ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Interreg III Alpine area

Operational proposals and plans for action to be taken under the Interreg IIIB Alpine area Community initiative are currently being drawn up. During a meeting held in Strasbourg in early October, requests for the funding also to be used in non-mountainous parts of the Alpine area were put to the Commission.

The inhabitants of mountain areas could well find this difficult to understand, given that they were hoping that the available resources would be focused on genuine alpine areas rather than towns in valleys or subalpine areas, which are eligible for other funding.

What are the Commission's views on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

On 19 December 2001 the Commission adopted the Alpine Area programme under the Interreg III Community Initiative (strand B). It provides Community part-financing ( 59,7 million) for transnational cooperation between Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Switzerland(1).

The four cooperation priorities established in partnership with the national and regional authorities involved in the programme are:

- promotion of the Alpine area (within the wider framework of polycentric spatial development of the Community) as competitive and attractive on two fronts: economy and quality of life;

- development of sustainable transport systems focused on efficiency, intermodality and accessibility;

- prudent management of the natural and cultural heritage; environmental promotion and prevention of natural disasters;

- technical assistance.

The allotted funds may be used throughout the cooperation zone defined in the programme for operations approved by the national and regional authorities acting through a management committee that satisfy the programme terms. Under the Interreg III guidelines(2) no part of the cooperation zone, whether or not mountainous, may be excluded from eligibility for part-financing. In any case one of the benefits of such a programme is the integration and territorial cohesion it promotes of mountain areas and the surrounding valleys and plains.

(1) COM(2001)4017.

(2) Commission communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 setting guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory Interreg III, OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2886/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: North-South cooperation schemes in the campaign against drug abuse

Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2046/97(1) of 13 October 1997 on north-south cooperation in the campaign against drugs and drug addiction stipulates that, three years after the Regulation enters into force, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an overall assessment of operations financed by the Community under this Regulation together with suggestions regarding the future of this Regulation and, where necessary, proposals for amending or terminating it. Although the time limit laid down in the Regulation expired on 24 October 2000, the Commission has still not notified the Budgetary Authority of the assessment and suggestions in question. Budget heading B7-6310 North-South cooperation schemes in the campaign against drug abuse in the European Communities' 2002 PDB therefore does not have a legal basis.

Has the Commission implemented commitment appropriations and payment appropriations under the aforementioned budget heading since 24 October 2000?

Is it aware that, in the absence of a legal basis, budget heading B7-6310 North-South cooperation schemes in the campaign against drug abuse cannot be implemented?

When will it submit the assessment specified in Article 12 of the above-mentioned regulation to the Budgetary Authority?

(1) OJ L 287, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2001)

The evaluation procedure referred to by the Honourable Member was launched by the Commission in 1999 and the evaluation actually started in January 2000. Its implementation suffered a major delay through no fault of the Commission but owing to difficulties encountered by the evaluator selected, some of which resulted from force majeure. The final report on the third stage (summary, conclusions and recommendations) of the evaluation should be presented to the Commission by the end of this year. The reports for the first and second stages have already been completed.

The budget heading still has a legal basis and commitments and payments were made after 24 October 2000. The appropriations committed for 2000 amount to EUR 5 360 000. The appropriations paid for 2000 amount to EUR 536 767. For 2001 the appropriations paid amount to EUR 2 916 772,80.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3508/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Europe should take action over anti-Semitic attacks by Islamic fundamentalists

Yesterday, in the Anderlecht area of Brussels, which is well-known as one of the areas of Brussels with a large number of nationals of non-Community countries and one in which a minaret was recently inaugurated, the Chief Rabbi, Albert Guigui, was subjected to an unprecedented physical attack by Maghrebi youths. The Jewish religious authorities immediately criticised the accommodating attitude towards the dissemination by Islamic fundamentalist circles of propaganda inciting people to anti-Semitism which was prevalent not just in Belgium but also in other EU countries.

In view of the above facts, does not Mr Romano Prodi, who lost no time in making an official visit to the Grand Mosque in Brussels after the events of 11 September in his capacity as President of the Commission, intend to make an official statement specifically endorsing the criticisms referred to above?

Does the Commission not believe, in addition, that it is necessary to take concerted action with the countries of the EU with a view to the adopion, as from the forthcoming Summit in Laeken, of measures to prevent and combat the dissemination of Islamic fundamentalist propaganda inside and outside mosques and Islamic centres, since this propaganda is responsible for the widespread hatred of Christians and Jews which is becoming increasingly obvious wherever there are fundamentalist centres of this kind, even in Brussels, the heart of the European Institutions?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission deplores any kind of aggression on grounds of race, colour, descent, religion or beliefs, and national or ethnic origin.

It recently adopted a proposal for a Council framework decision on the basis of Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union(1) with a view to ensuring that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States with effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties which could give rise to the surrender of persons in custody and could improve and encourage judicial cooperation by removing potential obstacles. All Member States should ensure that behaviour such as public incitement to violence or hatred as well as public insults or threats to individuals or groups for a racist or xenophobic purpose are punishable as criminal offences.

