ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Net contribution to the common agricultural policy

In the second report on economic and social cohesion in the EU the Commission stated that Portugal was a net contributor to the common agricultural policy (CAP).

In answer to my Written Question P-0897/01(1) the Commission produced the figures on which it had based that assertion. According to the Commission, Portugal's net contribution to the CAP between 1989 and 1998 amounted to EUR 2 000 m, in other words over EUR 260 per inhabitant.

That being the case, can the Commission say whether Portugal is still a CAP net contributor? Using the same method as for the period between 1989 and 1998, can it supply updated figures for the period between 1998 and 2002?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 213.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 August 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0996/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1199/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Pisa

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 Pisa, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Comitology

The committees established pursuant to Decision 1999/468/EC(1), laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, comprise one representative per Member State, plus a Commission representative who acts as chairman.

Can the Commission tell me whether there is any problem in Member States' sending representatives of regional governments as members of these committees? How many regional representatives, if any, are currently members of these committees?

(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission would point out that the Member States are legally the members of the committees set up pursuant to Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(1) (see Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Decision and Article 6(1) of the standard internal rules of procedure of these committees). Consequently, it is for the Member States alone to decide on the composition of the delegations sent to represent them on these committees. There is nothing to prevent a Member State from designating representatives of a regional government as its representatives on a committee, provided that it is understood that these persons represent the Member State as a whole, not the regional government.

The Commission has no statistical data on the number of representatives of regional governments currently representing their Member State on the committees in question. It notes that regional representatives do not necessarily represent their Member State on a permanent basis; they may vary from meeting to meeting. This is true of the Socrates Committee and its subcommittees, on which Germany is represented by a representative of the Federal Republic and a representative of the Länder, internal responsibilities being divided between the two entities.

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1353/03

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Fiat works special EU subsidies

The Fiat works in Turin are to receive their own special EU subsidies towards developing the new generation of Euro 4-class lorries.

In this connection:

1. Is it true that the Fiat works in Turin are profiting from additional EU funds for the development of Euro 4-class lorries?

2. If so, how does the Commission justify this action?

3. Is this decision to be seen in connection with the current discussion of the arrangement which is to succeed the Austrian transit agreement and the planned exceptions for Euro 4-class lorries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

In response to the first part of the question posed by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not aware of any Union funds being given to Fiat for the specific purpose of developing heavy-duty vehicles that satisfy the Euro 4 emission standard. The second and third parts of the question therefore do not apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2060/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject: Medical devices containing derivatives of human blood

Since 13 June 2002, medical devices incorporating stable derivatives of human blood or human plasma have been subject to a new procedure for authorisation under Directive 2000/70/EC(1). The notified body must seek a scientific opinion from the EMEA on the quality and safety of the derivative of human blood. The usefulness of the derivative as a part of the medical device must be verified, taking account of the intended purpose of the device. The notified body may certify the device only if the EMEA has delivered a favourable scientific opinion.

It has become clear from the implementation of this certification procedure that the text of the directive is unclear with regard to the scope and intensity of the EMEA's competence when verifying such devices. In particular, it appears to be unclear whether the EMEA may verify only the derivative as such, or whether the directive is to be interpreted as requiring the usefulness, quality and safety of the derivative to be verified together with the medical device, taking account of the intended purpose of the device. If the latter interpretation is adopted as it has been by the EMEA then the content and duration of the entire procedure amounts in practice to a procedure for the authorisation of medicinal products plus an additional CE certification, with the corresponding duplication of checks by the notified body and the EMEA.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Will the Commission take action to remedy the problem? If so, what steps does the Commission propose?

(1) OJ L 313, 13.12.2000, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that Directive 2000/70/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma, raises some issues of interpretation on the role of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA).

The Commission and national authorities responsible for the implementation of the Medical Devices Directive have elaborated a modus operandi that respects the willingness of the Council and Parliament to distinguish EMEA's role with regard to blood derivatives and medicinal products. The modus operandi makes a distinction between substances for which an opinion (either by EMEA or a national authority) has or has not already been established and clarifies the scope of EMEA's involvement with respect to that of the Notified Body.

In the light of experience, the Commission may propose regulatory clarification of the Council Directive 93/42 EEC of 14 June 1993 on medical devices(1) as modified by Directive 2000/70 EC.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0529/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Cod recovery plan

At the December 2002 Fisheries Council, the Commission agreed to present a revised long-term cod recovery plan by 15 February 2003.

