ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Mrs Cresson

According to Press Release IP/03/101 dated 22 January 2003, the Commission has decided to send Mrs Cresson a statement, for her to comment on, setting out possible breaches by her of her obligations when she was a Commissioner.

In doing so, the Commission is heeding the call made by the European Parliament, in its resolution of 29 November 2001 on the protection of financial interests(1), that, if appropriate, Mrs Cresson's misconduct should be referred to the Court of Justice.

In paragraph 21 of its resolution, Parliament recalled that, in addition to the affair involving the employment of a dentist as scientific adviser to the former Commissioner, accusations had been made.

Inter alia, that:

(a) there had been irregular conduct as regards the award of several contracts to a firm with which she had connections, shortly before taking up office as a Commissioner,

(b) she had had an expensive apartment in Brussels made available free of charge to one of her advisers;

(c) she had had contracts for inconsequential studies and research awarded to a German lawyer as cover so that he could visit her office and possibly gain access to and influence sensitive cases (Leuna affair) with which the Commission was dealing at that time.

Can the Commission say whether it has taken up these points and whether these accusations are the subject of the statement submitted to the former Commissioner for her comments?

(1) OJ C 153 E, 27.6.2002, p. 325.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

As I said to the Budget Control Committee on 22 January 2003, Mrs Cresson has been invited to submit observations in response to a statement addressed to her by the Commission and, since the issue is the subject of an administrative enquiry, confidentiality and the rights of defence must be protected. It would therefore not be appropriate for the Commission to provide details of the contents of the statement in these circumstances.

The statement sent to Mrs Cresson by the Commission is based on the results of thorough enquiries by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Commission's Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) over a period of years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0135/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Cape Verde international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Cape Verde international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in the Cape Verde islands?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

1. Article 2 of the current Protocol to the fisheries agreement between the Community and the Republic of Cape Verde(1) fixes the level of financial contribution at EUR 680 000 per year. Of this, EUR 280 000 is used for the measures in support of the Cape Verde fisheries sector specified in Article 3 of the Protocol.

2. The financial contribution of EUR 680 000 per year represents the amount that is paid in exchange for the fishing opportunities made available to the Community fleet.

3. The amounts paid by the vessel owners are fixed in points 2 and 3 of the Annex to the Protocol.

For the tuna fishery, the licence fees are EUR 25 per tonne of tuna caught within the waters of Cape Verde. The licences are delivered after advance payments of EUR 2 750 for tuna seiners, EUR 2 000 for surface longliners and EUR 300 for pole and line vessels. In addition to the advance, each vessel must also pay EUR 100 to finance the observer programme in place. The amount of the advances are deducted from

the total amount due on the basis of the catches during the preceding year, but if the amount due is less than the advance the balance is not recoverable.

As regards the bottom longliners, the licence fee amounts to EUR 168 per gross registered tonnage (GRT) per year.

(1) OJ L 47, 19.2.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0144/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Mauritius international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Mauritius international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector on Mauritius?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

1. For the period 3 December 2002 to 2 December 2003, the amount of the financial contribution provided for by the Protocol currently in force is EUR 412 500 a year(1). Half of that amount, i.e. EUR 206 250 a year, is allocated to financing targeted measures to develop the Mauritian fishing industry.

2. The financial contribution of EUR 412 500 a year referred to above represents the amount granted in exchange for the fishing opportunities granted to the Community fleet, which comprise 5 500 tonnes of annual catches in Mauritian waters. If the annual catches made in Mauritian waters by Community vessels exceed that quantity, the above amount is to be increased by EUR 50 per additional tonne.

3. Regarding the fees to be paid by Community vessel owners, point 2 of the Annex to the Protocol stipulates:

The fee shall be set at EUR 25 per tonne caught in the waters of Mauritius.

For tuna seiners, licences shall be issued on advance payment of an annual sum of EUR 1 750 per tuna seiner, equivalent to the fees for 70 tonnes of annual catches within the waters of Mauritius.

For surface longliners, licences shall be issued on advance payment to Mauritius of an annual sum of EUR 1 375 for a surface longliner of more than 150 grt and EUR 1 000 for surface longliners of 150 grt or less.

These amounts correspond respectively to the fees due for 55 tonnes and for 40 tonnes of annual catches in Mauritian waters.

(1) See Articles 2 and 3 of the Protocol defining, for the period 3 December 1999 to 2 December 2002, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Agreement between the EC and Mauritius OJ L 180, 19.7.2000 referred to by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters extending that Protocol for the period 3 December 2002 to 2 December 2003, initialled by both parties on 29.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: VAT on Italian road tunnel tariffs

Article 21(15) of the 2003 Italian Budget Law provides for the immediate application of VAT, at the standard rate of 20 %, to tolls collected for using cross-border tunnels. In this way, the 1972 decree under which tolls for using cross-border tunnels were exempt from VAT has been repealed, meaning that Italy, as the Commission had requested, has conformed to the Court of Justice's ruling of 12 September 2000 on this matter. The implementation of this decision has created a paradox both at the Mont Blanc tunnel between Italy and France and at the Gran San Bernardo tunnel between Italy and Switzerland. In the first case, the tariffs are 20 % higher on the Italian side because France has for some time been applying VAT to its tariffs, while in the second case there is no VAT in Switzerland and the tolls are therefore higher on the Italian side. These circumstances create a distortion of competition between companies operating the same tunnel and cause problems for users. How does the Commission view this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

As the Honourable Member points out, Italy has complied with the Sixth VAT Directive(1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgments of 12 September 2000 on the taxation of tolls for the use of road infrastructure. Italy changed its legislation to abolish exemption from VAT on tolls for using cross-border tunnels following an infringement procedure started by the Commission.

