ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0530/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Contract workers with the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) at Ptolemais

For a number of years, DEI at Ptolemais has employed a large number of workers through a contractor (intermediary employer). The contractor may be the same or a different natural person over the years but the workers are employed to do the same job, which is determined by DEI and not the contractor. As the workers concerned perform the same job as DEI's permanent employees, will the Commission say for what period of time they can be described as temporary contract workers who have a lower level of labour rights and insurance entitlements?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Honourable Member's question relates to the situation of workers who for a considerable number of years have been recruited by a recruitment agency to work in the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI), doing work that is the same as that done by the corporation's permanent staff but without having the same protection or rights.

The Commission must point out that it cannot comment on a matter which must be examined in line with national law.

However, it may be useful to mention two types of Community provisions which could be relevant to the situation above. One is clause 5 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP(1), which provides that Member States must take the necessary measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships. The second is the Commission proposal for a Directive of 20 March 2002 on working conditions for temporary workers(2) and the amended proposal of 28 November 2002(3). Article 5 of these texts sets out the fundamental principle of equal treatment of temporary workers and workers in the user undertaking. In the amended version of the proposal, this principle is defined as follows: The basic working and employment conditions of temporary workers shall be, for the duration of their posting at a user undertaking, at least those that would apply if they had been recruited directly by that enterprise to occupy the same job. This text has already been approved by Parliament at first reading (opinion of 21 November 2002) and is currently being discussed by the Council.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.

(2) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.

(3) COM(2002) 701 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 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 some local authorities, such as the municipality of Prato, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 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-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Incorrect transposition of the Birds Directive into Spanish law

The European Commission brought infringements proceedings against the Kingdom of Spain for failing to correctly transpose and implement Directive 79/409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds. The irregularities detected by the Commission at the initial stage related to the seventh additional provision of Law No 4/1989 on conservation of the countryside and wild fauna and flora, which provided that authorisation for the hunting of partridge using decoys could be granted by the relevant autonomous administration, with

the limitations required to ensure conservation of that species, in places where this was a traditional activity. The Kingdom of Spain responded to the Commission's notification of this irregularity by amending the original law by way of Law 53/2002, claiming that this brought it into line with the Community legislation on birds.

However, while the new law prohibits hunting in the pre-mating and mating seasons and in migratory periods (Articles 34 and 38), the national legislature has in no way altered the seventh additional provision of Law No 4/1989, thereby entitling the competent administration (autonomous community) to maintain the derogation for the hunting of partridge using male decoys in places where this is a traditional activity. This means that the legislation on wild birds has still not been transposed correctly and in full.

Does the Commission feel that the new Law 53/2002, in continuing to leave the above-mentioned derogations to the discretion of the autonomous communities, correctly transposes the Directive on the conservation of wild birds?

Does it believe that the central government's delegation to the autonomous communities of powers to grant derogations provides an adequate guarantee of compliance with Community legislation in this field?

Has the Commission given any follow-up to letter of formal notice No 4720 it sent to Spain in 1999?

What measures will the Commission take to ensure the correct transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC, which does not provide for derogations such the one permitted by the Kingdom of Spain?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

In the course of the infringement proceedings referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission sent Spain a reasoned opinion regarding the improper transposition and application of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. In the said reasoned opinion it asked Spain to take the necessary steps to comply with the provisions of the Directive.

The Commission has yet to receive the Spanish authorities' reply to the reasoned opinion. Nonetheless, it is currently examining the conformity of Spanish Law No 53/2002 with the provisions of Directive 79/409/EEC.

In any event, the Commission will take every measure provided for in the Treaties to ensure that the Spanish authorities transpose and enforce Directive 79/409/EEC properly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Cetacean by-catch

Is the Commission aware of the plight of cetaceans caught as a result of pair trawling mainly for sea bass primarily within the English Channel? Since the beginning of January over 120 dolphins have been washed up on the beaches of my constituency.

A limited observer programme instigated by the UK's Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs in 2001 showed that dolphins were being caught as a by-catch of sea bass, a luxury not a staple food.

Action is vital if we are not to lose cetaceans from our coastlines. They are currently dying a needless death in the quest to satisfy a demand for luxury food.

When I met Commissioner Fischler to discuss this issue in the autumn he assured me that action by the Commission was imminent. What action has been taken since then? What steps does the Commission intend to take to regulate pair-trawling for sea bass? If it cannot be satisfactorily regulated will the Commission confirm that it will be banned until such measures as are necessary are put in place?

When will the Commission take action to initiate an observer scheme for these trawlers working in international waters?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the problem of dead dolphins being washed ashore on the beaches of Member States, in particular in this winter period in the south of the United Kingdom.

As far as its questions concerning possible measures to regulate pair trawling for sea bass, or to address, in a broader approach, the problem of incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Written Question P-0500/03 by Mr Davies(1).

The priority of the Commission action is orientated towards addressing the issue of cetacean by-catch within marine waters adjacent to the European territory of the Union. The geographical extent of the proposals under consideration will depend on the fishery concerned, the level of available information on its possible impacts on cetaceans, and the type of measure proposed.

