ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0212/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE)and Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Prestige disaster and European civil protection

Have the Member States affected by the oil slick resulting from the Prestige accident made use of the European mechanism for coordinating civil protection assistance interventions?

Can the Commission give details of the aid mobilised to date, the time needed for this and the States that have provided aid?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

Member States affected by the oil slick from the Prestige requested assistance via the EU Response Centre for civil protection(1) that was activated on the day of the accident (13 November 2002).

The EU Response Centre, following the request of the Spanish, the Portuguese and the French authorities, launched eight different requests for assistance of specialised vessels, aircraft, equipment and experts to deal with the response to the pollution. The first request was launched on 14 November 2002, the last on 9 January 2003. Following the accident, an impressive quantity of resources, including 15 oil-combating vessels, more than 20 kilometres (kms) of booms and a number of specialised surveillance aircraft, were put at the disposal of the competent national authorities.

The Response Centre of the Commission, in co-ordination with the Spanish authorities, also acquired satellite images of the area in the framework of the Charter Space & Major Disasters.

In co-ordination with the Spanish authorities, the Commission promptly set up a mission of observers from the majority of the Member States who visited Galicia from 24-27 November 2002. The Community's mission enabled 24 experts, appointed by the national governments, to acquire specific experience in dealing with this type of emergency.

The possibility of sending a Community task force, consisting of experts made available by the Member States, was offered to the Spanish authorities.

Moreover, the Commission has proposed the participation of European experts in the Scientific Committee established by the Spanish authorities in order to assess issues relating to the wreck of the Prestige.

An environmental impact assessment survey will probably be carried out, pending confirmation from the Spanish authorities. The Commission will contribute up to EUR 300 000 to such a survey.

The Commission adopted on 5th of March a report(2) concerning past, present and future actions undertaken at the Union level in order to remedy the consequences of the Prestige disaster and to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future. This report will be submitted to the European Council of 21 March.

(1) Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

(2) COM(2003) 105 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

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 Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 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-0873/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Designation of yoghurt

Changes made by the Spanish government last June to the quality standard for yoghurt intended for the internal market allow pasteurised milk-based desserts to go under the name of yoghurt. Following this change, a well-known Spanish dairy company has introduced on the market yoghurt pasteurised after fermentation. As a result of this new state legislation, the new product can legally bear the name of yoghurt, even though it has neither of the two basic characteristics of the traditional yoghurt that are very familiar to the consumer: being a fresh product and containing living micro-organisms that benefit health by enriching the intestinal flora.

Fresh yoghurt (in existence for over 4 000 years) has always been considered beneficial to health, as confirmed by numerous scientific studies. A large number of living and active bacteria (traditionally Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus termophilus) form the basis of fresh yoghurt and, when consumed, have a positive effect on health. In order for these bacteria to stay alive, they must be kept refrigerated.

Yoghurt pasteurised after fermentation is produced in the same way as conventional yoghurt, but during pasteurisation the heat destroys the living lactic ferments so that the product will keep for longer. Yoghurt manufacturers have stated that, following the destruction of the living lactic bacteria, pasteurised yoghurt does not bring as many benefits to the body as fresh yoghurt, although this process does turn it into a long-life product, allowing it to be distributed outside the cold chain.

I am aware of the fact that Community guidelines tend to enforce clear and transparent consumer information about consumables, covering not only quality and safety, but also nutritional value. On this basis, does the Commission not think that the designation yoghurt pasteurised after fermentation is unclear and amounts to misleading advertising, which leads to confusion among consumers who associate yoghurt with products containing living organisms? What does the Commission intend to do to solve this problem and protect consumers from this kind of confusion?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-0027/03 by Mr Pasqua(1).

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 147.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Freedom of establishment and the securing of authorisation to carry out roadworthiness tests on vehicles in Germany

Restrictions on the freedom of nationals from one Member State to establish themselves within the territory of another Member State are prohibited under Article 43 of the EC Treaty, save where they are justified in the public interest. Those restrictions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice as including rules or provisions which apply both to nationals and to non-nationals alike but which in practice make it problematic or less advantageous for nationals from one Member State to establish themselves in another.

