ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/439

(2004/C 84 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0635/04

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

(25 February 2004)

Subject: Creation of a European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

Has the Commission already started preparatory work on the early establishment of a European Network and Information Security Agency and, if so, what is involved?

Can the Commission say when, at the earliest, the Agency will be operational?

Where will the Agency finally be established?

When will the decision to establish the Agency be published in the Official Journal?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission is pleased to confirm that preparatory works for the establishment of the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) are well underway. In fact, the Commission has already prepared and circulated among ail Member States' and Accession Countries' Permanent Representations the draft vacancy notice for the post of the Agency's Executive Director, which will be published shortly after adoption of the Regulation.

Furthermore, the Commission has already invited, through the Permanent Representations, Member States and Accession Countries to nominate their representatives and alternates on the Agency's Management Board. The nominations are expected to take place by the end of March 2004.

The Commission is also developing the ENISA website (http://www.enisa.eu.int) which will be available online as soon as the Regulation enters into force, i.e. on the day following its publication in the Official Journal.

The Commission expects the Agency to be operational shortly after the nomination of its Director, which is planned just before the end of July 2004.

Concerning the future location of the Agency, the Director-General of Directorate-General Information Society (DG INFSO) has been informed by Mr Manolis Stratakis, Deputy-Minister of Transport and Communications of Greece, that the Greek Government has decided to host ENISA at Heraklion, on the island of Crete.

Finally, as regards the publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal, the Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the signature of the Regulation by the President of the Parliament is foreseen on 10 March 2004 and that publication of the Regulation in the Official Journal will occur, at the latest, 10 working days after its reception at the Publications Office.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/311

(2004/C 84 E/0358)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0132/04

by Marjo Matikaineri-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Improved aviation safety through more effective channelling of information

The disastrous crash of an aircraft owned by the charter airline Flash has shown that the authorities, travel agencies and passengers are not adequately informed about possible safety problems affecting individual airlines. Access to information is difficult and in some cases the release of any information whatsoever is prohibited by law. As a result, an airline which has been banned from flying in one country may be able to carry on its activities in other countries. From the point of view of the safety of passengers, this is no longer acceptable.

Does the Commission intend to incorporate into the directive it is now preparing on aviation safety uniform rules, applicable to all the EU Member States, governing the procedures for checking aircraft and airlines, for reporting on the outcome of such checks and for forwarding that information to all the EU Member States? What time-frame has the Commission set itself for completing the directive on aviation safety?

What measures does the Commission plan to take to ensure that both travel agencies and passengers can obtain reliable, up-to-date information on possible safety risks and that passengers can thus take, at their own discretion, decisions on matters which have a fundamental bearing on their own safety?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No P-l58/04 by Mr Hortefeux (1).

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
2.

In accordance with the terms of the Accession Treaty, there is no need for the current Member States to provide proof of disturbance to their labour market (or a threat thereof) in the case that they wish to maintain restrictions for the first five years of the transitional period. The Accession Treaty provides only that for the last two years of the transitional period, that is, after 2009, restrictions on access to the labour market can only be maintained by a current Member State if there is evidence of serious disturbances or a threat thereof to the labour market. However, the Accession Treaty also provides that a current Member State may at any time decide to fully or partially liberalise access to its labour market during the transitional period. A Member State which has lifted restrictions during this seven year period can invoke a ‘safeguard clause’ and re-impose restrictions if there is evidence of serious disturbances (or a threat thereof) of the labour market. The Commission expects that most restrictions on access to the labour market could be lifted by the end of the first five years following accession, that is from 2009 onwards. From 2011 onwards- seven years after accession – there will be complete freedom of movement for workers from new Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/613

(2004/C 84 E/0688)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0523/04

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Second and Third Community Support Frameworks

Will the Commission give the take-up votes for the 2003 estimates for the Member States of the European Union in respect of the Second and Third Community Support Frameworks?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-0230/04 by Mr Hatzidakis. (1)

(1) See page 553.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/685

(2004/C 78 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0037/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Provisions made by acceeding 10 new EU member states following 1 May 2004 for freedom of movement and establishment of other EU member state nationals

Following enlargement to 25 member states on 1 May 2004, the existing 15 member states have made a variety of different arrangements within the permissible 7 year derogation under the enlargement treaties for freedom of movement and establishment of nationals coming from the new 10 EU member states. I understand this ranges from a 7 year prohibition by Germay to the immediate granting of full EU freedom of movement and establishment to the new country nationals by the United Kingdom.

Can the Commission list what arrangements have been made from May 1st 2004 by the 10 new EU member states with regards to their granting the right of freedom and establishment to nationals coming from other member states including both the current 15 and the other newly joined countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission has not received from any present Member States official information on their intention to amend their own national rules, under which present Member States will admit workers from the new Member States during the transitional period. Member States have already been invited to communicate this information to the Commission, however no provision of the Act of Accession establishes such an obligation for present Member States.

