ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3172/01

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2001)

Subject: Dangers to children travelling as passengers on motorbikes

In the Netherlands, there are laws about transporting children in motor vehicles on the public highway. On mopeds and bicycles proper child-seats are required, yet if children ride pillion on motorbikes, they are only required to wear helmets.

In practice, this means that some motor-cyclists use child-seats intended for bicycles or mopeds, some strap the child to themselves and others take no precautions at all. This leads to very dangerous situations, children generally being less well protected than motor-cyclists are themselves.

As far as I know, no European legislation yet exists on this subject.

1. Is there a loophole in the law here which endangers children on motorbikes?

2. What legislation exists on this subject in other Member States?

3. Will the Commission investigate this matter, and might it propose European legislation (e.g. framework legislation)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

1. The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about children travelling as passengers on motorbikes and that this could lead to very dangerous situations. Indeed from the most recent accident data available in the Community Road Accident Database (CARE), it can be derived that more than 110 children up to 14 years, travelling as passengers on motorbikes, have been killed on the Community roads over the years 1991 to 2000.

2. The Commission is not aware of any specific national legislation existing in the Member States which goes beyond requiring the wearing of helmets by drivers and passengers on motorbikes as it is the case e.g. in the Netherlands.

3. The Commission will further investigate this issue and will indeed, if necessary, undertake any appropriate action in the field of motorcycle safety, taking due account of the principle of subsidiarity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Openness

In the Ombudsman's report for 2000, reference is made (page 63) to a complaint (No 395/99) against the Commission by an MEP alleging a lack of cooperation from the Commission in securing transparency in certain procedures.

However, the name of the MEP is not mentioned, presumably at his own request. What is the Commission's view of Members who complain about lack of transparency in the Commission but who do not want transparency in their own conduct? In the interests of transparency, is the Commission willing to name the MEP?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, as a rule, the European Ombudsman does not divulge names of complainants in his annual report.

It is suggested that the Honourable Member addresses further questions to the Ombudsman.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Copyright dispute between the US and the EU

The Dispute-Settlement Body (TRIPS) set up as part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement provides that all members of the WTO must comply with international norms in relation to copyright protection which are set out in the Berne Convention.

The WTO Dispute-Settlement Body appointed a panel to investigate US copyright legislation and arbitrate on this matter and, in due course, ruled that the US was not complying with its international obligations under the above Agreement and Convention.

Since the deadline for the implementation of the WTO findings expires on 27 July 2001, and since the US has yet to implement those findings, could the Commission please ensure that it will continue to urge the US to implement international obligations in copyright protection and bring the US in line with international norms?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

The Commission is very concerned about the lack of implementation by the United States of the World trade organisation (WTO) ruling on Section 110(5) of the American Copyright Act. Consequently, the Commission is taking every opportunity to remind the United States of its international obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The Commission will continue to insist that the United States brings its Copyright Act in conformity with the said Agreement.

However, in the interest of ensuring a satisfactory implementation of the WTO ruling for the benefit of Community righ-holders, the Community has agreed to an extension of the reasonable period for implementation, until end December 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2298/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE)and Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Appointment of new Director for Directorate D in DG External Relations

One of the declared priorities of the Commission's reform is that of ensuring that promotions are done on the basis of competence and not on the basis of nationality, political affiliation or any other casual combination. This concept is reiterated in the Infonote No 9/2001 of the DG External Relations, adopted on 3 July 2001.

It would therefore be important to know what is the precise reason why the Commission made a notable exception to this principle when appointing the new Director for Directorate D in DG External Relations, Mr. Reinhard Priebe. In the Inside DG External Relations Issue of April, May, June 2001 there is an interesting interview of M. Priebe in which, with disarming sincerity, he admits to never having worked in the area of external relations before, and that it is by chance that he moved to the Western Balkans Directorate.

Can the Commission indicate on the basis of which precise criteria Mr Priebe was nominated, since by his own admission he has no experience in external relations let alone in Western Balkans and since this openly contradicts its internal rules?

Does the Commission not believe that there are in its own services enough competent persons to cover such a delicate post in this particularly difficult time in relations between the EU and the Western Balkans?

Does the Commission not consider that it is particularly inconvenient for its prestige and credibility to appoint by chance as Director a person with no relevant background even if there are no reason to doubt his professional qualities on other important issues of the Commission's work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

The Commission makes senior management appointments on the basis of a number of criteria. In the case of the recent vacancy for the post of Director, Western Balkans, the selection criteria included proven management and negotiating experience, ability to develop complex programmes in a rapidly changing environment, previous experience of international relations, as well as good organisational and communication skills.

