ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3315/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Borrowing forecasts

1. Further to the Commission's answer on 4 November to parliamentary questions E-2865/02 through E-2868/02(1), will the Commission now give the forecast made in each stability and convergence programme for each Member State for real GDP, inflation and the budget balance, and compare each of those projections with the out-turn?

2. Does the Commission find any systematic differences in the forecasting performance for different Member States, and if so why?

3. What conclusions does the Commission draw?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Stability and Convergence Programmes (SCP) are submitted by Member States at the turn of the year. After the adoption of the Code of Conduct in 2001, SCP are submitted right after the finalisation of the Commission's Autumn forecasting exercise, which allows for a sound basis for assessment of the programmes. Moreover, the information contained in the programmes is now fairly homogeneous and includes data on macroeconomic forecasts (gross domestic product (GDP) and inflation projections) and budgetary developments. While making an assessment of the current programme, the Commission provides also an appraisal of the previous year's programme in the light of developments during the year. For the next round of SCP it is still too early to have knowledge of what will be submitted to the Commission for an assessment. Furthermore, any comparison between the forecasts on macroeconomic variables or budgetary targets contained in the programmes with actual out-turns can be made only at a later date. For data referring to 2003, a comparison can be made once statistical data become official once the year comes to a close.

In order to confirm if there exist systematic differences between the forecasted variables within the context of the SCP and actual results, an ex post study should be made. Such a comprehensive study for all Member States has not yet been prepared by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2781/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Kaliningrad and the protection of the Union's financial interests

The European Commission is negotiating with the Russian authorities on relations with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. The enclave lies between two applicant countries for accession to the European Union. As a result of its unique position, it represents a risk to the financial interests of the Union.

1. Does the Commission recognise that Kaliningrad represents a potential risk to the financial interests of the Union as a result of its geographical situation?

2. Has the Commission examined these risks? If so, what risks has the Commission identified?

3. What measures is the Commission taking to protect the financial interests of the Union as effectively as possible in relation to Kaliningrad?

4. Can the Commission guarantee that in its negotiations with the Russian authorities on Kaliningrad the protection of the financial interests of the Union will not be undermined and that it is proceeding on the basis of the principle that the level of protection of financial interests should be at least as high as in the current EU15?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The Commission considers it to be in the general interests of the Union financial, economic, environmental, and security to ensure that the problems of Kaliningrad do not threaten the stability, prosperity or security of an enlarged Union. For this reason, the Commission is actively providing, in cooperation with the Russian authorities, assistance to promote the economic and social development of Kaliningrad, including assistance targeted at areas including improved border management, combatting environmental pollution and tackling human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/aquired immunodeficiency syndrom(AIDs).

The Commission also considers that enhanced Union/Russia cooperation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, particularly joint work to prevent trans-border crime, smuggling and illegal migration, will be important to ensure that the management of the future common border will pose no threat to the Union's interests.

In recent discussions on the subject of Kaliningrad, the Russian Federation has focussed on the issue of visas. The Commission submitted a Communication on 18 September 2002 stating that any solution to the issue of transit of persons and goods to and from Kaliningrad must fully respect the acquis and the sovereignty of the new Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3707/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: South Africa

With reference to South Africa, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Black tide in Galicia: restrictions on single-hull vessels

Following the Prestige accident, the Governments of Spain and France agreed to expel single-hull oil tankers more than 15 years old from the zone between 12 and 200 miles, i.e. to keep them out of their territorial waters, even if they complied with International Maritime Organisation standards.

Even though this is a praiseworthy decision, it has been criticised because it is not in keeping with the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 58 of that Convention establishes the freedom of navigation and overflight in this area of the exclusive economic zone, in which any restriction on freedom of movement must be imposed by the IMO and not by one or various States acting unilaterally.

What is the Commission's view of this statement by the Governments of Spain and France?

Agreeing on the need to reduce the risk of fresh disasters, will the Commission urge the Member States to submit a reasoned communication to the International Maritime Organisation, pursuant to Article 211(6) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, requesting authorisation to restrict the free transit of such vessels in this defined zone?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3653/02 and E-3657/02given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission is aware that coastal States need to be able to protect their coastlines from the risks posed by shipping in areas as busy as Cape Finisterre.

Accordingly, a draft regulation prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel oil in single hull tankers bound for or leaving EU ports and speeding up the replacement of single hull ships by double hull ships was sent to the Council and Parliament on 20 December 2002.

In addition, the Commission believes that the international rules of the law of the sea currently lean too far towards the right to free navigation, at the expense of coastal States' interests. However, the Commission itself has no authority to propose the introduction of new measures to keep ships which pose a risk away from the coasts.

Accordingly, and as announced in its communication of 3 December 2002(1), the Commission will be seeking a negotiating mandate from the Council, for those areas in which it has competence, and will coordinate the Member States' action in the other areas, with a view to amending the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to strike a better balance between environmental protection requirements and freedom of navigation.

The Commission will also support, and where necessary coordinate, all action by the Member States within the International Maritime Organisation to create new tools to monitor and manage maritime traffic, thus protecting their coastal waters, and especially their territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, against threats to the marine environment.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3705/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Sudan

With reference to Sudan, will the Commission draw up a list of the projects approved for financing under the 2001 EU budget and state the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Tanzania

With regard to Tanzania, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Transfer of personal data between Europe and the USA

During a visit by the European Parliament Delegation for relations with the United States, representatives of the Europol Washington office indicated that Europol had, on a number of occasions, approved transfers of personal data to the US authorities but only in cases of life and death, on the responsibility of the Europol Director and under the supervision of the Board.

Can the Commission provide detailed information concerning such procedures and, in particular, the legal basis on which they are carried out? In how many cases has this occurred involving how many people (of what nationality) and what data? What reasons of exceptional and vital importance have in the past been put forward in this connection? Why is that, according to Europol representatives in the USA, there has been no supply of data in the opposite direction, i.e. from the United States authorities to Europol?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

Article 2(1) of the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting the rules governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to third States and third bodies(1) stipulates that personal data may be transmitted to third States under the conditions laid down in Article 18 of the Europol Convention(2) when an agreement is in place with that third State.

In absence of such an agreement, personal data may be transmitted in exceptional cases, when the Europol's Director considers the transmission to be absolutely necessary to safeguard the essential interests of the Member States, or in the interests of preventing imminent danger associated with crime.

The Council Act also obliges the Europol's Director to inform the Europol Management Board and the Joint Supervisory Body without undue delay of any decision taken to transmit personal data in application of this exceptional clause.

Following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 in the United States, the Europol Director decided on 28 September 2001 to apply the exceptional clause and informed the Management Board and the Joint Supervisory Body thereof. The data transmission has been limited to information linked to the investigations of the terrorist acts committed on 11 September 2001, including related criminal offences and money laundering activities. The reason for that decision was that information held at Europol could be of vital importance to the competent authorities in the United States.

The Commission is not involved in the operational work of Europol and has no knowledge on the details of this data transmission and whether or not the United States have supplied any data to Europol.

(1) OJ C 88, 30.3.1999.

(2) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/02

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: São Tomé and Príncipe

With regard to São Tomé and Príncipe, can the Commission state which projects were financed from the EU budget in 2000?

Can it specify the total volume of aid over 2000 for all the headings relating to that country?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3680/02, E-3681/02, E-3682/02, E-3683/02, E-3684/02,E-3685/02, E-3686/02, E-3687/02, E-3688/02, E-3689/02, E-3690/02, E-3691/02,E-3692/02, E-3693/02, E-3694/02, E-3695/02, E-3696/02, E-3697/02, E-3698/02,E-3699/02, E-3700/02, E-3701/02, E-3702/02, E-3703/02, E-3704/02, E-3705/02,E-3706/02, E-3707/02, E-3708/02, E-3709/02, E-3710/02, E-3711/02, E-3712/02,E-3713/02, E-3714/02, E-3715/02, E-3716/02, E-3717/02, E-3718/02, E-3719/02,E-3720/02, E-3721/02, E-3722/02, E-3723/02, E-3724/02 and E-3725/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Honorary Member will find below a table giving the total amount of aid granted to the following countries:

>TABLE>

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a more detailed table, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1917/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Delays in payment of Community aid to banana production in Madeira

Banana producers in Madeira (Portugal) have been complaining about considerable delays in the payment of Community aid; this circumstance is causing them severe problems, notably in the acquisition of factors of production.

Can the Commission state whether delays are in fact occurring in the payment of Community aid to banana producers' organisations in Madeira and, should this be the case, give reasons for the delays?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that calculating compensatory aid every year for Community banana producers involves a long process of collecting and meticulously verifying data on prices and marketed quantities for each of the producer Member States. These various tasks entail administrative deadlines that can hardly be shortened especially if the prime concern is to produce correct and reliable data. As soon as the data in question are collected and after a final check, the Commission, without delay, under the Management Committee procedure, adopts the legislation fixing the amount of the compensatory aid. National administrations are then required to pay the aid to producers within a reasonable time limit set out in the rules.

Specifically as regards aid for the 2001 marketing year, the most recent information from the Member States reached the Commission on 6 May 2002.

The Regulation fixing the aid was published in the Official Journal on 1 June 2002(1). It lays down that the national administrations are under the obligation to pay the balance of the aid by 4 August 2002 at the latest.

The Commission would also call attention to the fact that Community producers may receive advances on the compensatory aid.

The arrangements for these advances have in fact just been changed by Regulation (EC) No 471/2001(2). They provide for the payment of a sixth advance for bananas marketed during the months of November and December, account being in this way taken of cash-flow problems on the part of producers pending payment of the balance of the compensatory aid.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 932/2002 of 31 May 2002 fixing the compensatory aid for bananas produced and marketed in the Community in 2001, the time limit for payment of the balance of the aid and the unit value of the advances for 2002 OJ L 144, 1.6.2002.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 471/2001 of 8 March 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate the loss of income from marketing in the banana sector OJ L 67, 9.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Border guard units

Replying to my Question E-1887/02(1) of 2 July 2002 in the debate on the Commission Communication Towards Integrated Management of the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union(2), the Commission regrets that it cannot answer the questions as it does not have any information on the matter, which falls within the competences of the relevant authorities of the Member States.

Why is the Commission proposing European border guard units if it is unfamiliar with the present situation?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 148.

(2) COM(2002) 233.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

At its meeting on 14/15 December 2001 the Laeken European Council asked the Council and the Commission to work out arrangements for cooperation between services responsible for external border control and to examine the conditions in which a mechanism or common services to control external borders could be created.

To meet these expectations of the European Council, the Commission adopted its communication, Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union(1), setting out the possible principles for a common policy in order to establish a structured framework for operational activities and set long-term guidelines. The Commission's proposals are based on the practical knowledge and experience acquired in past years, as described in Part II of the communication.

Burden-sharing between Member States in the run-up to a European Corps of Border Guards is a key component of the proposed common policy. This desirable goal must not, however, be isolated from the communication's other key components. The Commission is in favour of the creation of a European corps of border guards in the medium term, but the communication also makes it clear that at the appropriate juncture, the Commission will evaluate the institutional and legal nature of this structure.

(1) COM(2002) 233 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3052/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Implementation of water purification plant contract in Sanski Most (Bosnia)

On 23 November 2000, work on a water purification plant in Sanski Most (Bosnia) was stopped. The project was being carried out with the assistance of the European Commission, represented through its Sarajevo Office. The other contractor was Purac AB Company of Sweden, represented in Sarajevo by WTE Company Sarajevo. The works sub-contractor was Elektrometal Cazin.

The work was closed down by Purac AB/WTE. Elektrometal was then approached by a Mr Magowan from the offices of Carlo Lotti & Associati, asking it to continue to carry out the work. Elektrometal was initially required to assume responsible for maintenance work on the building site. The undertaking remained responsible for this at least until 2 August 2001.

Work was not resumed, even although Elektrometal had always indicated that it was prepared for that to happen. In a number of letters to different individuals and organisations not least to Purac AB itself Elektrometal also pointed out that it had payments to itself outstanding of some EUR 147 000, not including interest payments on the delay and compensation for breach of contract. There are good reasons to assume that the amount outstanding has still not been paid to its rightful recipient.

Can the Commission give an account of the above matter and state what action it has taken or will take to ensure that the all contracting parties to this project will secure their rights and/or comply with their obligations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

In accordance with the principles of fair competition and transparency, the remaining works for the Sanski Most Water Treatment Plant were subject to a tendering procedure. Therefore, the Commission could not accept the offer submitted by Elektrometal to resume the works.

The company Elektrometal, which was a sub-contractor to PURAC/WTE, has informed the Commission's Delegation several times about their outstanding claims vis-a-vis PURAC/WTE. As this concerns a contractual relationship between Elektrometal and Purac, the European Commission cannot intervene in this dispute between two private companies.