As for the tunnel link with France, the Commission notes that it was the previous situation (collection of VAT in France and not in Italy) which might have caused distortion of competition (and which was the subject of a complaint), and not the other way round, since the two Member States now collect VAT for the same provision of services.

As for the link with Switzerland, it should be remembered that as that country is not part of the EU it does not have to comply with Community law on VAT. So the situation of tunnel operators is not comparable as they are subject to different laws and it cannot therefore be said that competition is being distorted.

Finally, the Commission notes that the Honourable Member's statement that these circumstances cause problems for users is too vague for it to be able to give an assessment.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1022/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Massa

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 EU subsidies include a support programme to foster the twinning of European cities and that many Italian cities, including the municipality of Massa, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects to benefit from funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0864/03, E-0886/03, E-1017/03, E-1018/03,E-1019/03, E-1020/03, E-1021/03, E-1022/03, E-1023/03, E-1024/03,E-1025/03, E-1026/03, E-1027/03, E-1028/03 and E-1029/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Twinning is funded centrally.

The grants are awarded by the Commission on the basis of projects presented by local authorities or twinning committees.

The grants are not paid until after the event, following submission of supporting documents.

The participation of local authorities in town-twinning activities is arranged via the publication of an annual call for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.

With regard to the Honourable Member's questions the municipalities of: Fiumicino (E-0886), Frosinone (E-0864), Ancona (E-1017), Florence (E-1019), Livorno (E-1020), Macerata (E-1021), Perugia (E-1023), Pesaro (E-1024), Pisa (E-1025) Pistoia (E-1026) Siena (E-1028) and Terni (E-1029) did not obtain funding for the organisation of twinning events in 2000.

The municipalities of Carrara (E-1018) Massa (E-1022) Prato (E-1027) received funding for twinning in 2000. These funds were used.

The Honourable Member might wish to contact the local authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0635/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Intelligent headlights

The car industry would like to introduce intelligent headlights for vehicles. These swivelling car eyes, as they are termed, increase the field of vision and are considered by the industry to be a road safety enhancement. All that the car industry is waiting for is for European legislation to be adapted.

Is the Commission planning to adapt the ECE Directive and make the use of intelligent headlights possible?

If so, can it say what its plans and objectives are?

If not, what are the Commission's objections to intelligent headlights?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation 48 concerning the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices has already been adapted to permit the use of headlamps whose beam pattern can be modified to provide additional light in the direction that the vehicle is turning, known as bend lighting. In addition, two other Regulations dealing with headlamps as components have also been adapted to include provisions for bend lighting.

As the Community is a signatory to the UN/ECE Agreement under which these Regulations were made, and having acceeded to these particular Regulations, the Member States are obliged to permit the placing on the market of vehicles and components that comply with these provisions. Indeed, a number of vehicles have already obtained Community whole vehicle type approval with bend lighting installed, and the Commission is not aware of any problems being experienced by any manufacturer in getting such approvals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0731/03

by Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Late payment directive

On 29 June 2000 Directive 2000/35/EC(1) which laid down measures combating late payment in commercial transactions was adopted. The deadline for transposing it was 8 August 2002. Apparently, various Member States have still not transposed the Directive; which countries are concerned, and what action does the Commission intend to take? Is the Commission aware of the negative impact that the failure to transpose the directive is having on SMEs?

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

At the beginning of March 2003, three Member States have failed to communicate to the Commission their transposition of the Directive mentioned by the Honourable Member. They are: Greece, Spain and Luxembourg.

The Commission is conscious of the negative effects of late payments upon small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular. The Late Payments Directive is an important element in Community's policy of supporting and promoting small and medium-sized enterprises in the Union.

Accordingly, the Commission is pursuing infringement proceedings against the above mentioned Member States. Infringement proceedings began on 30 September 2002, and the second stage was opened on 6 February 2003, when the Commission sent out its Reasoned Opinions to the infringing Member States.

The Commission hopes that the Member States concerned will now transpose under the Directive as quickly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Prestige: Solidarity Fund review

A Spanish newspaper (La Voz de Galicia' of 19 January 2003, p. 7) has claimed that in response to requests from the Spanish Government, Prodi undertook to consider reviewing the use of the Solidarity Fund in the case of the Prestige disaster, due to the problems detected in applying it efficiently on a scale commensurate with that of the disaster.

Can the Commission President confirm that the review of the Fund is being considered as a result of problems detected in applying it to the oil spill from the Prestige?

