ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/144

(2004/C 84 E/0182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0074/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject: European Convention

Will the Commission please tell me the total cost to the European taxpayer of the European Convention, including staffing costs, travel expenses, translations, stationery, administration, notional cost of office accommodation and any other expenses incurred.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-4070/03 and P-0074/04

given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The expenditure involved in managing the first Convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights was essentially made up of interpreting costs for meetings. It was shared between the three institutions associated in drafting the Charter. Accommodation and subsistence expenses for the national representatives were not met by the Community budget.

To finance the Convention which produced the draft Constitution for Europe, a fund was set up by Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council (1).

Parliament, the Council and the Commission also concluded an interinstitutional agreement on the financing of this convention (2).

The Commission noted, when the accounts of the Convention were referred to it in connection with the discharge, that expenditure for 2002 broke down as follows:

(in euros) Travel of members of the Praesidium 2 180,52 Accommodation and subsistence allowances 108 100,00 Remuneration 194 478,22 Mission expenses 92 806,17 Representation expenses 30 538,07 Studies, hearings and forum 41 943,00 Infrastructure and sundries 24 294,07 Results of adjustments 6 052,03 Total 500 392,08

The Commission would add that as required by paragraph 7 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on the financing of the Convention (3), the representatives of Parliament were periodically informed of the situation with respect to implementation of expenditure by the Convention Secretariat.

In accordance with Article 20 of the Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 21 February 2002 (4), the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet were also sent to Parliament, which has to give its assent to the granting of discharge to the Secretary-General of the Convention in respect of the implementation of the budget.

The Honourable Member is informed that more detailed information can be obtained from the General Secretariat of the Council, which provided the secretariat for the two Conventions.

(1) Decision 2002/176/EU of 21 February 2002, OJ L 60, 1.3.2002.

(2) Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 February 2002, OJ C 54, 1.3.2002.

(3) OJ C 54, 1.3.2002.

(4) OJ L 60, 1.3.2002, p. 56.
2.

As the Commission reported in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3061/02, officials on such leave continue to be subject to the provisions of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations which require officials to obtain permission before engaging in any outside activity, and which allow for refusal of permission, or imposition of conditions, where it is considered that the activity would otherwise be ‘detrimental to the work of the Communities’. The Commission would consider conflict of interest as being ‘detrimental’ to the Community, and would thus take appropriate action to prevent such conflicts. Meanwhile, Article 17 requires officials — whether in activity or on leave on personal grounds — not to disclose to unauthorised persons ‘information not already made public’. Any official working in the private sector and making use of such privileged information would be considered to have infringed this obligation and would thus be at risk of disciplinary proceedings. Until 2003, the examination of the files related to outside activity was done by the Directorate-General to which the official belonged, or by the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration, depending on his or her grade. In order to reinforce that control, in 2003 the Commission introduced a procedure involving both Directorates-General. A website on the Personnel and Administration Directorate General Intranet was created on 15 December 2003 in order to improve officials' access to information and rules related to leave on personal grounds. Furthermore, the application forms to be filled in when requesting such leave have been modified to allow a better analysis of the request from the official. Further decisions on relevant matters are being prepared by the Commission in the light of the amendments made to the Staff Regulations which enter into force on 1 May 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/540

(2004/C 88 E/0552)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0821/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Signing of the Agadir Agreement

The free trade agreement between Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco was signed on 25 February 2004 in the presence of Commissioner Chris Patten. It is known as the Agadir Agreement, in reference to the political declaration of intent issued by these countries in Agadir in May 2001. The agreement is part of the broader objective of partnership between the EU and the countries on the shore of the Mediterranean, envisaged in the Barcelona process launched in 1995, with a view to creating a pan-Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area by 2010.

In this context, can the Commission say what impact it thinks the process will have on Community products of a specifically Mediterranean nature, particularly in Portugal? More specifically, what does it think the impact will be on the fruit and vegetable sector and the canning industry, including fish (sardines, tuna, etc.), particularly in Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Agadir Agreement signed on 25 February 2004, is a free trade agreement between four Mediterranean partners: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. Therefore, the European Union is not part of this Agreement, although it has strongly encouraged its conclusion. Each of these four countries has concluded Association Agreements, including free trade provisions, with the European Union in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The Agreements with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan are already in force. The Agreement with Egypt should enter into force in the near future although its trade and trade related provisions have been in force since 1 January 2004. The Agadir Agreement should therefore have no direct effect on sectors in the EU.

