ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/03

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Healthcare of the elderly arrangements between Member States

1. Is it acceptable that when an elderly and ill EU resident has to relocate from one Member State (UK) to another (Spain) in order to obtain any acceptable level of nursing care which should be subject to a predetermined contribution to fee costs if the care was given/obtained in the UK one EU state (UK) can withhold all or part of such financial help from that person?

2. Is the UK policy contrary to EU policy as regards:

(a) legality of policy and infringement of rights;

(b) effective freedom of movement?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The Honourable Member asks about the health care arrangements between the Member States for elderly people. He asks whether the United Kingdom may refuse to make any contribution to the costs of nursing care if an elderly person moves to another Member State, when a financial contribution would be made to nursing costs in the United Kingdom.

It is not clear from the question to what contribution to nursing care costs it refers, and therefore whether it falls within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1) or not.

Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity(2) gives a right of residence in another Member State to retired people.

However, this right of residence is subject to two conditions:

- the person must have sufficient resources (pension) not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State;

- the person must have comprehensive sickness insurance.

In conclusion, without further information on the nursing care benefits mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is unable to say whether there is any infringement of Community law or policy. If the Honourable Member could provide further information to the Commission this problem could be assessed more accurately.

However, the Commission is aware of the fact that people who need nursing care and cannot afford to pay for it out of their own pockets can be effectively barred from exercising the right of free movement.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0166/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Use of Community funds in the health sector in Greece

During the debate in the Greek Parliament on the adoption of the national budget for 2003, the Greek Government produced data according to which, during implementation of the Public Investment Programme in the health and welfare sector for 2002, EUR 5,9 million were granted from EU Funds for Greek Government participation in the share capital of public enterprises and organisations and a further EUR 11 million for other expenditure.

Does the Commission know to which enterprises and organisations those EUR 5,9 million were given? What amount was invested per company and from which Union Fund did the resources come in each case? Of which Community programme or initiative did these investments form part and when exactly were they incorporated? For what expenditure were the EUR 11 million of Community appropriations announced by the government made available?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

According to the information that the Commission has received from the Greek authorities, the amounts concerned are payments made by these authorities to the final beneficiaries of the various projects financed under the operational programmes of the second and third Community Support Frameworks in the area of health.

The sum of EUR 5,9 million concerns increases in the capital of public limited companies, which are final beneficiaries under the programmes in question. Indeed, where the final beneficiary is a public limited company, payments are made by increasing the company's capital. In the area of health in Greece, this mainly concerns the Depanom limited liability company, of which the Greek State is the sole shareholder and which is responsible for building facilities in the area of health.

The EUR 11 million allocated to other expenditure are payments made by the Greek authorities to final beneficiaries other than public limited companies for the implementation of a large number of projects financed by these programmes.

The Commission has asked the Greek authorities to provide a breakdown of this expenditure by programme and, if possible, by final beneficiary. As soon as it has received this information, it will not fail to forward it to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0035/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Fisheries agreements

In December, the Council approved fisheries agreements with Senegal and Angola. What is the Commission's view of the benefits which these expensive agreements will bring to the Community as a whole? It seems as if the agreements will exclusively benefit the Spanish fishing industry and only a few fishermen from other countries.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The fisheries Protocols with Senegal and with Angola provide fishing opportunities to the Member States that are based on their traditional fishing activities in the area and on the level of interest in those fisheries by their respective industries. For these reasons, Spain is the Member State with the largest allocations of fishing possibilities, but it is not true that the agreements exclusively benefit the Spanish industry.

The Protocol to the fisheries agreement with Senegal provides fishing possibilities for vessels from Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. For coastal demersal fishing, Spain is allocated 46 % of the fishing possibilities, Greece 16 %, and Italy 38 %. For deepwater demersal fishing Spain is allocated 95 % of the possibilities and Portugal 5 %. For pole and line vessels, Spain is allocated 62 % of the opportunities and France 38 %. For the tuna seiners, Spain is allocated 62 % of the possibilities and France 46 %. For surface longliners, Spain is allocated 87 % of the possibilities and Portugal 13 %.

