ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/03

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Community Initiative Programmes

In view of the low take-up of various Community Initiative Programmes by the United Kingdom, could the Commission please supply details, broken down by region, of submissions made by the UK on the Leader+ and Urban II programmes (by value).

Would the Commission also comment on what steps it intends to take in respect of the Government's submitted forecasts for spending under these programmes whose outturn is over 25 % different to the forecasts and what sum of money, actually committed for UK projects, will be subjected to such action?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the management of the programmes financed under the Structural Funds is a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities in the Member States. Once the broad strategic priorities for each programme have been decided in agreement with the Commission, it is the responsibility of the Member States to select individual projects for support and to monitor implementation. The Commission does not therefore receive requests for funding for individual projects and does not consequently commit financial resources at the project level.

Financial support from the Structural Funds to the programmes is delivered via payments on account and following payment applications submitted by the relevant authority in the Member State. In accordance with Article 31.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, the Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a Community budget commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable payment application by the end of the second year following the year of commitment. For the United Kingdom, no decommitments have been made at this stage in respect of Leader+ and URBAN II. For both programmes, the initial budgetary commitments were not made until 2001. Therefore, in accordance with Article 31.2 the possibility of a decommitment will not arise until the end of 2003.

As far as forecasts for payment applications are concerned, the Commission has asked Member States through the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions (CDCR) to stress to their payment authorities the importance of reliable forecasts in view of a sound and efficient budget execution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0841/03

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Health

Obesity is turning out to be one of the major epidemics of the century, and Portugal and the other EU countries have seen a massive increase in the number of people suffering from obesity.

Reliable scientific studies forecast that if the trend continues, by 2015, 95 % of the North American population will be obese. Europe will hit this figure by 2030.

Obesity is a chronic illness, which acts as a catalyst for all sorts of other illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes (which are, for example, the major causes of death in Portugal). Properly preventive structured preventive policies are therefore essential. Hitherto, all that has been done is to intervene clinically by giving sufferers medication.

Are there plans to discuss strategies to tackle the problem and reverse the trend, specifically in the field of prevention and reducing the amount people eat? What role is envisaged for experts in the field, such as nutritionists or dieticians?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

According to the figures available to the Commission, obesity is on the increase practically everywhere, and in particular within the EU. However, in the field of health, Article 152 of the EC Treaty defines and limits the Community's powers, therefore tackling obesity continues to be the responsibility of the Member States.

The Commission wishes to act as a coordinator and catalyst in measures taken by the Member States; thanks to the new public health programme 2003-2008, the Commission will continue to collect data to improve understanding of the causes of the increase in obesity and will also set up the new network of national institutes for nutrition and physical activity (NPA Network).

The Commission has already, in the past, funded important activities in the area of nutrition under previous public health programmes, namely the health monitoring programme, the cancer programme and the health promotion programme.

One of the ten or so projects which have been financed is Eurodiet, for which a summary report entitled Nutrition and Diet for Healthy Lifestyles in Europe was drawn up.

The report on Community action on nutrition, which has been posted on the Commission's website(1), outlines what has been done so far in this area.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph/programmes/health/reports/nutrition-report_en.pdf.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1391/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Health passport for non-EU citizens

The recent case of cholera identified in a Senegalese passenger on a flight from Brussels to Turin is a very real reminder of the grave dangers posed by inadequate health controls on immigrants from outside the EU.

This is in addition to the alarm raised by the world health authorities over the SARS virus.

Does the Commission not consider it useful, in relation to the circulation of non-EU citizens, to propose the creation of a special health passport to safeguard the health of all?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the potential risks of imported communicable diseases and their impact on Member States. The current epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Disease (SARS) is a good example of such a threat. The Commission is collaborating with the Member States, through the designated Authorities of the Ministries of Health, and with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to implement actions to control such diseases, in particular through the revision of the WHO International Health Regulations. However, in such cases, particularly where an incubation period is involved, there is no obvious link between health-related information which might be contained in a health passport and the control of a communicable disease of this nature.

