ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2505/02

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 September 2002)

Subject: State of affairs regarding the setting up of the Cyber Security Task Force

What is the state of affairs regarding the setting up of the Cyber Security Task Force?

Can the Commission confirm that a new initiative is now in hand to set up a similar task force, and if that is the case, could it give the reasons for this?

What is the relationship between this new task force and the above-mentioned Cyber Security Task Force?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for his interest in Community activities on Cyber Security at European level.

The Commission proposed in its Communication on Network and Information security: proposal for a European policy approach(1), to examine how to best organise at European level data collection, analysis and planning of forward-looking responses to existing and emerging security threats. The organisational nature of a possible structure has been discussed with all stakeholders. The current discussion seems to support the view of the Commission on the need to strengthen the co-ordination of network and information security issues at European level.

Beside co-ordination activities, such a structure may also play a role in: awareness raising; stimulating co-operation between all relevant Community and non Community actors; developing methods and concepts in this area.

Following the Commission Communication, the Council adopted on 28 January 2002 a Resolution on network and information security(2), which restates the need to consult Member States and the private sector, to formulate proposals for the establishment of a Cyber Security Task Force to build on national efforts to both enhance network and information security and to enhance Member States' ability, individually and collectively, to respond to major network and information security problems.

The Commission is pleased that the Parliament will adopt its position in the next few weeks on the basis of the above Commission Communication.

According to the information of the Commission there is currently no new European initiative for similar activities in this area, but the procedural work is evolving taking into account comments formulated by the Parliament.

The Commission intention is to make a proposal by the end of October 2002 to take account of the above elements, and in line with the objectives indicated in the eEurope 2005 Action Plan, making sure that this structure would be based on the most adequate legal certainty.

(1) COM(2001) 298 final.

(2) OJ C 43, 16.2.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/02

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

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Marshall Islands

With reference to Marshall Islands, will the Commission draw up a list of projects approved for financing under the EU budget in 2001 and state the total amount of investment for that year?

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-2700/02

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Applications for supplementary benefits from the French National Solidarity Fund

The third paragraph of the written reply of 12 March 2002 to Question H-0124/02(1) states that as soon as the Commission has information from the French authorities the Honourable Member will be informed.

Six months have now elapsed, and I deem it advisable and necessary to reiterate my question:

- I would furthermore ask what steps the Commission has taken;

- has there been any reply from the French authorities which would allow us to conclude that applicants will have a response in the immediate future?

(1) Written answer of 12.3.2002.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

As stated in reply to the Honourable Member's oral question H-124/02 during Question Time at the March 2002 part-session, the Commission contacted the French authorities in order to ascertain why applications from Spanish nationals for benefits from the French National Solidarity Fund had not been processed.

The French authorities stated that many applications were filed without further action being taken because they had not received replies to their requests for additional information. However, as the procedure applied by the French institutions allows files to be reopened at the request of applicants, the French authorities asked the Spanish institute for migration and social services to provide it with a list of applicants who had not yet received a reply.

The Spanish institute recently passed this list on to the French authorities, and the applications are currently being processed by the relevant departments. Given the delay in processing due to the number of files involved, the French authorities believe they will be able to inform the Spanish Ministry of the first results by December 2002.

The Commission will remain in contact with the national authorities to ensure that a satisfactory solution is found for all parties concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Telecom Italia's acquisition of Telekom Serbia

Is the Council aware that the UN investigation documents concerning Slobodan Milosevic's hidden assets, which were handed over to the Hague Tribunal, reveal that payments amounting to around EUR 500 million had been effected from Italy into offshore companies based in Cyprus?

Is the Council aware that UN investigators have found that these payments derive from part of the sum paid for Telecom Italia's 29 % share in Telekom Serbia?

Does the Council have any information which would be of use in the investigations into the financial sources of Milosevic's secret assets?

What initiatives is the Council intending to undertake in order to help shed light on this issue?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council is not aware of any of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(3 June 2002)

Subject: EU aid to the Palestinians

According to the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority has misused EU aid funds to finance terrorism. The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported on 8 May 2002 that the European Union had already been aware of the Palestinian Authority's misuse of funding a year ago. Commissioner Patten was said to have observed at that time that the use made of the EU funds was not being adequately monitored, and he therefore sought the assistance of the IMF to improve supervision thereof.

