ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/179

(2004/C 33 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/03

by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: EU funds for people with disabilities from 2004

The European Commission declared 2003 the Year of People with Disabilities'. Numerous projects, events and initiatives promoting the integration of disabled people are being given financial support by the EU to mark the occasion. The deadlines for submitting suggestions for projects were in March.

No specific EU programme currently exists to promote the integration of disabled people.

What plans has the Commission made in this area?

What programmes and actions will be maintained by financial support for work with disabled people after the end of the ‘Year of People with Disabilities’?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission cannot commit itself to introducing a specific action programme at the moment. One of the objectives of the European Year of People with Disabilities will be to identify new challenges to address and to pave the way for new initiatives at Union level. In consultation with the various actors, the Commission will evaluate the European Year and consider relevant initiatives to propose in order to move the Union disability agenda forward. Moreover, account has to be taken by the fact that disability issues are currently directly addressed in several new programmes which have just started such as the nondiscrimination programme, the EQUAL Community initiative or in the Commission's actions to promote social inclusion. In the context of the non discrimination programme, a series of disability-specific activities are undertaken: national information days, support to disability organisations, award for all design and some transnational projects specifically dealing with disability discrimination issues.

In the Commission's view, supporting citizens with disabilities to become an effective part of the economic and social fabric of society means participation in the mainstream whenever it is possible and taking account of their needs in all relevant policy areas: herein lies full social integration. The Commission therefore aims to do this under all its relevant funding programmes, allowing access to these for disabled people and the organisations which represent them, and thereby promoting an approach based on mainstreaming and integration, rather than segregation into disability-specific arrangements.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/116

(2004/C 33 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Sewage disposal/treatment

Can the Commission comment on the extent to which the sewerage systems in Brussels and Milan comply with EU law on sewage treatment and disposal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Council Directive 91/271/EECof 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment (1) requires Member States to ensure that all agglomerations with more than 2 000 inhabitant equivalents (2) are provided with urban wastewater collection and treatment systems. The deadlines for providing these systems are 31 December 1998 (tertiary treatment), 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the conurbation and the sensitivity of the recipient waters.

Concerning Milan, the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Italy for failure to comply with this Directive. This is because wastewater in Milan has been discharged into the relevant catchment areas without the necessary stringent (tertiary) treatment. A judgement of 25 April 2002 by the European Court of Justice was in favour of the Commission's position.

The construction of three wastewater treatment plants in Milan is currently ongoing. The Italian Authorities have informed the Commission that they predict the installations ‘Milano Sud’ (treating 40 % of the urban wastewater of Milan) and ‘Peschiera’ (10 %) will be operational at the end of 2004. The installation ‘Nosedo’ will eventually treat 50 % of Milan's urban wastewater. The Italian Authorities have stated that this station started working at 25 % of its potential in April 2003. Full operation will be achieved by January 2005. The Commission is continuing to monitor the situation.

The Commission has also launched an infringement procedure against Belgium because of untreated wastewater discharges from Brussels. The case was brought before the Court of Justice in January 2003. According to the Belgian Authorities, they are proceeding with the investment programme for stringent (tertiary) treatment plants for Brussels. The predicted date for completion is June 2006.

Finally, a Commission report (in preparation) on the implementation of the urban wastewater Council Directive 91/271/EEC will give information on the present treatment situation across the Union. The report will be available within the coming months.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998, OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.

(2) An organic-pollution measuring unit representing the average pollution produced per person per day.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/86

(2004/C 65 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Derogation from the Nitrates Directive

The Irish Government has recently promised Irish farming organisations that it will seek a derogation on the limits imposed on the spreading of slurry by the Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC (1).

How will the Commission respond to this promise, made during negotiations for a new National Agreement (Sustaining Progress)?

