ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2341/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2002)

Subject: Community funding of work in the field of the environment and the Natura 2000 network in Greece

On the basis of the detailed information which Commissioner Barnier provided in the annex to his answer to my question (E-0796/02(1)) on Community funding of projects and work implementing the Natura 2000 network and the EAGGF contribution to environmental protection in Greece:

1. With a view to completing the picture and in the interests of transparency, which natural or legal persons (ministry responsible, NGOs, administrative bodies, etc.) have received and used Community funding for work co-financed by the ERDF (OP Environment) and the Life-Natura 2000 programme in Greece? Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown for each separate project?

2. To which precise projects or actions were the GRD 778 217 320 (EUR 2 283 836,6) allocated in connection with work on the Lagana sea park, Xanthe biotope management project, which was co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (operational programme on the environment) and which was geared to protecting the Caretta-caretta turtle, and which natural or legal persons (ministry responsible, NGOs, administrative bodies, etc.) received the Community funding concerned?

3. What view will the Commission take of instances of maladministration of Community co-funding for environmental protection, and how will it guarantee optimum use of Community funds?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2002)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), responsibility as regards selecting projects eligible for Community part-financing and as regards monitoring their implementation rests with the national or regional authorities concerned. The Commission therefore does not hold comprehensive information, which is supplied only in the event of checks, and would ask the Honourable Member to request that information from the managing authority for the Environment operational programme (Evritania and Itea Street 2, 11523 Athens, telephone 010-6971700).

The enclosed detailed table on the programmes part-financed under LIFE is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission would point out that any irregularity in relation to Community funding, whatever that funding's purpose, incurs the penalties provided for by the rules in force. The Regulation referred to above also provides for enhanced planning, monitoring and control structures to be established with a view to ensuring the proper use of funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2144/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Lesotho

With reference to Lesotho, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Lesotho?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Funding of Community support framework programmes in Greece

According to information published in the Greek press, the Greek Government has asked the Commission to accelerate funding (potentially in excess of the original stipulations on this point in Regulation (EC) 1260/1999(1) on the Structural Funds) of the CSF operational programmes, which it believes can advance more quickly in the future, in compensation for the non-funding of other programmes which are not sufficiently ready.

1. Is this information true?

2. How does the Commission intend to respond to the Greek Government's request?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Earlier this year, the Greek authorities requested changes in the financial profiles of four operational programmes under the Community support framework for Greece during the 2000-2006 period, with a view to facilitating the financing of transport infrastructures linked to the Olympic Games in 2004.

The Commission is aware of the importance of the Olympic Games for Greece and for the Union as a whole. It is current working closely with the Greek authorities as a matter of priority in order to determine the feasibility of a shift of funds from other projects to infrastructures linked to the Olympic Games, and the practical means by which this may be brought about in the context of the regulations governing the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2643/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Representativeness of the ETUC and its member organisations

According to Article 138 of the EC Treaty, inter alia, the EU institutions, and the Commission in particular, ensure that the social partners have a role in identifying their economic and social policy objectives and formulating policies aimed at achieving such objectives.

In view of this role not only the European institutions, but also EU citizens, should know precisely how representative the organisations enjoying the status of social partners are.

The ETUC/CES is recognised as the sole representative of workers employed in the private sector. However, the ETUC/CES website only lists the member organisations, not the number of workers enrolled.

In response to telephone inquiries those in charge of the ETUC said that they were not in possession of this information.

Can the Commission provide accurate information as to how representative the organisations it co-operates with are, in particular the ETUC? More precisely, is it able to find out and tell the questioner how many workers belong to each of the member organisations of the ETUC?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The EC Treaty recognises a role for the social partners in drafting and implementing social policy. In line with its task of promoting the European social dialogue, the Commission has set representativeness criteria(1) to help identify the organisations consulted under Article 138 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission carried out a study on the social partners' representativeness, the results of which are available in detail on the following site: www.trav.ucl.ac.be/partenaires.

A list of around fifty European cross-industry and sectoral organisations has been drawn up(2). These European organisations all consist of members recognised as social partners at national level according to each Member State's individual procedures and practices. Their legitimacy and representativeness cannot therefore be questioned. They must also offer European coverage and have the necessary structures at their disposal for action at this level.

(1) COM(93) 600 final and COM(98) 322 final.

(2) COM(2002) 341 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1913/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: The euro compatibility of Vatican City State (VCS) legislation with Community law

The Monetary Agreement between the Italian Republic, on behalf of the European Community, and the Vatican City State and, on its behalf, the Holy See(1), which authorises the VCS to issue euros:

(a) stipulates that the Vatican City State is represented by the Holy See within the meaning of Article 3 of the Lateran Treaty,

(b) makes reference to the principles established in the existing Agreements between the Vatican City State and the Italian Republic and in particular in the Treaty between the Holy See and Italy of 11 February 1929 and amendments thereto (Recital 1),

(c) provides that financial institutions located in the Vatican City State may have access to payment systems within the euro area under appropriate terms and conditions determined by the Banca d'Italia with the agreement of the European Central Bank (Article 10).

