ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Habitats Directive

Has the Commission received the UK Government's proposals for additional Special Areas of Conservation in accord with the requirements of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC(1)), and when does it expect to be in a position to respond to these?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) each Member State is required to transmit a list of proposed sites to the Commission for the habitat types listed in Annex I and species listed in II of the Directive native to their territory.

A seminar took place in The Hague from 5 to 7 June 2002 to evaluate the national proposals of each Member State of the Atlantic Biogeographic Region, in which the United Kingdom is entirely located. The conclusions of this seminar were that the proposed national lists of the United Kingdom and other Member States are incomplete.

No additional proposed sites have yet been transmitted to the Commission since this date. However, the United Kingdom has informed the Commission that preparations are at an advanced stage to identify additional sites and that a consultation procedure, which is a prior requirement in the United Kingdom before transmission of these sites, will shortly be launched. The statutory consultation period is three months. Therefore, it is expected that additional sites will not be formally proposed before the first quarter of 2003. The information provided by the United Kingdom and other Member States with their updated national lists will then provide the basis for subsequent evaluations to determine if these lists are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Use by the municipality of Rome of funding under the Daphne programme

In September 2002 the supervisory committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs presented a report on how EU funding has been spent.

The inquiry revealed the worrying slowness and inefficiency in the award of contracts by local authorities: commitments for 2000 accounted for only 2 % of the whole CSF.

Alarm at the inadequate use of European funding by local authorities has also been expressed by the Commission on various occasions.

A number of local authorities, such as the municipality of Rome, very much need to use European funding to combat abuse of women and children.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Rome has submitted projects under the Daphne programme;

2. whether the municipality of Rome has obtained funding for such projects;

3. whether the funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Since 1997 the following departments of the municipality of Rome have presented three proposals under the Daphne programme:

- in 2000: the Cultural Office of District VI;

- in 2002: Department V Social health policies;

- in 2002: Department XVIII Public safety policies.

The first two proposals were turned down. The third is on the list of potential candidates for financing in 2002 provided that it is accepted by the Commission's financial department. The Commission could contribute a total of EUR 246 829 for a maximum of two years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Radar installation on the island of Madeira

Madeiran environmentalists have warned the Commission about the problems caused by the construction of a large-scale radar installation on Pico do Areeiro, on the island of Madeira.

This is the only nesting place for one of the rarest birds in the world, the Madeira petrel, of which there are only around thirty known breeding pairs. This bird is protected by law under the European Union Birds Directive and the Bern Convention, and its habitat is also protected as part of the Life project.

Pico do Areeiro is part of an area covered by the natural park and is listed in the Natura 2000 network. The environmental impact study carried out by a team of experts linked to the University of Aveiro confirmed that the planned radar installation on Pico do Areeiro would have a number of negative consequences, particularly for the Madeira petrel, an endangered species.

Can the Commission say what position it has taken on the report sent by Madeiran environmentalists?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

The Honourable Member is referring to correspondence received from a group of citizens drawing the Commission's attention to the installation of a large-scale radar in the Pico do Areeiro area on the island of Madeira. This is located within the Maciço Montanhoso Oriental da ilha da Madeira, a special protection area designated by Portugal under Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1).

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, following an examination of the situation, it was decided that the correspondence should be registered as a complaint by the Commission's Secretariat-General and that the Portuguese authorities' attention should be drawn to the obligations deriving from the said Directive.

The Commission will be sure to keep the complainants informed of developments in the handling of the case.

(1) OJ L 103, 24.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Award of Commission contracts to audit firms

I gather from Mrs Schreyer's answer to written questions E-0372/02, P-0443/02 and E-0450/02(1) that the Commission awarded contracts in 1999-2001 for a total value of EUR 77 million to the private auditing firms of KPMG, Andersen Group, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

1. Can the Commission provide me with a full and detailed list of these contracts, stating for each one:

(a) the subject of the contract;

(b) the agreed fee;

(c) whether the contract was the subject of a proper tendering procedure in accordance with the Financial Regulation?

2. Can the Commission explain why contracts of this magnitude were given to private firms, even though the Commission has its own audit services and is also subject to detailed auditing by the European Court of Auditors?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 82.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that her question requires detailed research by its departments and that their findings will be set out in a supplementary answer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/02

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: European identity card

Article 17 of the EC Treaty confers citizenship of the Union on every citizen of a Member State. In the absence of a European identity card Community legislation stipulates that only two documents can be used to prove the nationality of a European citizen in the event of a check inside the Community a national identity card or passport.

In this context, does the Commission not consider that the relevant documents should also include the residence permit?

Does it not consider that a residence permit, precisely because it is issued by the public authorities of the place of residence on the basis of data taken from the national identity card or passport, is as valid and official as identity papers?

Does the Commission not consider that not recognising the residence permit, issued by virtue of a European legislative act, as valid evidence of identity would mean undermining the concept of European citizenship enshrined in the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2300/02 by Mr Bodrato(1).