Given that the Commission has since acknowledged that this deadline will not be met, can the Commission give the European Parliament a date by which it will in fact present a revised plan? Furthermore, what timetable does it envisage for the adoption of the plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission is conducting consultations with Member States and stakeholders on this issue prior to present the proposal to Council. Following the further general consultation scheduled for 10 and 11 March 2003, the Commission will finalise its proposal that should be adopted towards the end of April or beginning of May 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Community productivity

One of the fundamental objectives of the Lisbon strategy is to increase the EU's productivity.

The European Union's low productivity, combined with a high rate of unemployment and the worrying slowness in technological innovation, is putting the Union's economy at a competitive disadvantage compared with the US and Japan.

There are important research centres in the Member States which are studying and carefully considering the issue of productivity, and their reflections should help us to adopt proposals to improve the Community's productivity.

Does the Commission consider that we are taking full advantage of the information provided by these centres?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

The Commission pays close attention to the findings of research centres in the Member States and also to those based in other parts of the world. Such research broadens the base of information which is used to formulate policy. The Commission is in contact with these research centres through networks, seminars, studies and reading the academic literature.

As regards productivity some examples of relevant research centres are the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and the Commission's own Joint Research Centre which has an Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS). In particular, IPTS uses external advisory groups, such as a group of eminent economists including Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, William Branson, David Ulph, Jean-Jaques Laffont and Christian von Weiszacker and also operates a series of networks such as the European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO) network which draws on the expertise of more than 40 institutions including all the major European think-tanks. An example of Commission contact with research centres is the Joint Research Centre's upcoming workshop on information and communication technology and productivity at which researchers from different centres will be speaking and attending. They will discuss the possible contributions of information and communications technologies to differences in productivity growth within Europe and between Europe and the United States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Abuse of a dominant position

Under Article 82, one or more undertakings cannot abuse a dominant position within the common market. Would the Commission comment on the abuse of a dominant position by two undertakings in Scotland, i.e. Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic, to the detriment of all other football teams in the country?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

It is true that one or more undertakings are prohibited from abusing a dominant position within the common market, where that abuse has an appreciable effect on trade between Member States.

However, such a finding in a particular case requires detailed factual and legal assessment. The Commission must examine the markets on which the undertakings operate, the position of the undertakings on that market, the behaviour which is alleged to be abusive, and the effect on trade of that behaviour. The question provides no information that could allow the Commission to identify the subject matter of the alleged abuse.

In the absence of more detailed information, the Commission cannot comment on the alleged behaviour of Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1440/03 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Council. Length of time a person should be made to spend in prison awaiting trial.



Official Journal 051 E , 26/02/2004 P. 0093 - 0093



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1440/03 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Council (24 April 2003) Subject: Length of time a person should be made to spend in prison awaiting trial Could the Presidency comment on why a young Scottish man accused and acquitted of rape by a Greek court in less than one day nevertheless spent almost a year in prison awaiting trial, and was also refused bail, when the charges were clearly unfounded? Reply (29 September 2003) The Council cannot comment on the handling of individual criminal cases in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Breach of EC's competition rules

I have been informed that in the ex-officio case 37926 (Sun/ETSI) with regards to the ETSI GSM 03.19 standard the European Commission was concerned that there could have been a breach of the EC's competition rules due to: (a) the late disclosure and identification by Sun of its claimed essential intellectual property rights (IPR) in this standard; and (b) the fact that from a technical perspective Sun's claimed essential IPR were not in fact essential.

In that case there might have been a restriction of competition in the sense of Article 81 of the EC Treaty because of:

- the standardisation agreement's effect of excluding actual or potential competitors from the market as a result of non-transparent procedures; and

- because of the non-indispensability of the standardisation agreement in the way that it had been formulated.

I warmly welcome the conclusions that have been adopted by the European Commission and would like to know what the Commission regards as necessary to ensure that similar problems such as those that have occurred with GSM 03.19 do not occur in the future.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

The Commission can confirm that in the case to which the Honourable Member refers, it has highlighted concerns to ETSI about the formulation of the ETSI GSM 03.19 standard.