The Protocol with Angola provides fishing opportunities for vessels from Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. Spain is allocated all the licences to fish for shrimps. For demersal fishing, Spain is allocated 44 % of the possibilities, Portugal 26 %, Italy 18 % and France 12 %. For tuna fishing, Spain is allocated 70 % of the possibilities, France 18 % and Portugal 12 %. The licences to fish for pelagic species are allocated only to Ireland and the Netherlands.

It should be noted, however, that for both the Protocols, the Commission may allocate unused opportunities to any other Member State that requests fishing possibilities.

The annual financial compensation to Angola amounts to EUR 15 500 000, of which 35 % is devoted to targeted actions to help develop Angola's own fishing industry. The annual financial compensation to Senegal amounts to EUR 16 000 000, of which 19 % is aimed at developing a partnership for sustainable fisheries.

Under the Protocols, the catches of Community vessels are considered to be of Community origin. The value of the catches, excluding tuna, on the Community market is typically more than double the level of the financial compensation. The 1999 report Evaluation of Fishing Agreements Concluded by the European Community (Ifremer, Cemare, CEP), estimates that the fisheries agreement with Senegal generated 592 direct and 892 indirect jobs within the Member States. The fisheries agreement with Angola was estimated to have generated 530 direct and 599 indirect jobs within the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/03

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

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Galileo programme

The European satellite navigation programme Galileo will offer a number of different services: an open service (OS), a safety of life service (SoL), a commercial service (CS), a public regulated service (PRS) and a search and rescue service (SAR). Does the Commission intend to put these services into operation through a number of different agencies? The possibility of setting up a multimodal navigation agency has been mooted. What other agencies are under consideration?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

Until 2005, responsibility for the development programme lies with the Joint Undertaking created by Council Regulation (EC) No 876/2002 of 21 May 2002 setting up the Galileo Joint Undertaking(1). The Joint Undertaking will not only ensure the technical success of this initial phase, but will also handle the granting of the infrastructure concession (deployment, maintenance and operating phases).

Galileo will then be run by the consortium which wins the concession contract. The concession holder, which will probably be a consortium of undertakings from different professional fields, will be a commercial company. It will be chosen through a procedure starting in 2003 and ending in summer 2004.

Galileo services will thus be made available not by agencies, but by the concession holder itself.

However, the granting body, which will be responsible for enforcing the terms of the concession contract, will still have to be established. This body may take various forms. No decision has yet been made regarding the nature of this future structure. The Commission will present a proposal on this matter to Parliament and the Council in 2004.

(1) OJ L 138, 28.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/03

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

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Legionnaire's disease

There is a direct link between the poor maintenance of water heating and air conditioning systems in public buildings and the incidence of extremely serious cases of pneumonia caused by the Legionella bacterium.

1. Does the Commission believe that national legislation on the construction and maintenance of public buildings ensures that the public are protected against Legionnaire's disease? Which countries have legislation which does offer these guarantees?

2. Will the Commission prepare European legislative initiatives aimed at imposing common rules for the maintenance of public buildings which are designed to protect public health?

Answer given by Mr Byrne 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-0030/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Greek Public Power Corporation and construction of new electricity generation plants

In its reply to my written question P-1459/02(1) the Commission indicated that it required the full accounting unbundling of all integrated electricity undertakings in the EU with separate accounts being drawn up for generation transmission and distribution activities. In reply to my subsequent oral question (H-0794/02)(2), the Commission referred to financial difficulties facing the seven consortia of independent private companies regarding the construction of new electricity generation plants with a total capacity of 2000 MW. It also indicates that an additional capacity of 500 to 600 MW is estimated to be required by the year 2005 to solve the problem of security of energy supply in Greece.

1. Has the Greek Public Power Corporation submitted separate accounts in respect of its different activities?

2. What is the reason for the financial difficulties facing the consortia of independent private companies and, more specifically, do these difficulties relate to the price of the fuel needed to operate the seven new energy supply plants?