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Shop for EU officials in Brussels (2)

In his answer to Question E-1412/02(1), the Commissioner says that access to the shop is restricted to EU officials only because of requirements of proof of identity and security.

Can the Commission tell me on the basis of what figures it has concluded that those entitled to enter would be at risk if (a) non-EU staff were able to use the shop or (b) EU staff do their shopping in another, ordinary supermarket?

On the basis of what criteria will the Commission decide whether or not to admit people to this shop? In other words, how do you obtain the right of access? Or, what steps must you take to gain access?

Can the Commission say whether external staff (e.g. maintenance, reception, catering and security staff) who work in the EU institutions but have employment contracts with outside companies will be able to make use of these shopping facilities?

Finally, does the Commission agree that non-EU employees in the European area face the same problems of pressure of time and accessibility of shops, and will it therefore open the EU shop to non-EU staff?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 120.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2002)

As I said in my reply to the Honourable Member's written question E-1412/02(1), the shop is in the basement of a Commission building and access to it is obviously via that building. Access is consequently limited in order to meet security and proof of identity requirements. The shop may be used by staff of all the European Institutions, by Members of Parliament and their Assistants, by staff of Permanent Representations and Embassies, by accredited journalists, by staff of certain other Institutions, such as Eurocontrol, and by other duly authorised visitors to the building. This would include any external staff who have the security or visitors badges that are necessary to give them access to the building at 27, rue de la Science.

If a formal proposal to open the shop to the public was received from Delhaize, the Commission would be ready to examine the possibility of acceding to such a request. In examining such a request, the Commission would have to ensure that the strict rules for access to Commission buildings were respected in order to guarantee the security of the staff in the building where the shop is located. It would also be necessary to verify that such a proposal would be in line with the terms of the lease of the building at 27, rue de la Science and that local planning regulations would permit the use of the premises as a shop that was open to the public.

The Commission is naturally aware that the area around the shop is not well served with shopping facilities and can understand that people who are not EU employees and do not fall within any of the categories listed above consequently encounter inconvenience. However, because of the objective considerations set out above the Commission is not in a position to change the provisions on access to the store in present circumstances.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 120.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Lack of information concerning EU funding of projects

The EU finances numerous projects in the cohesion countries in cooperation with those countries' authorities. It is a requirement that a sign be displayed at the sites of such projects informing the public of the EU's financial contribution towards their completion. The signs displayed in Greece, however, most frequently make no reference at all to the exact amount of the Community's contribution and simply state that the project is jointly funded by the EU. Likewise, in the case of the Athens Metro, only recently have three small signs been displayed without any reference to the exact amount of the Community's contribution. This is a serious matter since it gives the Greek public a false impression, plays down the importance of EU funding and creates the illusion that the Greek Government covers the lion's share of the overall cost of each project with only a nominal contribution from the Union.

Why do the Greek authorities not display the exact amount contributed by the Union to all the projects jointly funded in Greece, without exception? Why was it only recently (2,5 years after the opening ceremony) that small signs were displayed in Athens Metro stations merely stating that the project was jointly funded by the EU?

What precise instructions do the Commission's departments give to the Member States' authorities in regard to displaying signs to ensure that the public is not misinformed by them and that they do not serve the purpose of government propaganda?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The billboards for projects under construction and the commemorative plates for completed projects, which are or have been co-financed by the Structural Funds do not necessarily need to present the rate or the exact amount of the assistance. They must, however, refer to the fact that the project has been co-financed by the Community and to the specific fund which has contributed to it.

As far as the Athens metro and other completed projects in Greece are concerned, where no notice had been placed, the Commission identified this omission and wrote to the Greek authorities on 20 March 2002, asking them to take the necessary steps to comply with the provisions in force for the publicity of the projects co-financed in the period 1994-1999 by the Structural Funds. The Commission made specific reference to the Athens metro project in its letter.

It was only then that the signs referred to by the Honourable Member were placed in the stations of the Athens metro.

The Commission will continue its efforts to ensure that the rules on publicity for projects co-financed by Community Funds are respected by the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 20 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls on the Commission to co-finance, together with the Member States and the fishing industry, the necessary vocational and continuing training campaigns.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

What vocational and continuing training campaigns has the Commission co-financed since that date?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

In point 20 of the resolution to which the Honourable Member refers Parliament calls on the Commission to co-finance together with the Member States and the fishing industry the necessary vocational and continuing training campaigns.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1) (implementing Regulation for the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) includes training of fishermen in its scope: see the last indent of paragraph 4 in Article 11 (small-scale coastal fishing), point (k) in paragraph 3 of Article 15 (operations by members of the trade) and paragraph 1 of Article 17 (innovative measures and technical assistance). Training measures must be presented by Member States in the form of projects to be part-financed from the FIFG. There has not yet been any action of this type in the current programming period (2000-06) but it is still open to Member States to present part-financing applications for such training.

