ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/03

by Joaquim Piscarreta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the C. & J. Clark footwear factory in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal)

On 10 January 2003 the multinational company C. & J. Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda, a maker of footwear located in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal), announced the closure of its factory, thus making 588 workers redundant.

The decision to close this factory is justified by the company itself on grounds relating to imports of vamps from India and Romania and the objective of maintaining a competitive price structure (cf. press release issued by the Clark management on 10 January 2003).

Clark set up operations in Castelo de Paiva in 1988, with both national and Community aid. In May 2000 the company signed a protocol with the local municipal council in which it undertook to continue operations up to at least 2007, in return for a significant level of investment from the municipality.

Castelo de Paiva is a municipality located in the Portuguese interior, with a very fragile economy. The closure of this undertaking will bring in its wake disastrous economic and social consequences.

Given that this decision to close runs totally counter to the notion of corporate social responsibility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What sums were granted from Community funds, and when, to the company Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda in Castelo de Paiva?

- What conditions were required from this company in relation to the above Community funding?

- Should it be established that Clark is in breach of its obligations regarding its receipt of Community support, what action will the Commission take to prevent the factory's closure and ensure the continuation of its activities in Castelo Paiva, guaranteeing the workers' jobs?

- What political measures will the Commission take in order to prevent, and, ultimately, penalise actions of this nature, as frequently perpetrated by companies which establish themselves in the EU, receive Community funding and then, having exhausted its advantages and benefits (above all on the human level), relocate their operations?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0286/03, E-0287/03,E-0288/03, E-0289/03, E-0290/03, E-0301/03 and E-0441/03given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Members are kindly asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1).

(1) See page 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2030/03

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Geographical toll

The French authorities have announced their intention to levy a new geographical tax on all heavy goods vehicles within the country's territory, over and above the motorway tolls already paid there.

This would constitute a blatant distortion of the proper functioning of the single market. What steps will the Commission take vis-à-vis France to ensure the proper functioning of the market in the event of the geographical toll being introduced?

To what extent might this measure constitute a violation of the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality within the European Union?

Finally, what effect would this measure have on the free movement of goods?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0383/03 by Mr Perez Alvarez during question time at Parliament's July 2003 part-session(1).

(1) Written answer of 1.7.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Recovery

Does the Commission believe that there can be a substantial growth in cross-border lending without measures to approximate recovery times for defaulted loans and the proportion of such loans that are recovered?

Joint answerto Written questions E-1870/03 and E-1871/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

Recovery difficulties can indeed constitute a barrier to cross-border lending to consumers. However, the proposed Directive on credit for consumers(1) is focussed on the rules applying to the consumer credit agreement. It has no ambition to harmonise either general procedures for recovery of debts or national enforcement procedures for claims. Consequently, the Commission has no current plans to prepare the estimates suggested by the Honourable Member.

However, as most defaulted debts in the field of consumer credit are uncontested claims, the Commission addresses the issue through its 2002 proposal for a Council Regulation on uncontested claims(2).

Moreover, the Commission issued in 2002 a Green Paper on the creation of a uniform or harmonised procedure for a European order for payment (injonction de payer)(3). The objective is to create a specific and fast procedure for the settlement of uncontested litigations, available in all Member States. The consultation on this Green Paper closed on 31 May 2003. A public hearing was organised on 26 June 2003 in Brussels(4), the outcome of which is currently being examined.

(1) Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning credit for consumers, OJ C 331 E, 31.12.2002.

(2) Proposal for a Council Regulation creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims, OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.

(3) COM(2002) 746 final.

(4) Bâtiment Charlemagne Rue de la Loi, 170 1040 Bruxelles Registration form: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/docs/regis_form_260603_en.doc.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1673/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Movement and ID of equidae

Arising from your reply of 15 April 2003 to my Written Question P-0781/03(1):

- Could the Commission advise whether there is an intention to pursue the investigation of the movement of equidae at a later date and if so, when?

- Can the Commission clarify whether the following quote refers to a specific target date i.e. months or years: establishing identification of equidae for breeding and production into Irish and British Law respectively is well advanced but not completed?

- Can the Commission advise whether there are plans to review the progress of UELN Universal Equine Life Number as a way of identification in conjunction with passports?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 176.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

With reference to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to provide a follow-up to its reply to Written Question P-0781/03 of Mrs Doyle(1).