If a wealthy, long-standing EU member such as Ireland is still looking for ways out of implementing EU legislation, does the Commission agree that this move sends a bad signal to the accession countries?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/943

(2004/C 78 E/0997)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0223/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Unemployment rate in Greece

According to the Greek Statistical Service, the rate of unemployment in Greece is 8,9 %, corresponding to a total of 392 200 people, whereas figures published by the Greek Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) on 19 January give the number of registered unemployed as 585 788 or 13,2 % of the economically active population.

Can the Commission, in cooperation with the Greek Government, clarify the discrepancy between the figures produced by the OAED and those published by the Greek Statistical Service?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The data that Eurostat uses to calculate monthly unemployment rates come from the National Statistical Service of Greece. The most recent data available from Greece refer to the second quarter 2003 (data until June 2003) as shown in the Eurostat databases. Data for Greek unemployment rates are identical between Eurostat and the National Statistical Service of Greece. However, in Greece, the data are published in non-seasonally adjusted form (Second quarter 2003, 8,9 %) and in Eurostat in seasonally adjusted form (Second quarter 2003, 9,2 %). Eurostat publishes seasonally adjusted series for all the Member States and Acceding and Candidate Countries.

Eurostat has no comments on the other national data providers. Eurostat is interested in the harmonised data or the sources for the harmonised data, which in the unemployment statistics area are provided by the National Statistical Service of Greece. Data from other national services may be based on different concepts and rules for which the Commission has neither reason, nor obligation to verify or approve.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/902

(2004/C 84 E/0997)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0890/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Authorisation for flying instructors to give instruction

In my constituency of Northern Netherlands, I was recently approached about the fact that, with a view to achieving unification, agreements have apparently been concluded which make it impossible for self-employed flying instructors to continue to train learner-pilots for their pilot's licence examinations. Such instruction must now be given by a training establishment. As a result, a large number of instructors have lost their jobs, although the state had initially invested a lot of money in them. Unification concerns the implementation of aviation legislation and regulations, the Joint Aviation Requirements and the granting of aircrew authorisations.

1. Can the Commission state whether it is true that this situation has come about as a result of European unification?

2. Can it explain the need for it or where the added value arises?

3. Does not the principle of subsidiarity apply in this instance? Or is the decision involved merely a matter for the Netherlands?

4. Should not something be done about it, given that we are witnessing the effects of a centralised bureaucracy and a waste of capital resources?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) referred to by the Honourable Member are harmonisation measures put in place by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), the body representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of 38 European States. The measures concerning licences, JAR-FCL, deal with an area not yet covered by Community legislation. The Commission would point out that the measures provided for under the JARs are not directly applicable, but must be transposed into national legislation by the States concerned. If the measure referred to by the Honourable Member has been adopted, it is a measure under Dutch law transposing a JAR and not a provision of Community law.

In order to allow the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to develop technical rules on licences, the Commission will soon be proposing Community legislation extending the EASAs competence in this field. Once this legislation has been adopted, the EASA will be responsible for laying down technical rules which will serve as a basis for Community legislation on flight crew licences. Once adopted and implemented, the Community licensing legislation will replace the JAR-FCL and any national implementing provisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/937

(2004/C 78 E/0991)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0158/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Aviation safety

The airline disaster at Sharm el-Sheikh, where a Boeing 737 belonging to the company Flash Airlines crashed into the Red Sea killing 148 people, underlines the urgent need to address the issue of aviation safety.

On 9 October 2003, in its vote at second reading on the safety of third countries aircraft using community airports, the European Parliament called for rapid implementation of the directive, whereas the Council favoured a later entry into force. The crash of the Flash Airlines plane shows that we cannot and must not wait any longer.

We must act as swiftly as possible, as we did a few months ago with the legislation concerning single-hull tankers. A blacklist of ‘floating dustbins’ has now been drawn up. We must do the same for ‘flying dustbins’ and ensure that the information relating to airline companies that fail to respect safety conditions is made public.

