ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/942

(2004/C 78 E/0996)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0208/04

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject: Practical problems with town-twinning scheme

In keeping with the spirit of the Commission's White Paper on Governance, the town-twinning scheme forms part of the EU's endeavours to enhance European awareness through dialogue with its citizens with a view to their active participation in developments in Europe.

However, at a time when there is increasing emphasis on the importance of this process, particularly at this historic moment ahead of enlargement of the Union when there is a need to heighten the public's awareness of the significance of a European identity, the town-twinning scheme is running into problems. In breach of the procedure for the payment of subsidies in this connection, the programmes which were approved and carried out in March 2003 remain unsubsidised without any official notification or justification on the part of the responsible Commission department. Not only does this state of affairs negate the very objectives of the scheme, it also puts the local authorities in a very difficult position as they have borne the financial brunt of organising the scheme and are, obviously, accountable to their citizens.

Will the Commission state the reasons for the delays in paying the subsidies? What will it do henceforth to ensure that the twinning scheme operates as it should?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission attaches great importance to the town-twinning scheme and to the need for funding to be organised in a manner which is acceptable to beneficiaries.

With this in mind, the grant award system has been made as simple as possible. Calculations are based on flat rates, new simplified forms have been designed, and a user's guide has been produced for beneficiaries.

However, several factors influence the implementation of the scheme's funding arrangements.

For example, the new Financial Regulation has significant repercussions in terms of the award and payment procedures.

The Commission strictly adheres to the payment procedures contained in the call for proposals and the new Financial Regulation. The disbursement of grants is therefore dependent on the submission of documentary evidence by the beneficiary at the end of the activity. Although the volume of documentary evidence has been reduced, in nearly 25 % of cases beneficiaries have had to be contacted again because the documentation they submitted was incomplete. This is the reason for most of the payment delays.

Nevertheless, on the whole, the situation has improved considerably.

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that everything is being done to catch up on the backlog and pay the sums due as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/197

(2004/C 88 E/0203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0640/04

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

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Surprising presence of names of Union bodies such as OLAF in confused news from Israeli institutions with regard to the use of EU funds by the Palestinian President

In what appears to be the result of deliberate spreading of poisonous rumours by the Israeli administration and civic institutions there, there have recently been reports in the Spanish press which mixed up comments on the depositing of money in a Paris bank account held by the Palestinian President's wife, and the research apparently being carried out in Jerusalem by an OLAF delegation on a so-called Arafat dossier', organised by the current Israeli Health Minister, involving documents obtained by the Israeli army during the building of the illegal and shameful wall designed to reduce the extent of Palestinian territory and isolate the inhabitants of the West Bank from Palestine. What is the significance of the alleged activity of OLAF in this very confused situation? Have the Commission's services already responded to these reports, which appear to be designed to spread political poison precisely at the moment when there is talk of the Government of Israel appearing before the Hague court with regard to the building of the wall, and likewise talk of Prime Minister Sharon's own problems with the Israeli courts?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0559/04 from Mario Borghezio (1).

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, is investigating suspicions of possible misuse of Community funds allocated in the form of budgetary support for the functioning of the Palestinian Authority and has also opened an investigation into the financing of humanitarian and development projects mounted by Palestinian organisations and associations.

(1) See page 193.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/531

(2004/C 84 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Flight Times and Duty Limitations Proposal — COM(2002)0030.

Could the Commission outline the Council's reaction to its current proposal (1) to update Council Regulation 3922/91/EEC (2)? When does it envisage agreement on this proposal within Council? Does it intend revising its proposal and if so, how?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Council has been unable to adopt the proposal, essentially because it is linked to a proposal for a directive on the recognition of cabin crew qualifications. For that reason, and despite the Commission's efforts to overcome this position, which was expressed in December 2001, the dossier has remained frozen. In a bid to resume work on the dossier, and taking account of the amendment Parliament adopted in September 2002 on the limitation of flight time, which the Council did not wish to take into consideration, the Commission will in the next few days be putting forward a revised proposal incorporating Parliament's amendment.