A mission to follow-up the implementation of Decision 2000/68/EC(2) by Ireland and the United Kingdom can only be scheduled for 2004, as the priorities for veterinary inspections in 2003, including issues such as animal health and welfare conditions for imports of slaughter horses from third countries, have already been set by the Food and Veterinary Office.

The British Government has announced that as from 31 December 2003 all equines in England will be required to have a passport. The competent authorities are currently working on the legislation to implement the Decision and at present are on course to meet this deadline. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will make similar legislation although at this stage it is not clear if they will be able to meet the same deadline.

The Irish Department of Agriculture and Food has informed the Commission about the completion of the consultation process with various interested parties on the registration of horses that are not entered in existing approved studbooks. It is understood that new arrangements are likely to be introduced in a few months.

The Commission is actively pursuing the introduction of an Universal Equine Live Number (UELN) for the identification of equidae. An initial expert discussion on the Commission's project for a review of Decision 2000/68/EC has taken place. However, further discussion will be necessary, in particular in relation to cross-border activities of approved breeding organisations and the compatibility of the UELN with the life-number system already established by certain breeding organisations.

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 176.

(2) Commission Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production, OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1257/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: European Union initiative on revision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to protect coastal countries

The communication from the Commission to the Council of 5 March 2003(1) on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster mentions the need to take the initiative in proposing the revision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to afford better protection for coastal states, including within the 200-mile exclusive zone, against risks associated with the passage of ships constituting a danger to the environment and which do not comply with safety standards.

What is the current outcome of this initiative?

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

As announced on several occasions, in particular in the two communications which it adopted, following the sinking of the Prestige, in December 2002 and in March 2003, the Commission is considering proposing a revision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to increase the responsibilities of the Coastal States with regard to the prevention of pollution of the marine environment. The objective pursued is crucial, since it is a question of protecting European coasts against ships which, while not ensuring a high level of safety, carry hazardous and very polluting products, and therefore constitute a threat to the environment.

However, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea cannot be revised until November 2004, i.e. ten years after it entered into force.

In the immediate future, it is also crucially important how well the International Maritime Organisation receives the EU's proposals concerning the prevention of marine pollution (proposal to revise the Marpol Convention).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/03

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the C. & J. Clark footwear factory in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal)

On 10 January 2003 the multinational company C. & J. Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda, a maker of footwear located in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal), announced the closure of its factory, thus making 588 workers redundant.

The decision to close this factory is justified by the company itself on grounds relating to imports of vamps from India and Romania and the objective of maintaining a competitive price structure (cf. press release issued by the Clark management on 10 January 2003).

Clark set up operations in Castelo de Paiva in 1988, with both national and Community aid. In May 2000 the company signed a protocol with the local municipal council in which it undertook to continue operations up to at least 2007, in return for a significant level of investment from the municipality.

Castelo de Paiva is a municipality located in the Portuguese interior, with a very fragile economy. The closure of this undertaking will bring in its wake disastrous economic and social consequences.

Given that this decision to close runs totally counter to the notion of corporate social responsibility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What sums were granted from Community funds, and when, to the company Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda in Castelo de Paiva?

- What conditions were required from this company in relation to the above Community funding?

- Should it be established that Clark is in breach of its obligations regarding its receipt of Community support, what action will the Commission take to prevent the factory's closure and ensure the continuation of its activities in Castelo Paiva, guaranteeing the workers' jobs?

- What political measures will the Commission take in order to prevent, and, ultimately, penalise actions of this nature, as frequently perpetrated by companies which establish themselves in the EU, receive Community funding and then, having exhausted its advantages and benefits (above all on the human level), relocate their operations?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0286/03, E-0287/03,E-0288/03, E-0289/03, E-0290/03, E-0301/03 and E-0441/03given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Members are kindly asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1).

(1) See page 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0908/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Arrest of a Greek student in the United Kingdom

Greek student Haralambos Dousemertzis has been arrested by the United Kingdom authorities and detained under the anti-terrorism Act. According to newspaper reports he is accused of possessing and distributing propaganda material. The failure to provide information on the matter by the UK authorities has been described as unacceptable by the Greek Government.