In the light of the above, what measures will the European Commission take to prevent other disasters of this type in the future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of third countries aircraft using Community airports (1) should make it possible to overcome the deficiencies in the current system of monitoring foreign airlines which were highlighted by this disaster, in particular by making controls mandatory, by providing scope for Community action vis-à-vis undertakings or countries which fail to comply with safety requirements and by publishing an annual report of inspections. Once this Directive is applied by the Member States, the Commission will have detailed information on all the checks carried out at Community airports. This information will allow the Commission to draw public attention to undertakings which pose a high safety risk.

Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (2) provides for the improvement of accident prevention through the analysis of events leading to aviation accidents.

Once the results of the inquiry into this disaster are known, the Commission will assess the need, if any, to amend or strengthen these measures or adopt new ones.

In the short term, the Commission will also examine ways of improving transparency in the field of air transport, in particular with regard to informing the public on the safety of airlines.

(1) OJ C 103, 30.4.2002.

(2) OJ L 167, 4.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/524

(2004/C 88 E/0537)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/04

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject: European cofinancing of the Gazzi-Annunziata tramline in Messina under the Multifund Operational Programme 1994-1999

Judging from the statements made in the Sicilian press by politicians and those involved in the project, it would seem that Community funding for the construction of the Gazzi-Annunziata tramway in Messina was not forfeited since the facility was completed before 31 March 2002.

While I would like to accept as complete a construction project that required various interventions after the above date in order to bring the service into operation, and on which work continues on some urban sections still to be restored to service, could the Commission honour my legitimate right to information on public works by indicating:

— whether Community cofinancing was actually granted;

— how it views the significant change in respect of the route of the original project;

— whether it can confirm acceptance of the ruling by the Catania Regional Administrative Court, which on 6 July 1996 upheld the appeal by Messina Municipal Council against the need to submit an environmental impact assessment and ordered the responsible authorities to release the European funding that should be granted by the Regional Government?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission confirms that the project referred to by the Honourable Member was part-financed under the 1994-1999 Multifund Operational Programme (MOP) for Sicily. One of the requirements for such part-financing is that the project is complete and in operation by the final date laid down in the decision adopting the programme. In its final report on the Sicilian MOP the managing authority states that these requirements were met.

Under the subsidiarity principle it is the national authorities that have prime responsibility for ensuring compliance with Community laws and regulations. Sicily Region was responsible for selecting and monitoring implementation of the projects funded under the 1994-1999 MOP.

The Commission agreed with the ruling of the regional administrative court (Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale) of 6 July 2001 that there was no need for an environmental impact assessment for the project.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/896

(2004/C 84 E/0989)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/04

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Security in Brussels

All major conurbations face the risk of a sudden loss of community facilities, including their electricity supply. It is well known that many are vulnerable to terrorist attack. Most are in addition prone to industrial accidents, either directly (where factories or industrial plants are sited within their territory) or indirectly (where they are sited nearby).

This is as true of Brussels (city and conurbation) as of anywhere else, and it is no secret that Brussels is high on the list of known — and even cited — terrorist targets. The governor of the administrative district of Brussels has recently expressed his concern: ‘We are not capable of drawing up emergency and response plans for the capital of Europe’ (statement published, notably, by the newspaper Le Soir on 23 February 2004 and relayed by Euronews).

1. Is the Commission aware of this statement?

2. Had it been informed of this situation in parallel?

3. What does it see as the consequences for its premises, staff and the families of its staff?

4. What contacts — regular or otherwise — has the Commission maintained with the Brussels and Belgian authorities since it first occupied premises in Brussels?

5. Does the Commission have premises outside Brussels where the same security problem could arise?

6. If so, what is the state of affairs regarding these premises and regarding relations with the authorities concerned?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission has not been officially informed of the particular statement referred to in the question but naturally noted the information reported in the Belgian press.

As Belgium is the host country for the Commission in Brussels, the Commission, in co-ordination with other EU Institutions in Brussels, is in sustained contact with the relevant authorities in the Belgian Government on security matters and this close cooperation will continue in order to help to maintain protection for persons and premises.