The policy of the Commission is to promote the conclusion of free trade agreements between Southern Mediterranean partners, so that the North-South economic dimension of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership is complemented with a South-South dimension to further attract investment and promote trade between partners. The Agadir Agreement, in line with this objective, constitutes a positive step in the gradual creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area and should have a positive impact in the trade relations of the four countries concerned, and in the development of economic and trade relations in the whole Euro-Mediterranean region. The Commission follows very closely the impact and developments resulting from the implementation of free trade in the region and is funding a sustainability impact study on the Euro-Mediterranean Free trade Area. The study is in its initial phase, and is intended to produce an overall evaluation of the economic, social and environment sustainability of free trade in the Euro-Mediterranean region.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/666

(2004/C 84 E/0751)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Funding of projects designed to transfer water from the Ebro river basin to southern and eastern parts of Spain

How many projects relating to the transfer of water from the Ebro river basin to southern and eastern parts of Spain have been financed by means of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

Up to the present, the Commission has not taken a decision to support through the Cohesion fund or through the Structural Funds any project dealing with water transfer from the Ebro river to the East and South-Spanish zones.

The Spanish authorities have submitted four proposals for co-financing regarding this project that are currently being evaluated by the services of the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/652

(2004/C 84 E/0735)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0673/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Third level education charges for EU citizens

In Irish third level education, students considered as non-EU citizens often pay three times more in fees than their EU citizen counterparts.

Is the Commission aware that the Irish Government has not yet informed citizens of accession states, currently hoping to begin third-level education in Ireland next academic year, whether they will be eligible for reduced EU-citizen fees? The final date for submission of applications to third level institutions has already passed, yet many prospective students at Irish universities and colleges have had no indication from the Department of Education and Science as to what their status will be when the new academic year begins in September.

As they will be EU citizens from 1 May, does the Commission agree that the charging of non-EU fees to citizens of new Member States constitutes a clear act of discrimination? Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government on this issue? What has been its response? Has the Commission received similar complaints from other Member States on this issue? What action does it propose to take?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

As far as conditions of access to education are concerned, the Member States are obliged to respect the principle of ‘equality of treatment’. According to this principle the university or college of a Member State where an EU citizen wishes to study must accept him/her under the same conditions as nationals.

Consequently, for the next academic year 2004/2005, Ireland and the other Member States must apply the principle of equality of treatment to nationals of the new Member States who will be entitled to pay home fees.

The Commission has not received any complaints regarding this issue and has, therefore, not contacted the Irish Government as yet.

The Commission departments will contact the Irish authorities in order to remind them of the rights of citizens of the new Member States regarding access to education.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/373

(2004/C 84 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0395/04

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: Measures to prevent the closure of the steelworks in Terni

The steelworks in Terni belongs to the German multinational Thyssen Krupp and is one of the most important in Europe.

The group has indicated that it wants to close the plant, which is the only one in Italy producing electrical steel.

For these reasons, can the Commission make every possible endeavour to safeguard this highly specialised industrial sector, which provides jobs for thousands of workers, one thousand of whom — if we include those in related industries — risk losing their jobs.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0356/04, E-0390/04 and E-0395/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint answer (1) to Written Questions P-0376/04 by Mrs Sbarbati, P-0388/04 by Mrs Angelilli and P-0445/04 by Mr Mastella. 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 84/800

(2004/C 84 E/0895)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/04

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

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Blue Dragon

Could the Commission confirm if any of the OLAF investigators involved in the Blue Dragon 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 three OLAF staff members concerned initially with questions relating to the ‘Blue Dragon’ case had earlier been staff members of the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) and subsequently left OLAF for posts in the Commission in 2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/196

(2004/C 84 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0303/04

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Booking tickets for travel in another country

Is the Commission aware that it is often impossible to book a ticket in one EU Member State for a journey that originates in a country other than where the tickets are booked? For example, Air France will not allow a citizen to book a ticket for a journey from Strasbourg to London and for the ticket to be delivered to the UK. The ticket can only be delivered to an address in France.

It is often difficult to purchase flight tickets in Belgium with a UK credit card. With many online services, one can not purchase a ticket with a credit card that has not been issued in the country from where the journey starts.

Is the Commission able to confirm that these difficulties are not in breach of the principles of free movement that the EU strives for?

If the Commission finds that there is a breach, can it outline what is being done to combat this and to ensure that such discriminatory practice does not continue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

It has been reported to the Commission that certain distribution channels refuse to sell airline tickets to people resident in other Member States. In such cases, it is always possible for the resident of the other Member State to purchase a ticket, but only through a different distribution channel and at a different price, often higher. This problem is particularly evident when sales are made via the Internet.

As a follow-up to information received, at the end of 2003 the Commission forwarded a series of letters to 18 European airlines asking them for clarification on these practices. Replies are expected in March 2004. The Commission will then analyse the information received with a view to taking appropriate steps if need be.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/379

(2004/C 84 E/0441)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0369/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Public consultation during the preparation of emergency plans under the Seveso II Directive

What has been the Irish Government's reply to the reasoned opinion announced on 18 July 2003 (IP/03/1048) regarding the failure of the Irish Government to ensure adequate consultation of the public during the preparation of emergency plans, as required by the Seveso II Directive on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances (Council Directive 96/82/EC (1))?