Furthermore, Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty stipulates that all central bodies of the Catholic Church (which include the central bank, the Istituto Opere di Religione (IOR)) shall be exempt from any interference on the part of the Italian State.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

- what financial institutions are located in the Vatican City State, which of them have been granted access to payment systems within the euro area, and under what conditions;

- whether it considers Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty to be compatible with Community law;

- whether the Italian state is able, not least from a legal point of view, to monitor the activities of the IOR?

(1) OJ C 299, 25.10.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

None of the banks in the Vatican State have direct access to Target. There is one bank (Instituto di Opere de Religione) which is an indirect participant(1) and which has two channels of access, via a major German and a major Italian bank which are themselves linked to the system.

Since the banking authorities impose controls only where there is direct access, the issue of whether Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty is compatible with Community law does not arise.

(1) An indirect participant is an institution which does not have its own account in a Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system but which is nonetheless acknowledged by a national RTGS system and covered by its rules, and which may be directly accessible within Target. All the transactions of an indirect participant are carried out on the account of a participant which has agreed to represent the indirect participant.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1238/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Children's rights

What progress has the Commission made in the implementation of the budget line on the integration of child rights into development cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

The Commission is currently finalising the programming for budget line B7-624 Integration of children's rights into development cooperation.

The funds will be used for general awareness-raising and training in the field of children's rights in order to ensure that those rights are taken fully into account by both State and non-State actors. Activities funded under this budget line should draw, as appropriate, on the provisions of relevant international mechanisms, agreements and instruments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Outcome Document of the recent United Nations (UN) General Assembly Special Session on Children. They may address rights of the child issues at a global or regional level.

The Commission proposes to publish a pre-qualification tender in the field and after screening the best proposals received, will invite a restricted number of organisations to submit a complete project proposal. The best of these will then be selected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/02

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Honey, bees and systemic insecticides

An article entitled Dove sono finite le api (where have all the bees gone) which was published on the front page of the newspaper La Repubblica on Saturday, 29 June 2002 stated that French bee-keepers have asked the Commission to block the distribution of systemic insecticides, the active molecules of which are incorporated into plant seeds and spread as the plant grows: they therefore have a progressive effect (the more the plant grows, the greater the effect).

The molecule at issue, Imidacloprid, is produced by the Bayer pharmaceutical company and is lethal for bees, even in minute doses. This molecule is incorporated into wheat, maize, sunflower and other seeds. Insecticides containing the molecule first appeared on the Italian market ten year ago.

These insecticides are harming not just the bee population itself: honey production is apparently down by as much as one third, and honey prices are rising to compensate for the loss of production. There has been no response to the large number of complaints made by European bee-keepers, despite the steady deterioration in the situation as more and more bees are killed by the insecticide.

Given the above, can the Commission state whether:

- it is aware of the existence of the above molecule produced by Bayer and of the use being made of it in farming, with the effects referred to in La Repubblica;

- any studies have been conducted with a view to reassuring consumers about the possibility of traces of the molecule being found in honey and posing a threat to human health;

- it would agree that it should block the distribution of systemic insecticides, the active molecules in which are incorporated into plant seeds and spread as the plant grows, with particular reference those containing the molecule Imidacloprid, given that bees are of essential importance to farming and to society in that they pollinate almost all plants?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-1804/02 by Mr Souchet(1)

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 163.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1665/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Smart sanctions against Zimbabwe

President Mugabe recently went to New York for a UN conference on child poverty and Augustine Chihuri, chief of police and President Mugabe's right-hand man, attended an Interpol conference in Lyon.

Despite the sanctions imposed, they were both given permission to travel because under current international treaty agreements Member States can make exceptions in the case of meetings of national bodies.

Who gave permission in these two cases, and what purpose does it serve in these circumstances for Europe to impose smart sanctions against President Mugabe?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The issuing of visas is a matter for the national authorities concerned.

However, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable member to the fact that the issue of entry into the territories of Member States of the persons mentioned in the question is subject to Council Common Position 2002/145/CFSP.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0810/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Clear ban on microfiltration

A clear ban on the microfiltration of raw milk on the production holding is absolutely essential.

Can the Commission state to what extent such a ban will be implemented and what action it proposes to take in this matter?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0809/02, E-0810/02 and E-0812/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The definition of raw milk and linked thereto, the technique of micro-filtration of milk, is a subject that is under debate in the Parliament and the Council as a consequence of the Commission proposals on food hygiene(1). In both institutions amendments are proposed to the original Commission proposal with a view to clarifying the definition of raw milk and the micro-filtration thereof. These clarifications tend to re-introduce the definition of raw milk that is included in current Community legislation, and in particular in Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products(2). Such definition would be drafted along the following lines: Raw milk means milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40 °C or undergone any further treatment. In that definition the reference to micro-filtration is deleted.

