ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Pooling Open Source Software

Has the Commission given formal consideration to the report published by IDA (Interchange of Data between Administrations) called Pooling Open Source Software an IDA feasibility study on interchange of data between administrations (DG Enterprise) which recommends the creation of a software clearing house to which administrations can donate software? Does it agree with the study's suggestion that software developed for and owned by public administrations should be issued under an open source licence?

What action is the Commission intending to take on this?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The feasibility study Pooling Open Source Software was initiated under the IDA (Interchange of Data between Administrations) programme to consider how the re-use of software applications developed by and for public administrations could be improved.

IDA launched this study:

- to explore opportunities for greater cost-efficiency in Information Technology implementations in the European public sector;

- to respond to the eEurope 2002 action plan's call to promote the use of open source software in the public sector;

- and to assess the feasibility of a recommendation resulting from the IDA symposium on open source in public administrations (held in Brussels in February 2001).

The contractor carrying out the study (Unisys) was asked to assess the technical, organisational, legal and financial aspects of the sharing of software. The recommendations that have been issued are those of the contractor. No formal position has been taken by the Commission on these recommendations. However, a number of options for practical action are currently being considered by the Commission. Where these concern the IDA programme, proposals have to be approved by Member States, represented in the Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC).

Software licences and software sharing are interrelated, and the study's call for software owned by public administrations to be issued under open source licences should be seen in this context. For software to be shared among administrations, access to the source code needs to be granted (for modification purposes), and no restrictions should apply to the distribution of the software. Both conditions are met by open source software licences.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Conditions attached to the application of the European Arrest Warrant

Under the proposals for the European Arrest Warrant currently before the Council of Ministers, will the requesting Member State be required to restrict prosecution of an extradited person to those offences that are specified in the warrant? Would it be a violation of the arrest warrant for the requesting Member State to initiate a prosecution for an offence alleged to have been committed before the application for extradition was made and which was not specified on the warrant without first offering the extradited person the opportunity to leave the jurisdiction of the requesting Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States adopted at the most recent Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 June 2002 is a major step forward in establishing a European law-enforcement area. The Framework Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 18 July 2002 and entered into force twenty days later (Article 35). Member States have to take the necessary measures to comply with its provisions by 31 December 2003 (Article 34).

The European arrest warrant is to replace the extradition instruments currently in force between the Member States. It encompasses all the situations previously covered by the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. The principle of double criminality is waived for a list of 32 offences if they are punishable by a sentence of more than three years in the executing Member State. The arrangement provided for is strictly judicial. In practical terms the extradition of nationals can no longer be refused if the judicial authority of a Member State has issued a European arrest warrant.

Under Article 27 of the Framework Decision a Member State may waive the speciality principle on condition that in its decision on surrender in the specific case the judicial authority does not provide otherwise. If it does provide otherwise, the speciality principle continues to apply and prior authorisation by the executing State is required for additional prosecution proceedings for offences not specified on the initial European arrest warrant, unless one of the exceptions listed in Article 27(3) applies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2878/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Relocation of the tramline route in Athens

Recently the Greek Government decided to relocate the tramline as a result of damage which might be caused to the historic Hadrian's Arch monument as a result of vibrations from the wires as trams went past. In spite of the fact that this problem was identified by archaeologists before work on tramline construction began, the government went ahead with construction work on the line at that precise spot.

1. Since the project is funded from the third CSF, did the Commission approve the initial tramline route?

2. Will it cover the additional cost which will arise from the moving of the line and how much will this amount to?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2878/02 and E-2947/02given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The major project for the construction of the Athens tramway is included among those foreseen under the Operational Programme Railways, