ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Community funding for local authorities in Greece

It has been alleged in the Greek press that on 16 January 2003 the procedure was set in motion for sequestering Mytilene town hall with a view to recovering debts contracted by the municipal authority whose term of office expired on 31 December 2002. Unless the municipality meets its obligations, this procedure will be completed on 3 March 2003 with the sale by auction of the town hall. This situation has arisen owing to the failure of the previous municipal authority to expunge debts arising from the expropriation of land in 1997 on which a final court ruling was handed down in 2000.

The same publications state that the Lesbos shipping company, NEL LINES, which the previous mayor of Mytilene had headed from 1997 until the end of his term of office (December 2002), is having very considerable problems in paying off debts it contracted through the purchase of rapid vessels.

Which Community initiatives or Community Support Frameworks (CSFs) have provided aid for the municipality of Mytilene and its municipal enterprises? Exactly how much aid has been provided in which years? Have NEL LINES received funding from Community initiatives or CSFs? If so, how much and when? How does the Commission view the prospect of Mytilene town hall being sequestered? Is there any precedent for such a move in any other EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Based on the information available to the Commission, the Mytilene town hall building to which the Honourable Member refers was not acquired with support from Community funding. Nor did the company NEL Lines receive assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 Community support frameworks.

But a number of projects proposed to the Greek authorities by the Lesbos municipality of Mytilene did receive Community assistance, including via the 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 Community support frameworks. That assistance mainly came under the EAPTA sub-programme of the operational programmes for the North Aegean region.

The installation in Mytilene of a 300 kilowatt (kW) electricity-producing wind turbine was 70 % part-funded in 1994 by the special programme for the Greek islands of the Aegean Sea. The total installation cost was ECU 390 070.

The Commission would also inform the Honourable Member that the construction of the Mytilene municipal waste-water and sewage treatment plant, opened in 2002, was the subject of a specific Commission decision as a Cohesion Fund project. The Community assistance granted for this amounted to EUR 35 179 980, out of a total cost of EUR 42 286 533.

Lastly, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to ask the national and regional authorities responsible to provide a full list of the funding received by the municipality of Mytilene.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Norway international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Norway international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Norway?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised three questions regarding economical transactions and fees for licences within the Community-Norway Agreement. The Agreement contains no financial transactions between the Community and Norway and no provisions on fees for fishing licences.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0753/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Seventy head of cattle shot dead in Castille and Leon

The Ministry of Agriculture of the Castille and Leon Regional Government was unable to round up more than 250 cattle which had been roaming around on public land for 5 years following the death of their owner and therefore authorised local hunters to shoot them. Seventy were shot during the first weekend of this month. After a long period of agony some of them were finished off with pistols, and this slaughter method is expected to continue.

Can the Commission immediately prevent the Spanish authorities from allowing such barbaric slaughter methods to be used on its territory in violation of all Community legislation governing the killing of animals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission was not previously aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

If the animals concerned had in fact become feral after roaming free in a mountainous area for five years, their killing would not, in the opinion of the Commission, have to comply with the requirements of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing(1).

Even in cases where the Directive applies, shooting resulting in instantaneous death is a permitted method of killing the species of animals falling within the scope of the Directive.

If the animals had become feral it may have been impossible to round them up for slaughter in another manner, or for those shooting them to get close enough to ensure instantaneous death on every occasion.

The Commission does not, therefore, believe that this is a matter that requires its intervention with the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Cultural activities on the theme of olives

The Messinia Chamber of Trade and Industry has for the past five years been organising events on the theme of olives, centring on the activity of the olive and olive oil routes a cultural journey through the places in which the olive is cultivated.

For future years, a proposal has been put before the Ministry of Culture entitled Disseminating the culture of olives: art, symbolism and culture; activities include creating an international exhibition space in Kalamata, designing and constructing a travelling museum with towed vehicles, and arranging for it to tour, producing digital cultural material and organising tasting seminars and other events.

Could the Commission say whether actions of this kind are eligible for funding from the Culture operational programme?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

The Commission supports initiatives in the area of culture within the framework and according to the selection criteria of the Culture 2000 programme, which is the sole instrument of the Union for funding and planning cultural cooperation.

This programme is designed to support projects jointly developed and financed by at least three operators from at least three countries that participate in the programme.

