ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(2004/C58E/059) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1157/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFundbythemunicipalityof
Carrara
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofCarrara,urgentlyneedtouse
Europeanfundsfortheprocessingandmarketingofagriculturalproductsandforruraldevelopment,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofCarrarahassubmittedprojectsfortheEAGGF?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofCarrarahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/060) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1158/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFundbythemunicipalityof
Florence
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofFlorence,urgentlyneedtouse
Europeanfundsfortheprocessingandmarketingofagriculturalproductsandforruraldevelopment,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofFlorencehassubmittedprojectsfortheEAGGF?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofFlorencehassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?6.3.2004EN C58E/45 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/014) WRITTENQUESTIONP-0260/03
byGiovanniPittella(PSE)totheCommission
(29January2003)
Subject:‘Compatible’projects
PursuanttoRegulation(EC)No1260/1999(1):
/dash thereasonforstrengtheningcohesionpolicy(whichissupportedbymeansoftheStructuralFunds)is
toreducedisparitiesbetweenthelevelsofdevelopmentofthevariousregionsandthebackwardnessoftheleast-favouredregionsorislands;
/dash decentralised implementationofStructural Fund operations by the Member Statesshouldprovide
sufficientguaranteesastothedetailsandqualityofimplementationandtoresultsandtheevaluation
thereof;
/dash achievementofsuchobjectivesisensuredthroughtheobservanceofcertainprinciples(programming,
concentration,integrationandadditionality)whichjustifytheexistenceofanEUcohesionpolicy.
Furthermore:
/dash thefirstyearinwhichtheruleonautomaticdecommitmentappliedendedon31December2002;/dash inthecaseofItaly,only70-80%oftheexpenditurecertificationssubmittedbytheregionsbythe
abovedaterelatetoso-called‘support’projects(i.e.onesconsistentwiththeprogrammes).
Inviewoftheabove,wouldtheCommissionanswerthefollowingquestions:
/dash ForeachItalianObjective1programmeandforeachoftheStructuralFunds,whatwastheexact
amountoftheexpenditurecertifiedtotheCommissioninrespectofprojectswhichwerenotselectedonthebasisofacalllaunchedinconnectionwithaRGPoraNGP,andwilltheexpenditurerelatingtosuchprojectsnonethelessbereimbursedundertheERDF,theESF,theEAGGFandtheFIFG?
/dash Whatadditionstotheprogramminghavebeenamendedinordertomakeexpenditurewhichhas
already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole
purposeofavoidingtheruleonautomaticdecommitment?IstheCommissionpreparedtoaccept
suchapractice?
/dash DoestheCommissionintendtoascertaininwhatwaythefundswhichmaybereleasedthroughthe
implementationof‘consistent’projectsareused?Ifso,whatconditionswillitimpose?
/dash Doestheregions’recoursetosuchahighpercentageofprojectsselectedonthebasisofcallswhich
where not launched pursuant to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by theCommissionnotseriouslyjeopardisetheachievementofthedevelopmentobjectiveslaiddownintheObjective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality,partnership,programmingandinformation,inadditiontothwartingtheobjectivesthemselvesandunderminingthecohesionpolicy?
(1) OJL161,26.6.1999,p.1.
(2004/C58E/015) WRITTENQUESTIONP-0261/03
byGiovanniFava(PSE)totheCommission
(29January2003)
Subject:‘Compatible’projects
PursuanttoRegulation(EC)No1260/1999(1):
/dash thereasonforstrengtheningcohesionpolicy(whichissupportedbymeansoftheStructuralFunds)is
toreducedisparitiesbetweenthelevelsofdevelopmentofthevariousregionsandthebackwardnessoftheleast-favouredregionsorislands;C58E/14 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
TheCommissionhasbeencloselymonitoringthestepstakenbyAccedingStatesintheirpreparationto
ensure compliance by 1May 2004 with all the requirements of the Regulation. After this date, theCommission will assess the compliance of these countries based on their reports on ODS recovery,recycling,reclamationanddestruction,followingthesameproceduresthatareusedforcurrentMemberStates.BulgariaandRomaniawillneedtocomplywiththesamerequirementsbyadateyettobeagreedwiththeUnion.
(1) Article16(5)ofRegulation(EC)No2037/2000:‘MemberStatesshalltakestepstopromotetherecovery,recycling,
reclamationanddestructionofcontrolledsubstancesandshallassigntousers,refrigerationtechniciansorother
