ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2978/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Adulteration of butter in the European Union

On 6 July 2000, an OLAF press release announced the smashing of a butter-adulteration network in the EU, which had adulterated several tens of thousands of tonnes of butter between 1995 and 2000.

On 19 March 2001, the Commission revealed that it could not name the companies involved, since the information was exclusively in the possession of OLAF, and the issue was sub judice in accordance with the rules of the Member States. The Commission has not, to date, announced that its position has changed. Is the Commission still prevented from knowing the names of the companies involved, and therefore unable to take the appropriate measures to protect the Community budget, consumers and farmers?

When does the Commission intend to learn the names of these companies, and what measures does it intend to take when it does so?

Could the Commission specify just what it means by sub judice and likewise state the specific legal reasons preventing it from learning the names of the companies concerned and thus taking the requisite action?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is hereby informed that criminal proceedings are under way in two Member States (France and Italy) in respect of the matter to which he refers, and that the principle of secrecy of judicial proceedings applies.

This principle, which in Italy is governed by Article 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in France by Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applies to any person not involved in the investigation proceedings.

With regard to Belgium, the documents obtained from the Italian authorities by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as part of its coordination and assistance activities were transmitted, with the agreement of those authorities, to the Belgian paying agency, which is currently considering whether to pass them on to the national judicial authorities.

The Member States concerned are bound by a due diligence requirement as regards the recovery of aid paid unlawfully in the form of indirect subsidies funded by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). Nevertheless, the Commission will carefully monitor follow-up to these cases. It should be noted that OLAF has set up a Magistrates Unit whose responsibilities include helping to ensure more effective follow-up for criminal and judicial proceedings.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question E-2702/02(1), which provides a detailed description of measures adopted to combat the serious problem of food adulteration.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 92.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3740/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Annual accounts for the financial year 2001

In Official Journal(1), the Commission published the European Communities' annual accounts for the financial year 2001 (consolidated statements on budget implementation and balance sheet).

Can the Commission forward a list of all the changes made to the annual accounts as now published in relation to the version forwarded to Parliament on 30 April 2002?

(1) OJ C 296, 28.11.2002.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

No changes have been made. The annual accounts are published in the Official Journal on the same day as the Court of Auditor's annual report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Town twinning

What is the Commission doing to rectify the problems applicants are experiencing with the town twinning grant due to the excessively short period of time between the submission of applications and the phase period?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Commission attaches the utmost importance to town twinning and continues to maintain and improve its support for it.

After consulting the national and regional representatives of the town twinning movement and with their agreement, a new grant management system with an annual call for proposals broken into several phases, was introduced in November 2000. It represented a major change in the running of the town twinning scheme and, as could be expected, entailed the need for a period of adaptation for the beneficiaries.

Conceived as a transitional arrangement, the new system was evaluated by the Commission in close cooperation with the representatives of the town twinning movement and the Parliament Culture Committee. Based on the results of the review a simplified system was introduced for 2002. The experience during the year 2002 has been encouraging and the beneficiaries have expressed overall satisfaction. Consequently, the call for proposal for the year 2003 was based on continuity keeping the main elements of the current system unchanged.

During the different consultations, representatives of the town twinning movement have repeatedly stressed that in view of practices in the field, the time-span between the deadline for submission of the applications and the beginning of the respective phase of activities should not be too long. However, experience has shown that one of the difficulties within the current system is that the beneficiaries receive notice of the Commission's grant decision relatively late. For this reason, the time-span was extended by one month for the year 2003.

The Commission will continue to have close dialogue with the interested parties in town twinning area in order to assess and improve the functioning of the system. The question of a suitable time-span will be reviewed again in the framework of preparation of the call for proposals for coming years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3493/02

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Re-posting to Brussels of two staff members of the Commission's Paris Representation

There have recently been press reports of suspected irregularities by the Commission's Directorate-General for Press in the management of grants awarded in France under the information policy and the opening of an investigation by OLAF and the recall to Brussels of two staff members of the Commission's Paris Representation.

Can the Commission clarify the position?

Can it explain its press release to the effect that to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest, it has been decided in the interest of the service to post two officials from the Commission Representation in Paris to Brussels?

Given that the two staff members concerned have been named in the press, can the Commission provide any assurance, and if so what, that their right to presumption of innocence has been fully safeguarded?

Can the Commission explain the link, if any, between the investigation opened by OLAF and the Federation of Europe Houses?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

As the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is in the process of conducting an investigation and all information obtained in that context is confidential, as stipulated by Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999(1), the Commission is unable to provide more details of this matter at present.

In particular, as regards the decision to move two officials working in the Commission's Paris Representation within the same Directorate-General, it should be recalled that this was a precautionary measure, the aim being to ensure that the investigation was held under the best possible conditions. This decision does not in any way prejudice the presumption of their innocence.

As regards the fact that the two officials were mentioned by name in the press, the Commission can only reiterate that it has never at any time divulged the names of the persons under investigation.

On 19 December 2002 the Commission announced that there was nothing in the organisation of OLAF's investigation to prevent the precautionary measures referred to above from being rescinded.

