ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3329/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Procedure for examining state aid to Olympic Airways

In its oral reply of 11 June 2002 to my question (H-0369/02) concerning developments regarding its investigations into Greek state aid to Olympic Airways, the Commission indicated that its final decision would follow a detailed examination of observations by the Greek authorities and other interested parties.

Given that the Commission decision is particularly important, not to say critical, to the future of Olympic Airways and that six months have elapsed since the parties concerned submitted their observations, when will the Commission formulate its final opinion regarding aid granted to Olympic Airways? Can it comment on the facts already at its disposal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

On 6 March 2002, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty(1) with regard to the possible payment of State aid to the Greek air carrier Olympic Airways and the potential misuse of aid authorised for it by the Commission in 1998(2).

On 11 December 2002, the Commission concluded that the aid previously granted by Greece to Olympic Airways was not compatible with the EC Treaty(3). Olympic Airways had misused the aid authorised by the Commission in 1994 and 1998 and had also received new unlawful aid. The aid had given Olympic Airways an unjustifiable advantage over its competitors. The Commission asked the Greek authorities to recover the incompatible aid granted after 1998.

However, the Commission also decided that other measures taken by Greece in favour of Olympic Airways did not constitute State aid(4), and consequently had no objections to the EUR 19,5 million loan granted to Olympic Airways by Greece in February 2002. The Commission was also able to check that the air carrier had not benefited from advantages associated with the fuel distribution infrastructure and that there was no aid in the compensation received by Olympic Airways for transferring its operations to the new Spata airport or in the measure enabling payment of a reduced rate of VAT (8 %) on domestic flights and the commercial debt to Olympic Catering.

(1) OJ C 98, 23.4.2002.

(2) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999.

(3) Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

(4) The procedure for investigating these measures was initiated on 6 March 2002 following two complaints lodged in October 2000 and July 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3268/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject: Media funding and monitoring of the impartiality of information provided by bodies funded by the Union and public entities in the Member States

The violation of pluralism and the impartiality of information is a serious violation of democratic principles and the rule of law.

In the light of Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty, can the Commission say:

- whether, and if so which, media organisations press, radio, television, online have received funding from the European Union from 1992 until the present; what is the amount involved and why was the funding provided; did it take the form of non-repayable grants, advertising measures, institutional information or something else?

- whether and, if so how, the Commission enforces pluralism and impartiality of information on the part of any bodies that receive Union funding?

- whether it monitors or thinks it should monitor the information provided by public information offices in the Member States in order to determine whether the principles of pluralism and impartiality are being observed or violated, given that the violation of these principles constitutes a serious breach of the rule of law as referred to in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and that, under Article 7 of the EU Treaty, the Commission has the power to determine the existence of such a breach?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Since 1992 the Commission has made funding available to a great number of media organisations, from press to television programmes. Given the breadth of the Honourable Member's question, the Commission considers that the research required in order to provide a detailed answer which would involve the majority of the Commission's services and a large variety of financial instruments would be time-consuming and it might not respond to the real purpose of the present written question.

When providing funds to media, the Commission fully respects their editorial freedom. In doing so, the Commission fully respects Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission contributes to pluralism and impartiality of information by giving equal opportunities to all media through the normal procedures for calls for tenders and calls for proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3228/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Europol data on terrorist organisations

Commissioner Vitorino said on 9 October 2002 in reply to question E-2284/02 that the Commission is not one of the organisations which has access to personal data in Europol's possession.

The Council of Ministers has repeatedly shown its concern to combat terrorism, and for this reason immediately after the terrorist strike of 11 September on the USA it sought to introduce strict rules at the EU level to track down terrorist organisations. It is also on record that on the Council's initiative a list was drawn up of terrorist organisations which operate in European territory.

Recently members of one of the most dangerous terrorist organisations the November 17 organisation were arrested in Greece. I would like to know whether Europol has data on the movements of the individuals involved in this organisation, and if so how long it has held this data. Was the Echelon system used to monitor them, and was any data which came to light passed on to the Greek authorities in good time?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

The Council has no access to data on individuals held by Europol.