If so, what does this review of the use of the Solidarity Fund consist of? What might the problems detected be? Is the Commission going to submit a proposal amending the relevant Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

In its Communication Report to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster(1), the Commission states that it remains to be ascertained whether the Prestige disaster is eligible for aid under the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF)(2).

The Communication to the European Council concludes that aid of the volume required for the Prestige would necessitate an amendment to the legal basis of the fund, which the Commission is willing to propose to the Council. The amendment would adjust the mechanism in line with the Commission's initial proposal submitted in September 2002. It might include adjusting the Solidarity Fund to cover disasters of a technological or environmental nature, lowering the threshold for action (currently EUR 3 billion or 0,6 % of the gross national product (GNP) of the Member State concerned) and extending the eligible actions defined in Article 3 of the Regulation to include preventative action intended to minimise the damaging effects of an ongoing or imminent disaster.

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European UnionSolidarity Fund OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0798/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Airinc

Eurocost has been replaced with Airinc. Would the Commission give details of how much Airinc is receiving annually?

What were the grounds on which Airinc was awarded the contract to replace Eurocost?

Who are the principal directors of Airinc? Do any of the directors or owners of the company have links with either Eurocost or the European Commission?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Airinc received a contract for the value of EUR 766 500 in 2000, EUR 781 500 in 2001 and EUR 796 500 in 2002.

Consistent with the general policy at that time of making outsourced work available to the widest number of interested entities, Eurostat decided to stop the grant agreements with Eurocost for financing the production of the

correction coefficients and to launch open calls for tender. Consequently, in 1999 an open call for tenders was launched for the production of the correction coefficients required under the Staff Regulations. The bid of Airinc was judged to be the best value for money by the evaluation committee, and the first contract was signed with Airinc in 2000.

According to information available, the directors of Airinc are:

- Arthur Nelson, Weston MA, United States;

- Carl Nelson, Weston MA, United States;

- James Reid, Concord MA, United States.

According to information available, the shareholders of Airinc are:

- Arthur H. Nelson, Weston MA;

- Carl F. Nelson, Weston MA;

- Francis N. McSherry, MA;

- Pamela B. Nelson, MA;

- Geoff Rowley, Cambridge, MA;

- Richard Downey, Cambridge, MA.

According to information currently available, the Commission is not aware of any links between the above persons and either Eurocost or the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Council

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Gibraltarian police violence

On 20 January 2003, in the bay of Algeciras, whose waters Spain considers Spanish, Greenpeace activists carried out a peaceful demonstration against the single-hulled Maltese-registered oil tanker Vemamagna.

Public opinion in Spain and various other European countries is extremely sensitive to issues like this, thanks to the Prestige disaster, and all the more so now, thanks to the sinking of a barge carrying over a thousand tonnes of fuel in the very waters of the bay of Algeciras on 21 January 2003.

There was considerable media coverage of the Greenpeace demonstration. Reporters from El País, El Mundo, Tele-5, Antena 3, RTVE, Canal Sur and Associated Press were, in the course of their professional duties, violently harassed by the Gibraltarian police and arrested (in waters which are, to say the very least, the object of international legal dispute), and the Tele 5 reporter was punched by the Gilbraltarian policeman, as highlighted on the front page of El Mundo (21.1.2003).

Quite apart from the fact that the Member State of which Gibraltar is a dependency is unwilling to persuade Gibraltar that it has to apply Community directives on single-hulled tankers, it is rather surprising that one of the principles or values which distinguishes us as Europeans, namely respect for the freedom of expression enjoyed by those working in the media, should have been so fragrantly violated in Gibraltar.

Given that with enlargement under way the moment could not be more opportune, does the Council intend to suggest to the Member State whose colony Gibraltar is that, for the sake of the Union's good name, that Member State's government should both respect this principle and ensure that it is respected?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council recalls to the Honourable Parliamentarian that Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union considers the maintenance of law and order a matter for which the Member States are responsible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Tempus III programme 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 to help promote cooperation between university students across Europe, and to foster cultural and scientific exchange in higher education, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Tempus III programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0827/03, E-1164/03, E-1165/03,E-1166/03, E-1167/03, E-1168/03, E-1169/03 and E-1170/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

As a rule, a project funded under the Tempus programme will involve several universities both in Member States of the Union and in the partner countries.

It is very difficult to identify the amounts retained by universities in Europe which, for project reasons, were granted to universities in the partner countries.

However, to give an indication, please find below the amounts granted under Tempus III to establishments in the municipalities of Frosinone, Ancona, Florence, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa and Siena. Additional information has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

1. The University of Ancona received EUR 1 739 in 2002 for a Tempus project (grant).

2. The establishments in Florence obtained funding of EUR 832 014,98 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

3. The University of Macerata obtained funding of EUR 112 257,80 for a Tempus project in 2002.

4. The University of Perugia obtained funding of EUR 546 452,10 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

5. The University of Pisa obtained funding of EUR 285 178,80 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

6. The University of Siena obtained funding of EUR 63 050 for a Tempus project in 2002.

7. There are no Tempus III projects in Frosinone and Pesaro.

The Honourable Member might also wish to contact the above-mentioned local authorities for more information.