OLAF's investigation continues.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(14 August 2002)

Subject: Blocking by President Robert Mugabe of international food aid to some sections of the population in Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe at present millions of people are in danger of starving to death. The expropriation of land owned by white farmers, combined with a drought and a retail price freeze, have given rise to serious food shortages. According to reports by the BBC and various aid organisations, President Robert Mugabe is denying people in some regions of the country access to international food aid on the grounds that they do not belong to his own political party.

Can the Commission confirm these reports?

If the reports are indeed accurate, what steps is the Commission taking, or what steps does it plan to take, to bring an end to this blocking of international food aid?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission is aware of the danger of partisan food distribution on the part of the Government of Zimbabwe.

There are credible reports of extensive politicisation of the sale and distribution of the Government of Zimbabwe's own food supplies.

As to international food aid, the World Food Programme (WFP), through which the bulk of Community food aid is delivered, reports that there is extensive community involvement in drawing up lists of vulnerable groups and in distribution, so this is not a monopoly of the local authorities and chiefs. Complaints investigated by WFP have revealed problems to be due more to a lack of information and understanding of selection criteria than to politicisation. There have, however, been cases of non-governmental organisation (NGO) distributions being subject to intimidation by war veterans.

The Commission has always maintained that food aid should under no circumstances be used as a political tool and that it should be provided on the basis of humanitarian need alone, without conditionality. To this end, the Commission is insisting that food aid operations in Zimbabwe be guided by transparent targeting and monitoring criteria. The Commission is consulting other partners in order to reinforce monitoring capacity in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2554/02

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Malta's accession to the EU and the Wild Birds Directive

Further to recent reports in the Maltese press about possible exemptions from the Wild Birds Directive for Malta on accession to the EU, with particular regard to spring hunting and trapping, can the Commission confirm that such reports are nothing more than speculation and that Malta will not be granted any transitional periods or exemptions with regard to the implementation of this Directive?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The implementation of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) has been negotiated in the framework of the accession negotiations on the environment chapter with Malta. As regards the specific aspect of spring hunting, Malta has committed itself to fully implement, as from accession, the relevant parts of the Directive. Article 9 of this Directive allows for exceptions under certain very stringent conditions. If Malta wishes to allow spring hunting, for instance in relation to turtle dove and quail, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and that any permitted hunting is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and limited to small numbers only. Furthermore, the use of Article 9 is subject to monitoring by the Commission and Malta is committed, where it chooses recourse to this article, to report each year on its possible use.

Therefore, bird hunting in Malta can, as from accession, only take place within the limits provided for by the Directive and Malta has not been granted a transitional period in this respect.

As regards trapping, Malta negotiated and the Council agreed to a transitional period of five years (until 31 December 2008) to allow the capture of seven finch species, by the use of traditional nets known as clap-nets within the Maltese islands, exclusively for the purpose of keeping them in captivity and to allow the setting up of a functioning breeding system. During this period, Malta must implement a series of measures, following an agreed timetable, to ensure full enforcement of the related provisions of the Directive by 31 December 2008. These measures include the establishment of the Maltese Ornis Committee by 31 December 2002, the census of all trapping sites by 31 December 2003 and the introduction of a captive-breeding programme by 30 June 2005. The EU expects that, with these measures, the number of captured birds will be significantly reduced during the transitional period.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3323/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 November 2002)

Subject: EU competency

Regarding development policy can the European Union implement or support the implementation, including with financial assistance, of activities carried out by organisations working in non-EU countries on matters in which the EU does not have any legal competence?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Community competence in the field of development policy is provided for in title XX of the EC Treaty. The policy is implemented in accordance with those provisions.

Accordingly, all action of the Community in the field of development cooperation must fall under the objectives defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty. However, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-268/1994 (Portugal/Commission, [1996] ECR I-6177) that a measure in the field of development cooperation may lay down provisions on specific matters without there being any need to have recourse to other legal bases, or indeed to participation of the Member States in the conclusion of the agreement, in so far as the essential purpose of the agreement is to pursue the objectives referred to in Article 177, and on condition that the clauses concerning specific matters do not impose obligations so extensive that they in fact constitute objectives distinct from those of development cooperation. According to the Court, the mere inclusion of provisions for cooperation in a specific field does not, therefore, necessarily imply a general enabling power to serve as the basis of a competence to undertake any kind of cooperation action in that field, with the result that it does not predetermine the allocation of spheres of competence between the Community and the Member States or the legal basis of Community acts for implementing cooperation in such a field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: GM crops site inspections

Would the Commission state how many site inspections by GM crops Inspectorates have been made in each Member State where GM crop trials are allowed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Experimental releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including GM crops, are now regulated under Part B of Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001, on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(1), which was applicable on 17 October 2002. To date, no experimental releases have been conducted under this Directive.