The religious or ethnic origin of the perpetrators and instigators of racist or xenophobic acts and of accessories thereto should not have any actual effect on the way the facts themselves are judged. The opposite would be tantamount to discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic group.

(1) COM(2001) 664 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2651/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: European arrest warrant

For some time, there has been much speculation within the European Union concerning the introduction of a European arrest warrant. The recent attacks in the United States and the possible involvement of accomplices residing within the EU particularly in Hamburg make this very topical.

However, at present there is no European criminal law on which the introduction of a European arrest warrant could be based.

On what European legal basis could such an arrest warrant be introduced?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2651/01 and E-2652/01given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission has presented its Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures(1) between the Member States of 19 September 2001.

The legal basis of that proposal is Article 31 b and Article 34(2) b of the Treaty on the European Union. The Commission also recalls that the 1999 Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council refers to the principle of mutual recognition and the abolition of the formal extradition procedure between the Member States.

The Commission's intention with the proposal is to replace the current extradition system by an entirely judicial procedure for surrender.

The Commission's proposal does not foresee a role for Europol in that procedure.

(1) COM(2001) 522 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2820/01

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Vietnam and effects of Agent Orange

The use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war was a humanitarian disaster, the effects of which are still being felt today.

Can the Commission explain exactly what assistance is being given to the victims of the Vietnam war who were affected by the use of Agent Orange and what assistance is planned for the future?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2421/01 by Mrs Ludford(1).

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 32.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3610/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Cross-border provision of services involving Austria and Italy

The Italian management of the Brenner Autobahn AG prohibits Austrian undertakings from performing contracts for the recovery of broken-down vehicles on the Italian side. Only authorised Italian vehicle recovery firms may recover broken-down vehicles on the Italian side. On the other hand, vehicles are recovered on the Austrian side by Italian organisations such as the ACI (Italian Automobile Association).

1. Is such prohibition of the cross-border provision of services lawful?

2. What steps will the Directorate-General for Competition take to prohibit this restriction on the freedom to provide services?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Up until now, the Commission had no knowledge of this type of obstacle.

The Commission regrets that it is not able to give an answer at present due to the absence of details on the nature of the arrangements in question and on their legal source (is this, for example, a legislative, regulatory or administrative text, or a decision taken under an exclusive concession or contract for the exercise of a public service activity, etc.?).

If it had these details, the Commission could examine the problem from the viewpoint of which provisions of Community law may be applicable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3409/01

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(13 December 2001)

Subject: Next intergovernmental conference

According to an article entitled Constitution postponed on p.19 of the German magazine Der Spiegel of 29 October 2001, the Council intends to let the dust settle on documents produced by the convention planned in preparation for the next intergovernmental conference. This conference would therefore not take place until after the European elections in summer 2004. Is this correct?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council does not usually comment on the content of press articles.

However, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that the European Council meeting in Laeken on 14 and 15 December 2001 adopted a declaration on the future of the European Union, in which it entrusted a Convention composed of the main parties involved in the debate on the future of the Union with the task of paving the way for the next Intergovernmental Conferences as broadly and openly as possible. The European Council proposed that the inaugural meeting be held on 1 March 2002 and that its proceedings take one year, in time to present its outcome to the European Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/01

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Comparisons of prices of important medicines

Prices of medicines are not transparent, and are difficult to compare.

Can the Commission provide a comparative overview of the price differences for:

1. 20 major medicines for cardiovascular diseases in the 15 Member States of the European Union?

2. 10 major medicines for diabetes in the 15 Member States of the European Union?

3. 10 major medicines for psychiatric diseases in the 15 Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

The Commission does not collect information on the prices of medicinal products. Some Member States are in the process of developing databases of comparative international prices. In addition, the World Health Organization has recently collected pricing data in 29 European countries for 25 innovative medicines. The results are set out in the brochure Policies on Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicines in Europe Networking for Information Exchange among Policymakers, 16-17 November 2000. Annex: Comparative Review of Drug Prices.

Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems(1) requires there to be a certain transparency of national decisions on prices of medicinal products and their reimbursement within the Community.

It is envisaged to proceed in 2002 with an evaluation of this Directive in order to investigate whether it needs to be amended.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/01

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Structural Funds: Objective 2 regions in Belgium 1994-1999

In the 1994-1999 programming period, the Verviers-Liège region was recognised as an Objective 2 region eligible for aid.

1. During that period, which projects (please give a detailed list of the individual projects) were approved and carried out within the relevant deadlines?

2. Which projects encountered problems with regard to the criteria laid down in the SPD and to the committed expenditure?

3. Were any applications submitted for the carrying-over of appropriations to the next programming period? If so, what is the total amount of the appropriations carried over?