As the Honourable Member will understand, the maintenance of effective physical security for Commission staff, buildings and assets in Brussels and elsewhere requires that details of provisions are not given in public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/644

(2004/C 84 E/0725)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0636/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Europe and the future of young people

In 2001, a 24-year-old Italian student obtained a degree in mechanical engineering at Milan Technical University. At the beginning of 2002, he was awarded a scholarship at UNED University in Madrid, where he produced the dissertation required to complete the second stage of tertiary education. On 31 January 2003, he submitted a request to the Ministry of Education and Culture of Madrid for official approval of his first degree, providing for this a huge amount of documents. A year later, the Ministry is still not in a position to set a date for the approval to be granted. Both the Vice-Chancellor of UNED and the Italian Consulate in Madrid have expressed an interest in the case, without receiving a definite response from the Ministry. The student, meanwhile, has been unable to take part in competitive examinations or to study at UNED and has not had his scholarship renewed.

1. Does the Commission know whether these delays are due only to bureaucratic obstacles? If so, can it take steps to ensure that these are overcome?

2. Does not the Commission consider that obstacles of this type are the result of a deplorable collaboration between the ministries responsible for education in Member States, flying in the face of all the solemn declarations on common cultural heritage and on the future of young people in Europe?

3. How does the Commission respond to the scepticism provoked among young research students forced to waste a year of their future because of ministerial delays in officially approving a degree?

4. What kind of Europe must they believe in?

5. What are the prospects open to someone who, believing in European cooperation, sought to broaden his cultural education at a different European university to that in which he gained his first degree?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties that remain as regards the academic recognition of diplomas in some countries, including Spain. It agrees with the Honourable Member that delays of this kind, and in particular obstacles such as those described, can lead to a certain amount of scepticism among young research students wishing to experience mobility. Community action in the field of education is in fact specifically intended to facilitate such mobility.

For this reason, following complaints and petitions, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under the provisions of Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/816

(2004/C 84 E/0911)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0600/04

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Remuneration of amateur football managers

Football is a very popular sport in Italy which is played by large numbers of young people.

The astronomical sums paid to professional footballers have created major problems for all clubs and have required government intervention in the form of the ‘Spalma-debiti’ decree allowing clubs to spread their debts over ten years.

This decree is now under close scrutiny by the Competition Commissioner Mario Monti.

Amateur football is a sport which gives young people the opportunity to develop their physical and mental skills in the open air and participation has always been unpaid or the amounts involved have been very small.

The chairmen of amateur clubs also incur considerable expenses without any remuneration apart from their love of the game.

However, other managers in the football sector, from the President of the League to board members, are known to receive remuneration of thousands of euro in the form of per diem allowances to cover their expenses, which are questionable from the tax point of view and circumvent the provisions of Article 10 of the law governing the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) which says that the duties performed by officers shall not be remunerated and prohibits offices in the federation from being held by those who derive financial gain from their involvement in football.

Can the Commission say whether this situation amounts to a distortion of competition in a particularly sensitive sector or involves serious irregularities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Regarding the question of whether the fact that the President and board members of the football League — as opposed to chairmen of amateur clubs — are remunerated, amounts to a distortion of competition or involves serious irregularities with respect to the law governing the Italian Football Federation (FIGC), the Commission wishes to indicate the following:

— as regards a possible infringement of competition rules, this could only arise in connection to behaviour of undertakings or from the granting of State aid to undertakings. The circumstances described in the question do not seem to concern undertakings and are, therefore, outside the scope of the competition rules of the EC Treaty;

— the Honourable Member states that the remunerations paid are questionable from a tax point of view. In that respect, the Commission would like to point out that Member States are free to set their own rules regarding direct taxation, as long as they do not infringe the EC Treaty or any relevant secondary Community legislation. In this case there appears to be no such infringement;