The Commission will prepare a SARS Monitoring Report for the 2 June 2003 Health Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0253/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Discontinuation of the Brussels-Milan overnight train service

At a time when Europe is enlarging eastwards and upgrading lines of communication would provide the public with the first sign of genuine proximity, Belgium is managing to discontinue the overnight couchette train service from Brussels to Milan, which also caters for vehicles. This service is run jointly with the French, German, Luxembourg and Swiss railways and is of vital importance to Italian workers in particular, who use this service in steady numbers. Should Belgium have been experiencing difficulties in continuing operations on its section of the line, it could have sought contacts with the governments of the countries rather than slashing the service. In view of this, can the Council urgently reinstate the Brussels-Milan train service, thereby ensuring that the needs and expectations of Community citizens are met?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

With respect to the matters mentioned in the Question by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council informs her that issues concerning individual train operations do not fall under its competence.

In this respect, the Council refers to Community legislation currently in force, notably Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC; these articles prescribe the independent status of railway undertakings and their management according to the principles which apply to commercial companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1169/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

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

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 Pisa, 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 Pisa has submitted projects for the Tempus III programme?

2. whether the municipality of Pisa 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0228/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Bringing forward legislative simplification in the area of patient mobility

In the light of the conclusions of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting in December 2002 on patient mobility between Member States of the European Union, can the Council say what will be in the reform package it is preparing to promote the freedom to be treated in any hospital in an EU country?

Does the Council not consider that the date of 2004 is too far away to promote the simplification of existing procedures and cutting of red tape involved in some Member States, including Italy, for obtaining authorisation for treatment abroad?

Does the Council intend to take the necessary measures to extend Community jurisdiction in the sphere of patient mobility?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Honourable Parliamentarian's attention is drawn to the fact that the Council, at its meeting on 2/3 December 2002, did not adopt conclusions on patient mobility. Instead, the Council, at that meeting, took note of Commissioner Byrne's report on the ongoing high-level reflection process on patient mobility and health care developments in the European Union, and, in particular, on the development of an organisational framework for such a process.

It is recalled that such process, which is still ongoing, was launched by the Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the Member States meeting in the Council of 26 June 2002 on patient mobility and health care developments in the European Union(1). The Council and the representatives of the Member States meeting in the Council considered notably that there is a need to strengthen co-operation in order to promote the greatest opportunities for access to health care of high quality while maintaining the financial sustainability of healthcare systems in the European Union. The imminent enlargement of the European Union makes this even more imperative. In addition, they further recognised that there would be value in the Commission pursuing in close co-operation with the Council and all the Member States particularly health ministers and other key stakeholders a high level process of reflection, closely co-ordinated with relevant work ongoing in different fora, including action already initiated in the context of the Lisbon process, which should aim at developing timely conclusions for possible further action.

(1) OJ C 183, 1.8.2002, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme for migrant workers 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 support migrant workers, including those from outside the Community, in order to guarantee them the best conditions in which to live and integrate with the local community, in terms of both work and social conditions,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the action programme for migrant workers?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0828/03, E-0894/03, E-1126/03,E-1127/03, E-1128/03, E-1129/03, E-1130/03, E-1131/03, E-1132/03,E-1133/03, E-1134/03, E-1135/03, E-1136/03, E-1137/03 and E-1138/03given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

There is currently no Action Programme for Migrant Workers at Community level. The Commission recalls that funding for measures to promote the integration of migrant workers, under Budget Line B3-4110, was suspended in 1998 following the judgement of the European Court of Justice in Case C-106/96. No funding has been awarded in this field since that date.

A new programme to promote the integration of third country nationals, under Budget line B5-815, will be launched by the Commission (Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs) in May 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: EIB financing for education in Rome

The report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the EIB's Annual Report for 2001 states that, with reference to efforts to increase economic and social cohesion, 16 % of the loans for regional development projects were allocated to health and education.

The rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg expresses regret concerning the practicalities for using these loans, since only 1,1 % of the total was invested in health and education, and calls for the promotion of a social policy focused on these objectives.

With particular reference to the education sector and the questioner's earlier question concerning security in Roman schools, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is it possible to include, among the aims of EIB funding for education, the improvement of school facilities?

2. Can Rome City Council, as a public authority, have access to investments in this sector and, if so, has it availed itself of this opportunity?

3. Has the Commission considered what position to adopt with regard to the above request made by the EP?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

1. and 3. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (EMAC) report regrets that, in accession countries, only 1,1 % of European Investment Bank (EIB) loans was allocated to health and education. It is only since 2001 that the EIB has extended funding for these sectors to the accession countries. In 2002 four projects were financed for an amount of EUR 230 million (against EUR 75 million in 2001) and the EIB expects continued growth in these sectors.