4. For how long may such carried-over appropriations be drawn down?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

In order to answer the Honourable Member's question, the Commission obtained the following information from the Walloon authorities, who are responsible for managing this programme:

1. The list of projects approved by the Monitoring Committee for Objective 2 programmes in Liège in the 1994-1996 and 1997-1999 programming periods is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

2. Except for the Ensemble muséal d'art et d'histoire du pays de Liège (E-Mahl museum) project, which has been suspended following an appeal against the building permit to the Belgian Council of State, no project has encountered problems of the sort mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.

3. The authorities of the Walloon Region have made no requests to extend this programme into the period 1997-1999. A request was made for partial closure of the 1994-1999 programme, with the exception of the project referred to in point 2.

4. If the suspension on the project referred to in point 2 is lifted, the period during which it will remain eligible for Community part-financing will be determined at that time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3552/01

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Labelling regulations for the sale of fish, crustaceans and molluscs

Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 104/2000(1) sets out the comprehensive information for consumers that must appear on labels of fisheries products. The subsequent paragraphs of Article 4 and the relevant implementing regulation stipulate that the provisions will enter into force on 1 January 2002.

I understand from a number of fish processing companies in Germany and in other European countries that their resources are tied up completely in the changeover to the euro. For this reason, and because of the late publication of the implementing provisions, it will not be technically possible to produce the new label complying with the regulations until 1 July 2002.

Would it be possible to postpone the entry into force of the labelling provisions until 1 July 2002?

Does the Commission consider that the period of time between the publication of the implementing regulation in the Official Journal (second half of November 2001) and the entry into force of the consumer information provisions is reasonable?

(1) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

The Honourable Member's question refers to a postponement in the date of application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2065/2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards informing consumers about fishery and aquaculture products(1). Article 43 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products(2) states that the provisions on consumer information shall apply from 1 January 2002 and the Commission has no power to alter that date.

Some considerable time ago, the Directorate-General for Fisheries warned the sectors concerned about Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, the implementing rules for which were approved early in September 2001 by the Management Committee for Fisheries Products.

At the request of those sectors, the Commission agreed to introduce into the Regulation on information for consumers the possibility of marketing until stocks were exhausted products marketed or labelled before that date or in packaging which did not comply with the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 278, 23.10.2001.

(2) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1958/01

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: GM Field trials

Under Council Directive 90/220/EEC(1), two separate approval procedures are foreseen under Parts B and C. At the Community level there has been a de facto moratorium on authorisation for the placing on the

market of new GMOs, under Part C of the Directive. Which Member States, if any, have declared such a moratorium on the approval of GMOs under Part B of the Directive, i.e. a moratorium on field trials and other experimental releases?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware that any Member State in the Community has declared a moratorium on the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under Part B of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the number of notifications for Part B releases in the Community has decreased over the last three years. However, this decline may be related to many diverse factors and it would be premature to draw any conclusion from this development at the current time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3602/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Funding for water-treatment plants in more than 200 Andalusian villages

Around 200 villages in Andalusia, Spain, representing around 30 % of Andalusia's total population, are seeing the 2005 deadline for waste water treatment approach without work having been started on the necessary facilities.

Work on these facilities has been blocked until now by the lack of funds available to local councils, and little is being done at regional level other than seeking formulae which might make it possible to meet the 2005 commitment laid down by the EU.

Can the Commission offer any ideas regarding schemes used in other parts of the Community in order to tackle the issue of funding for water treatment plants, with a view to removing the obstacles affecting Andalusian councils in general and speeding up the construction of the installations required in line with the Community commitment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Possibilities for financing water-treatment plants vary from one Member State to another as they depend on whether or not the regions concerned are eligible for objective 1 of the Structural Funds or whether or not the Member State is a member of the Cohesion Fund.

Furthermore, the Commission has provided for a Community framework for State aid for protection of the environment(1). This public-private partnership (PPP) enables private undertakings to receive public concessions for both the construction and the operation of water-treatment plants.

Andalusia is able to benefit both from a PPP and from co-funding under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. For both these funds, the Commission would point out that the choice of individual projects is always at the discretion of the regional and national authorities.

For the Structural Funds, cofunding can be requested under the third priority Environment, natural surroundings and water resources of the Community support framework for Spain during the programming period 2000-2006. About 15 % of projects currently being cofinanced for Spain concern this measure.

With regard to the Cohesion Fund, waste-water treatment, water supply and waste treatment are priorities currently being undertaken. However, this does not ensure that the proposed investments will completely fill all current gaps and deficiencies in this area. In this context it has to be mentioned that gaps still exist in Spain regarding waste-water treatment facilities for large agglomerations. As deadlines for these agglomerations (in sensitive areas with more than 10 000 population equivalent (p.e.) and in normal areas with more than 15 000 p.e.) have already expired, it is at present a major priority to support these projects, rather than projects for agglomerations with less 10 000 p.e., which will have to set up a treatment plant by 2005.

(1) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.