ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1536/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Granting of loans by the European Investment Bank (EIB) to Greece and Turkey

On 2 April 2003 the EIB decided to grant EUR 350 million to Turkey to support the private sector and for the reconstruction of the areas hit by the 1999 earthquake.

Does the Council have any information from the EIB (tables or studies) regarding which specific projects the Turkish administration will fund with these loans? Is there an evaluation of the use made of the first tranche of EUR 150 million in loans to Turkey, granted for the same purpose?

In 1999 Greece was granted a loan of EUR 300 million for the same purpose. Does the Council have details on the use made of these loans and the take-up rate? The first envelope which the EIB approved made provision for the granting of EUR 900 million. What reasons can the Council give for the delay in continuing with the granting of these loans, and what plans are there for payment of the remaining amount?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

Council decision 1999/786 EC granting a Community guarantee to the EIB against losses under loans for projects for the reconstruction of the earthquake-stricken areas of Turkey, provides in its Article 3 that the Commission shall inform each year both the European Parliament and the Council of the loan operations carried out under this Decision and shall submit at the same time an implementation assessment.

Concerning the earthquake in Greece of September 1999, the Council granted by virtue of Decision 2000/786 EC EUR 2 million to Greece in order to compensate partially for the interest paid in 2000 on loans from the EIB for the reconstruction of buildings, infrastructure and industrial installation affected by this earthquake. Given the limited nature of this grant, no special reporting requirements on its implementation were provided.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0767/03

by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Council

(12 March 2003)

Subject: East Timor

The European Union played a distinguished part in defending the human rights of the people of East Timor, above all from September 1999 onwards, following the violence perpetrated by the militias. The European Parliament gave symbolic expression to Europe's commitment to the cause of liberating the people of East Timor, when it conferred the Sahkarov prize on Xanana Gusmão.

The European Union, within the framework of UN action, helped East Timor to gain its independence in May 2002. Since June 2002, the United Nations, with the authorisation of the Security Council on which two Member States have permanent seats, has been disinvesting in support for creating the technical, administrative and social conditions necessary to the effective emancipation of East Timor, which is currently at a critical stage. For various reasons, large numbers of refugees have poured into the capital, Dili, in recent months, causing the population to soar from 60 000 to nearly 200 000, many of them struggling to survive in conditions which are conducive either to apathy or to rebellion and violence.

Does the Council intend to increase support for consolidating democracy in East Timor?

Is the Council considering the possibility of providing some of this support within the framework of the (Petersburg) tasks assigned to the Rapid Reaction Force?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's concerns over the consequences of the massive inflow of refugees into Dili and its possible social effects, and will look into possibilities of responding adequately to this situation in the framework of the considerable financial assistance East Timor is receiving from the EU. Between 1999 and 2002 alone, the EC has allocated some EUR 137 million in grant aid for East Timor. This represents more than EUR 170 per capita, one of the highest levels of assistance provided. In addition, Member States have also made significant amounts of aid available for East Timor.

The European Union will continue to provide significant assistance to East Timor to further consolidate the country's political stability and democracy and to promote long-term development through poverty alleviation and capacity building. The EC plans to allocate some EUR 10 million for 2003, and some EUR 8 million for 2004. Again, Member States will complement this financial effort.

East Timor's request to accede to the Cotonou ACP-EC Partnership Agreement was approved at the ACP-EC Council of Ministers meeting on 15/16 May 2003.

Accession will, inter alia, allow East Timor to have access to the financial resources provided in the framework of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement under the next Financial Protocol for the period 2005-2010.

The Council is not considering the deployment of contingents of the Rapid Reaction Force to East Timor at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1006/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Florence, urgently need to use European funds to combat the abuse of women and children,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Florence has submitted projects for the Daphne programme?

2. whether the municipality of Florence has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1004/03, E-1005/03, E-1006/03,E-1007/03, E-1008/03, E-1009/03, E-1010/03, E-1011/03,E-1012/03, E-1013/03, E-1014/03, E-1015/03 and E-1016/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Daphne programme received the following proposals in 2003 alone:

- two proposals from the muncipality of Florence Assessorato Pubblica Istruzione e Politiche Giovanili, Direzione Istruzione;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Pesaro Servizio sociale;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Siena Comitato di ente per le pari opportunita.

The Commission has not yet assessed these proposals and is, therefore, unable to provide the Honourable Member with details of the selection or funding at this stage. Information on the outcome of the assessment process will be sent in July 2003 to all parties which applied to the Daphne programme in 2003.

