ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/254

(2004/C 84 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3856/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Contracts under the Eighth EDF

Would the Commission state the number of contracts awarded, and the number of unsuccessful projects submitted, under the eighth EDF, and how much they were worth?

Furthermore, would the Commission state how many of the contracts were concluded in accordance with the rules applying to contracts, whether there were any delays and what costs — if any — arose as a result of arbitration, disputes or price adjustments?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

Under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF), a total of 6 199 contracts (1 851 of which are already closed) were awarded for a value of EUR 8,925 billion. The Commission does not keep records of unsuccessful tenders or of the reasons for closing a contract. Contracts normally include provisions allowing the parties to achieve the objectives of the contract even if the implementing conditions change; it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of contracts met their objectives in accordance with the terms of the contract.

The rules relating to the award of contracts laid down in the Lomé Conventions and by the general regulations on contracts (Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990) (1) are respected. The Lomé Convention specifies that it is the national authorising officer who is in charge of tender and contract award procedures and who is also responsible for compliance with schedules.

Three cases of disputes came to light in respect of the 8th EDF and were still ongoing at 30 November 2003. However, the EDF National Authorising Officer is allowed to negotiate directly with contractors without the Commission's involvement. No specific records are kept of changes to contract costs resulting from negotiations or price adjustments under contracts.

(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1990.
1.

The safety of the existing railway network is ensured by means of signalling systems of which some were installed very recently. It is obviously unrealistic to want to replace these systems from one day to the next. Secondly, it is not necessary to install the European Train Control System (ETCS) throughout the network or along the whole length of a corridor for trains to be able to continue their journey without stopping. The ETCS system has been designed to operate alongside other systems thanks to the use of intelligent interfaces. Lastly, the ETCS technology is available and is being installed in connection with several projects.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/474

(2004/C 84 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1696/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: European funds and subcontracting

Numerous correspondents have drawn my attention to the planned restructuring within the Arcelor group.

Under this restructuring, two factories in France (Isbergues and Ardoise) are to close, and one new factory at Cariam, Belgium, is to open, thus reducing the total number of jobs in Arcelor. If the Commission is not able to take account of the social consequences of this restructuring as grounds for opposing it, I should like to know whether the Commission can oppose this kind of operation if Arcelor, or the enterprises with which it subcontracts, receive European funding.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

According to the records, the Sollac Florange site (which is under threat as a result of the possible termination of Arcelor investment) has not received a contribution from the Community's Structural Funds for the periods 1994-1999 or 2000-2006.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, both project selection and the implementation and management of programmes cofinanced by the Structural Funds are the responsibility of the Member States.

The Structural Funds contribute to the funding of operations which fall within the scope and eligible activities defined in the regulations relating to the various Funds. These operations must come under the priority areas and measures selected for assistance from the Funds covering the region concerned. In order to receive assistance from one of the Funds, the operation must also fulfil the selection criteria approved by a monitoring committee which ensures that the assistance is implemented properly and efficiently.

For the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation on the Structural Funds (1) provides that an operation retains the contribution from the Funds if that operation does not, within five years of the date of the decision awarding it, undergo a substantial modification affecting its nature or its implementation conditions and resulting either from a cessation or change of location in a productive activity. If this is the case, the Member State must inform the Commission and undertake the financial corrections required, by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations are carried out and payments made on the basis of the legislation in force.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/515

(2004/C 84 E/0592)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3976/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Complexity of simplifying the Community acquis

The Commission informed the institutions of what it identifies as a key objective of its White Paper on European Governance, simplification, in two communications (1).

According to a timetable given on page 7 of COM(2003) 71 of 11 February, this simplification is to culminate in the adoption of ‘methodology and procedures’ sometime after the end of 2004.

The mid-term review of the CAP and its implementing legislation was subsequently highlighted in COM(2003) 623 of 24 October as a step forward in the field of simplification, which is truly extraordinary.

Does the Commission not believe that it would be important to start by simplifying its so-called simplification process, making it intelligible, clear and concise?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

In the section of the communication Updating and simplifying the Community acquis (2) on methodology and procedures, the Commission proposed indicators for determining the order of priority of simplification work. The Council and Parliament were asked for their views on the indicators but have not yet replied to the Commission's requests.

In its first interim report on the implementation of the framework action (Updating and simplifying the Community ‘acquis’) (3), the Commission reviewed the implementation of the various actions proposed in its February 2003 communication (2). The report reveals that the Commission adopted 14 simplification proposals during the first stage of the framework action (February-September 2003) as well as four new simplification proposals which were not included in the February 2003 communication. These new proposals are in addition to the 18 simplification proposals before the legislative authority. The Commission hopes that the legislative authority will examine the outstanding proposals quickly.