Annex VIIIb of the 28 September 1988 Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO) lays down the requirements which bodies wishing to carry out roadworthiness tests in Germany must fulfil in order to secure the necessary authorisation from each federal state. One such requirement is that of submitting a series of documents and demonstrating that certain conditions of a practical nature have been met, including one to the effect that the body seeking authorisation must comprise a minimum of 60 independent experts and that a minimum number of those experts must be based within the country in which recognition is being sought.

Does the Commission not think that insisting that those requirements be met before authorisation can be granted restricts freedom of establishment, since it calls for business investment to be made and entrepreneurial risks to be taken in advance? In practice, this makes it less attractive for a national from some other Member State to set up a vehicle roadworthiness testing business in Germany.

Does the Commission not consider that the requirements laid down under German law place disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of establishment, even if such restrictions may be justified in the public interest?

Does the Commission not consider the German law in question to be incompatible with the general principles underlying Council Directive 96/96/EC(1) of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers?

(1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the circumstances described by the Honourable Member.

It does not have detailed knowledge of the legislation in question and will lose no time in investigating the matter.

The Commission will naturally inform the Honourable Member of the results of its enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0416/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Historical objects that belonged to André Breton

According to reports in the Greek press, the family of André Breton, the extremely important poet who published the First Manifesto of Surrealism, has decided to auction off the objects from the apartment where he lived until his death. The family has taken this decision following unsuccessful negotiations with the French Government to turn the apartment into a museum.

The Breton collection includes books (many signed by Trotsky and Freud), correspondence, pictures by surrealists such as Miró and Magritte, a huge number of photographs, which are considered by experts to be unique documents in the history of surrealism, and hundreds of other objects. In total, there are 5 500 objects, with a value estimated at between EUR 30 million and EUR 40 million. André Breton is the man who gave common European culture a different dimension. His work changed the status quo of the whole spectrum of the arts, and is a highly significant reference point not only for French culture but for European culture as a whole.

What does the Commission intend to do to protect the extremely important cultural estate of the great European surrealist? How does it view the idea of buying the objects and placing them in some special location, or even promoting the idea of creating a museum, which would in addition constitute yet another element in a common European cultural identity?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3289/02 by Mr Borghezio(1)

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 190.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Structural inspections of ships

Does the Commission accept that European citizens are entitled to know whether the current inspection regime for ships is likely to be effective in preventing tragedies like the sinking of the ERIKA and Prestige?

The Commission in its answer to Written Question P-3484/02(1) has entirely failed to address the issue of structural inspections referred to in the penultimate paragraph. Could the Commission now address those issues?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 95.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission considers it unrealistic to expect current port-State control procedures to be sure to detect structural damage to ships such as that which affected the ERIKA and the Prestige.

For this reason, International Maritime Organisation instruments and Community regulations on single-hull tankers provide for the introduction of a system of structural inspections of ships, known as the condition assessment system (CAS).

The condition assessment system (CAS) introduced under Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94(1) is an additional reinforced inspection scheme, specifically developed to detect structural weaknesses in single-hull oil tankers over 20 000 tonnes which have not yet attained their age limit. It is carried out every two and a half years by the flag State and by classification societies acting on its behalf.

Following the wreck of the Prestige, the Commission drew up a proposal for an amendment to Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (see the Communication of 20 December 2002)(2) on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers, and reinforcing the inspection procedures. Accordingly, from 2005, the Commission proposes the extension of that measure to single-hull oil tankers of all categories still in use, including those below 20 000 tonnes, once they have attained the age of 15 years. Political agreement was reached on the proposal at the Transport Council on 27 March 2003.

In order to apply these measures beyond the Member States, the Commission plans to coordinate action against flags of convenience by improving the supervision of maritime administrations and recognised bodies which check the structural integrity of ships. The first steps were taken to create an audit procedure at the Tokyo ministerial conference in January 2002 and the idea was supported by the Commission in its White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide(3).

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.

(2) COM(2002) 780 final.

(3) COM(2001) 370 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

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 Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 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-1020/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Livorno

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 EU subsidies include a support programme to foster the twinning of European cities and that many Italian cities, including the municipality of Livorno, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects to benefit from funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0864/03, E-0886/03, E-1017/03, E-1018/03,E-1019/03, E-1020/03, E-1021/03, E-1022/03, E-1023/03, E-1024/03,E-1025/03, E-1026/03, E-1027/03, E-1028/03 and E-1029/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Twinning is funded centrally.

The grants are awarded by the Commission on the basis of projects presented by local authorities or twinning committees.