Did the Council urge Mr Patten to seek the assistance of the IMF? If not, why not?

To what extent did the reports of possible misuse influence the Council last year in its relations with the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government? What weight did these accusations carry in the EU's policy on the Middle East?

Will the Council step up monitoring of the aid provided by the Member States? If not, why not? If so, how?

What will the Council do to prevent funding being misused by the Palestinian Authority for terrorism and corruption?

If the misuse of funds for purposes of terrorism and corruption has been proven, is the Council considering measures? If so, what?

In what respect will the reforms which have been initiated within the Palestinian Authority also include reform of financial management and supervision thereof? Will the Council urge the Palestinian Authority to ensure that they do?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

Like the Honourable Member of the European Parliament, the Council is also aware of a number of statements and media reports regarding the misuse of EU assistance to the Palestinian Authority but never comments on public declarations or media reports. Nevertheless, in this specific case, because of the seriousness of such allegations and the possible impact on the credibility of the EU, the Council has been in touch with Commissioner Patten on this, including at the last General Affairs Council on 17 June 2002 in Luxembourg.

According to the Commission there is no evidence so far for such abuse. As in the past the EU continues to press on the Palestinian Authority to improve internal financial management and control. The Commission has insisted on monitoring by the IMF. The Council believes that these are important messages which must be conveyed to the Palestinians also in the future. Any reform of the Palestinian Authority will also have to address these issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Foreign students in Great Britain

Experience suggests that new British legislation(1) in the area of education may have very negative implications both for educational institutions and for foreign students and agents.

Under the new package of measures, British colleges and universities no longer receive funding from the state for (foreign) students recruited through (foreign) consultancies and agencies. Until last year funding was provided for such students, and it is still received for EU students recruited directly. The new rules mean that British colleges and universities must now charge much higher fees where students are recruited through consultancies and agencies, which discourages prospective students from applying through such agents. In my view, the rules discriminate against EU citizens who wish to study in Great Britain but who, in making their choices, are, for various reasons, largely dependent on agents. In addition, in my view, these arrangements contravene Article 149 of the Treaty, which states that the Community is to contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States.

1. Is the Commission familiar with the new British legislation as set out above?

2. Does the Commission consider that the above-mentioned effects of this legislation contravene Article 149 of the Treaty and principles of non-discrimination?

3. Does the Commission intend, in response to this state of affairs, to take steps to remove the discriminatory aspects of the above-mentioned British legislation, in the light of the high priority attached by the EU to education under the Lisbon process?

(1) As set out in the Guidance on Further Education Funding Eligibility and Rates 2001/2002 prepared by the Further Education Funding Council on behalf of the Learning and Skills Council.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2002)

1. The Commission is familiar with the new British legislation.

2. According to the available information, recruitment of students through agencies or consultancies mainly concerns overseas students from third countries.

All European students may approach directly the British universities.

At this stage, the Commission has no evidence of discrimination arising from the measure in question and does not consider that the British provision contravenes the principles set out in article 149 of the EC Treaty in a way that could impede the development of cooperation between Member States in the field of education. It would be helpful if the Honourable Member could provide examples of discriminatory treatment of European nationals as a result of the new provision.

3. The Commission does not have grounds to take any steps at this stage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/02

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

(25 March 2002)

Subject: European Maritime Safety Agency

What stage has been reached in deciding on the location of the European Maritime Safety Agency? Is Galicia a candidate? What location does the Spanish presidency of the EU favour?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency, proposed by the Commission at the end of 2000 as part of the second Erika package, was adopted in June 2002(1) and was published in the Official Journal on 5 August 2002. It entered into force 20 days later.

The Regulation contains no provision regarding the location of the Agency. A decision on this has yet to be taken. It is up to the Spanish Government, if it so wishes, to make an official bid, along with any other Member States which may be interested.