Information held by Europol with respect to its activities in relation to specific terrorist organizations, including its contacts with the authorities of Member States, is in principle not public.

However, the Honourable Member might wish to address himself directly to Europol, which has its own responsibility for questions relating to access to documents and information it held.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2348/02

by Bastiaan Belder (EDD) to the Council

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Activities of Laskar Jihad in Papua

More and more rumours are circulating about increasing activities by the Laskar Jihad in Papua (Indonesia). Even though these are only rumours, they are becoming more and more persistent. In view of the escalating role played by the Laskar Jihad in the Moluccas and on Sulawesi, it is urgent that these rumours should be taken seriously. There must be a thorough, independent investigation of this organisation's activities in Papua. If these rumours are constantly denied, they may prove, too late, to have been true.

Will the Council of Ministers cast any light on the role of the Indonesian government as regards the following questions:

- Is Indonesia prepared to carry out an independent and thorough investigation on the activities of this organisation in Papua?

- Is the Indonesian government prepared to take the necessary measures, should it become clear that Laskar Jihad is preparing action against Christians?

- Will the Council urge Indonesia to take all possible action to prevent the situation in Papua from escalating?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

1. The Council has not discussed the specific rumours concerning the possible increase of Jihad Laskar activity in Papua. The Council would, however, refer the Honourable MEP to the reply given to Question H-0968/01 by Lennart Sacredeus for the Plenary session, of February 2002 and which remains valid.

2. However, during their extensive visit in Papua in late March 2002, EU Heads of Mission raised on various occasions the question of inter-communal violence and possible solutions with the Indonesian authorities and representatives of the local communities. As a result, the EU has reiterated its call on the Government of Indonesia to implement the policy of change contained in the Special Autonomy Law, to better respect the rights of indigenous people, to investigate human rights violations and to bring their perpetrators to justice.

3. The EU has, during the EU-Indonesia Foreign Ministers meeting on 24 September in Copenhagen, also discussed the situation in several regions of Indonesia, including Aceh, Papua and the Moluccas.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3568/02

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 December 2002)

Subject: Threats to religious and cultural diversity in Israel

In May 2001, the Israeli armed forces forced their way into the property of the Armenian Apostolic Monastery of Baron Der, near Beith Jala, damaging the monastery's ecological, historical and archaeological heritage, to an estimated cost of over EUR 300 000. They have been occupying the property ever since.

Reiterated attempts on the part of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem to negotiate the position, and appeals launched by leading moral and political authorities including Pope John-Paul II and the UN special rapporteur for religious freedoms, Mr Amor, have gone unheeded.

When the Armenian Patriarchate appealed. the Israeli military and political authorities responded by ordering the property to be seized. In April 2002, Israel launched its scheme to build a wall separating its territory from the Left Bank. To this effect, the Israeli armed forces have laid a paved road right through the property, and plan to run the dividing wall down this road, thus cutting the monastic property into two mutually inaccessible halves.

The Patriarchate's last legal resort was an appeal to the Israeli High Court of Justice, which has gone unanswered.

Javier Solana, approached by Europe's Armenian community, has failed to react in any way at all.

It appears that this matter is a testing of the international community by the State of Israel. If Israel succeeds, we can start worrying about the danger that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic institutions, and indeed every other minority living in Israel, will see their culture smothered and their heritage confiscated.

Does the Council intend to take up the case of the Baron Der Armenian monastic property, and remind Israel of its human rights undertakings, and ask the country to respect the cultural and religious diversity of the various elements which constitute Israeli society?

Does the Council believe that the behaviour described above violates the Association Agreement(1) between the European Union and Israel, specifically in respect of the recitals and Article 2 thereof? If so, does the Council not intend to terminate this Agreement?

(1) OJ L 147, 21.6.2000.

