and which were widely known at the time of the Commission's reply, thus demonstrating that the situation as it appeared to the Commission did not and does not correspond to the actual situation.

How does the Commission explain the fact that, only a few months ago, it confined itself to repeating the propaganda issued by the dictatorial regime in Iran, and that it did not consider it appropriate to take account of reports, which have now been confirmed, of the war-mongering intentions of the repressive Iranian regime?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to pay closer attention in future to objective information on the real situation in Iran, rather than contenting itself with uncritical acceptance of propaganda from the regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The EU has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran's right as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly supports the view of the EU that Iran must be fully transparent and in compliance with this Treaty. The Commission welcomed the June 2003 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but noted with concern that Iran had failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes that Iran, will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments — such as the IAEA Additional Protocol — to ensure adequate transparency.

It goes without saying that the Commission does not, as the Honourable Member implies, confine itself to ‘repeating the propaganda’ from a ‘dictatorial regime’ with ‘war mongering intentions’. The Commission along with the EU Member States has made every attempt to base itself on objective information. In this context, the Commission would hesitate to refer to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as ‘the democratic opposition’ to the regime in Teheran.

(1) Written answer of 14.1.2003.