No proposal was received between 1997 and 2003 for the other municipalities referred to by the Honourable Member (Ancona, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato and Terni).
TherearenorecordsindicatingthateithertheCommissionortheCommissionerresponsibleforFinancial
Controlwere informedbytheFinancial Controlleraboutthefindingsoftheauditreport,which wasfinalizedinJune2000.
ThedraftreportwassenttoOLAFon17March2000.
(2004/C58E/134) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1935/03
byEllyPlooij-vanGorsel(ELDR)totheCommission
(5June2003)
Subject:ImplementationoftheTelecomsPackage
TheTelecomsPackageconsistsofthefiveDirectivesonelectroniccommunications.TheTelecomsPackage
mustbeimplementedby24July2003atthelatest.AnumberofMemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnionwillnotbeabletomeetthatdeadline.TheNetherlands,whereimplementationwillbesecuredontheadoptionofanewTelecommunicationsAct,isoneoftheMemberStatestowhichthatcaveatcertainlyapplies.
1. CantheCommissionindicatethelegalconsequencesformarketplayersifMemberStatesfailto
implementthenewregulatoryframeworkforelectroniccommunicationsnetworksandservicesbytheduedate?
2. IntheCommission’sview,doesthenewregulatoryframeworkincludeprovisionsonthebasisof
whichmarketplayersmaytakedirectlegalactionifimplementationisdelayed?
AnswergivenbyMrLiikanenonbehalfoftheCommission
(10July2003)
InitscontactswiththeMemberStates,theCommissionhasconsistentlystressedtheimportanceofa
timelyandeffectivetranspositionofthenewregulatoryframeworkforelectroniccommunications.Onapointofdetail,itshouldbenotedthatwhilethedeadlinefortranspositionoffouroftheDirectivesinthenewpackageis24July2003,MemberStateshaveuntil31October2003totransposeDirective2002/58/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof12July2002concerningtheprocessingofpersonaldataandtheprotectionofprivacyintheelectroniccommunicationssector(Directiveonprivacyandelectroniccommunications)(
1).AsfarasthesituationintheNetherlandsisconcerned,theCommissionhasnotbeen
informedbytheNetherlandsauthoritiesthatthedeadlinesfortranspositionwillnotbemet.Consequently,itisatthisstagehypotheticaltospeculateonthelegalconsequencesofafailuretomeetthedeadlinefortranspositioninthatcountry.
Inanyevent,thelegalconsequencesformarketplayersinaMemberStatewhichfailstotransposethenew
regulatory framework for electronic communications on time will depend on the legal frameworkapplicableatnationalleveltothosepartiesattherelevanttime.TheCommissionisnotinapositionatthispointusefullytocommentonwhatthoseconsequencesmaybeonahypotheticalorgeneralisedbasis.
TheCommissionwouldrecallthatitisforthecourts,andultimatelytheEuropeanCourtofJustice,to
decideonthecircumstancesinwhichaparticularprovisioninadirectivecanberelieduponbythirdparties against the state, in the event of a failure to transpose. The Commission would refer theHonourableMembertothecaselawonthissubject,notablythatflowingfromthejudgmentoftheCourtofJusticeintheVanGendenLooscase(
2).
(1) OJL201,31.7.2002.
(2) Case26/62VanGendenLoos[1963]ECR1;seealsoCase148/78Ratti[1979]ECR1629andJoinedCasesC-6/
90andC-9/90FrancovichandOthersvItaly[1991]ECRI-5357.C58E/118 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2602/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject: Progress by Member States in the transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC with specific regard to discrimination on the grounds of age

What information does the Commission have on the current state of progress by the Member States in their transposition of Council Directive 2000/78/EC(1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, with specific regard to steps taken to tackle discrimination on the grounds of age?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The deadline for the transposition into national law of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, is 2 December 2003. Member States may also make use of a supplementary period, of up to three years, in order to take account of particular difficulties, to transpose the provisions dealing with discrimination on grounds of age and disability.

The Commission maintains contact with the authorities of the Member States to ascertain what progress is being made towards the transposition of the Directive. Although there is still some time available before the date of transposition, only one Member State has so far formally notified the transposition of the Directive, while another has already indicated its intention to use a part of the extra period allowed for the transposition of the provisions on age discrimination. The Commission is also aware that legislation has been adopted, or is about to be adopted in some other Member States, though this has not yet been formally notified to the Commission.