(1) COM(2002)0030, OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2584/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Subject: EU banana arrangements

Has the USA indicated whether in its view the measures adopted by the Agriculture Ministers to counter the WTO decision meet the requirements of the WTO decision?

How can the EU banana arrangements be reconciled with the Commission's desire for free and liberal world trade without trade restrictions, and is there not a danger that third countries can use the EU banana arrangements as an object lesson/excuse for maintaining protectionist measures on their domestic markets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The United States have given some indication that it has some doubts about whether the revision of the common organisation of the market in bananas will necessarily meet World trade organisation (WTO) requirements.

The Commission believes that the revised banana regime is fully compatible with the legal requirements of the WTO and the provisions of the IVth Lomé Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3998/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 January 1999)

Subject: Funding for groups of children from the Socrates programme

The DIECEC network (Developing Intercultural Education through Cooperation between European Cities) deals with the educational needs of disadvantaged groups of children; its activities have been funded hitherto by the Socrates programme.

Following the recent revision of the Socrates programme, will the above network continue to be funded from that programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1999)

In the context of the Socrates programme, and in accordance with the procedures laid down in the applicants' guide, the Commission has supported specific projects submitted by transnational partnerships involving local and regional authorities which are members of the DIECEC (Developing Intercultural Education through Cooperation between European Cities) network. Furthermore, the Commission has contributed to supporting and developing this network.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the common position adopted by the Council (21 December 1998) concerning the second phase of the Socrates programme contains a specific action (Comenius, Action 3) aimed at supporting European networks working in the field of education. As a result, the procedures laid down in the context of the common position make it easier to provide financial support for organisations such as the DIECEC network, as they encourage participation by local and regional authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Aeroplane conversion plants

With reference to the proposal for a Council regulation on the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Vol. I, Part II, Chapter III of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (COM(98) 0098 final - 98/0070/SYN)(1), although the objective of this proposal is laudable, this being to improve both protection of the environment and air transport safety whilst at the same time safeguarding existing programmes for the renewal of the fleets of European Union airlines as laid down in Directive 92/14/EEC, I would take issue with the exemption laid down in Article 4(2) in respect of civil aeroplanes exclusively operated outside the territory of the Community or in the overseas departments of France.

In view of the strain which the proposed directive will place on air freight companies because those aeroplanes are relatively older and mainly use airports at night, can the Commission devise procedures to prevent the likelihood of flags of convenience springing up by virtue of the temporary exemption laid down in Article 3(3), which would lead to unfair competition against Community undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

Since the prime objective of the proposed measure is to prevent a further worsening of the noise at airports located in the European territory of the Community, it was not justified to include in the scope of the measure aircraft which are not operated in that territory. This would impose an unreasonable economic burden on certain operators without any environmental benefit for the most noise sensitive airports in the Community. If the Commission receives complaints of any abuses of the exemptions possibility, it will of course act upon them in accordance with established procedures.

(1) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/01

by Jean-Charles Marchiani (UEN) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Languages used in the defence sector in the European Union

Can the Council state what languages are used in Eurocorps and the Standing Military Committee?

In view of the fact that French and German are by virtue of demographic realities by far the most widely spoken mother tongues in the European Union, does it not feel that they ought to be retained - both for historical and political reasons - as priority languages within European military structures?

Can it explain the reasons behind the use of English within such structures?

Does it believe, both in the interests of efficiency in time of crisis and in the light of the prevailing cultural realities in Europe (existence of three major language branches, i.e. Latin and Gallo-Latin, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon), that it would be appropriate at the very least to limit oneself to the use of French, German and English?

Given the prospect of the establishment of a genuinely independent European defence policy, does it not believe that the unjustified and excessive use of English sends out, by analogy, a very poor message to Europeans?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The official languages of the institutions of the European Union are Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. All the texts related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP) which are submitted to the European Council or to the Council are translated into all these official languages.

