ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1836/00

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Dionysos project put forward by the Innova association for inclusion in the Euromed Heritage programme

The Commission recently informed the Innova non-profit-making association that it was terminating the contract it had concluded with the association, covering the implementation of the Dionysos project under the Euromed Heritage programme. Not content with simply terminating the contract for what was acknowledged to be one of the most interesting projects put forward for inclusion in the Euromed Heritage programme, the Commission also asked the association to return all of the Commission funds it had already received.

This extremely heavy penalty places a question mark over Innova's future viability. As a non-profit-making association, Innova has very little in the way of own resources. Therefore, were the Commission to put its decision into effect, Innova's directors might well be forced to put up their own money in order to be able to reimburse the Commission, since under Italian law the directors of non-profit-making associations have joint and unlimited liability for any debts incurred by their associations.

Can this approach be the right one? How can one expect the general public in Europe to view the Commission's activities in a positive light if that body takes unilateral decisions that place Community citizens in an extremely difficult financial position, without allowing those concerned to put their own case? Would the Commission not agree that the action taken by its staff is, to say the least, disproportionate?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Dionysos Project was selected under the Euromed Heritage Programme and was to be implemented and managed by the Innova Association.

The Commission had noted on numerous occasions that Innova was failing to meet its contractual obligations and had warned the association to this effect. Despite this no measure was taken to comply with these obligations.

An audit undertaken at the Commission's request confirmed that a large amount of expenditure undertaken was not eligible and that the contract had not been respected (keeping of separate accounts, reports, interests, etc.).

The Commission terminated the contract and explained the reasons for its decision in a letter of 23 March 2000. The Commission has issued a recovery order for all the sum paid to the Innova Association in order to safeguard the Community's financial interests.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0860/00

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) and Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Mexico

Following the recent signing of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement, the Mexican authorities have expressed great satisfaction at the results obtained, inter alia, in the fisheries sector. Recently, a member of the Mexican government proudly stated that Mexico had extremely extensive fishing grounds and low levels of fish consumption in other words, the opposite to Europe. The same sources state that as Mexico did not, in the agreement, assume any obligation to grant licences to the EU, there is every likelihood of a large increase in exports of Mexican fish to the EU.

What are the provisions on fisheries of the free trade agreement with Mexico? Does it in fact include provision for EU vessels to be licensed to fish in Mexican waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2000)

The Decision adopted on 23 March 2000 by the Community-Mexico Joint Council, due to come into force on 1 July, provides for creation of a Community-Mexico free-trade area. Most trade in fishery products accounting for 74 million and 0,3 % of total trade would be liberalised over a maximum of ten years.

Establishment of the free-trade area will naturally result in more trade, to the benefit of both partners. The specific vulnerabilities of the Community industry have however been taken into account by means of deferred or partial (imposition of quotas) liberalisation for certain products.

The trade agreement has no provisions on fishery resources. Mexico is not therefore obliged to offer fishing licences to Community vessels. Nor does the agreement make entry into force of the trade concessions conditional on existence of a fishery agreement. Thus any increase in Mexican fish exports to the Community would result not from the lack of a fishery agreement but more accurately from the free-trade agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2186/00

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Introduction of the euro

What has the Commission done to ensure that preparations for the euro are both complete and thorough? Does it feel that it has been allocated sufficient financial and human resources to carry out this task? Are the actions of each Member State's government being monitored?

Can the Commission confirm that arrangements have been made which will allow national governments who are mainly responsible to provide immediate responses to possible practical questions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Preparations for the euro in the Member States are monitored by the Commission in two ways. First, it organises forums enabling discussion and the exchange of information between Member States and professional organisations. These include public administration networks (grouping the heads of the euro task forces in the Member States), director of communication networks (grouping the national directors responsible for communication on the euro) and the advisory group on practical aspects of the transition to the euro (comprising representatives of some twenty European professional federations). The Commission also sits on and services the working party of the directors of the national mints and organises regular meetings of more specialist groups (for example, the euro group of the European Consumers Committee, the Trade and Distribution Committee). Second, it regularly publishes studies monitoring the progress of preparations. These include the Quarterly note on the development of the use of the euro, the section of the Eurobarometer opinion poll on attitude to the introduction of the euro and the flash survey on preparations by small and medium-sized undertakings (SMEs).

The Directorates-General for Financial and Economic Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection, Enterprise and the Internal Market are working on these issues.

All the participating Member States have set up structures to coordinate the transition to the euro and to answer questions put by the general public.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/00

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Obligation of loyalty in the European Union

One consequence of the so-called bilateral measures introduced by Austria's 14 EU partner states in reaction to the accession to power of the Austrian ÖVP/FPÖ (Austrian People's Party/Freedom Party of Austria) Federal Government has been a succession of actions discriminating against Austria and its official representatives in the matter of EU information policy. The Austrian Ambassador in Paris, for example, was the only representative of an EU Member State not to have been invited to an information meeting devoted to the French Presidency's programme held in the French National Assembly. Such a policy can of course only be expected to disrupt the work of the multilateral meetings organised by EU or EC Institutions.