With a view to identifying new policy sectors and acts where simplification may be possible, the Commission had also hoped, following its February 2003 communication, that it would receive the Council's and Parliament's comments. To date, these institutions have not made any suggestions to the Commission.

The Commission would add that, on its initiative, the three institutions signed the ‘better lawmaking’ interinstitutional agreement on 16 December 2003 providing a framework for legislative activity relating to simplification including the use of the ‘alternative’ instruments. The Commission hopes that this agreement will be implemented as quickly as possible with the definition of operational procedures for the examination of the simplification proposals for which Parliament and the Council set themselves a time limit of six months.

(1) COM(2003)71 and COM(2003)623.

(2) COM(2003)71 final.

(3) COM(2003) 623 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/527

(2004/C 78 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Villas of Palladio

In 1994 the villas of Palladio were inscribed on the World Heritage List. It is now proposed to build a 54-kilometre motorway through the Veneto area with seven exits and tollgates — the Valdastico South motorway

Whilst acknowledging the right of the Italian Government to build such roads as it thinks fit, will the Commission work with the Italian authorities to ensure that any such plans do not harm the Palladian villas or the surrounding landscape and that a full and enhanced Environmental Impact Assessment is carried out on the proposals?

Will the Commission also discuss with the Italian authorities whether the Valdastico South motorway is needed, given the adequacy of the existing A22 motorway and the SS247 road and the fact that the Valdastico North motorway very little used?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1) provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. The construction of motorways falls into Annex I point 7(b) for which a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be carried out.

In such a case the Italian authorities should take measures to ensure that the environmental impact assessment procedure is carried out which includes:

(a) a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project such as archaeological heritage, landscape, population etc. (as per Article 5 and Annex IV),

(b) consultations with the public and other competent authorities responsible for the environment, and

(c) publication of the decision containing conditions attached to the development consent, main reasons and consideration on which the decision is based and description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects.

The result of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

The Commission has already looked into the matter raised by the Honourable Member and found no elements which could show any breach of the Directive in this specific case. In addition, the EIA Directive does not contain any legal requirements to contest the opportunity of a project or the development consent itself.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/416

(2004/C 78 E/0437)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2672/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Allocation of slots at airports

When will the Commission conclude its consultations on proposed revisions to the 1993 regulation on the allocation of slots at Community airports, when does it expect to publish its proposals, and is it the Commission's intention to address the issue of major airlines exercising grandfather rights to the detriment of the development of regional airports and free competition between airlines?

Article 9 of the existing regulation gives Member States the option to reserve slots for regional routes. What is the maximum and minimum percentage of slots so reserved at airports across the EU, and under what circumstances can the Commission intervene to prevent, or to insist on, slots being so allocated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

The Commission has adopted a proposal to modify the current rules on airport slot allocation on 20 June 2001 (1). Following the opinion of the Parliament in First Reading (2) the Commission modified its initial proposal on 7 November 2002 (3). The Council has yet to produce a Common Position on that proposal. Therefore, the conclusion of consultations on proposed revisions depend on the adoption of the Common Position.

Also, as announced in the explanatory memorandum to its initial proposal, the Commission has launched a study to assess the effects of different slot allocation schemes. This study has yet to be finalised. On the basis of this study and further consultation with the industry and Member States, the Commission will consider how to further possibly modify the current system of slot allocation based on the principle of grandfather rights.

As far as the application of Article 9 of the current Regulation (4) is concerned, there are no minimum or maximum amounts for slots which Member States have the right to reserve at fully coordinated airports for the purpose of regional services. However, Member States have to communicate to the Commission the routes for which slots have been reserved. This should ensure that reserved slots correspond effectively to routes to a peripheral development region, and/or routes where public service obligations have been imposed.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.

(2) A5-0186/2002, rapporteur Stockmann of 10 June 2002.

(3) COM(2002) 623 final.

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/148

(2004/C 78 E/0153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has expressed its concerns about delays in ratification of the Montreal Amendment, in particular as it pertains to the illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances. As of October 2002, the EIA reported that only 84 of the 183 parties to the Protocol had ratified the Amendment, committing signatories to the implementation of a licensing system in the context of trade in ozone-depleting substances. Could the Commission provide information on which of the EU Member States have ratified this amendment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

As of 28 July 2003, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The Community ratified the Montreal amendment on 17 November 2000. The Montreal Amendment, adopted in 1997 at the ninth meeting of the Parties, requires all Parties to implement an import and export licensing system. Implementing such systems is important in helping to prevent illegal trade in ozone depleting substances. The Commission, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, has implemented an import and export licensing system for controlled substances which operates under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1).