appropriatebodiesresponsibilityforensuringcompliancewiththeprovisionsofparagraph1[…]’.
(2) Article16(6)ofRegulation(EC)No2037/2000:‘MemberStatesshallreporttotheCommissionby31December
2001onsystemsestablishedtopromotetherecoveryofusedcontrolledsubstances,includingthefacilitiesavailable
andthequantitiesofusedcontrolledsubstances,recovered,recycled,reclaimedordestroyed’.
(2004/C58E/076) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1308/03
byBillNewtonDunn(ELDR)totheCommission
(7April2003)
Subject:HumanrightsabusesinNorthKorea
TheCommissionwillbeawareofthehumanrightsabuses,notablythetreatmentofChristians,which
continueinNorthKorea.
HastheCommission:
1. maderepresentationstotheNorthKoreanGovernment?
2. otherplans,totrytoimprovethedreadfulsituation?
AnswergivenbyMrPattenonbehalfoftheCommission
(5May2003)
NorthKoreaiscurrentlyamajorconcernfortheinternationalcommunityincludingtheUnion.TheUnion
systematicallyraisesthehumanrightssituation,includingfreedomofreligion,duringitsregularpoliticalcontactswiththeDemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKorea(DPRK)Authorities.InJune2002inPyongyang,ithadtheopportunitytodiscusstheplightofChristiansinNorthKorea.ItalsorequestedaccesstothecountryfortheSpecialRapporteuroftheUnitedNations(UN)CommissiononHumanRights‘(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/mrei.htm)’.
TheCommissioniskeptregularlyinformedaboutthesituationofChristiansthroughnon-governmental
organisations (NGOs), and in particular Amnesty International and the Christian Solidarity Network.However,itwillcontinuetomonitorverycloselythehumanrightssituationinNorthKorea.ItsconcernsarealsoraisedduringdiscussionsattheongoingsessionoftheUNCommissionofHumanRightsinGenevawheretheUnionhastabledaresolutiononthehumanrightssituationintheDPRK.C58E/58 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/055) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1042/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(28March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheLeader+programmebythemunicipalityofPisa
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pisa, urgently need to use
Europeanfundstosupportinnovativeruraldevelopmentmeasuresaimedatenhancingtheculturalandnaturalheritage,creatingnewjobsbystrengtheningthelocaleconomyandimprovingtheorganisationalcapacityofruralcommunities,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPisahassubmittedprojectsfortheLeader+programme?2. whetherthemunicipalityofPisahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/056) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1043/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(28March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsfromtheLeader+programmebythemunicipalityofPistoia
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearinginmindthatsomelocalauthorities,suchasthemunicipalityofPistoia,urgentlyneedtouse
Europeanfundstosupportinnovativeruraldevelopmentmeasuresaimedatenhancingtheculturalandnaturalheritage,creatingnewjobsbystrengtheningthelocaleconomyandimprovingtheorganisationalcapacityofruralcommunities,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofPistoiahassubmittedprojectsfortheLeader+programme?2. whetherthemunicipalityofPistoiahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?6.3.2004EN C58E/43 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
AnswergivenbyMrByrneonbehalfoftheCommission
(24October2003)
TheCommissioniscollectingtheinformationitneedstoanswerthequestion.Itwillcommunicateits
findingsassoonaspossible.
(2004/C58E/227) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2994/03
byBernhardRapkay(PSE)totheCommission
(14October2003)
Subject:EUfundingforNordrhein-Westfalenfortheyears2001and2002
1. WhatamountsofEuropeanUnionfundingwerepaidtoNordrhein-Westfalenin2001and2002
from:
/dash theEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund(ERDF),/dash theEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFund(EAGGF)/dashGuidanceSection,
/dash theEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuaranteeFund(EAGGF)/dashGuaranteeSection,
/dash theEuropeanSocialFund(ESF),/dash EuropeanCommunityresearchprogrammes,/dash EuropeanCommunityprogrammesfortheenvironment,/dash otherEuropeanCommunityprogrammes?
2. Whowerethebeneficiaries?
3. Whatamountswere madeavailable byway ofco-financing either with the LandofNordrhein-
WestfalenorwiththeFederalRepublicofGermany?
AnswergivenbyMrProdionbehalfoftheCommission
(21October2003)
TheCommissioniscollectingtheinformationitneedstoanswerthequestion.Itwillcommunicateits
findingsassoonaspossible.C58E/210 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/201