3. Is it possible that Greece will, over the coming years, encounter problems regarding security of energy supply given that, to date, it has not been possible to secure a capacity of 2 000 MW, let alone an additional 500 to 600 MW?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 209.

(2) Written reply of 17.12.2002.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

1. The Greek Ministry of Development, by a letter dated 4 December 2002, has informed the Commission that:

(a) On 15 April 2002, the Public Power Corporation (PPC) SA submitted to the Greek Regulatory Authority (RAE) unbundled financial accounts for its various activities in 2001.

(b) On 24 October 2002, the Greek Energy Regulator instructed PPC to resubmit the accounts with certain clarifications and modifications. The deadline for the submission of the revised unbundled accounts was 16 December 2002.

The Commission has requested confirmation of the delivery of these revised accounts, as well as the reaction of the Greek Energy Regulator to the revised accounts.

2. The Commission is not able to provide reasons for any financial difficulties facing the consortia of independent private companies, as such information is company confidential and not available to the Commission. However, in general it is correct that banks and financial institutions are reluctant to finance new generation capacity unless both legal and economic stability and predictability exist, including with respect to the price of fuel.

3. It is correct to state that Greece may face a shortage of electricity supply over thecoming years, unless new generating plants are in place.

In this context, the Commission has recently sought further information with respect to the progress on the issuing of a new Law, amending the current Law 2773/1999, which will facilitate the entrance of new independent electricity generators in the Greek energy market.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0615/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Proposed reform of the Common Organisations of the Market (COMs)

Will the Commission answer the following questions relating to the proposed reform of the Common Organisations of the Market (COMs) as part of the interim review of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Has it used the services of outside consultants to any degree, and if so:

- Who were these consultants? And

- What amounts did it pay in fees for these external services?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Commission has not used the services of outside consultants for the preparation and the formulation of the proposed reform of the common organisations of the markets as part of the current review of the Common Agricultural Policy.

However, as far as the impact analyses of the proposals is concerned, the Commission made use of the following outside consultants in order to obtain independent external assessments of the proposals, as a complement to the Commission's own internal analyses:

(a) Eurocare (European Centre for Agricultural, Regional and Environmental Policy Research) GmbH, Bonn, Germany;

(b) the Centre for World Food Studies (Sow-vu), Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

(c) Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), University of Missouri Columbia, USA.

The totality of the fees paid for the services in relation to these external independent impact assessments amounted to EUR 40,000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/03

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Establishment of an agency for the promotion of linguistic diversity

At the beginning of February 2003 the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) held a special meeting in Charleroi at which it adopted a resolution calling in particular on the European Union to set up an agency responsible for promoting linguistic diversity and language learning (a model for which could be the Vienna-based European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia).

In view of the particular wealth and variety of languages in the European Union and the fact that, in a little over a year, 10 new countries will join the EU, and given that over 40 million people in the EU currently speak a minority language on a daily basis (whereas for want of a legal basis, amongst other things there is no real policy for protecting and promoting minority languages in the EU), what does the Commission think of the proposal adopted by the EBLUL? Does it not consider the establishment of such an agency in the EU to be essential as a means of implementing a proper policy designed to promote linguistic diversity and language learning in an enlarged EU? Will it consider incorporating the above proposal into its forthcoming Action Plan on linguistic diversity and language learning, or appending it thereto? Does it intend to submit an appropriate proposal to the Council?

Answer given by Mr Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the resolution recently adopted by the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL), a body which receives most of its funding from the Community.

The document makes a large number of observations and some proposals, of which the establishment of an agency to promote linguistic diversity and language learning is one.

The Commission's consultation document Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity(1) proposes the adoption of an inclusive approach in which regional and minority languages are included. One of the questions put forward in the discussion document concerns the ways in which the Union could support Member States in promoting linguistic diversity.

The document was the basis for a wide-ranging public consultation, ending on 28 February 2003, the results of which the Commission is now in the process of analysing. A Consultation Conference is also planned for April 2003.

The Commission's Action Plan to promote language learning and linguistic diversity will be based on actions using resources available in existing community programmes and activities and is due to be adopted in mid 2003.