How does the Commission assess this situation, having regard to the need to uphold the loyalty and solidarity that constitute a crucial pillar of an operationally viable Union or Community and that commit not only the Member States in their relations with the Union or Community and its Institutions, but also the Member States in their dealings with each other, to reciprocal and loyal cooperation on a basis of solidarity?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

As the Commission has stated already in reply to the oral question H-0297/00 by Mrs Riis-Jörgensen during question time at Parliament's April 2000 part-session(1) the bilateral measures taken by the governments of 14 Member States with regard to the governement coalition in Austria, are not matters relating to the EU Treaty or EC Treaty and do not affect the rights and obligations of Member States under Community law.

A principle of loyalty and solidarity among the Member States that could be read out of Article 10 (ex-Article 5) of the EC Treaty is not violated here.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (April 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Combating discrimination against disabled people

The Commission has recently submitted a package of measures, including three directives, pursuant to the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, despite the fact that Article 13 recognises disability as an area in which the EU must take action to combat discrimination, the package does not contain specific measures for disabled people.

In view of this situation:

- How does the Commission intend to ensure that disabled people are properly catered for by the package of anti-discrimination measures?

- Has it formulated a proposal of any kind regarding the amounts, in euro, that are to be earmarked for these measures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1) explicitly addresses discrimination linked to disability. The instrument as a whole and the nature of the protection proposed by the Commission cover this type of discrimination. Besides, in order to ensure that equality of treatment for disabled persons is effective, the proposal also provides for a specific obligation concerning reasonable accommodation in this regard.

The proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination(2) also explicitly addresses discrimination linked to disability for all classes of measures provided for in the programme. However, the Commission considers it inadvisable to earmark funds for measures designed to deal with specific classes of discrimination.

(1) COM(1999) 565 final.

(2) COM(1999) 567 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2040/00

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Structural Funds

Can the Commission indicate how many million euro are to be received in aid from the Structural Funds by the Spanish regions of Andalusia, Galicia, Navarre, the Basque Country and Catalonia over the period 2000-2006? Can the Commission also provide a breakdown of these funds between, on the one hand, the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG and, on the other, the Community initiatives Leader+, Interreg, URBAN and EQUAL?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

It is impossible at the moment to estimate precisely the amount and breakdown of Structural Fund aid to the Autonomous Communities of Andalusia, Galicia, Navarre, the Basque Country and Catalonia over the 2000-2006 programming period. Negotiations on aid under Objectives 1 and 2 are still in progress with the Spanish authorities.

For Objectives 1 and 2 the Commission sent each Member State a proposed breakdown of available appropriations between the regions covered, drawn up using the same method for all Member States. Copies of the proposal for Spain will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

The proposal is however merely tentative and without prejudice to the establishment of multiregional thematic programmes for Objective 1. The actual breakdown will be agreed between Spain and the Commission on adoption of the Community support frameworks and single programming documents.

It is too early to say what amounts will be allocated to these regions under the Community Initiatives Interreg, Urban, Equal and Leader.

On European Social Fund aid for Objective 3, negotiations are in progress with the Spanish authorities. The total Objective 3 amount allocated to Spain is 2,14 billion (1999 prices), 38,07 % of which is regionally managed aid and 61,93 % centrally managed. The regional and multiregional breakdown of this amount, again merely tentative, will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1879/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Compensation for the ban on cod fishing in the northern part of the Irish Sea

Does the European Commission make funds available to Member States which may be used, at the discretion of the Member State Government, to make payments to fishermen as compensation for damage to their business caused by the imposition of the ban on cod fishing in the northern part of the Irish Sea?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1878/00 and E-1879/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of the terms of Article 16(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(1). This stipulates that Member States may grant compensation to fishermen and fishing-vessel owners, to be part-financed by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), in the context of a plan for the recovery of a resource threatened with exhaustion. The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that it is up to the authority managing the relevant structural programme to decide whether or not to grant such compensation, subject to detailed compliance with the above provisions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, 17 December 1999 laying down the procedures and conditions of the structural measures of the Community in the fisheries sector (OJ L 337, 30.12.1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1506/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Cost of transferring amounts reimbursed

I recently received via Western Union/GWK a payment of BEF 5 000 as reimbursement for the costs I incurred in attending a European Commission Conference in Amsterdam. This payment was made from rue Montoyer to rue Wiertz and cost BEF 630.

Does the Commission have any similar programmes for providing financial assistance to Belgian banks? Has it considered delivering such sums by taxi, as it would be cheaper?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Commission used the services of an external contractor to assist in the organisation and management of the conference at which the Honourable Member spoke. In normal circumstances the contractor pays daily allowances to speakers by bank transfer, but as the Honourable Member had been invited at short notice and had not spoken previously at a conference organised by this contractor, the bank account details would not have been available in time to ensure payment before the beginning of the conference.