(2004/C 70 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Community subsidies in the cultural sphere

Associations play a central role in any country's social development, not only in terms of active involvement and self-organisation on the part of citizens, but also of the services which associations provide, particularly in culture and sport. Recreational associations are often the main channels for publicising and preserving the cultural heritage of many regions, thus contributing to cultural wealth and diversity within the European Union. Associations are responsible for amateur drama, folk clubs, brass bands, music schools and a whole range of exhibition spaces for art. Resources, particularly funds, are generally in short supply to cover the working requirements of these associations in the tasks they perform for the community, above all in providing leisure time activities. I personally encounter this hard fact with some frequency, and likewise the lack of available information as to sources of support, particularly at Community level.

Can the Commission answer the following:

— What Community resources exist to support culture, particularly for recreational associations?

— In the specific case of wind band associations, what Community aids exist for buying instruments and support material for music schools, and doing up auditoria and halls to perform in?

— What are the global Community budget totals authorised and actually paid out for culture, and how have these totals varied between 1994 and 2003? What is the breakdown of this total by Member State and number of projects funded?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Commission is in the process of obtaining the necessary information to answer your question and will inform you of the results of its inquiries as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/161

(2004/C 70 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2905/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Unemployment in Greece on the basis of the 2001 census

According to an article by a distinguished academic and former minister, unemployment in Greece is in the region of 9,5 % rather than the 8,9 % announced by the National Statistical Service (NSS).

This assessment derives from the fact that the NSS measures the level of unemployment on the basis of the 1991 rather than the 2001 census, thereby underestimating the workforce between the ages of 15 and 44 but, conversely, overestimating the workforce over the age of 45. The result of this for the second quarter of 2003 is that the workforce has been underestimated by 461 600, those in employment by 390 300 and the unemployed by 71 300.

What are the Commission's views on this matter? Is the NSS' method of measuring or the view taken by the above academic correct? Finally, what is the level of unemployment in Greece according to the latest available data?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Pursuant to the applicable Community legislation, the measurement of unemployment should comply with the definition of Article 1 and 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 of 7 September 2000 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community concerning the operational definition of unemployment (1), and Greece is in full compliance.

In relation to the source used to calculate the weighting factors, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 (2) does not specify the source (population registers, census, etc.).

The latest non-seasonally adjusted data for Greece available in Eurostat correspond to the 2nd quarter 2003 and show an unemployment rate of 8,9 %. These data are available in the New Cronos database: Theme 3 \ Labour Force Survey (LFS) \ unemployment. The seasonally adjusted unemployment data, as published in the last monthly press release of Eurostat (No 113/2003 of 1 October 2003) show a 9,2 % rate for Greece for the 2nd quarter 2003.

The Commission does not wish to express a view on diverging academic positions.

(1) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

(2) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/267

(2004/C 70 E/291)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3931/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Rehabilitation of areas devastated by the summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal

The summer 2003 forest fires in Portugal devastated 410 000 hectares, i.e. 5 % of Portugal's landmass and 12 % of its woodlands, destroying numerous Natura 2000 Network areas, various cork oak, holm oak and oak forests, causing numerous deaths, destroying homes, killing animals and destroying crops in some of the country's most fragile and deprived rural regions.

Support provided under the aegis of the Solidarity Fund, although extremely useful, is nowhere like equal to the enormous task of rehabilitating incalculably valuable natural heritage on this scale, and a rural economy which is under threat of total disappearance.

At the Budgetary Committee meeting which discussed the Solidarity Fund contribution to Portugal, it was claimed that a total of EUR 180 million was going to be reprogrammed from Portuguese Structural Funds to cope with the challenge.

Could the Commission explain:

1. Why amounts programmed for the 2000-2003 Structural Funds, and not yet taken up, cannot be reprogrammed to this end?

2. Whether the Portuguese authorities have already submitted specific proposals for reprogramming the EUR 180 million, and whether this amount is earmarked for rehabilitating the natural heritage and the rural economy of the areas devastated?

3. What other means it thinks could be used to support this rehabilitation which, while of direct concern to Portugal, is of no less concern to Europe?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
l. and 2.