The grants are not paid until after the event, following submission of supporting documents.

The participation of local authorities in town-twinning activities is arranged via the publication of an annual call for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.

With regard to the Honourable Member's questions the municipalities of: Fiumicino (E-0886), Frosinone (E-0864), Ancona (E-1017), Florence (E-1019), Livorno (E-1020), Macerata (E-1021), Perugia (E-1023), Pesaro (E-1024), Pisa (E-1025) Pistoia (E-1026) Siena (E-1028) and Terni (E-1029) did not obtain funding for the organisation of twinning events in 2000.

The municipalities of Carrara (E-1018) Massa (E-1022) Prato (E-1027) received funding for twinning in 2000. These funds were used.

The Honourable Member might wish to contact the local authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Investigation by OLAF and the Bari Public Prosecutor's Office into the use by the Puglia Regional Council of funds earmarked for professional training

The answer to Question P-0656/01(1) indicates, with regard to the use by the Puglia Regional Council of funds earmarked for professional training, that:

- OLAF opened an investigation on 28 July 2000;

- the Commission has given its authorisation for one of its officials, an expert in European Social Fund financial procedures, to be interviewed by the Bari Public Prosecutor's Office.

1. Has OLAF interviewed the lawyer Giuseppe Di Donna, former member of the Puglia Regional Executive with responsibility for professional training?

2. Has the OLAF investigation been completed? If so, what were its findings?

3. Has the judicial investigation by the Bari Public Prosecutor's Office been completed? If so, what were its findings?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 234.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

In its reply to Question P-0656/01, the Commission indicated that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) launched an investigation on 28 July 2000 which is still under way. OLAF is continuing to provide assistance to the Bari Public Prosecutor's Office in this connection.

The Commission would draw attention to OLAF's statement that under Regulation (EC) No 1073/99(1) it cannot pass on information relating to the investigation, including the names of the people who may have been or may be interviewed.

It suggests that the Honourable Member contact the Bari Public Prosecutor's Office about the judicial investigation which it is conducting.

However, it would point out to the Honourable Member that it has initiated a procedure to suspend the Community contribution to projects which have had assets seized by the Italian magistrature.

This procedure, which has already been completed, should result in a few days' time in the adoption of a decision to suspend the contribution from the European Social Fund (ESF) to the 1994-1999 Puglia operational programme (OP), which totals EUR 12 996 932, pending the outcome of the judicial investigation.

(1) Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/03

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Artificial tanning

The use of solariums for artificial tanning has become increasingly common. Given the associated risks for human health, specifically the risk of skin cancer, the fact that more and more very young people are using solariums gives particular cause for concern.

This development has led some countries, including Brazil, to prohibit access to these artificial tanning establishments for people under 16 and to impose conditions on access for people between the ages of 16 and 18. The countries concerned have established heavy financial penalties for any commercial establishment failing to comply with these obligations.

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the precautionary principle is applied to the use of solariums by people under 18?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan is presently reviewing and updating the European Code against Cancer, a project financed under the Europe against Cancer programme. This review will include recommendations on avoiding excessive Ultra-violet (UV)-light exposure, and more recent epidemiological evidence on the link between sunlight UV exposure and skin cancers. The exposure induced by UV sunbeds is going to be included in the discussion. The new recommendations will be announced in June 2003 in Milan. The draft version is already accessible for discussion on a special web site (http://www.cancercode.org/code_06.htm). The Commission will actively disseminate the outcome of this project in order to enable citizens to take adequate precautions with regard to this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/03

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Council

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Election of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

Did the concurring vote of the EU Member States, who abstained from the vote on Libya for chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, thereby allowing Libya to become the international community's spokesman on respect for human rights, stem from a common position adopted within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), or from another arrangement? Does the Council feel that this appointment is likely to enhance the credibility of the United Nations system?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council can confirm to the Honourable Parliamentarian, that the decision of the 7 EU Member States to abstain from the vote on 20 January 2003 was the result of a common position of the European Union adopted within the framework of the CFSP.

Whether Mrs al-Hajjaji's appointment will enhance the credibility of the UN system very much depends on how she conducts the work of the UNCHR during CHR 59. From her previous track record in the CHR, there is every reason to hope that Mrs al-Hajjaji will carry out her duties in chairing CHR 59 with all the competence and professionalism required.