In drawing it up, the Commission will carefully consider all proposals made by organisations or individuals in response to its consultation and will analyse carefully the proposal made by EBLUL. At this stage, however, before the consultation exercise and the analysis of all responses is completed, the Commission is not in a position to comment on any of the particular proposals it has received.

(1) SEC(2002) 1234.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0347/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Attica Highway

The Attica Highway, a project co-funded by the European Union, is a major project which will ease the traffic problems facing Athens and, above all, facilitate access to and from the City's Eleftherios Venizelos international airport.

When was the relevant contract signed and ratified?

What was the original budget for this project, what was the funding plan, what is the level of participation of the bodies involved in funding the project, how much has each one contributed separately so far and how much are they due to contribute until the project is completed?

What overshoots of the original budget have occurred so far (in total and by sector), why did these overshoots occur and who bears the costs?

Have additional contracts been signed between the Greek State and the Attica Highway consortium? If so, in respect of which projects, with which budget and by which procedures?

Is it legal to levy tolls on a section of this highway before the entire project is completed?

Why is the adoption of a legal framework in Greece for projects co-funded by the European Union being delayed?

Who protects the interests of European citizens? Do any bodies exist at EU level charged with doing so? If so, what is their view on this matter? In the case of the Attica Highway, are the interests of the European taxpayer being protected?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-0239 by Mr Hatzidakis(1).

By way of a supplement to that answer, the Commission is able provide further details on the basis of information notified to it by the competent national authorities. The concession contract for the Attica highway, which entered into force on 6 March 2000 for a period of 23 years, gives the concessionaire the possibility of levying tolls on sections of the highway as soon as these are completed and open to the public. The concessionaire does not necessarily have to wait for the entire project covered by the concession contract to be completed. The Greek authorities have, moreover, told the Commission that the project is expected to be completely finished by the end of 2003, within the contractual time limits.

The implementation of operations part-financed by the Structural Funds is mainly a matter for, and the responsibility of, the Member States. In Greece, the relevant basic legal framework is Law 2860/2000 on the management, follow-up and supervision of the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework, which was adopted in November 2000.

The social and economic advantages to be gained from the Attica highway are seen in a positive light both by the national authorities and the European Investment Bank, which is acting for the project in its capacity as the Commission's consultant.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 200.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0376/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of Clarks factory in Portugal and Community funds

The announcement of the forthcoming closure of a shoe factory belonging to the British multinational C & J Clark, in Castelo de Paiva in northern Portugal, has received widespread coverage in the Portuguese media. This unexpected closure will make almost 600 workers redundant, with extremely severe repercussions on the social level for the households of those who live and work in the municipality (which is, furthermore, located in a region classified as Objective 1 under the Structural Funds).

This company received substantial amounts from both national and Community funds in connection with the establishment of this factory in 1988 and its operations in Castelo de Paiva, on the understanding that it would continue its activities up to at least 2007.

It appears from numerous sources that the company C & J Clark is an old hand at this kind of financial opportunism: it is claimed that it has on several other occasions received Community funds aiding its operations at different plants in a number of EU Member States, only to close many of those plants at a later date, with adverse social and economic consequences for the Member States and regions where it had operated.

In addition, it has also been stated that those direct or indirect Community aids were granted despite the fact that this multinational was resorting to subcontracting on a large scale. It has been claimed, in particular, that, while the Clarks group sells 40 million pairs of shoes every year (with an estimated annual turnover of EUR 1,5 billion), a good 7 million pairs out of that total come from orders placed by the group with other firms under subcontracting arrangements.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of subcontracting practices (i.e. the farming-out of footwear production to other firms) on the part of the group Clarks or C & J Clark, despite it being in receipt of financial aid? Even if subcontracting of this nature is theoretically legal, does the Commission not believe that it should be prohibited in cases involving financial incentives or support originating directly or indirectly in Community funds?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission has no knowledge of any subcontracting practices on the part of the Clarks group or C & J Clark, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question.

It is up to the Member State to ensure compliance with the agreements it concludes with undertakings, in accordance with the national and Community legislation in force.