However, in the area of the CFSP, as well as in the CESDP which forms an integral part of it, exchanges of information among Member States and meetings at official level are currently conducted in English and French on the basis of the Declaration on the use of languages in the field of the CFSP (Declaration No 30, Treaty of Maastricht).

The rules and practices described above also apply to the Military Committee which is a Council body. The use of language(s) in multinational European military structures or formations not belonging to the European Union, such as Eurocorps, is not a matter for the Council but for the contributing countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1986/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Relocation of students to neighbouring countries and brain drain of qualified recruits owing to shortage of obstetric assistants in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware that a large percentage of births in the Netherlands take place at home, in which case the services of an obstetric assistant (formerly midwife) are required?

2. Is the Commission also aware, given that 120 deliveries per obstetric assistant per year is the absolute maximum and that there is at present a great shortage of obstetric assistants, that, at present rates of childbirth, the Netherlands would require the services of 240 new qualified obstetric assistants annually to ensure safety in childbirth at home?

3. How does the Commission assess the fact that training establishments in the Netherlands have long since had to reject two thirds of registered applicants for courses in this specialisation as a consequence of cuts in training facilities and inaccurate population forecasts, with the result that present training numbers have fallen far behind actual demand?

4. How does the Commission assess the fact that for the past ten years, half the students in midwifery training in the Belgian city of Turnhout have been Netherlands nationals, and that 50 new Belgian-trained obstetric assistants join the profession annually in the Netherlands, while yet other obstetric assistants from outside the Netherlands are also being recruited to make good the present shortage there?

5. What action does the Commission think must be taken to prevent the Netherlands from placing disproportionately high demands on training places in neighbouring countries and on qualified obstetric assistants from other Member States?

Source: Nederlands 3 TV, Zeven Dagen ('Seven Days'), 17 June 2001

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2001)

1. and 2. Response to points 1 and 2: The Commission notes with interest the information provided on the number of obstetric assistants and the professional situation of these assistants in the Netherlands.

3. The Commission underlines that, according to Articles 149 and 150 (ex Article 126 and 127) of the EC Treaty, the Community has to fully respect the responsibility and competence of the Member States for the organisation of educational and vocational training.

4. and 5. The Commission fully supports the cross-border mobility and training of students and trainees under Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty.

In addition, one of the aims set out in the EC Treaty is to facilitate the free movement of professionals within the Community. Consequently, the Commission can only support the right of fully qualified professionals in one Member State to pursue their professional career in another Member State. Furthermore, training conditions for midwives are subject to co-ordination within the Community (Directives 80/154/CEE and 80/155/CEE(1)). Consequently, there is automatic recognition of midwives' diplomas which fulfil the conditions required by these Directives.

(1) OJ L 33, 11.2.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0960/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Nomination for Presidency of the ICAO

Germany has raised the matter of a nomination for the Presidency of the ICAO. Coreper, however, has so far been unable to agree on a joint decision to support Germany's nomination despite the fact that there is no other European candidate.

Does the Council consider that this situation is in keeping with the pursuit of European integration and a common foreign policy, to which the Union constantly aspires, and does it intend to nominate a joint European candidate?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

The Council can confirm that Germany raised within the Council bodies the matter of a nomination of a German candidate for the Presidency of the ICAO Council. All Member States have expressed their support for this candidature.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/02

by Hans Karlsson (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2002)

Subject: Distortion of competition by state aid

The internal market is a cornerstone of the European Union. In order for the internal market to operate and for the Member States to develop the Community, all businesses must compete on roughly equal terms. At present, however, the terms are not equal because some sectors are receiving state aid. Germany is one of the countries which the Commission examined this year and which was found to have paid out unlawful state aid to set up and develop a sawmill. Commission decision 2002/468/EC(1) requires Germany to recover the state aid granted. Despite that, Germany plans to grant further state aid for a number of development projects in the German forestry industry, which include the Stendal pulp plant at Sachen/Anhalt, Klausner Nordic Timber at Wismar and Stallinger GmbH at Munkran.

In view of these plans, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that state aid already paid is recovered and what initiatives will it take to prevent further payments of state aid?

