ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0055/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Establishment of a European coastguard service to ensure that hazardous cargoes can be safely transported by sea

Will the initiatives to be proposed by the Commission following the Prestige disaster include the establishment of a European coastguard service (similar to the coastguard set up in the USA following the Exxon Valdez accident) in order to ensure that hazardous cargoes can be transported safely through the EU's coastal waters?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Question E-3545/02 by Mr Scarbonchi(1) and to Oral Question No H-872/02 put by Mr Cushnahan(2) during question time at Parliament's January 2003 session.

(1) See page 39.

(2) Oral answer on 14.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1447/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject: Mrs Beate Winkler's former employment

Since 1998, Mrs Beate Winkler has been director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).

This agency has a great deal of influence on the immigration debate in the EU Member States, partly as a result of a number of outspoken comments by its director. On several occasions she has stated that the Centre is considering investigating statements made by the Danish People's Party, (Dansk Folkeparti).

The Danish People's Party is a socially liberal party which also gives parliamentary support to Denmark's coalition government. Nevertheless the director of the EUMC has on several occasions described the party as belonging to the extreme right-wing.

If the EUCM is to continue its work, it is important that its director should be a person who is capable of carrying out objective research and not merely of expounding particular political points of view.

Could the Commission please state what training, from what training institution, Mrs Beate Winkler has received, and what posts she has occupied since completing her training. I should like to know exactly on what bodies, in what capacities, she has worked. I should also like to the Commission to clarify whether Mrs Winkler was politically active during the period before her appointment by the EU.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Dr Beate Winkler was appointed Director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 1998, and re-appointed for a second term in 2002, by the Management Board of the Centre, from a short-list put forward by the Commission. Her background and experience was of course a key element which the board took into account in its deliberations. The curriculum vitae of the Director is publicly available on the website of the Centre at the following address: http://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=3e4a5843e8631

Dr Winkler's academic qualifications, include a doctorate in law from the University of Cologne. Her professional background has been largely in the public sector, including at the office of the Federal Government's Commissioner for Foreigners' Affairs in Germany. Prior to taking up her appointment at the Monitoring Centre, Dr Winkler was the managing director of the Federation of German Architects. Dr Winkler's curriculum vitae does not give details of her political affiliations. The Management Board did not raise this issue during their discussions on her appointment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/03

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Alpine Convention

It is encouraging that finally, after forty years of preparation, the Alpine Convention has now come into force. It is, however, regrettable that two Member States, Italy and France, have so far failed to sign. The European Union, which should also be among the signatories to the Convention, has also yet to sign the Alpine Convention.

1. What problems stand in the way of the European Union's signing the Convention?

2. What action is the Commission taking to encourage those Member States that have yet to sign to do so?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Community signed the Alpine Convention on 7 November 1991 in Salzbourg (Austria).

The decision to ratify was taken on 26 February 1996(1). The Community is therefore a Party to the Alpine Convention.

All alpine Member States have ratified the Convention: Austria on 19 April 1994, Germany on 16 June 1994, France on 30 November 1995 and Italy on 28 September 1999. Slovenia, which is the only alpine acceding country, ratified it on 22 March 1995.

In its reply to previous written questions (joint reply to E-1148/02, E-1149/02 and E-1229/02(2) and reply to E-1818/02(3)), the Commission stated its practical difficulties in playing an active role in the activities undertaken under the Convention and its Protocols, as well as its willingness to consider options to increase its involvement.

Indeed, the Commission stresses the interest it attaches to mountain regions. This interest is exemplified by the fact that the Commission, in its second Report on Cohesion, recognised that some mountain regions suffer from severe development problems and should be a priority for the future of the Community's cohesion policy. Moreover, the Commission has just launched a study on mountain areas. The objectives of this study are to define mountain areas (zoning), to set up a database including different kind of indicators, in particular those linked to environment and hazards, and finally, to analyse the situation of these regions in a sustainable development perspective. Other Community policies such as its rural development and environment policy are also contributing to the sustainable development of mountain regions including the Alpine region, and to the conservation of mountain eco-systems.

(1) Council decision No 96/191/EC of 26 February 1996 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the protection of the Alps, OJ L 61, 12.3.1996.

(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 91.

(3) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 140.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Bankruptcy of Grundig AG and how to safeguard jobs in Portugal

The media have reported that Grundig AG filed for bankruptcy at the district court of Nuremberg, Germany, on 14 April 2003.

Grundig currently controls the Car InterMedia System (CIS) in Braga, Portugal, which employs around 700 workers, produces car radios and accounts for about 30 % of the production of Fehst Componentes Lda, which has more than 300 employees. All this demonstrates the viability and self-sufficiency of CIS.

Grundig has a substantial impact on employment and regional development in the Braga area, hence our concern at the decisions taken in Germany. It should be borne in mind that there are no alternative jobs and that the relocation of other multinationals in the north of the country has helped to aggravate the unemployment situation.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. what Community support the Grundig Group has received, in particular the Car InterMedia System, and what the terms of this support are;

2. what steps will be taken to safeguard the activity of CIS in Braga and the jobs it provides directly or indirectly, bearing in mind that Portugal currently has the highest rate of unemployment in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Toys in foodstuffs

In view of the fatal accidents in which children have died of asphyxia in the last few years, some of the more conscientious manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn potentially dangerous products from the market:

- Nestlé withdrew its Magic Ball (a chocolate-covered plastic ball containing a figurine of a Disney character) because toys inside food products are considered extremely dangerous;

- in Denmark and the United Kingdom a yoghurt containing a toy (Onken) was also voluntarily withdrawn from the market;

- in Finland a chocolate egg containing a novelty toy manufactured in Austria was withdrawn from the market.