However, on the basis of the information available at this stage on incidental catches of cetaceans, the Commission does not consider the placing of observers on Community vessels using pair trawlers in international waters to be a high priority. In addition, such a measure, if envisaged, should benefit from international co-ordination within the framework of the regional fisheries organisation covering the high seas concerned.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the City of Frosinone

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

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

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

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1798/03

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Refunds for sugar-processing operations

In accordance with the Brussels Agreement (2002/C 152/05)(1), the firm Agrar Invest Tatschl imports sugar from Serbia and Croatia. Tatschl's customers use the sugar imported from Serbia or Croatia in the manufacture of juices, chocolate, etc. and then export the finished products to third countries.

The current intervention price for sugar is approximately EUR 699 per tonne. The world market price, on the other hand, is only about EUR 250. The sugar-processing operations should therefore receive a refund of approximately EUR 450 per tonne for sugar imported for processing from Serbia and Croatia when the finished products (juices, chocolate) are subsequently exported to third countries (export of Non-Annex I products from the Union's customs-free territory with application for an export refund).

The refund in question works without any problem in Germany and Italy. I do not understand why Austrian sugar-processing operations have so far been placed at a disadvantage by the refusal to grant them refunds.

The Austrian Finance Ministry took action on this matter last year (28 March 2002) by sending a request to the Commission for clarification on whether Austrian firms were eligible for refunds in these circumstances. So far the Commission has not replied.

I would therefore like answers to the following questions:

1. Are refunds possible for Austrian sugar-processing operations?

2. If so, can refunds be retroactive?

3. What procedure must be gone through to obtain retroactive refunds?

4. If not, on the basis of which directives is a refund impossible?

(1) OJ C 152, 26.6.2002, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1129/03

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 Livorno

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 Livorno, 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 Livorno has submitted projects for the action programme for migrant workers?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno 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-0978/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

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

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 Ancona, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03,E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03,E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/03

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 Florence

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 Florence, 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 Florence has submitted projects for the ERDF?

2. whether the municipality of Florence 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Adequacy of oil clean-up capacities in the EU's maritime regions

In the light of the enquiries which I have made to the appropriate authorities of all the countries bordering the Baltic Sea (including current and future Member States as well as Russia), it appears to be the case that every Baltic coastal state has equipment of some description to clean up oil but the actual clean-up capacity in the Baltic region is in practice impossible to gauge, given the wind, ice, and other conditions prevailing at sea. For example, when routine damage occurs an attempt can be made to remove oil-covered ice mechanically, by means of dredgers, but the capacity to carry out even that operation is insufficient when a tanker breaks up. The overall picture which has emerged from my enquiries seems to suggest that, even if conditions were relatively good, oil would not start to be cleared until it had been washed ashore, because there would in fact not be enough equipment available for any other option, even under favourable circumstances.

The situation is presumably similar in other EU maritime regions.

Has the Commission considered whether it might catalogue oil clean-up capacities in the EU's maritime regions, using standard assessment procedures, and, if necessary, lay down or recommend minimum capacities for the different regions, taking into account the specific conditions and traffic volumes in the areas concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

In the context of the Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution (Decision No 2850/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2000(1)), a Community Information System (CIS) for the purpose of exchanging data on the preparedness for and response to marine pollution has been established. The Commission, in collaboration with Member States, has defined the format of the national pages of the CIS. The CIS is open to national competent authorities and to public at the following website: http://europa.eu.int/marpol-cis

In case of accidents, Member States and Candidate Countries can activate the Community Mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in Civil Protection assistance interventions. In this way, any affected country can have immediate access, through the European Response Centre, to all specialised equipment available in Europe.

Moreover, concerning the preparedness and response to marine pollution in the different regional seas around Europe, the Commission closely follows the works of the competent working groups. In particular, for the Baltic Sea, the Commission participates to the works of the working groups of the Helsinki Commission (Helcom), which are set up by the Helsinki Convention.

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Implementation of Anti-Discrimination at Work Directive

Could the Commission indicate how many, if any, Member States have applied or plan to apply to avail themselves of the extra three year period to implement the provisions in the areas of disability and age discrimination of the Anti-Discrimination at Work Directive Directive 2000/78/EC(1) adopted by the Council in November 2000, which has to be implemented by the end of 2003 at the latest, and if so, could it outline what reasons, if any, have been given to justify these delays?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Article 18 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation states: In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States, may, if necessary have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination. In that event they shall inform the Commission forthwith. Any Member State which chooses to use this additional period shall report annually to the Commission on the steps it is taking to tackle age and disability discrimination and on the progress it is making towards implementation. The Commission shall report annually to the Council.

The decision on whether to use the additional three year period available for the provisions relating to disability and age is one for Member States under the conditions set up by that provision. One Member State has indicated that it wishes to avail itself of the additional period. Some other Member States have indicated informally that they are considering this. None of the Member States has formally indicated its reasons so far.