All Member States have indicated their intention to transpose the Directive within the time allowed. The Commission has expressed its concern that the deadlines for transposition must be respected and that a failure to do so will constitute an infringement of Community law.
AnswergivenbyMrVitorinoonbehalfoftheCommission
(21May2003)
According to Article 29 of the Europol Convention, the day-to-day management of Europol is the
responsibilityoftheEuropolDirector.Thisincludesthemonitoringoftheadequateprocessingofdataby
Europol.
PursuanttoArticle24oftheConventiontheresponsibilityformonitoringtheadequacyofdataprocessing
lieswiththeJointSupervisoryBody(JSB).ThetaskoftheJSBisinparticulartoensurethattherightsofindividualsarenotviolatedbythestorage,processingandutilisationofthedataheldbyEuropol.IftheJSBnotesanyviolationsoftheprovisionsoftheEuropolConvention,itshallmakeanycomplaintsitdeemsnecessarytotheDirectorofEuropol.TheDirectorshallkeeptheManagementBoard,inwhichalltheMemberStatesandtheCommissionarerepresented,informedoftheentireprocedure.Intheeventofanydifficulty,theJSBshallreferthemattertotheManagementBoard.
TheCommissionhasnoresponsibilityforthedevelopmentoradministrationofEuropoloperatingsystems
orothersoftwareusedatEuropolanddoesnothaveanyaccesstotheirInformationTechnology(IT)systems.TheCommission,whichattendstheManagementBoardofEuropolinanobservercapacity,isnotawareofanyreportedcomplaintsoftheJSBonthisissue.
InformationoncontractualobligationsonintellectualpropertyapplyingtotheEuropolsystemsshouldbe
requestedbytheHonourableMemberstoEuropol.
(2004/C58E/067) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1204/03
byNielsBusk(ELDR)totheCommission
(25March2003)
Subject:GovernmentaidtoItalianfarmers
DoestheCommissiontaketheviewthatItalyhasimplementedthemilkquotasystemsatisfactorilyon
individualfarmsand,ifso,howdoestheCommissionexplainthefactthat93%ofItalianmilkproducers
havebeenabletoexceedthemilkquotas?
HastheCommissionauthorisedtheItalianGovernmenttopayEUR411milliontocoverItalianmilk
producers’ massive overshoot of their production quotas, and can the Commission confirm that theexemptionsfrompayingadditionalleviesgrantedtoItalianmilkproducersamounttoEUR411millionindirectgovernmentaidtomilkproductioninItaly?
AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(26May2003)
TheCommissioncanindicatethataboutathirdofItalianproducershaveexceededtheirmilkquotaover
oneormoreoftheperiods1995-1996to2000-2001.
AmajordifficultythathasarisenandcontinuestoariseintheItalianmanagementofmilkquotaisthefact
thatthelevybillsarealmostsystematicallylitigatedintheItaliancourts.ThisisnotablyduetothedelayaccumulatedbytheItalianauthoritiesinimplementingtheregime.
TheCommissioncaninformtheHonourableMemberthattheItalianGovernmentisseekingauthorisation
notfromtheCommissionbutfromtheCouncilofMinisters,underarticle88(2)thirdsubparagraphoftheECTreaty,forstateaidmeasuresinfavourofproducerswithoutstandinglevypayments.TheCommission
willfollowdevelopmentsandreservestherighttotakeanyactionthatappearsappropriate.C58E/50 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/129) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1914/03
byMaríaSornosaMartínez(PSE)totheCommission
(12June2003)
Subject:BreachofCommunitycompetitionlawinthehelicoptersectorinSpain
ThetwocompaniesHelicsaSAandHelisuresteSAmakeup90%ofthehelicoptersectorinSpainand
divideupthemarketbymutualagreement,ascanbeseenfromthetemporarymergerssetupbythem.
Will the Commission take any action vis-à-vis the Spanish Government to ensure respect for free
competitionamongoperatorsandtherighttoanopenmarketnotdividedupamongfirmsinthissectorin Spain, particularly bearing in mind that virtually all the contracts stem from the various Spanishadministrations?
(2004/C58E/130) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1915/03
byMaríaSornosaMartínez(PSE)totheCommission
(12June2003)
Subject:ItemsintheCommunitybudgetintendedforfire-fightinginSpainandtheiractualfinaluseinthe
years1996to2002
CantheCommissionprovideinformationonthefundsfromCommunitybudgetsallocatedtofightforest
firesinSpain,andontheirfinaluseasdecidedbytheSpanishGovernment?
DoestheCommissionknowwhethertheCommunityfundsconcernedhavebeenusedtopurchaseorhire
aviationequipmentusedtofightforestfiresintheyears1996to2002inclusive?
Can the Commission guarantee that Community funding has not been used in Spain to hire
non-CommunityequipmentwhichdoesnotcomplywiththecriteriaforairworthinesscertificationandequivalentsafetystandardsrequiredbyRegulation(EC)No2407/92(
1),whicharemetintheremainingEU
countries?
(1) OJL240,24.8.1992,p.1.
(2004/C58E/131) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1916/03
byMaríaSornosaMartínez(PSE)totheCommission
(12June2003)
Subject:FailuretocomplywithDirective2000/79/EConworkingtimeincivilaviationinthehelicopter
sectorinSpain
ThedeadlinesetbytheCommunityauthoritiesforthevariousMemberStatestoimplementthemeasures
whichwillenableDirective2000/79/EC(1)onworkingtimeincivilaviationtocomeintoforcewillexpire
insixmonths,andnomeasureshavebeenadoptedinSpaintoensurethatthe2000-hourrestrictionon
workingtimecontainedthereinisappliedtoSpanishhelicopterpilots.
WhattypeofactionwilltheCommissiontakeiftheSpanishGovernmenthasnotcompliedwiththe
requirementsofDirective2000/79/ECwhenthedeadlineexpires?
WhatistheCommission’sviewofandwhatactionwillittakeinresponsetotheSpanishGovernment’s
