ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0389/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Programme to combat the use of drugs in Greece

The aims of the Union's strategy on drugs are to reduce use and addiction, particularly among the young, and to increase substantially the number of recovered addicts. According to the report of The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for 2000, Greece continues to exhibit a rising trend in sudden fatalities, while rehabilitation facilities fall short of the number of people seeking treatment. Typically, public psychiatric clinics have no beds available for drug addicts for the withdrawal period.

Since the Union has specific objectives, a programme and a timetable for measures to combat addiction, will the Commission say whether Greece has submitted a programme and a timetable for action? What are the Commission's views in that regard? What measures are funded by the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

According to the Annual Report 2002 of the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the Greek Ministerial Council approved a number of decisions in June 2001 directed towards a holistic, unified and co-ordinated policy on drugs. According to the report, the government committed itself to introducing a five-year national action plan on drugs with specific targets. Further development of the treatment services for the drug addicts is part of this policy.

Greece has also taken part in the mid term evaluation of the Union Action Plan on drugs 2000-2004 by submitting to the Commission information concerning the implementation of the targets set for the Member States in the Union Action Plan. A final evaluation of this Action Plan will take place in 2004.

Greece has participated in many of the Community Action Programmes against drugs and drug dependencies from 1996-2002, but the projects subsidized within this programme aim at prevention rather than cure. The treatment systems set up in the Member States for the treatment of drug addicts do not fall within Union competence but are the responsibility of the Member States. Funding for the reintegration of the former drug addicts to the labour market e.g. through education may have been made available through different non drug specific programs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0493/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Consumer Credit Directive and the fight against financial crime

The Consumer Credit Directive, in its current format, runs the risk of preventing the sharing of data for the purposes of identification of customers, fraud prevention or money-laundering prevention. It will have the following adverse effects:

- Anti-fraud data-sharing schemes such as CIFAS and HUNTER, which help building societies to prevent fraudulent mortgage advances of approximately GBP 25 million per year, would come to an end. This would leave them open to exploitation.

- By lending to fraudsters, building societies take on more bad debt, and then inevitably have to pass the cost of this on to genuine customers.

- If building societies are unable to carry out anti-money-laundering identification checks by sharing data, their ability to comply with the 1993 Money Laundering Regulations and 2001 FSA rules would be put in jeopardy.

What plans does the Commission have to take these factors into consideration?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

The proposal for a new Directive on credit for consumers(1) lays down provisions on information collected by lenders and intermediaries from consumers, guarantors or third persons in connection with the conclusion and management of credit and surety agreements covered by the Directive. These provisions provide that processing of the obtained information has to be limited to the purpose of assessing the financial situation of the consumer or guarantor and their ability to repay.

The focus of the proposal for a Directive is the lender (intermediary)/borrower relationship and the purpose of the restrictions is to avoid irrelevant questions on matters like race, age, sex, etc. or abusive exploitation of the data collected.

Identification of customers, or the prevention of fraud, money laundering, and other criminal activities should not be affected by the provisions of the proposal which is currently being discussed in the Parliament and the Council.

This proposal should not affect the legal position of third parties other than the lender or intermediary, such as Cifas and Hunter, as long as they operate in conformity with current Community and the national legislation pursuant to it.

(1) OJ C 331 E, 31.12.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0056/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: CFP reform and the legal situation of the Portuguese and Spanish fleets

At the end of the long transitional period granted when Portugal and Spain joined the European Community, in what areas of the CFP reform which has been approved by the Council are the Portuguese and Spanish fleets granted the same fishing and catch entitlements as are granted to the other EU Member States, in particular entitlements identical to those of the countries which were Member States at the time when the CFP was drawn up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

In accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is the Community institution which acts as the guardian of Community law. This entails ensuring application of the Treaty and compliance with the general principles of Community law. These include the principle of equal treatment originating in the principle of non-discrimination, particularly as regards nationality, deriving from the provisions of the Treaties (see, for example, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty).

It should also be noted that, in applying the provisions of the Treaty, the Court of Justice has always regarded them as expressing the general principle of equal treatment, which is a fundamental principle of the Community legal system(1).