The candidate chosen for the post, after a series of interviews, was considered to have the best range of experience and skills needed for this challenging position. Previous experience in an External Relations Directorate General (DG) was not a requirement for the post and the other factors mentioned above were considered more important in terms of the work to be done with the countries of the region. The appointment in question was made therefore, not by chance but after a careful selection procedure in the course of which the Commission did not make any exception to its rules. The procedure was established precisely to ensure that the best available competence from within the services of the Commission can be identified and selected for the challenging positions like this one.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3379/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: WTO waiver

Given the success in obtaining a waiver in respect of the Cotonou Agreement at the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Doha, Qatar, would the Commission confirm that ACP bananas will, like other products originating in ACP countries and in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement, continue to be entitled to duty-free access to the EU market until 2008?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

The waiver granted to the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and the Community in respect of the Cotonou Agreement covers the non-reciprocal tariff preferences granted by the Community to all ACP imports until 2008.

Although the Cotonou Agreement provides for tariff preferences on bananas, and does not specifically address the issue of the exact level of the tariff for ACP imports, the Community has granted duty free access to ACP imports and has no intention to change this in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Fine on French football authorities with regard to World Cup tickets

Can the Commission indicate the date of payment of the fine of EUR 1 000 imposed on the French Football Federation for selling tickets preferentially to French Nationals in breach of EU rules on competition?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The French Football Federation made the payment of 1 000 to the Commission on 3 November 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3393/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: ACP countries' access to the information society

At the Third ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of October 2001 the Commission and the European Parliament gave a commitment to organise conferences and seminars aimed at enabling ACP countries to gain access to the information society.

These conferences should provide a forum for discussions and initiatives with a view to promoting realistic projects, whilst taking account of the information society summits which are to be held in Geneva in 2003 and in Tunis in 2005.

Bearing in mind the emphasis placed on ensuring that ACP countries have access to the information society, has the Commission drawn up a calendar of conferences and seminars aimed at achieving this vital goal?

What initiatives does the Commission propose in order to facilitate ACP countries' access to the information society?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

The African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the Union's (ACP-EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly's Resolution 3228 on the means of access to global communication for ACP countries as a contribution to sustainable development, and the need for such access, adopted on 1 November 2001, invites, in its paragraph 60 the Commission and the Parliament, to organise preparatory meetings prior to the World Summit on Information Society-(WSIS). The same resolution, in its paragraph 64, invites the Joint Assembly to organise a workshop at its next session in South Africa.

With regard to the WSIS, the preparatory process is currently being finalised. There will be three Preparatory conferences (PrepCom), respectively in the summer of 2002, in the spring of 2003 and in the autumn of 2003. Moreover, there will be regional conferences. The one for Africa will probably be led by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.

The Community intends, in view of its many competences on the subject, to participate as full member and play an active role in the preparation of the Summit, be it in the PrepCom or the regional conferences. However, rather than planning additional events, the Commission will provide its input in the many events already foreseen.

The workshop planned at the occasion of the next Joint Parliamentary Assembly is an initiative of the Assembly, not a Commission one. The Commission is ready to assist it in its preparation as needed.

There are several programmes with information and communication technology (ICT) components in the ACP region but no major one specifically devoted to information society. Such a programme is being currently appraised for the Indian Ocean countries and discussions are ongoing with the Caribbean region for them to join, with European Development Fund (EDF) funds, the @LIS programme covering Latin America. Within the existing policy and financing frameworks, similar programmes for the African region may be considered in the context of the 9th EDF programming exercise.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3319/01

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Ian Stillman

Given the ongoing concerns about the case of Ian Stillman, a British charity worker who has been facing trial in Shilma, India, a trial that has been delayed on numerous occasions, what has the Commission done to apply pressure to the Indian Government so as to ensure this case is heard fairly and quickly? Particularly in the light of the fact that that Mr Stillman is profoundly deaf and is one-legged. He has recently been moved into a cell that is too small to fit his wheelchair.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of the case of Mr Ian Stillman, a disabled charity worker who has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment in India. It fully shares the concerns of the honourable member over the circumstances of his arrest and his detention conditions.

Before Mr Stillman's appeal trial was due (on 24 September 2001), the Commission had, via its Delegation in New Delhi, written to the Indian National Human Rights Commission for an update on his health and detention conditions.

The Commission's Delegation was informed that Mr Stillman's case is being followed by M. S.C. Verma, Registrar, who has contacted the District Magistrate of Nahan, the district where Mr Stillman is being detained. A further update on his detention conditions is awaited.

The Commission has also discussed Mr Stillman's case with representatives from the organisation Fair Trials Abroad, who visited Brussels this September.

Now that the Indian authorities seem to have delayed the appeal, the Commission will contact the Indian Human Rights Commission again and will continue to closely follow the developments in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3198/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Completion of the road link between Patras, Athens and Thessaloniki (Greece)

Will the Commission say:

1. What was the original timetable for the completion of the road axis linking Patras with Athens and Thessaloniki and what is the current timetable for completion?

2. What was the original budget for the road axis linking Patras with Athens and Thessaloniki and what is the current timetable for completion?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that, in accordance with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the efficiency and correctness of management and implementation is the responsibility of the Greek authorities. Moreover, the operational programmes (OP) do not necessarily include specific operational timetables for projects co-financed under Structural Funds. In addition the responsibility for budget decisions for projects lies with the Member States' authorities.