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.
2., 3. and 4.

The Honourable Member is referred to the explanations given by President Prodi to the Conference of Presidents and to the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 25 September 2003, and to the Plenary Session of Parliament on 18 November 2003, relating to the reasons why various indications related to Eurostat that could have given rise to concern had not produced earlier responses. On 7 July 2003, the Commission received two reports relating to Eurostat: one was from the Directorate-General for the Budget (DG BUDG), resulting from an investigation mandated by the Commission in May 2003, the other was an interim report of an examination of contracts by the Internal Audit Service, which was mandated by the Commission in June 2003. The investigation and examination were established following the first note of substance from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the Secretary-General of May 2003 and, in the case of the IAS examination, also in response to Parliaments' resolution of April 2003. The two Commission reports were sent to the President of Parliament, to the Chair of Cocobu, and to Mr Casaca and Mr Bösch on 11 July 2003 under Annex III of the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission. The reports provided the first substantive prima facie evidence to the Commission that a number of serious breaches of the Financial Regulation had taken place involving staff of the Commission and that the follow-up to several significant aspects of internal audit reports had not shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness or led to the essential action. Accordingly, on 9 July 2003, several actions were taken by the Commission, including the opening of disciplinary procedures against three senior officials of Eurostat for alleged breaches of the Financial Regulation and of the Staff Regulations. Two of these procedures had to be immediately suspended for the legal reason, made clear to Parliament and to the public at the time, that pursuit of such procedures would be concurrent with an ongoing OLAF enquiry concerning the same officials. For the third one, the Commission decided to suspend it, only when it became apparent, on the basis of the information transmitted by OLAF, that OLAF was also investigating this third official. Individual responsibilities are now being identified and verified, both under procedures initiated by the French judicial authorities in Paris and under the disciplinary procedures. In order to ensure that, in future, all information concerning cases of possible fraud and irregularities can be collected and assessed coherently and expeditiously, President Prodi informed Parliament of his intention to set up structures for this purpose to provide better means of alerting the College and of providing Commissioners with improved opportunities to propose any relevant administrative measures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/669

(2004/C 78 E/0711)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3893/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Health warnings on cigarette packs

The Commission is currently preparing a library file of illustrations and graphic warnings intended to be used to complement written health warnings on cigarette packs while conforming to the requirements of the single market.

When does the Commission now expect this work to be complete, and from what date will those Member States that wish to require tobacco manufacturers to print such visual warnings on cigarette packs be able to do so?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission expects the work on the library of colour photographs, or other illustrations intended to be used to complement written health warnings on cigarette packets, to be completed by 30 September 2004. The library will be at the disposal of the Member States after this time.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/666

(2004/C 88 E/0684)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4019/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Burma Forum

On 15 December 2003 a meeting arranged by the government of Thailand on the road map for Burma took place in Bangkok. The EU (and critics such as the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries) were not invited to attend. Only a few EU Member States were invited because in practice they have always obstructed more stringent measures against the Burmese regime (Germany, France, Italy and Austria).

Significantly, those EU countries that attended the meeting followed the line taken in the EU's common position on Burma. The EU should also ask to be involved in the follow-up. It is very important to make it clear to all Asian countries that there can be no solution to the problems in Burma without the active involvement of both the democratic opposition (NLD) and the ethnic minorities. The EU must not allow itself to be divided as a result of some countries being played off against others.

1. What measures is the Commission taking to promote such an approach?

2. Can the Commission give details of the outcome of the recent review of the EU's common position on Burma in the light of the impact of the current sanctions?

3. Will the Commission encourage the EU delegations in China and India in particular to facilitate discussions between those two governments and relevant Burmese democratic and opposition forces in some way, possibly maintaining a low profile? As the Chinese and Indian governments now have contacts with the junta, will the EU take greater advantage of its links with them and specifically ask them to use those contacts or bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission, and all Member States, continue to call on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to enter in to substantive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy and ethnic minority groups. This was also the line followed by those Member States who participated in the Bangkok meeting on 15 December 2003.

The Common Position is up for renewal before 29 April 2004. As discussions are on-going in relevant Council working groups, the Honourable Member will understand that the Commission is currently not in a position to comment, or anticipate the outcome of these discussions.

The European Union has on several occasions raised its concerns regarding the situation in Burma/Myanmar with neighbouring Asian countries, including India and China, encouraging them to use their influence to encourage the Burmese regime to undertake some firm steps towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.