Directive 2001/18/EC replaced Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990(2), which similarly provided for regulation of experimental releases of GMOs, including GM crops, under its Part B. Approximately 1700 experimental releases were conducted under Directive 90/220/EEC from its application in October 1991 until it was replaced on 17 October 2002. Summary details of these releases are available via the web site of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the Commission. The JRC report (made by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville (IPTS)) on Review of GMOs under research and development and in the pipeline in Europe gives an overview of the experiments in the Community (November 2002).

Under Directive 90/220/EEC, the examination of applications and granting of consent for experimental releases were carried out by the authorities of the Member State in which the release is to take place. This procedure will continue under Directive 2001/18/EC.

Article 4 of Directive 90/220/EEC required that Member States shall ensure that their competent authority organises inspection and other control measures, as appropriate, to ensure compliance with the Directive. This is again, similarly reflected in Directive 2001/18/EC.

Consequently, it is the competent authorities of Member States that control site inspections of GM crop trials and hold the relevant information. Such inspections are not undertaken at the level of the Community.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: EU aid for Hungary

At present there are plans to develop a holiday park covering 43 ha in Csörötnek, Hungary. The investment costs will total some HUF 2,4 billion.

1. Does EU aid for Hungary cover this project?

2. If so, from where can application forms for aid in developing a holiday park involving an estimated investment of HUF 2,4 billion be obtained and to which department or unit should they be submitted?

3. Who is providing liaison in connection with this project?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the plans to develop a holiday park in Csörötnek, and no aid has been provided through PHARE or other pre-accession funds for preparatory studies or for the investment itself.

The Economic and Social Cohesion component of the 2002-2003 PHARE programme does not include projects having among the eligible activities investments in holiday parks. Hence, up to accession, no investment aid can be obtained from PHARE (or other pre-accession instrument) by the project in question. It might be possible to obtain support for preparatory studies, through the joint small project fund of the Austria/Hungary Cross Border Co-operation programme under PHARE, provided that the project has a distinct Cross Border character. Additional information in that respect might be obtained from the Hungarian authorities at the National Agency for Regional Development, 1016 Budapest, Gellérthegy u. 30-32, Tel. +36 1 4887171, Fax. +36 1 4887188.

Upon accession, subject to the inclusion of a specific measure in the relevant programming documents (currently under preparation), it might be possible to obtain support from Structural Funds for similar projects, provided that they comply with the competition and other relevant Community rules, including Article 29(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2642/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Works on the River Kifissos in Athens

EU-funded roadworks in Athens include a project to build a motorway over the River Kifissos, which is the main catchment for rainwater for most of Athens. The recent brief showers during the summer caused the river to overflow three times, wreaking widespread damage in the surrounding areas. Officials at the Ministry for the Environment, Planning and Public Works, which is responsible for the project, as well as other scientific and technical experts claim that the work is flawed in that the river is being widened upstream rather than downstream without the requisite technical and environmental studies having been carried out. The result is that even light rainfall inevitably causes damage.

Given that the project is funded by the EU, will the Commission say:

- whether the requisite technical and environmental studies to ensure that construction was technically sound and safe were submitted during the procedure for approving the project,

- whether the studies submitted provided for works or measures to protect the surrounding areas against flooding for the duration of the work, and

- whether, after the damage caused, it will check whether the construction is flawed and whether all the necessary measures were taken to prevent damage occurring during construction?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

The Kifissos avenue, linking the Pathe motorway with the city of Piraeus and all the southern suburbs of Athens, is an important project for the fluidity of the traffic in the ring road system of Athens. As such, it has been co-financed under the Operational Programme (OP) Road Axes of the 1994-1999 Community support framework (CSF) for Greece. It is also programmed to receive co-financing under the CSF for the 2000-2006 programming period.

The Commission has neither competence nor participation in the design, contracting and construction of specific projects, whose execution is being done by the Member States. Since the project exceeds EUR 50 million, the Commission will ask the Greek authorities for information on the respect of Community legislation, as provided for by Articles 25 and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provision on the Structural funds(1). As far as the period 1994-1999 is concerned, a similar examination will be carried out by the Commission during the closure of the OP mentioned above.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: North Korean refugees in China

Is the Commission aware of the plight of North Koreans who have fled their country fearing persecution and are facing imminent forcible repatriation from China?

Constituents have written to me concerned at their current conditions and the treatment that awaits them in China if they are forced to leave.

Is the European Commission involved in any dialogue or action to assist the North Korean refugees or to improve the human rights situation in North Korea?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

The human rights situation in North Korea is a major concern for the Commission. Human rights issues, including the plight of refugees, are systematically raised during its regular political contacts with the North Korean authorities. In June 2002 in Pyongyang, the Commission had the opportunity to express to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) authorities its concerns over the treatment of these persons once returned by China and urged the DPRK to respect the fundamental rights of these citizens.

Since large numbers of North Koreans flee over the border to China, the Union has also urged China on several occasions and in the context of the human rights dialogue it maintains with that country, to respect international humanitarian norms and to grant access to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees to assess the situation of North Koreans in the border area.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of refugees from North Korea closely and to raise it in its contacts with the DPRK and Chinese authorities.