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund(2) includes as an aim promoting and improving training, education and counselling in the lifelong learning policy framework.

The types of activity implementing the policy priorities listed in the Regulation can include awareness-raising about and vocational training on safety and health in the work place. Action of this type has long been financed from the ESF in all economic sectors.

Under the principles of subsidiarity and decentralisation of Structural Fund management, the selection and management of actual projects falls to the Member State. The Commission has no detailed information on the amounts allocated by sector or training field. But it may be noted by way of example that the Spanish Operational Programmes Entrepreneurial initiative and continuing training for 2000-06 include as specific measures Awareness-raising and Continuing training in safety and health at sea.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Withdrawal of a medicinal product in Italy

Leishmaniosi is a tropical disease transmitted by an insect bite. Over the last few years it has been spreading through various parts of Italy and has even become endemic (i.e. firmly established in the regions concerned). In humans the disease manifests itself in the form of cutaneous eruptions which are easily treatable. Problems arise when it adopts its canine form, in which it is fatal. There exists an effective medicinal product produced by the Avensis pharmaceutical company under the name of Glucantin. It used to cost three euros per box used to, because it has been unavailable in Italy for some time.

This information is taken from the 17 November 2002 edition of the Italian daily newspaper Libero.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What reasons have prompted the manufacturer to withdraw the product in question from circulation within Italy?

2. Is the product still freely available in other European countries?

3. If so, is this on account of the fact that its price is much higher there than in Italy?

4. In any event, is it true that the product is still being manufactured by Avensis?

5. If so, is it right that, within a single internal market, a given product can be sold only in certain countries and not in others?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

1. According to information given by the competent authority in Italy, Ministero della Sanita, Aventis requested by 12 November 2002 a temporary suspension of the marketing authorisation for Glucantin in Italy due to manufacturing problems.

2. The product is still available in France and Spain.

3. Pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products fall within the responsibility of Member States. The Commission has no information in respect to pricing and reimbursement of the medicinal product Glucantin in the different Member States.

4. The manufacturing site is Livron/France. The manufacturer is Aventis.

5. National marketing authorisations for Glucantin were given according to Directive 2001/83/EC(1) by the competent authorities in the different Member States. This directive provides that medicinal products have to be authorised for the marketing in each Member State. There is no provision in the Community legislation obliging the marketing authorisation holder to ask in all Member States for a marketing authorisation.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2616/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Web pages published by the CSF administrative authorities in Greece

Project announcements are often posted on the Internet pages published by the administrative authorities of the CSF operational programmes in Greece without any deadline on the initial page (see, for example, the operational programme for agricultural development). On many occasions this causes considerable inconvenience to citizens or bodies who are interested.

Could the Commission intercede with the Greek authorities with a view to ensuring that the deadline for submitting proposals appears on the initial page?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

In several web pages of the Greek managing authorities of the sectoral and regional Operational Programmes (OP) of the Community support framework for the 2000-2006 programming period, there is indeed no distinction between open invitations to tender and those where the deadline has expired. Certain web pages, however, have provided this information (e.g. OP Information Society(1)) and the Commission intends to write to the Greek authorities inviting them to generalise this practice to all programmes.

(1) http://www.infosoc.gr/programme_main5.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2895/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Arrest of Mr Wei Jingyi, bishop of the unofficial Chinese Catholic Church

On 9 September Mr Wei Jingyi, bishop of the underground Catholic Church and former secretary of the Conference of Chinese bishops loyal to the Holy See, was arrested by police in the city of Qiqihar. This arrest seems to be part of a crackdown by the Chinese authorities in their deliberate policy of repression towards the spiritual authorities of the Catholic Church loyal to the Holy See, a Church which has more than eight million members compared with the state-sponsored Catholic Church which has five million members.

According to independent sources, fifty or so bishops belonging to the underground Catholic Church are currently in prison, under house arrest, under strict police supervision or in hiding.

Is the Commission aware of this arrest which comes after a long series of other arrests? Does it have any other information to suggest that this is a real crackdown on unofficial Churches? If so, what initiatives does it intend to take to prevail upon the Chinese authorities to respect freedom of religion and religious belief?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his information on the arrest on 9 September 2002, by police forces in Qigihar, of Mr Wei Jingy, priest of the non-official Chinese Catholic Church.

The Commission considers the freedom of religion and belief to be a fundamental human right, and raises this issue regularly in the framework of the Union's dialogue on human rights with China.

Regarding the situation of the non-official Catholic Church in China, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern. While the National Working Meeting on Religion, held in December 2001, appeared to signal a greater openness toward mainstream religions operating in China, recent information indicates that restrictions on Catholic underground churches have not been relaxed.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the Chinese government's respect for freedom of religion and belief, and will continue to express concern about violations of this fundamental right, including the on-going crackdown on persons exercising their religious beliefs.