In such exceptional circumstances the contractor uses an agreed procedure which involves the use of Western Union to make funds immediately available at any one of its offices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

In its answer to written question E-0028/00(1) the Council says that it is unaware of the statements by Mr Sklan on Turkey which I quoted. The statements in question are given verbatim in the text of E-0028/00 and are therefore known to the Council.

Since projects carried out by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are cofinanced by the Commission, I think it is right that the Council should adopt a position on this. After all, the nature of the activities and the statements made by Mr Sklan are of importance for the common foreign and security policy and enlargement of the European Union.

1. Can the Council therefore confirm that By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan, as stated by the Foundation's Mr Alex Sklan?

2. Does the Council feel that the term torture state used by Mr Sklan is applicable to Turkey? If not, does the Council belief that a member of a centre, cofinanced by the Union, for victims of torture and (military) violence is wrong to apply the term torture state to Turkey? How then does the Council explain the statement by Mr Sklan that: By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan?

3. Does the Council endorse Mr Sklan's view that Torture is endemic, routine, inherent in the enforcement of so-called law and order in Turkey'? If not, why not, and how can the Council's position be reconciled with the fact that, as Mr Sklan says: By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 162.

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Council confirms what it said in its answer to written question E-0028/00 about its attitude to statements by individuals.

As to the substance of the Honourable Member's question, the Council remains concerned about the human rights situation in Turkey, including the practice of torture. There are several serious reports about torture and ill-treatment in Turkey, not only from the south-eastern part but also from other parts of the country. In particular, detentions by the security forces have given rise to particular concern since the detention period may be increased to 10 days in several of the south-eastern provinces with the risk that during such extended incommunicado detention periods, often with the right of access to a lawyer being denied, torture and ill-treatment take place.

The existence of torture has been recognised by the Turkish Government. The Turkish authorities have taken some measures and announced plans for further action in order to put an end to the practice of torture in Turkey. The Council will continue to monitor the situation and to encourage Turkey to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights are fully respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: The Hallmarking of Precious Metals

At present, there is no harmonisation of weight limits above which hallmarking is compulsory. In the UK it is 7,78 gm for sterling silver, whereas in Holland it is 1 gm, causing problems when selling goods there, even when they have been marked by the Assay Office in Britain.

Would the Commission give further consideration to a practical solution to this, which would be to harmonise the weight limit throughout the EU, thus creating a level platform in the supply of precious metal jewellery?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

As already mentioned in previous answers to written questions from Parliament(1), no substantive progress is being made at the level of the Council on the Commission's proposal for a directive on precious metals(2). In the light of further analysis of the ruling of the Court of justice in the Houtwipper case(3), it seems excluded to impose, on the basis of Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty, a system of mutual recognition of national conformity assessment procedures based on the manufacturer's declaration and on hall marking. Given the continued stalemate concerning this issue, the Commission intends to verify with Member States the scope for a breakthrough in harmonization of national law.

(1) E-3158/98 of Mrs Ferrer (OJ C 207, 21.7.1999), E-3139/98 of Mrs Miranda de Lage (OJ C 142, 21.5.1999) and E-3029/98 of Mr Arias Cañete (OJ C 135, 14.5.1999).

(2) OJ C 209, 29.7.1994.

(3) Judgement of 15.9.1994 in Case C-293/93.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1750/00

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

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Elections in Kosovo

Kosovo's first local elections will be held this autumn. The success of this enterprise is crucial, since local democracy is the foundation for the region's political reconstruction, a goal in which the people of Europe are making considerable moral and material investment.

Will the Council take part in the preparation and monitoring of the election procedure, and also in the establishment and operation of the first municipal and communal councils that these elections will produce?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's assessment on the autumn municipal elections in Kosovo. At its meeting on 13 June the General Affairs Council emphasised the crucial importance of well-prepared municipal elections as the first step in establishing democratically legitimised institutions. On 20 June the Feira European Council reiterated its support for free and fair municipal elections in Kosovo mldr carefully prepared and properly monitored by the competent international bodies. It also stressed that extremist violence will not be tolerated and that mldr local leaders are strongly urged to live up to their responsibilities by actively contributing to the establishment of a multi-ethnic, tolerant society where refugees and displaced persons are able to return and in which all the people of Kosovo can live safely.

The Council is following very closely elections preparation (registration, observation etc.), for which the Council of Europe has been mandated by the International Community as leading Organisation (OSCE, UN, EU and others will also be involved). EU Member States will certainly contribute to the Council of Europe's efforts, both in terms of monitors and resources, as it has done in previous, equally delicate elections, following the CoE's indications. As regards the establishment and operation of the first municipal and communal councils after elections, UNMIK (responsible, under UNSCR 1244, for the interim administration of Kosovo) is at present preparing suitable arrangements for the provisional self-government of municipalities, in accordance with the letter of UNSC Resolution 1244. In order to support such work and to ensure the necessary follow-up, consultations are taking place in the framework of G-8 and the Contact Group, in which the EU Presidency and the Commission are also involved.