The Commission's obligation to ensure compliance with this principle clearly includes when it is exercising its power of initiative. The proposal for a Council Regulation on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulationg (EEC) No 2847/93(2) constitutes a recent example of applying the equal treatment principle under the common fisheries policy, the aim of the proposal being to ensure equal operating conditions and to eliminate all discrimination between Member States on the basis of nationality.

(1) See judgments in Joined Cases 124/76 and 20/77 ([1977] ECR 1795) and Case 237/83 ([1984] ECR 3153).

(2) COM(2002) 739 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0333/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Conclusion of an association agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco

The situation of EU citizens who live in Italy and work in Monaco is rendered very difficult and complicated by the existing social security agreement between the two countries.

The real root of the problem is the absence of any agreement on social security between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco, which prevents the application of the provisions for coordination contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1).

Does the Commission intend to propose the conclusion of an association agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco, which would include agreements on the free movement of persons and social security, so as to enable the situation of EU citizens in Monaco to be covered by the relevant Community provisions?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

While the Principality of Monaco is a third country outside the European Union, it is covered by several Community policies because of its privileged relationship with France. For example, Monaco is part of the territory of the European Community's customs union and has the right to coin and print euros.

It should be noted that in the area of social security each Member State may conclude a bilateral agreement with a third country. Italy took this option by concluding a general social security agreement with Monaco.

However, the Commission is aware that the current situation is causing an increasing number of problems, not only for European citizens working in the country but also, for example, for tourists requiring emergency health care.

For the above reasons, the Commission is currently investigating the possibility of strengthening relations between the Community and the Principality of Monaco within a legal framework specially suited to the nature of those matters which are of common interest.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0914/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: The Seville European Council

What progress has there been in the implementation of the JHA conclusions of the Seville European Council? In particular, what progress has been made in relation to the prospect that the Commission and the Council would look at further work towards the creation of a common European border guard?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0193/03 during question time at Parliament's April 2003 part-session(1).

(1) Written reply 8.4.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Public supply contracts

Article 7(2) of Greek law 2955/2002 authorises the supply of products in the absence of estimates regarding annual requirements or procedures for the awarding of contracts. It does not provide for any means of establishing which product is the most suitable for patients and allows prices to be set arbitrarily at the highest level thereby limiting competition. Similarly Joint Ministerial Decision DG6a/GP/73754/24-7-7-02(Official Gazette 984/31/7-02) implementing the above law is not based on any technical specifications, observing that no comparison is possible as, more specifically, that entire categories of products cannot be compared with each other, on the principle that, by definition, all manufacturers produce items which cannot be compared with those produced by any other manufacturer. It also fails to stipulate procedures for the according of public supply contracts or require estimation of annual requirements to be drawn up specifying either exact content or quality, leaving matters to the discretion of the body concerned.

Is Greek Law 2955/2002, together with the Ministerial Decision implementing it, in accordance with EU legislation in this field and more specifically Directive 93/36/EEC(1). If not, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that Greece fully complies with the directive and when?

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

The Commission will procure a copy of the Greek law in question (No 2955/2001) and of the implementing Ministerial Decision (DY6a/GP/73754/24-7-02/FEK 984/31-7-02), to examine their conformity with the provisions of Directive 93/36/EEC(1) (on the award of public supply contracts).

To facilitate this examination, the Commission asks the Honourable Member to kindly supply all the relevant information he has on this subject.

(1) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Call for tenders for rail services in Denmark

In response to a call for tenders to provide rail services in central and west Jutland in Denmark, the operator at the time, DSB, was the lowest bidder but DSB's offer was rejected by the Danish Transport Minister. The contract was instead awarded to Arriva, the second lowest bidder.

The fact that DSB, as the lowest bidder, was rejected was a subject of much debate among the Danish public and Arriva's inability to comply with the agreement concluded has revived that debate.

Will the Commission therefore say whether the Danish government acted in accordance with current EU rules when it rejected DSB's bid and instead entered into a contract with Arriva to provide rail services on routes in central and west Jutland?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The contract between the Danish Government and Arriva is subject to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(1) (hereafter the Directive). Rail transport services, the object of the contract, fall within the ambit of Annex I B in the Directive, which in accordance with Article 9 of the Directive entails, that rail transport service contracts are not subject to the full set of detailed provisions of the Directive.