As mentioned in the reply to written question P-308/03 by the Honourable Member (1), the Commission is aware of cases of alleged fraud and price fixing in the construction market in the Netherlands through the national competition authority (Nma), and the media. It also learned of the allegations that non-Dutch enterprises were involved in these practices on the Dutch market and that Dutch enterprises were involved in foreign markets. The Commission does, however, not intend to interfere with these ongoing investigations of the NMa in the Dutch construction sector. The Commission understands that the possible involvement of foreign companies is taken on board by the NMa in these investigations. Hence, the Commission has not started separate formal investigations on the basis of the above information. Where the centre of gravity of an alleged infringement is in one Member State, the national competition authority is often best placed to deal with such allegation. However, even in such cases, provided there is an effect on trade between Member States, the Commission can decide that it is in the interest of the Community to launch a Commission investigation into these practices. For instance, the Commission currently investigates possible infringements of the European competition rules in the sector of bitumen. This investigation — that relates to cartels on national markets, including the Dutch market — concerns the practices of bitumen producers and their main customers, i.e. the road construction companies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/252

(2004/C 70 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3295/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: Statute of European Schools

Whilst I acknowledge receipt of the Commission's answer to my Parliamentary Question E-2583/03 (1), I should like to ask the Commission what their position is with regard to the following:

1. UK teachers in the European Schools who were awarded the threshold prior to appointment, but have not been paid the salary increment by the DfES;

2. UK European School teachers who have been recommended for promotion by their director (head teacher) and consistently refused by the DfES;

3. teachers who have had allowances they were previously paid on their national salary removed by the DfES on appointment to the European Schools.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission attaches the utmost importance to the respect of all terms of employment by employers and would be concerned about any unfair treatment and discrimination. The Commission is not, however, in a position to have a substantiated view on the hypothetical situations presented by the Honourable Member in the absence of any more specific information. If the Honourable Member has particular cases in mind, he is invited to write to the Commission with details and the relevant accompanying material, so that the cases can be examined by the Commission and, if necessary, appropriate follow-up action be taken. Naturally, personal details of specific individuals would be treated with discretion.

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 180.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/115

(2004/C 70 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject: Conditions on the London Underground

Concern has been expressed as to whether dust particles pose a serious health risk to passengers using the London Underground. A meeting of the Greater London Authority's Transport Committee on Monday, 14 July 2003 called upon London Underground to conduct scientific studies to investigate this issue.

In the light of these concerns, will the European Commission indicate whether European laws exist to regulate safe levels of dust particles in underground transport systems?

Is the European Commission aware of this problem on the London Underground, and has it conducted any studies to identify safe levels of dust particles?

Is the European Commission aware of any health risks to the elderly, children and those with circulatory and respiratory diseases resulting from exposure to high levels of dust on underground transport systems?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/236

(2004/C 70 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3208/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: School funding crisis in Hillingdon and Barnet

John Randall MP and Sydney Chapman MP have approached me about the funding crisis in schools in their respective constituencies in Hillingdon and Barnet. Because of changes to the UK Government's education funding formula, money has been diverted from schools in the Greater London area to the north of England. The Government's increases in employers' national insurance and pension costs have intensified the funding crisis with many schools obliged to lay off teachers, increase class sizes or set deficit budgets. Schools which have been particularly badly affected include Friern Barnet School, Ashmole School and East Barnet Comprehensive.

Could the Commission please state what EU funds are available for schools and whether any of these could be used to avert teacher redundancies forced on schools by the Labour Government's failure to fund schools in the Greater London area properly?

Are there any funds available for repair and rebuilding of schools since many schools have had to use money reserved for capital and repairs to avoid teacher redundancies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Article 149, paragraph 1, of the EC Treaty clearly defines the respective competencies of the Member States and of the Community in the field of education. The Community supports the development of quality education while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. Community financing, notably in the framework of the Socrates programme, encourages cooperation between Member States, but cannot directly contribute to the operating costs of schools.

Within the framework of the Structural Funds of the European Union, investment costs in the education sector are eligible for support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) only in the least developed regions of the Community eligible under Objective 1 in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1, of the ERDF Regulation (1).

The European Social Fund on the other hand can support actions throughout the Union in the field of education and training relating to the labour market, human resource development and employment in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the ESF Regulation (2).

(1) Regulation (CE) no 1783/1999 of 12 July 1999.

(2) Regulation (CE) no 1784/1999 of 12 July 1999.