The Honourable Member may find additional information at the following site http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/c2000condition_en.html.

Under Measure 2,1 of the Operational Programme Culture for Greece, a call for the submission of proposals was published on 12 August 2002 for a total amount of EUR 2 118 000.

The Messinia Chamber of Trade and Industry submitted a project proposal on 30 October 2002, which will be evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria as defined in the Programme Complement.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0531/03

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: International participation licence for motor rallies in the EU

Thanks to the EU, sport at European level is characterised by considerable mobility, and, allowing for individuals' geographical circumstances, many people have improved opportunities of engaging in sporting activities or participating in competitions in a Member State other than their own.

Nonetheless, Galician or Portuguese individuals wishing to take part in motor rallies on either side of the border have discovered that, as of this year, they are obliged to pay an additional fee of approximately EUR 1 500.

This obstacle, which does not exist for other sports, applies only to non-professional participants, who may be presumed to be those who can least afford it.

Can the Commission state whether this practice is compatible with Community law on the free provision of services?

Does the Commission not consider this fee of EUR 1 500 to be on the high side?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The Honourable Member might like to refer to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-3066/02 from Mr Wynn(1) and E-3456/02 from Mr Heaton-Harris(2) which specifically concern the rules recently introduced by the FIA (International Automobile Federation) on participation in motor races.

In its replies, the Commission stressed that, on a general level, the Community provisions on the freedom to provide services do not prohibit rules or practices in the field of sport that are justified on non-economic grounds and relate to the specific nature and context of certain competitions, provided they had no discriminatory, unjustified or disproportionate aspects.

More specifically, the Commission has no information at its disposal by which to judge whether the fee mentioned in the question asked by the Honourable Member is disproportionate.

(1) See page 94.

(2) See page 116.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0400/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Unfair subsidies

Will the Commission please tell me if it is aware of any subsidies going to Northern Irish fruit processing plants, involving EU money? Where does the responsibility lie between the Commission and Member States for keeping records on the precise destination of CAP subsidies through co-financing schemes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

In accordance with Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1) support can be provided for investments to facilitate the improvement and rationalisation of processing and marketing of agricultural products.

In Northern Ireland this support is provided in the framework of the Objective 1 Operational Programme (2000-2006), also called the Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme, submitted to the Commission by the Northern Ireland authorities. This Programme was approved by the Commission on 22 March 2001 and is co-financed by the Guidance Section of the EAGGF.

In application of the principle of subsidiarity the implementation of this Programme and the selection of eligible projects for Community funding remains in the hands of the national authorities.

However, as it appears from the Programme, the Northern Ireland authorities do not intend to provide support to projects in the sector of fruit processing.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Funding of small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises through ROPs in Greece

According to the first data gathered, only 3 000 small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises have submitted funding applications through the 13 Regional Operational Programmes, despite initial estimates that 7 000 would do so.

Will the Commission say what level of appropriations was earmarked to be allocated, what amount was actually allocated, what are the grounds for the low level of participation of small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises in the programmes in question and what action it intends to take to address this specific problem?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

According to the information which the Commission has received from Greece, by the end of the first series of calls for proposals the number submitted totalled 3 781.

The aid scheme for small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) to which the Honourable Member refers provides for public expenditure of EUR 240 million.

Since the evaluation of these proposals is now in progress, the Commission has no information on the total appropriations which will finally be allocated.

At present, since this is the first call for proposals of this type, the Commission is unable to assess the level of participation by small firms.

Because the action is horizontal in nature, it is for the managing authority and the Monitoring Committee for the 2000-2006 Community support framework for Greece to propose any appropriate measures which might prove necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0283/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: European vision panel

1. Who are the members of the new European vision panel, and what powers or decision-making responsibilities does the panel have relative to European policy on BiOptic driving?

2. Can the Commission confirm whether the panel is now established and functioning, and what the frequency of their meetings is?

3. Where is BiOptic driving on their agenda, and what, if any, proactive actions or enquiries are they pursuing on this subject?