The offences allegedly committed by the Greek student do not appear in Article 1 of Council Decision 2002/475/JHA(1) of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, which sets out in detail those acts deemed to be terrorist offences. Furthermore, under Article 9 of the decision, Jurisdiction and prosecution, the offence of which the Greek student is charged falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State, since his alleged support for the 17 November group relates to an organisation operating solely within Greece and the accused is a Greek national.

What will the Commission do to ensure that the abovementioned Council decision is applied and that the rights of the Greek student concerned are protected?

(1) OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism lists types of conduct which must be regarded as terrorist offences. It does not prohibit other types of conduct from being outlawed by a Member State in accordance with its national legislation, on condition that the legislation in question is not incompatible with the Framework Decision.

Where offences fall within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State, Article 9(2) of the Framework Decision provides for Member States to cooperate in order to decide which of them will prosecute the alleged offenders with the aim, if possible, of centralising proceedings in a single Member State. It also states that the Member States concerned may have recourse to any body or mechanism established within the European Union. In the case in point, the Greek authorities could contact the European Judicial Network or Eurojust.

The deadline for transposing the Framework Decision into national law was 31 December 2002. It goes without saying that the obligation to respect the rights of the accused in accordance with all relevant legislation is the corollary to implementation of the Framework Decision, as indicated in Article 1(2).

However, even though respect the Commission is very mindful of the need to the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, it has no mandate to intervene in individual cases.

Lastly, it should be noted that, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been infringed, he may take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Application of the European Union Solidarity Fund to the Prestige disaster in Galicia and the other regions affected

Experts have calculated that the cost of repairing the various types of damage caused by the Prestige disaster could amount to around EUR 5 billion. This figure also corresponds to the amount 5 billion dollars demanded by the US from the company Exxon Mobil, the owner of the Exxon Valdez, which was responsible for the disaster in Alaska in 1989. The Regulation on the European Union Solidarity Fund for disasters, particularly natural disasters, lays down that the fund is applicable where the damage caused exceeds EUR 3 billion. The Copenhagen European Council applied the Fund without taking this into account, but only for a sum of EUR 5 million.

Has the Commission analysed the application of the Solidarity Fund in Galicia and the other regions affected, taking account of the actual level of damage caused and the above reference calculation, which exceeds EUR 3 billion? Has it submitted a corresponding proposal to the Council, or will it do so?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer given to his oral question H-0221/03(1).

(1) Written answer of 13.5.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1000/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Pistoia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pistoia, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

2. whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1192/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Carrara

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Carrara, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

2. whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/03

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the C. & J. Clark footwear factory in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal)

On 10 January 2003 the multinational company C. & J. Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda, a maker of footwear located in Castelo de Paiva (Portugal), announced the closure of its factory, thus making 588 workers redundant.

The decision to close this factory is justified by the company itself on grounds relating to imports of vamps from India and Romania and the objective of maintaining a competitive price structure (cf. press release issued by the Clark management on 10 January 2003).

Clark set up operations in Castelo de Paiva in 1988, with both national and Community aid. In May 2000 the company signed a protocol with the local municipal council in which it undertook to continue operations up to at least 2007, in return for a significant level of investment from the municipality.

Castelo de Paiva is a municipality located in the Portuguese interior, with a very fragile economy. The closure of this undertaking will bring in its wake disastrous economic and social consequences.

Given that this decision to close runs totally counter to the notion of corporate social responsibility, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What sums were granted from Community funds, and when, to the company Clark Fábrica de Calçado, Lda in Castelo de Paiva?

- What conditions were required from this company in relation to the above Community funding?

- Should it be established that Clark is in breach of its obligations regarding its receipt of Community support, what action will the Commission take to prevent the factory's closure and ensure the continuation of its activities in Castelo Paiva, guaranteeing the workers' jobs?

- What political measures will the Commission take in order to prevent, and, ultimately, penalise actions of this nature, as frequently perpetrated by companies which establish themselves in the EU, receive Community funding and then, having exhausted its advantages and benefits (above all on the human level), relocate their operations?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0286/03, E-0287/03,E-0288/03, E-0289/03, E-0290/03, E-0301/03 and E-0441/03given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Members are kindly asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-0089/03 from Ms Bastos(1).

(1) See page 67.