More specifically, the Commission was concerned that an artificial barrier to entry in the market for GSM smart cards could have been erected as a result of:

(i) the late disclosure and identification of claimed essential intellectual property rights (IPR) in the standard; and

(ii) the apparent non-essentiality of the claimed essential IPR. The Commission is monitoring the follow-up of the situation in this ongoing case.

In general, the Commission believes that it should not be its role to interfere in the nature of the standard-setting process. In hi-tech markets especially, standards, if properly developed, play a positive role in promoting the efficient promulgation of new technologies in a manner that is most beneficial to the consumer and the economy in general. However, the Commission also believes that there may be exceptional cases where the disclosure and identification of claimed essential IPR in a standard after that standard has been agreed could constitute an artificial barrier to entry, because potentially competing technologies may be unfairly precluded from getting to the market. The Commission therefore believes that standard-setting bodies should devise their internal rules in such a way that these types of situations cannot occur. In this respect, the Commission understands that ETSI is undertaking a review of the implementation of its own IPR rules, and stresses the need for this review to deliver effective results.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2249/03

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 July 2003)

Subject: Situation of workers at the Sintel company (Spain)

Although it is now almost two years since they accepted the government's offer and conditions (agreement of 3 August 2001) designed to facilitate the introduction of a package of measures to resolve the crisis at Sintel with the involvement of all the parties concerned, the workers at the bankrupt Sintel company remain as defenceless now as they were when the crisis first arose.

The workers' legal representatives have still not been invited to meet with receivers, the government or the Telefónica telecommunications company, as a party involved in the bankruptcy procedure, given that the workers are the main creditors. Without the participation of the workers it is difficult to see how the agreement can be implemented.

It has been two years since bankruptcy was declared (by order of 28 May 2001) and yet no meeting of creditors has as yet been called to appoint official receivers, thereby making it impossible for the workers to exercise their rights as creditors. Many aspects of the agreement have not been complied with and the workers' rights have not been upheld.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Does it not believe that the Spanish Government ought to ensure compliance with the agreement reached with the workers at Sintel?

3. Will it say what action the EU is taking with regard to the Sintel case and the apparent failure on the part of the Spanish Government to honour the agreement?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The agreement reached between the companies concerned and the Spanish government on the one hand and the representatives of workers at the Sintel company on the other hand is governed by Spanish law. The Commission is therefore unable to comment on the application of the agreement, and it is the task of the competent Spanish authorities to ensure compliance with it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1903/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject: Transfrontier cooperation (Interreg)

The Commission's Second Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, published in January 2003(1), confirmed the need to continue actions to promote co-operation across frontiers and within regions. However, applying for Interreg funding is a complex process which, in particular, can inhibit participation by smaller organisations such as those in the voluntary sector.

Could the Commission indicate what steps are being taken to simplify and increase flexibility in the future operation of Interreg and to increase take-up by neglected sectors?

The Second Progress Report also indicated that, because of the different national administrative and legal traditions involved, the Commission had been asked to look into the possibilities of drawing up a legal instrument for cooperation across frontiers so as to facilitate the design and implementation of Interreg. Could the Commission state what progress has been made in this regard?

(1) COM(2003) 34 final.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Interreg projects are carried by a wider partnership and are jointly programmed and implemented by the various partners. These factors add more value to Interreg projects but can make them more laborious to implement because of the division of tasks and responsibilities involved.

Interreg projects also have to comply with the provisions applicable to the Structural Funds. The projects are particularly affected by the general effort to simplify, clarify and manage the structural policies more flexibly, as recently covered in a Commission communication(1).

A technical secretariat has been set up for each Interreg programme to facilitate access to funding and make it easier for potential beneficiaries to participate. One of the roles of the secretariat is to help those sponsoring projects to draw up their presentations and proposals.

The Commission is currently going into the possibility of drafting a legal instrument on cross-frontier cooperation to facilitate the planning and implementation of Interreg projects, as referred to in the second progress report on cohesion. It published an invitation to tender(2) for a study on decentralised cross-frontier cooperation and developing legal instruments for Community cooperation. The bids have been evaluated and a contract is due to be signed soon. The first effects of the study should be seen in the third report on economic and social cohesion due to be adopted by the Commission in December 2003.

(1) Communication C(2003) 1255 of 25 April 2003 from the Commission on the simplification, clarification, coordination and flexible management of the structural policies in 2000-2006.

(2) OJ S 22, 31.1.2003.