long-standinginabilitytoenforceeitherSpanishorCommunitylegislationasregardsworkingtimeintheSpanishhelicoptersector,eventhoughvirtuallyallofthesehelicoptersworkforcentralandautonomousgovernments?
(1) OJL302,1.12.2000,p.57.C58E/114 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
FromtheinformationgiveninthewrittenquestionregardingtheallocationofsharesduringtheBuilding
Society’sconversionintoapubliclimitedcompany(plc),itisnotpossibletodeterminewhetherthereisdiscriminationongroundsofresidence.Inthiscase,unlikeinthepreviousone,thereisevenadifferenttreatment between those members who were resident in countries other than the United Kingdom.TheCommissionwillproceedtoobtainmoredetailedinformationonthispartofcaseandhaswrittentotheFSAforassistance.TheCommissionwillanalysewhetherthedifferenceswiththepreviouscaseabovementionedimplyanydiscriminationandwilltakethenecessarymeasuresifappropriate.
(2004/C58E/089) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1495/03
byJean-LouisBernié(EDD)totheCommission
(24April2003)
Subject:InterpretativeguidetotheBirdsDirective
TheCommissionhasforseveralmonthsbeenworkingontheinterpretativeguidetotheBirdsDirective.Parliamenthasneverbeeninvolvedinthedraftingofthisdocument,whichissupposedtoclarifythe
situationconcerningthehuntingseasonsformigratorybirds,particularlyinconnectionwithArticles7and9ofDirective79/409/EEC(
1).
TheCommissionhasrecentlyrequestedanopinionfromitsLegalServiceontheguide’scontent.
WouldtheCommissionstatewhetheritplanstosubmitthedocumenttotheEuropeanParliamentforits
opinion?Ifso,underwhichprocedureandatwhatstage?Ifnot,howdoestheCommissionproposetoinvolveEuropeanMPsintheprojectbeforethetextisfinallyagreed,bearinginmindthat254ofthemsignedawrittendeclarationinDecember2000callingforamendmentoftheBirdsDirective?
AndwouldtheCommissionstatewhethertheinterpretativeguidewillbeannexedtotheBirdsDirective,
andwhetheritwillbecontestablebeforetheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities?
Finally,wouldtheCommissionprovidemewithacopyoftheFrenchversionofthedocumentsubmitted
toitsLegalService,andthelatter’sopinion?
(1) OJL103,25.4.1979,p.1.
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(22May2003)
TheCommissioniscommittedtoprovidingacopyoftheguidancedocumenttotheParliamentassoonas
ithasbeenfinalised,anditwillalsomakeacopyoftheFrenchversionavailabletotheHonourableMember.
AsaguidancedocumentitisbeingpreparedunderthesoleresponsibilityoftheCommission.Thereare
noprovisionsforformalconsultationoftheParliamentinthecontextofsuchdocuments.However,theCommissionhasalreadyindicatedthatthedocumentwillbepresentedtotheappropriateCommitteeandIntergroupsoftheParliament.
The documentis notitselfa legal instrument, andwillnotbe formallyannexed tothe Directive. In
addition,itneedstobestressedthattheCourtofJusticeretainsthesoleprerogative tointerpret the
provisionsoftheDirective.However,theCommissionintendstopromotetheguide,whichwillbewidelydisseminatedtoMemberStatesandthedifferentstakeholdergroups.6.3.2004EN C58E/73 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
TheplannedreformwillallowtheMemberStatestosubdividetheirbaseareausingobjectivecriteria.In
thatcase,itwillbeuptothemtodecidewhethertosubdividetheirbaseareasothattheimpactofanyreductionscandifferentiatedbyregionofproduction.
Inanycase,agri-environmentalaidmaybegrantedoverandabovespecificaidforruraldevelopmentin
accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999on support for rural development from theEuropean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certainRegulations(
1).
(1) OJL160,26.6.1999.
(2004/C58E/099) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1633/03
byMarioBorghezio(NI)totheCommission
(15May2003)
Subject:CommemorationofSaintMarkofAviano,symbolofEuropeanidentity
PopeJohnPaulIIhascanonisedtheCapuchinpriestMarkofAviano,emphasisinghispropheticmissionas
amanofpeace,andholdinghimupasasymbolofacommonEuropeanculturalidentity.
CantheCommissionstatewhatinitiativestheEUintendstoundertake,atatimewhenaConstitution
affirmingEurope’sChristianculturalandspiritualrootsisbeingprepared,tocelebrate(togetherwithSaintBenedict, Patron Saint of Europe) Mark of Aviano, a great European, defender of Vienna and anextraordinarymanofpeace?
AnswergivenbyMrProdionbehalfoftheCommission
(16June2003)
The notablemeritsofMarco d’Avianounfortunatelydonotalter the factthatthe Commissionmust
confineitsworktoitsareasofcompetence,sonospecificactiontocommemoratethelifeandtestimonyofthisSaintwillbelaunchedontheCommission’sowninitiative.Asamatterofrecord,Honourable
MembershavedrawntheattentionoftheCommissiontothemeritsofindividualSaintsbefore,andthe
Commission’s response has been the same. The Commission could draw the Honourable Member’sattentionforexampletothereplygiventoquestionE-0559/93byMrFernandez-Albor(
1).
(1) OJC320,26.11.1993.
(2004/C58E/100) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1638/03
byBernardPoignant(PSE)totheCommission
(16May2003)
Subject:Combatingmarinepollutioncausedbythesinkingofthe‘Prestige’
SouthernBrittanyisnowhavingtodealwiththeproblemofpelletsoffueloilfromthe‘Prestige’,which
sankofftheGaliciancoastoversixmonthsago,beingwashedupalongitsshores.Thehulkisstillleakingoil,andwenowhaveproofthatthedecisiontotowthe‘Prestige’awayfromtheSpanishcoasthelpedensuremoreextensiveandwidespreadpollutionoftheEuropeancoastline.C58E/82 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/54