As far as Community contributions are concerned, the completion of some 400 km of the motorway between Corinth and Thessaloniki was co-financed by both the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund during the 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 programming periods, to a total of 1 billion.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, a further 300 km in the PATHE axis from Patras to Thessaloniki is expected to be co-financed by the Structural Funds, including the Rio Antirio bridge and the

Athens ring. The OP for roads together with the Cohesion Fund provide for a total expenditure of 4,6 billion. This global amount is broken down to 1,3 billion of Community contributions, 1,2 billion of national public subsidy and 2,1 billion of private investment, in the framework of concession schemes. The Commission will be informed of the completion of the new sections through the reports that the Greek authorities are required to submit annually. The expenditure for these projects will be eligible until 31 December 2008.

The total cost of the PATHE axis will be known only when detailed studies, design and construction are completed for the entire project.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3518/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

What amount was paid out in 2000 in the form of refunds on the export from the Community to third countries of live cattle (a) for slaughter and (b) for breeding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

The export refunds paid in 2000 for live bovine animals amounted to 110 769 million. Unfortunately, no detail is available in the accounts on the ventilation of these payments between slaughter or breeding purposes.

However, based on the export certificates issued during the period concerned, it can be estimated that a little more than 30 % was paid out for animals exported for breeding purposes and about 70 % of the amount was paid out for animals to be slaughtered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3625/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Subject: Compensation for French ban on British beef

Following the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-1/00, will the Commission state what means of redress and compensation are now available to British farmers whose livelihoods were affected by the illegal French government decision?

Is the Commission satisfied with the procedures for compensation and redress in such cases, and will it bring forward proposals to improve the present situation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2002)

In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice established notably in Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy(1), Brasserie du Pêcheur S.A. v Federal Republic of Germany(2) and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others Community law incorporates a general principle to the effect that a Member State is obliged to make good the damage to individuals caused by a breach of Community law for which it was responsible.

In principle therefore British cattle farmers, suffering losses arising out the infringement of Community law which the Court of Justice found had been committed in Case C-1/00, could initiate an action for damages against France in the competent national court.

To be successful in such an action the claimants would have to satisfy the conditions referred to in the relevant case-law.

The Commission is satisfied that the case-law referred to above does establish in a clear manner general principles governing the responsibilities of Member States to individuals in relation to breaches of Community law by the latter. The Commission has not therefore up to the present time presented any proposals in relation to the matter. The Court has, however, recognised that in the absence of relevant Community provisions for determining the extent of reparation it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to determine the criteria governing that aspect. The Court has, nevertheless, underlined that those criteria must not be less favourable than those applying to similar cases based on domestic law and must not be such as in practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation.

(1) Joined cases C-6/90 and 9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357.

(2) Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 [1996] ECR I-1029.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Problems in the financing budget for the construction of Kyllini spa in Greece

In a letter dated 10 June 1998 from its Directorate-General XVI to the General Secretary of the Greek Tourist Board, the Commission refers to problems which had arisen in the financing budget for the construction of Kyllini spa. Funding for the project initially came, in 1988, from the Integrated Mediterranean Programme for the Peloponnese, while for the 1989-1993 period it was funded under the operational programme for tourism and for the 1994-1999 period under the operational programme for tourism and culture. Although project construction has been completed, it is not in operation.

As mentioned in the above letter from the Commission, the project involves complicated calculations, which are difficult to understand. For this reason, the Commission intended to examine the costs of the project right from the start of its funding. However, I am informed that the Commission has not yet carried out this examination.

1. What kind of complexities are involved in the calculations for this project's construction budget?

2. Why has the Commission not examined the costs, as it originally intended to do?

3. Why has this project not yet been operational?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Construction of the Kyllini spa centre was begun in the 1970s using national funds by EOT, the Greek public tourism body, which built the structure of the building and a waste-water drainage system.

The complexity of the expenditure connected with Community part-financing for this project arises from the number of sources of aid spread over several programming periods.

During the period 1986-1992, the Commission approved Community part-financing of GRD 1 028 071 979 under the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes to complete work on the centre. Supplementary aid of GRD 733 337 205 was approved to reinforce the structure of the building as a result of the earthquake which took place in the region.

During the 1989-1993 programming period, Community part-financing of GRD 1 040 000 000 was granted under priority 4 (bridge projects) of the Community support framework (CSF) in order to construct the operational phase of the centre.

The project then received Community part-financing of GRD 2 368 833 076 under the Tourism and Culture operational programme of the CSF for 1994-1999 in order to complete work on the spa in general. The building has a total area of 12 748m2 and can receive up to 6 500 people per day.

The Commission decided to await closure of the operational programme under which the last part-financing was approved in order to have an overview of all the aid granted. When it examines that final report, which the Greek authorities must send no later than 30 June 2002, the Commission will check both the financial and economic data of this project and will decide what measures to take if the centre is not still operational.