In any event, Article 23 of the Regulation lays down that the Agency shall be operational within twelve months of the entry into force of this Regulation, i.e. by no later than 28 August 2003. It will, therefore, be for the Community institutions, and more especially the Commission, to take the steps needed to ensure that the Agency is operational within the timeframe set by the Regulation, even in the absence of a decision on the Agency's definitive location.

(1) PE-CONS 3637/02.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/02

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

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Ethiopia

With respect to Ethiopia, can the Commission specify the projects funded from the EU budget in 2000? Can it state the total amounts granted in aid over 2000 under all the headings referring to that country?

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-1876/02

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

(28 June 2002)

Subject: The Gambia

With respect to The Gambia, can the Commission supply a list of the projects approved for funding from the EU budget in 2001 and indicate that year's investment total?

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-1062/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Seats of the EU Institutions

Every EU Treaty makes specific reference to the seats of the European Institutions. A debate is held on that subject at every Intergovernmental Conference which precedes a new Treaty and the ensuing decisions are incorporated in the text of the Treaty. The Conference which began in Brussels on 28 February 2002 is to pave the way for a revision of the modus operandi of the Union's institutions and for enlargement.

What view does the Council take of the Conference discussing the possibility of transferring some of the Union's institutions to cities other than Brussels and Luxembourg, such as the more historic capitals in the Union, e.g. Rome, Berlin, Paris and Athens? Would it be possible to hold such a discussion at the Conference and to take decisions to move the seats of some of the main institutions of the Union?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

Under Article 289 of the TEC, the seat of the institutions is determined by common accord of the Governments of the Member States. The seat was determined by the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

The matter is not raised in the Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2023/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) requirement for air routes

The German Federal Aviation Authority allocated an additional air route for Frankfurt airport over the recreational area of the Taunus which, in the first year alone, gave rise to more than 160 000 complaints to the airport concerning noise from aircraft.

This air route was established on a proposal from the German Air Safety Authority (DFS), without consulting the local residents or local authorities, under a statutory order; no EIA was carried out in this case either.

With its 4000-metre runways, Frankfurt airport constitutes a project within the meaning of Article 4(1), No. 7a of Directive 85/337/EEC(1). Under Article 1(2), other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape are also subject to EIA.

Does the Commission agree that the allocation of new air routes which will cause noise over residential and recreational areas must be subject to an environmental impact assessment?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2022/02 and E-2023/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1), covers projects which are listed in its annexes I and II and which require a development consent. The extension of an existing permit or a new night flight permit is not covered by the definition of a project under the EIA Directive. Similarly, air routes and their allocation to existing runways are not covered by the definition of a project under the EIA Directive.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Financing of the European Business Summit

The European Business Summit is due to take place in Brussels on 6-8 June 2002. The registration fee is EUR 2 178 (reduced rate for participants from candidate countries: EUR 1815). As 1 500 people are expected to attend the Summit, the takings will be in the order of about EUR 3 million.

The organisers say in their publicity material that the Summit is supported by the European Commission. According to the programme, eight Members of the Commission are to address the Summit.

Can the Commission state who the organisers of this meeting are and what sort of support they are being given?

Will it indicate in particular whether it is also making payments to the organisers (e.g. in the form of subsidies or by purchasing admission tickets)?

Can it state who the above-mentioned registration fees are going to, and what is being done with the money?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

The European Business Summit (EBS) was organised by European Business Forum Asbl, a non-profit making organisation established in 1999 for the organisation of the first EBS in June 2000.

The Commission hired a total stand area of 105 m2 from company ACE at the normal rate for all organisations, and its various departments were grouped at common European Union stand. The only Commission subsidy to the EBS was a EUR 39 000 grant from the Directorate-General Enlargement for the organisation of conferences within the summit to present each of the 13 candidate countries, at a value of EUR 3 000 per country.

Around eighty percent of the 1 500 people expected to attend the EBS were guests who received free admission badges: politicians, sponsors, any persons working for companies which have a stand, including officials of the DGs participating in the European Union stand, from Heads of Unit upwards, and Members of the European Parliament.

The total budget for the second EBS was estimated at EUR 1,8 million, of which approximately one-third was covered by the takings from the sale of admission badges to around 300 delegates. The remaining two-thirds were covered by sponsorship. The EBS expects to break even.