As to the specific questions on Rome, EIB funding for education can, in fact, address the improvement of school facilities. The financing of schools could also be carried out under urban environment/regeneration schemes in favour of local authorities.

Discussions are currently ongoing between the EIB and the Rome City Council for a new facility targeting social investments including schools and nursery centres for the elderly.

2. To a very limited extent, Rome City Council is eligible for funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the 2000-2006 programming period under Objective 2. The areas concerned are: zone L of the piano regolatore (XII Circoscrizione), the Selcetta di Trigoria biomedical and biotechnological research park, and the Settecamini area (urban zones 5I and 5L), with a total population of approximately 13 500 inhabitants.

The 2000-2006 single programming document (SPD) for the Lazio region does not explicitly provide for the funding of investment in education. It should be remembered that the regional administration is responsible for implementing SPD operations and managing the programme, particularly as regards project selection. It appears from the initial information submitted by the regional authorities that Rome City Council has not submitted any projects in this connection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 January 2003)

Subject: Fisheries conflicts between Spain and Portugal

A few days ago, for the second time in recent months, a conflictive incident occurred involving the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets. A Portuguese patrol boat shot at a group of Andalusian fishermen who had crossed the border of the Spanish territorial waters and were fishing in Portuguese waters.

Is the Council aware of this circumstance?

Does the Council believe it reasonable that a mere breach of the rules by Spanish fishermen should meet with such a response, which could be considered an act of war?

Does the Council find it acceptable that incidents like this should occur between two Member States?

Does the Council intend to take any action to deal with the problems raised by conflictive incidents of this nature?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is aware, the Council adopted on 20 December 2002 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), wish contains a new set of rules on control and enforcement. Those rules stipulate that Member States shall control activities carried out within the scope of the CFP on their territory or waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The Council is not aware the incident which occurred recently involving Spanish fishermen and a Portuguese Navy vessel.

The application of Community and national law is not subject to review by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: People's Mojahedin Organisation

Has the Commission any evidence that members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation (MKO or PMOI), which is affiliated to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, present any threat to the security of the world outside Iran?

Is the Commission aware of the support for the MOK/PMOI publicly voiced by 331 British MPs and 122 peers, and 150 members of the US Congress?

Given the allegation made on 12 February by a Member speaking in the European Parliament that the MKO is made up of criminals who continually kill and destroy the innocent among us, has the Commission any evidence that members of the MKO have done any such thing outside Iran?

Given that this criticism of the MKO reflects the views of the authorities in Iran, might this be a case of one person's terrorists being another's freedom fighters?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

The Commission notes that the term terrorist list refers to the list attached to the Common Position 2001/931/CFSP(1) and the list of persons, groups and entities whose funds and assets should be frozen in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001(2). The Common Position and the Regulation were adopted pursuant to Resolution 1373(2001) of the Security Council of the United Nations.

The Council takes its decisions to list persons, groups and entities by unanimity of its Members without the need for a Commission proposal. As the deliberations in the Council are secret, it is standing policy that the Commission does not comment on the inclusion of any persons, groups and entities in these lists.

The Commission finally notes that the Common Position contains a number of criteria that have to be met and as a result the Mujahedin e Khalq have been included on the list in May 2002 while the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) continues to be specifically excluded.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1123/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by the municipality of Pisa

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 Pisa, urgently need to use European funds to regenerate areas in industrial decline and to reduce imbalances in social and economic development, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the ERDF?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1119/03, E-1120/03,E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03 and E-1124/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The municipalities of Massa, Carrara, Livorno, Pisa, Pistoia and Florence are all partly eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Tuscany SPD (single programming document) for 2000-2006.

The Tuscany SPD has been approved by Commission decision(1) and provides for ERDF financing of EUR 322,5 million for total public expenditure of EUR 804,9 million.

Since the Tuscany SPD is a programme with decentralised management, the authority responsible for carrying out operations is the Tuscany region which has laid down project selection criteria in the programming supplement and is responsible for appraising applications. The Honourable Member could therefore appropriately ask that authority for detailed information on the projects presented and financed for the municipalities of Massa, Carrara, Livorno, Pisa, Pistoia and Florence.

(1) C(2001) 2725, 27.9.2001.