The Commission is re-considering its position on this matter and recognises the force of the argument that the standards for raw milk must apply to the milk before collection from the farm without being altered artificially.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2152/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Mali

With reference to Mali, will the Commission say which projects were financed in 2000 under the EU budget?

Will the Commision specify the total amount of aid allocated during 2000 to all the initiatives relating to Mali?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1867/02, E-1868/02, E-1869/02, E-1870/02,E-1871/02, E-1872/02, E-1873/02, E-1874/02, E-1875/02, E-1876/02, E-1877/02, E-1878/02,E-1879/02, E-1880/02, E-1881/02, E-1882/02, E-1883/02, E-1884/02, E-1908/02, E-1909/02,E-1996/02, E-1997/02, E-1998/02, E-1999/02, E-2000/02, E-2001/02, E-2002/02, E-2003/02,E-2004/02, E-2005/02, E-2006/02, E-2007/02, E-2008/02, E-2009/02, E-2134/02, E-2135/02,E-2136/02, E-2137/02, E-2138/02, E-2139/02, E-2140/02, E-2141/02, E-2142/02, E-2143/02,E-2144/02, E-2145/02, E-2146/02, E-2147/02, E-2148/02, E-2149/02, E-2150/02, E-2151/02,E-2152/02, E-2153/02, E-2154/02 and E-2155/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.

It should be noted that the figures contained in the summary table by country are also to be found in the Financial Tables portion of the Annual Report on the Implementation of the EC's External Assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/02

by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Subsidies for German airlines

Does the Commission intend to approve the compensation payments of EUR 71 million to German airlines (EUR 70 million to Lufthansa and EUR 1 million to Deutsche BA), despite the preferential treatment received by both companies compared to SMEs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission has already, on 2 July 2002, authorised the aid scheme to compensate German companies for the losses caused by the closure of certain sections of airspace between 11 and 14 September 2001. The Commission confirms that compensation of up to EUR 71 million is available under the scheme.

The Commission decision is fully in line with the communication of 10 October 2001 The repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry(1), in which it accepted that some types of aid, including those for costs caused by the closure of airspace, may be awarded exceptionally to the air transport sector to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences (in the words of Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty).

Nonetheless, the Commission took the view that a number of objective conditions had to be met before authorising such emergency aid schemes.

The German scheme meets all the required criteria:

- compensation is paid only for the costs incurred during the four days in question following the grounding of air traffic decided by the American authorities,

- compensation is calculated objectively on the basis of the loss of revenue during that period, adjusted according to the costs avoided or additional costs incurred,

- compensation is paid in a non-discriminatory manner to all German airlines.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0809/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Definition of raw milk

Can the Commission present an unambiguous definition of raw milk and will it explain what efforts it has made to produce such a definition?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0809/02, E-0810/02 and E-0812/02given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The definition of raw milk and linked thereto, the technique of micro-filtration of milk, is a subject that is under debate in the Parliament and the Council as a consequence of the Commission proposals on food hygiene(1). In both institutions amendments are proposed to the original Commission proposal with a view to clarifying the definition of raw milk and the micro-filtration thereof. These clarifications tend to re-introduce the definition of raw milk that is included in current Community legislation, and in particular in Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products(2). Such definition would be drafted along the following lines: Raw milk means milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40 °C or undergone any further treatment. In that definition the reference to micro-filtration is deleted.

The Commission is re-considering its position on this matter and recognises the force of the argument that the standards for raw milk must apply to the milk before collection from the farm without being altered artificially.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2012/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Iodisation

In the light of the deliberations on the proposal to amend Directive 2000/13/EC(1) concerning the indication of additives contained in food, is the Commission aware that the iodisation of foodstuffs, even in the smallest concentrations, may result in numerous ailments ranging from allergies, Basedow's disease and hyperthyroidism to anaphylactic shocks resulting in death?

1. Does the Commission intend to take practical measures regarding the current standard of labelling of foodstuffs containing iodine?

2. Does the Commission intend to include iodine on the list of allergenic substances?

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The proposal(1) currently under discussion to amend Directive 2000/13/EC relating to the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs will ensure that all ingredients used in the manufacture of foodstuffs are included in the list of ingredients.

When used as an ingredient, iodine will have to be listed as such on the label and will not be covered by any limited derogations likely to remain.

Iodine is not a substance known to be a factor in a large number of cases of allergies or food intolerances.

Should this situation change in the future, the provision contained in the above-mentioned proposal for amendment requiring the list of ingredients causing allergies or intolerances to be updated when scientifically justified would also apply to iodine.

(1) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.