4. Do they have any projected time frame within which they anticipate developments?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The Commission holds no information regarding a European vision panel. Therefore, it is not in a position to provide an answer to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0808/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Violations of Community legislation in the field of public health and consumer protection

Could the Commission give a figure for the number of presumed violations of Community legislation in the field of public health and consumer protection in Greece and say which areas are affected? In how many cases (if any) is it preparing to refer Greece to the European Court of Justice? What are these cases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

A list of the infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, which have been instituted against Greece in the area of health and consumer protection and have not yet been concluded, will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Details of the nature of the infringement and the current status of the proceedings are included in this list.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1027/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

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

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 the municipality of Prato, would be particularly appropriate for events of this kind,

Can the Commission say:

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

2. whether the municipality of Prato 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 P-1286/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Smallpox danger

How does the Commission view the danger of a possible smallpox attack?

What countermeasures has the Commission taken, or will it take?

Do preventive measures exist at European level?

Can a Member State be required to take preventive measures?

Would the Commission state its position on these questions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The risk of a smallpox outbreak, through a deliberate introduction of the variola major virus, responsible for smallpox, cannot be excluded.

Counter-measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of such outbreaks are the responsibility of Member States. Since the bioterrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001 and October 2001, the Member States have taken measures to strengthen their preparedness and response capability with regard to smallpox.

Member States are required to notify disease outbreaks and unusual epidemiological situations to the Commission pursuant to Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(1). A further Commission Decision has been proposed adding variola major to Commission Decision 2002/253/EC of 19 March 2002 laying down case definitions for reporting communicable diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council(2).

In addition, the Commission, as indicated in its Communications on 28 November 2001 on Civil protection: state of preventive alert against possible emergencies(3) and on 11 June 2002 on Civil Protection Progress made in implementing the programme for preparedness for possible emergencies(4), is co-operating closely with the Member States to enhance their preparedness and response not only to smallpox but also other threats from (deliberate release of) chemical, biological and radio-nuclear (CBRN) agents. It has launched a series of co-ordinated actions across the civil protection, health, enterprise (pharmaceuticals), research, nuclear and transport and energy fields.

Finally, the Commission has joined efforts with the Council in inventorying measures and actions across Union policies to face up to CBRN terrorist threats and setting up the strategic objectives for future action. These are set out in the joint programme, agreed on 20 December 2002(5), to improve co-operation in the Union for preventing and limiting the consequences of such threats.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

(2) OJ L 86, 3.4.2002.

(3) COM(2001) 707 final.

(4) COM(2002) 302 final.

(5) Council Document 14627/02.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Health criteria for award of EU eco-label

One of the aims of the EU's eco-label is to promote more environment-friendly production and consumption but the scheme can be improved in several respects. The Danish press reported on 23 January 2003 that consumers are surprised that products bearing the eco-label might well contain allergenic substances such as the preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrile.

The fact that the scheme focuses only on environmental criteria and does not take health issues into account in awarding the label is not, it is argued, in line with consumer expectations. Will the Commission therefore say what its future plans are for a revision of the eco-label scheme and whether it is aware of any investigations concerning problems with the awarding of the EU eco-label? Will the Commission also say whether it has carried out or intends to conduct surveys into consumers' and producers' wishes concerning the incorporation of health criteria and/or other factors into the scheme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The press article on which the written question is based does not reflect the nature of the Union eco-label accurately, since the scheme does take health issues into account. The eco-label criteria that have to be met for a product to be awarded the eco-label also cover, in most cases, health and safety aspects, such as not allowing the use of chemicals with health-related risks.

The Commission has, however, acknowledged that the health-related benefit of the Union eco-label needs to be highlighted and actively communicated to the European consumer. It is therefore envisaged to reinforce the health-related criteria in the various Decisions establishing the eco-label criteria for the different product groups and to improve communication on the combined health and environment quality advantages of eco-labelled products to the European consumers and other stakeholders. In addition, the Commission intends to reinforce the emphasis on health aspects when the eco-label Regulation comes up for revision in 2005.

Against this background, the Commission does not intend to conduct surveys into consumers' and producers' wishes concerning the incorporation of health criteria and/or other factors into the scheme. However, discussions with all relevant stakeholders in the Union Eco-labelling Board on the forthcoming revision have already been launched in order to obtain a comprehensive overview of their experience with the instrument and their views on future developments. These discussions will be stepped up over the next two years and should provide an important input for the revision of the scheme.