Meanwhile, unscrupulous manufacturers continue to advertise and sell their food products under the pretext of offering a toy (which is of course just another marketing gimmick to promote the food product), which can cause fatal accidents and irreparable damage to the lives of families.

What specific action will the Commission take with a view to protecting European consumers?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1475/03, E-1505/03, E-1552/03 and E-1591/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission has answered several previous parliamentary questions on the matter raised by the Honourable Members, so it would ask them to refer in particular to the joint answers to Written Questions E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos(1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(2).

With regard to the accidents mentioned in Written Question E-1505/03, the Commission has contacted the authorities of the countries concerned in order to obtain details of these accidents and to assess them. In addition, the Commission will pay close attention to the results of the current investigation, coordinated by Parliament's STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) Unit, into the possible risk of combining food products with non-food products.

Any new factor arising from this information will be examined to determine whether initiatives should be taken at Community level.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/03

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Alterations to the technical and administrative structure of Genoa airport

In 1980 there came into being in Italy a flight-handling authority which in 1981 was succeeded by a flight-handling company organised as follows:

- four regional flight-handling centres, each run by an executive director;

- two main airports (Rome-Fiumicino and Milan-Linate), each run by an executive director;

- all other airports, large or small, each run by non-executive staff.

When the technical and administrative structure of the Directorate-General was recently overhauled (on 11 February 2003), airports were subdivided into different categories, even though they all had the same role and tasks:

- four ACCs (Rome, Milan, Padua and Brindisi regional control centres), each run by an executive director;

- three SAAVs (Rome-Fiumicino, Milan-Linate and Milan-Malpensa airports), each run by an executive director;

- eight CAAVs (Bari, Bologna, Catania, Naples, Olbia, Palermo, Turin and Venice airports), each run by an executive director;

- fifteen UAAVs (all other airports which provide control-tower services, including Genoa), each run by an official;

- thirteen NAAVs (airports at which control-tower services are not provided, only an information service).

The exclusion of Genoa from the CAAVs defies all logic:

- Genoa is one of the few Italian airports at which comprehensive services (including a radar service) have always been provided;

- although the airport is not one of the busiest it should undoubtedly be regarded as one of the most important on account of the fact that it provides comprehensive services, is conveniently situated and enjoys a good weather record (which means that it has always been used when necessary as a diversionary airport in northern Italy);

- of the eight CAAVs, Bari airport has no radar and in terms of movements is no busier than Genoa, Catania, although busier, has no radar and provides only control-tower services, whilst Olbia is similar to Genoa in terms of facilities and number of aircraft movements.

Would the Commission say why it was thought that such restructuring was called for?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Normally CAAV airports (Centri Aeroportuali di Assistenza al Volo, Airport Centres for Flight Assistance) are chosen on the basis of volume and complexity of traffic as well as of their geographical location.

It is true that according to these parameters, Genova is well equipped and enjoys more movements than other airports that have retained the CAAV qualification, such as Olbia, Bari and Catania. However, these airports serve wider areas due to their geographical location than Genova could have done as it is close to other major centres like Milano and Torino.

Therefore, the determination by the Italian authorities not to retain Genova as a CAAV airport appears to be reasonable. The Commission should point out that in any event there is no basis in law for it to intervene in Member States' decisions on these matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection 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 for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci 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 to enhance quality, promote innovation and support the European dimension of vocational training systems and practices, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Leonardo da Vinci 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-0833/03, E-0890/03, E-1062/03, E-1063/03,E-1064/03, E-1065/03, E-1066/03, E-1067/03, E-1068/03, E-1069/03,E-1070/03, E-1071/03, E-1072/03, E-1073/03 and E-1074/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Some of the funds awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme are managed decentrally by national agencies, in particular the transnational mobility projects, whose total budget takes up almost 40 % of the total for the programme.

For these projects, please contact the national agency in Italy for further information:

ISFOLVia G.B. Morgagni 30/eI-00161 Romatel. (+39-06)44.59.01fax (+39-06)44.59.04.75.

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumincino, Ancona, Carrara, Florence, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni showed that:

- only Pesaro has submitted a proposal for a pilot project under the Leonardo programme. This project is entitled: Laboratori Tematici Virtuali: Metodologia di Supporto alla Formazione Nel Sel (Sistema Economico Locale) (virtual thematic workshops: methodology for fostering training in local economies);

- it obtained funding of EUR 264 161 for this project, which began at the end of 2002.

The Honourable Member could contact the local authorities mentioned above for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the City of Frosinone

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 City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci programme by the municipality of Prato

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 Prato, urgently need to use European funds to enhance quality, promote innovation and support the European dimension of vocational training systems and practices, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Leonardo da Vinci programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0833/03, E-0890/03, E-1062/03, E-1063/03,E-1064/03, E-1065/03, E-1066/03, E-1067/03, E-1068/03, E-1069/03,E-1070/03, E-1071/03, E-1072/03, E-1073/03 and E-1074/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Some of the funds awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme are managed decentrally by national agencies, in particular the transnational mobility projects, whose total budget takes up almost 40 % of the total for the programme.

For these projects, please contact the national agency in Italy for further information:

ISFOLVia G.B. Morgagni 30/eI-00161 Romatel. (+39-06)44.59.01fax (+39-06)44.59.04.75.

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumincino, Ancona, Carrara, Florence, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni showed that:

- only Pesaro has submitted a proposal for a pilot project under the Leonardo programme. This project is entitled: Laboratori Tematici Virtuali: Metodologia di Supporto alla Formazione Nel Sel (Sistema Economico Locale) (virtual thematic workshops: methodology for fostering training in local economies);

- it obtained funding of EUR 264 161 for this project, which began at the end of 2002.

The Honourable Member could contact the local authorities mentioned above for more information.