Reply

(4 March 2003)

The Council has not specifically discussed this matter. However, in meetings with Israel held in the context of the Association Agreement, it has always stressed that relations with Israel are based on joint respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights, which constitute an essential element of the Agreement, in accordance with Article 2 thereof. It has stated that the promotion of fundamental freedoms one of which is religious freedom constitutes a major objective of the Union's external policy. The EU is sparing no effort, particularly through the Quartet in which the Secretary-General/High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Javier Solana, participates, to establish trust between the Parties and bring them back to the negotiating table.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3449/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Licensing of biotechnologists

In view of the increasing potential for harm arising from the abuse of the latest advances in biotechnology, does the Commission have any plans for requiring those working in the field to be licensed after agreeing to sign a Hippocratic Oath committing them to work within laid-down norms?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Stockholm European Council has asked the Commission to examine measures required to utilise the full potential of biotechnology while ensuring that those developments occur in a manner which is healthy and safe for consumers and the environment and in full compliance with the existing legislative framework.

Both Commission and Member States have safety regulations in place, or are adopting such regulations as the technology develops, in order to ensure that biotechnologies are applied in a manner that is safe for the consumer and to the environment. Examples of these are Directive Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EC(1).

The Commission's Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology A strategy for Europe(2) highlights the need to ensure that Life Sciences and Biotechnology are developed in harmony with ethical values and societal goals. It is among others suggested to develop ethical guidelines/standards or best practice for stem cell research, xenotransplantation, etc. Such guidelines could, when appropriated, take the form of self-regulatory initiatives in the scientific community and industry. In order to ensure that ethical issues are taken into account in relation to Community funded research in Biotechnology, an ethical framework has been defined in the decisions adopting the 6th Framework Programme and the specific programmes. Furthermore, the Commission has taken initiative to ensure that the analyses of the ethical, legal and social aspects become an integrated activity within Community funded research under Priority 1 Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology and Priority 5 Food quality and safety.

The Commission is very attentive to the safety and ethical aspects of biotechnology research and its potential application. The Commission is constantly examining the need for initiatives, when appropriate, to regulate the use of new technologies. It is the Commission's view that in an area of research, which is constantly evolving, it is more appropriate to regulate the use of biotechnology than regulating the users of biotechnology and research actors.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2) COM(2002) 27 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Competition on the feed market in Sweden

Some farmers in Sweden fear that competition on the Swedish feed market will be undermined once Svenska Lantmännen takes over a minority holding of 49 % in Svenska Foder. Although Svenska Lantmännen says that its Danish partner DLG will have operational responsibility, two directors' posts will fall to Svenska Lantmännen. It is not improbable either that Svenska Lantmännen and DLG will merge in the future. In the agricultural sector, collaboration between the two companies may be strengthened.

Will the Commission examine this case to assess whether there is a risk that competition on the Swedish feed market will now deteriorate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

According to a press release from the Danish agribusiness group DLG, it appears that DLG, under an agreement with the Swedish agribusiness group Svenska Lantmännen, has indeed acquired a 51 % stake in Svenska Foder AB, a Swedish company which operates inter alia on the animal feed market in southern Sweden. Under the same agreement Svenska Lantmännen acquires 49 % of Svenska Foder.

DLG, in the said press release, also states that it will, in accordance with the competition rules, notify the relevant agreements to the Swedish competition authorities.

It would seem, therefore, that the Swedish authorities will examine this transaction on the basis of the relevant national legislation and asses whether there is a risk that competition on the Swedish feed market will now deteriorate.

If, however, it would appear that the criteria for Community dimension are fulfilled, the Commission would examine the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3792/02

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Application of the automatic decommitment rule

Under Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), The Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable payment application ; the contribution from the Funds to [the] assistance [in question] shall be reduced by that amount.

As regards commitments in the first year of the new programming period, from 2000 to 2006, the rule will be implemented (in accordance with the procedures and time frames set out in Commission communication C(2002)1942, adopted on 27 May 2002) taking into account all payment applications sent to the Commission not later than 31 December 2002.

The Commission will recover the sums concerned, which will be permanently forfeited by the initial recipients.

What proportion of funding is in danger of being lost to regions whose development is lagging behind once the above rule has been enforced, as is shortly due to happen?