Concerning transitional measures that new Member States might apply vis-à-vis workers from any other Member States, the Act of Accession establishes that, whenever national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, are applied by the present Member States by virtue of the agreed transitional provisions, the new Member States may maintain in force equivalent measures with regard to the nationals of the Member State in question. Therefore, a decision from a new Member State can only be taken after knowing whether a present Member State is applying transitional measures.

Finally, it should be noted that the transitional arrangement does not apply to Cyprus and Malta. Thus, there will be complete free movement between current Member States and these countries and indeed between the other future Member States and Cyprus and Malta. Malta, however, has the right to impose a safeguard if it fears large movements of workers into Malta.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/888

(2004/C 84 E/0981)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/04

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Parmatour: tourism concern owned by the Tanzi family, involved in the Parmalat crisis

It has emerged that Parmatour was used not only for its declared objectives, but also for other purposes. This led to negative operating results. Repeated attempts were made to remedy this situation by means of various restructuring measures, the latest of which — the dismissal of 60 employees and an industrial regeneration plan which was to produce positive results over a three-year period — had been in place for a year. Following the declaration of insolvency and Parmalat's going into extraordinary administration, the plan was frozen.

Management of tourist activities differs radically from that of industrial activities, in that the latter can temporarily dissociate the production stage from the sales stage.

It is essentially a service industry, based on the vital need for mutual trust between supplier and customer, with due respect for minimum market conditions, failing which the company may be unable to remain on the market and pursue its activity.

The inability to remain on the market, even for short periods, causes the company's value to collapse, even in the event of it repositioning itself, which in turn jeopardises the various interests it represents.

In view of the above, will the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take to enable this area of activity, in the broadest sense of the term, to have the best possible chance of being promoted and revitalised, rather than being stifled and virtually wiped out, as is currently happening?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not intend to take any position on the activities of Parmatour, which is involved in the financial crisis at Parmalat being investigated by the Italian judicial authorities.

One of the objectives of the Commission's recent Communication on ‘Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism’ (1) is to define a frame of reference to ensure the viability, continued growth, competitiveness and commercial success of the tourism sector. In this Communication, the Commission emphasises that open governance requires businesses to assume responsibility for conducting their operations in a manner that entails full implementation of appropriate corporate social responsibility practices for tourism value chain services and enterprises of any size or type.

(1) COM(2003) 716 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/599

(2004/C 84 E/0674)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/04

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

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Eurostat

Could the Commission confirm if any of the OLAF investigators initially involved in the Eurostat investigation were amongst the 12 former UCLAF staff moved from OLAF to the Commission in 2001?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that four of the officials referred to in the Honourable Member's written question were part of the investigation section of the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) which dealt, among other things, with the questions relating to Eurostat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/580

(2004/C 84 E/0656)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0394/04

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Measures against hunger in the EU

The alarming increase in the numbers of people suffering from hunger in Europe (estimated at 100 million European citizens in the 25-Member Union), alongside the disappearance of intervention stocks as a result of the new CAP guidelines, is a cause for real alarm. The CAP is apparently no longer capable of ensuring, as laid down in the Treaties, adequate supplies for all its citizens, and particularly the most destitute.

At the same time, it appears that all the NGOs and solidarity associations working on a daily basis with the poorest members of European society, are unable to take action and fulfil their role of enhancing social and human cohesion.

Given this situation, does the Commission, which was the originator of the European Programme for Aid to the Destitute (EPAD), envisage modifying — and within what time frame — Regulation (EEC) 3149/92 (1) which would both ensure the existence of safeguard stocks, extend the barter practices which have proved both simple and effective, facilitate market access where necessary, and include these associations in assessing the needs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

We have always been alert to the need to keep the detailed rules of the scheme for aiding the most deprived persons in the Community adapted to changing circumstances and have amended them on several occasions, introducing in particular two major changes to provide greater flexibility that the Honourable Member refers to, i.e. the possibility of buying food products on the market that are temporarily unavailable from intervention and, very recently, the practice of exchanging intervention stocks for other food products.

We are aware that the scheme provides one of the sources of supply to many associations active in this field. These are consulted both by the Member States when they draw up their annual plan requests and by the Commission at meetings held at least once a year.

We will continue to monitor the changing environment of the scheme and will not fail to adjust the rules as necessary. We are considering the measure's future in the face of the considerable reduction in public stocks — even the disappearance of stocks of some products such as beef and olive oil — that is one of the intended results of ongoing reform of the common agricultural policy.

(1) OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/573

(2004/C 88 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1145/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Subject: Establishment of a Community inspection body

In view of the fact that the Commission is insisting upon establishing a Community inspection body to come into operation in 2006, and since the legislation relating to the Community financial support to be granted to the Member States for the purpose of implementing monitoring structures expired at the end of 2003, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. How does the Commission intend to support Portugal, which has the largest EEZ and the largest number of vessels to monitor, given that Portugal is clearly under-equipped for the purpose, is known to be in economic recession and is facing severe financial problems?

2. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to support Portugal in financing the acquisition and modernisation of ships and vessels used for monitoring purposes, as it has done in the case of other countries, in particular Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Last November the Commission proposed that the Community financial aid scheme for the Member States' fishery policing programmes be extended to 31 December 2005 (1). This extension is specifically geared to the creation of a fishery policing agency expected to start operating in 2006.