What action is the Commission now proposing to take in this matter?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0368/04 and E-0369/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 11 July 2003 with regard to Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances, as it was not satisfied that Irish transposing legislation was compliant with Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Directive. The issues referred to by the Honourable Member relate to Article 11 (public consultation in the preparation of external emergency plans) and Article 13 (right of public to express an opinion on certain developments). In September 2003, Ireland notified new legislation with regard to Article 11 (2). This appears to rectify a weakness in the previous Irish transposing legislation. Ireland's position has not changed with regard to the use of participation fees. The Commission is still considering Ireland's response with regard to Article 12 of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

(2) S.I. No 402 of 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/721

(2004/C 88 E/0741)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1007/04

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject: Breakdown of the POSEI item in the 2004 Budget

Until 2004, the Community's annual budget allocated, under the EAGGF-Guarantee framework, a budgetary line to each POSEI, establishing two sub-items within each: one on ‘Supply’ and another on ‘Other measures’, i.e. support for local production. I am speaking about Item B1-320 Poseidom (B1-3200 Supply and B1-3201 Other measures), B1-321 Poseima (B1-3210 Supply and B1-3211 Other measures) and B1-322 Poseican (B1-3220 Supply and B1-3221 Other measures).

As a result of the changes to the structure of the 2004 Budget, the POSEIs budgetary items have been globalised and unified within the framework of Title 05 on agricultural and rural development, in Item 05 02 11 04, which also contains the amounts for the Aegean Islands and other amounts, e.g. subsidies for rice supplies to Reunión, which were formerly separate. This system entails the loss of the previous clarity and transparency, since the quantities assigned to each POSEI can no longer be distinguished, and within each of the latter, the amounts assigned to each of the aforementioned sub-items. Given that implementation for 2002 also appears in globalised form, it is likewise impossible to work out what was implemented within each POSEI.

What is the amount assigned to Poseican for budgetary year 2004?

Of this amount, how much is earmarked for the Specific Supply Arrangements and how much to Support measures for local production?

What was the total of the amounts actually paid out in 2002 and 2003 for the Specific Supply Arrangements on the one hand, and for other Poseican measures on the other?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The 2004 appropriation for the Poseican programme is EUR 137 million: EUR 103 million for the special supply arrangements and EUR 34 million for support for local production.

Actual expenditure in 2002 and 2003 was:

— Special supply arrangements: — 2002: EUR 88,8 million; — 2003: EUR 84,7 million.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/634

(2004/C 84 E/0712)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/04

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

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Enlargement of an airport in the administrative and political capital of Spain: use of Cohesion Fund monies granted to Spain for extending infrastructure in Madrid

The Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, has just inaugurated the civil engineering works to enlarge Madrid airport. There will be a new terminal, and new runways. The final budget is EUR 2 440 million, and the new facilities will be operational in 2005. The Spanish Government is seeking to make this airport one of the largest and most attractive in Europe. This extraordinary amount of investment is being made in an airport which, today, already centralises and even monopolises Spanish air traffic. This new investment highlights once again the fact that the Spanish capital receives economic benefits from the Spanish Government on such a scale that the business world, political and economic decision-making, and even Spain's entire land and air traffic are concentrated in it.

Does the Commission know whether money from the Community Cohesion Fund is being used in extending the airport? If so, what percentage of the monies from the Cohesion Fund assigned to the Spanish State has been or will be used in this airport? More generally, what percentage of grants to Spain from the Cohesion Fund have been or are scheduled to be used within the Madrid autonomous community?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

So far the only Madrid-Barajas Airport extension project that we have approved (by a decision of 24 December 2002) is for construction of the INTRA automated people mover system for the new terminal area. The eligible costs are EUR 98 040 921 and the contribution from the Fund is EUR 41 177 186 (42 %). No part-financing from the European Regional Development Fund has been granted for the airport under the single programming document Objective 2 Madrid 2000-2006.

The national authorities are responsible for selecting and submitting projects for Cohesion Fund part-financing to us. We examine them using the criteria set in Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1). These criteria do not include location. In the Official Journal references have been given for the decisions for 2000 (2), 2001 (3) and 2002 (4) granting Cohesion Fund assistance to Spain. Those for 2003 will be published this year.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(2) OJ C 361, 17.12.2001.

(3) OJ C 126, 28.5.2002.

(4) OJ C 123, 24.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/787

(2004/C 84 E/0883)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Aer Rianta

Is the Commission aware of, and is it monitoring, the Irish Government's plans to break up Aer Rianta, the state-owned company responsible for the operation, management and development of Dublin, Shannon and Cork Airports? Does the Commission believe that plans to transfer the entire Aer Rianta debt to Dublin Airport comply with Article 92 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

Although not aware of an assumption of debt as described by the Honourable Member, the Commission is aware from press reports that Aer Rianta is currently building a new terminal and other supporting infrastructures at Cork Airport. It is also reported that the cost of this investment is to be borne by the company as a whole and it is presumed that it is to this financial arrangement that the Honourable Member is referring.

The Commission will keep a watching brief on this situation to decide if an action under State aid rules is appropriate.