(1) OJ L 165, 24.6.2002, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The State aid, which Member States are allowed to grant, is subject to published rules. Article 87 (2) and (3) of the EC Treaty foresees exceptions on basis of which State aid may be considered to be compatible with the common market.

The aid Germany intends to grant or has granted to Zellstoff Stendal, Klausner Nordic Timber and Stallinger GmbH consists of investment aid based on regional considerations. The rules for such type of aid are not specific to a certain sector. The three projects are located in Eastern Germany, which is considered to be one of the less-favoured regions within the Community. In these regions aid can be granted up to a level fixed by the Commission in order to promote the economic development of these regions by supporting investment and thus job creation.

In cases where the Commission has found aid granted by a Member State incompatible with the EC Treaty it orders that the Member State concerned recovers the incompatible aid. The Member State is obliged to inform the Commission about its efforts on the recovery and the Commission closely monitors the recovery.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3026/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 October 2002)

Subject: EU-Sudan relations

Would the Council give details of the current status of its dialogue with Sudan, and the purpose of it? This should include details of the personnel involved, the structure of the dialogue, progress made and the role of the Council.

Would it also give details of the current position and immediate and long-term objectives of the dialogue with Sudan?

Reply

(4 March 2003)

The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to take note of the answer it gave to the question E-2409/02 of Mr Bob van den Bos on Sudan.

In keeping with the conclusions adopted at the meeting on 17 June 2002, the Council confirms that the EU objectives in the political dialogue with Sudan still remain valid and that account will be taken of the progress made not only in the peace process but also on the benchmarks of the political dialogue (human rights, democracy and the rule of law). The Government of Sudan will have to demonstrate progress on the benchmarks of the political dialogue (human rights, democracy and the rule of law) as a condition for normalisation of relations with Sudan. The EU continues to support humanitarian operations and reiterates its commitment to support initiatives for a peace agreement.

With regard to the personnel involved, regular meetings between Head of Missions (HoMs) and Sudanese authorities take place in Khartoum. Apart from contacts with civil society HoMs met also with SPLM representatives this year. Since the renewal of the dialogue in 1999 one annual meeting takes place in Khartoum with an EU Troika at senior official level to assess progress on the benchmarks of the political dialogue defined the previous year. The last Troika mission to Khartoum took place on 9/10 December 2002 and has reported the EU readiness, once a comprehensive peace agreement is signed, to accompany the Sudan in a new process of peace and development by normalising relations and resuming development cooperation.

With regard to Sudan, the Council regularly reviews the situation and makes the necessary policy adjustments whenever the need arises.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3621/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Local abattoir facilities Western Isles of Scotland

Written question E-2293/02(1), asked by me and answered by Commissioner Byrne, gave an encouraging response to the possibility of support being given using Community funding under the Highlands and Islands programme to small local abattoirs, in order to bring such establishments up to required standards and ensure their viability.

Can the Commission confirm whether Mr Byrne's encouraging response took into account state aid rules, and that therefore no restriction would be applied under state aid rules to the type of assistance envisaged in that response?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 215.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

As far as state aid is concerned, point 4.2 of the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector(1) apply. As a general rule aid granted to support investments in connection with the processing and marketing of agricultural products may only be granted to enterprises which can be demonstrated to be economically viable, based on an assessment of the prospects of the enterprise, and which comply with minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare. No aid may be granted unless sufficient evidence can be produced that normal market outlets for the services concerned can be found. For small local abattoirs, this has to be assessed at the appropriate level in relation to the services concerned, the types of investments, and existing and expected capacities.

As already the Commission has pointed out, investments for the establishment of small local abattoirs may be eligible for aid within the framework of the structural funds programme for the Highlands and Islands under Objective 1 (Article 25 28 of Council Regulation (EC) 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(2)).

The Scottish authorities have to assess if these conditions are met in the case of investments for local abattoir facilities in the Western Isles of Scotland and should notify to the Commission if state aid in the sense of Article 87 paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty is concerned.

(1) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.