Article 4(l)(h) of the proposal for a Council Decision provides for assistance towards the cost of buying and modernising vessels and aircraft for use in inspection and surveillance of fishing activities. The Council should be adopting the text shortly.

Applications for the funding of programmes for 2004 are to be submitted by 1 June.

(1) COM(2003) 706 final, 20.11.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/406

(2004/C 84 E/0472)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0459/04

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Closure of Thyssen Krupp plants in Terni

The company Thyssen Krupp (TK) has announced the imminent closure of the magnetic steel production plant at the company's Ast factory in Terni, Italy. The closure of the plant will lead to the loss of 900 jobs, with ramifications in terms of employment for Terni's entire steelworking sector. In recent years, TK has received European funding, including funding from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to finance staff training and infrastructure development at the Terni plant.

1. What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to avert the closure of the magnetic steel production plant at Thyssen Krupp's factory in Terni?

2. What guarantees of employment are businesses that receive European funding, from the European Social Fund for example, requested to provide in terms of the training of their own staff and the improvement of company infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Questions P-0376/04 by Mrs Sbarbati, P-0388/04 by Mrs Angelilli and P-0445/04 by Mr Mastella (1). In any case, the Commission notes with satisfaction that an agreement appears to have been reached not to close down the installations.

(1) See page 206.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/416

(2004/C 84 E/0485)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Research into Spanish Labour Ministry bursaries

The Commission's reply to our Question E-2188/03 (1) as to possible discrimination against pregnant women by the Spanish Labour Ministry when granting working bursaries acknowledge that there was a possible infringement of Community law on equality of treatment for men and women, and stated that the Commission would investigate.

What stage has this investigation reached, and if the Spanish authorities have responded, in what terms have they done so?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

In the reply to Written Question number E-2188/03, the Honourable Members asked if the Commission considered that the regulations governing the award of grants by the Institute for Women complies with Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2).

The Commission is following up this issue. It will be in contact with the Honourable Members in relation to this issue when the matter has been fully investigated.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 232.

(2) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/866

(2004/C 84 E/0958)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0748/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Synergy in EU funding programmes

If there is to be greater operational synergy amongst the many EU funding programmes, there must be considerably better coordination between the European Investment Bank and the Commission.

Hence why has there not hitherto been better coordination between structural funds, R&D funds, cohesion funds and EIB/EIF loans? Would it be feasible to set up an independent unit within the Commission for the purpose of effectively coordinating the management of funds within the various directorates-general, and also the funding provided by the EIB and the EIF?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group (1) have established practices to coordinate the use of their financing instruments by means of inter-institutional cooperation agreements or joint memoranda of understanding covering in particular the areas of regional development and research and development.

Furthermore, the Commission and the services of the EIB Group have been examining together, in the context of a Joint Working Party, practical ways to increase the combined use of the respective financing tools of the two institutions, in particular through more streamlined procedures and a more systematic and timely exchange of information on upcoming projects.

With respect to coordination between EIB and Structural and Cohesion Funds, a number of important steps have already been taken to facilitate the joint programming of interventions (global commitments by the European Investment Fund (EIF) in the framework of Community Support Frameworks; appropriate modulation of intervention rate; advisory role of the EIF in developing financing mechanisms for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at regional level). As regards collaboration between the Research and Development Framework Programme and the EIB Group, the above-mentioned cooperation agreement establishes a framework for joint work. Similar agreements are envisaged for other major policy areas, notably those where EIB financing can provide a crucial complement to Community budget intervention.

Against that background the Commission does not consider the establishment of a special coordination unit to be necessary.

(1) The EIB Group includes the EIB itself and the European Investment Fund (EIF).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/204

(2004/C 84 E/0249)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0376/04

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Crisis in the steel sector in Terni

Given that:

— the strategic objectives set by the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000 expressed the hope that by 2010 the Union would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion;

— the Commission Green Paper (2001) on Corporate Social Responsibility confirmed Europe's interest in this field;

— in its Communication of 2002 the Commission adopted a strategy aimed at creating a partnership for the development of a European framework to promote corporate social responsibility in order to safeguard jobs by strengthening competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental protection;

— the Commission has also stressed that CSR is an instrument that may assist the achievement of the objectives of the European Union's policies, promote development and improve global governance by incorporating existing policy instruments such as legislation and social dialogue;

— the company Thyssen Krupp, which owns AST in Terni, had undertaken to turn Terni into the European centre of excellence for grain-oriented electrical steel;

— the Terni plant is among the cheapest in Europe as regards product unit cost;

— there has been heavy public investment in the site, including Community Objective 2 and ESF funding (development of the local system, infrastructure and vocational training), from which AST has benefited directly or indirectly.

Can the Commission say, in view of the above, whether and how it intends to intervene to prevent the closure of AST's electrical steel department in Terni, Italy, which would entail the loss of 900 jobs in the area, as well as having adverse repercussions on the region, and whether it has a precise strategy for tackling the negative impact of industrial restructuring measures?