(2004/C 70 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1627/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Financial consequences of avian influenza for hatching-egg producers

Avian influenza has now spread to several Member States, resulting in major financial problems for the sector.

Holdings which have been cleared receive compensation under European rules. Regrettably, that does not apply to hatching-egg producers.

In the vast majority of cases, producers are unable to market their eggs as hatching eggs; rather, they can sell them only as eggs for consumption, which have a much lower market value.

1. Does the Commission see any way of supporting producers who have been badly affected?

2. How, more specifically, does the Commission view the possibility of establishing rules for buying-in hatching eggs?

3. How does the Commission intend to deal in the longer term with the serious economic and secondary harm to those indirectly hit by such outbreaks of animal diseases? Is the Commission prepared to consider setting up largely privately funded systems to insure against such losses throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

1. The Netherlands may obtain a financial contribution from the Community, by means of veterinary funds, of 50 % of eligible expenditure for the compensation of farmers for the compulsory culling of animals and the compulsory destruction of eggs under eradication measures related to outbreaks of Avian Influenza.

2. The Member State concerned, under National Aid Scheme can establish a buying-up policy related to poultry and eggs in restriction zones, provided that such scheme comply with community rules for national aid in agriculture.
1.

Can the Commission confirm that the way in which the distinction has been made in the EU since 1993 between ‘single-use’ and ‘multiple-use’ surgical instruments that are placed temporarily in the human body during surgery prevents certain expensive instruments from being re-used after an operation, so that, for example, a catheter pump costing between EUR 8 000 and EUR 13 000 that has been placed in the heart has to be thrown away after use?