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

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The extent of any de-commitment of resources allocated to the Member States under the Structural Funds is unknown at this stage in view of the ongoing work by the services of the Commission to evaluate payment requests forwarded by the national authorities.

While this is the case, the information that is available at present suggests that the total amount at risk of de-commitment is very limited, and in any case, unlikely to exceed 0,4 % of the total funds committed under the Structural Funds for the year 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3639/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Aid to Tuscany

Can the Commission confirm that EUR 322 million has been allocated to Tuscany by the EU for 2002-2006 for the establishment of small and medium-sized businesses? Can the Commission account for all this money? Does the Commission have any knowledge of a project to build a large polyurethane foam factory near Crossetto using this money? There is concern that the company which is building this factory should not have had access to EU funds in this area, coming as it does from another region, and that the compulsory purchase of land from locals was consequently illegal (justified only by virtue of the theoretical entitlement to EU funding). Can the Commission allay fears that this is the case?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

By decision of 27 September 2001(1), the Commission adopted the single programming document (SPD) for Tuscany for 2000-2006, which includes funding totalling EUR 1 113,57 million. Community assistance for this programme amounts to EUR 322,5 million. The SPD for Tuscany contains 27 measures, of which only six can be regarded as directly addressed to small and medium-sized firms.

These six measures provide for investment totalling EUR 366,07 million, of which EUR 87,18 million (23,82 %) will come from the Community.

It should be noted that, while the Commission approves the measures in the SPD, the choice of projects is strictly a matter for the region. The Commission is informed of the use of funds under the SPD through a system of national, regional and local monitoring; furthermore, a report on implementation is prepared each year and twice a year the Commission receives progress reports at the Monitoring Committee meetings.

At the present stage of implementation of the SPD, no project like the one referred to has received Community part-finance. However, the Commission has asked the managing authorities for clarification on the point raised by the Honourable Member

Community programmes finance projects which must be located in assisted areas, in this case, an Objective 2 area. However, the head office of the firm may be located in an assisted area other than the one receiving the aid in question. The main point is that the programme should help part-finance projects which actually create economic activity and work in the assisted area.

(1) Commission Decision 2002/723/EC of 27 September 2001 approving the single programming document for Community structural assistance under Objective 2 in the region of Tuscany in Italy, OJ L 241, 9.9.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3119/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: EU funding of Greek judicial and prison services

Are any European Community funds made available to the Greek authorities in support of the Greek judicial or prison services?

If so, would the Commission please provide full details?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

The Community does not directly finance the setting up of services such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member in the Member States.

The Commission has co-financed projects under the cooperation programmes of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, aimed at encouraging judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Grotius) and preventing organised crime (Falcone); a list of these projects is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat General.

Within the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) 2000-2006, in particular the Operational Programme (OP) Information Society measure on Electronic government for services to the public (Union participation: EUR 271 million, or 75 % of the public expenditure of the measure), there is a provision to support projects in the judicial sector, amongst other sectors. In particular, this measure may co-finance actions in the field of upgrading the services of the Greek Ministry of Justice such as Judicial Records and statistical data on criminality.

Although a call for proposals has been made by the Greek authorities, no project proposals have been received yet by the managing authority of the above-mentioned programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/02

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: European shipbuilding sector

1. What plans does the Commission have to address the problem of the widely varying policies pursued by various Member States with regard to aid for the shipbuilding sector?

2. To what extent do the variations in aid policy distort competition in the European shipbuilding sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

1. The Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding(1), hereafter Shipbuilding Regulation, sets out the conditions under which aid to shipbuilding may be authorised. The rules are designed with a view to minimising the distortion of competition within the Community. If a Member State wants to provide aid to shipbuilding, it must first notify such aid to the Commission and receive the Commission's approval.

Since the Shipbuilding Regulation, like other state aid rules, provides for maximum aid limits, it may be that some Member States decide to provide less aid than that which is allowed or no aid at all. This is normal and fully in line with Community state aid policy.

2. If aid has been approved by the Commission based on the Shipbuilding Regulation, and provided accordingly, including compliance with any conditions set by the Commission, it is the view of the Commission that the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.