Article 37 of the Directive provides that the contracting authority shall, before it may reject abnormally low tenders, request details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received. This provision is not applicable to services listed in Annex I B of the Directive.

However, the EC Treaty and the general principles of the EC Treaty are applicable as such also to services not subject to the detailed provisions of the Directive. It should, therefore, be assessed whether the principle of non-discrimination, which entails equality of treatment of the tenders, was respected by the Danish Government during the tender procedure.

At this stage the Commission does not dispose of information enabling it to assess whether there was an incorrect application of Community rules by the Danish Government: it therefore intends to further enquire on these issues.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Promoting social dialogue and drawing up a statute for fishermen

In its resolution of 16 January 2003 on fisheries in international waters in the context of external action under the common fisheries policy, the European Parliament insisted on the need to guarantee the fundamental labour rights of all fishermen: fair pay, safety, proper rest periods, union representation, welfare benefits and collective negotiation of labour contracts. Parliament called on the Commission to promote greater social dialogue with a view to the creation of better-quality jobs and the drawing-up of a statute for fishermen which would take account of the specific characteristics of their occupation.

What measures will the Commission take to promote social dialogue in order to improve the quality of jobs in the fisheries sector and, possibly, draw up a statute for fishermen?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The situation of fishermen from third countries employed on board Community vessels has been examined by the social partners (Europêche (Association of National Organisations of Fishing Enterprises in the EU), the General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the EU (Cogeca-Fisheries) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF)) within the Sectoral Dialogue Committee on Sea Fishing with a view to drawing up a social clause to be included in fishing agreements with non-member countries.

The above social partners in the sea fishing sector adopted such a clause at their plenary meeting on 19 December 2001 and called on the Commission to insert it from now on in agreements it concludes with non-member countries.

The clause seeks to ensure that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work together with on-board living and working conditions similar to those enjoyed by EU fishermen apply automatically to fishermen from third countries employed on board Community vessels.

The Commission is intending to include the social clause agreed with the social partners systematically in all future negotiations on fisheries matters with non-member countries.

In addition, the above social partners meet regularly within the Sectoral Dialogue Committee set up by the Commission to carry out the work programme drawn up following the Commission Communication on The European social dialogue, a force for innovation and change(1) to contribute to the implementation of the Lisbon strategy.

(1) COM(2002) 341 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0983/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

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

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Massa, urgently need to use European funds to 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 Massa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-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-0864/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

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

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 Frosinone, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind, can the Commission say:

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

2. whether the City of Frosinone 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-1170/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Tempus III programme by the municipality of Siena

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 Siena, urgently need to use European funds to help promote cooperation between university students across Europe, and to foster cultural and scientific exchange in higher education,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the Tempus III programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0827/03, E-1164/03, E-1165/03,E-1166/03, E-1167/03, E-1168/03, E-1169/03 and E-1170/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

As a rule, a project funded under the Tempus programme will involve several universities both in Member States of the Union and in the partner countries.

It is very difficult to identify the amounts retained by universities in Europe which, for project reasons, were granted to universities in the partner countries.

However, to give an indication, please find below the amounts granted under Tempus III to establishments in the municipalities of Frosinone, Ancona, Florence, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa and Siena. Additional information has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

1. The University of Ancona received EUR 1 739 in 2002 for a Tempus project (grant).

2. The establishments in Florence obtained funding of EUR 832 014,98 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

3. The University of Macerata obtained funding of EUR 112 257,80 for a Tempus project in 2002.

4. The University of Perugia obtained funding of EUR 546 452,10 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

5. The University of Pisa obtained funding of EUR 285 178,80 for Tempus projects in 2002 and 2003.

6. The University of Siena obtained funding of EUR 63 050 for a Tempus project in 2002.

7. There are no Tempus III projects in Frosinone and Pesaro.

The Honourable Member might also wish to contact the above-mentioned local authorities for more information.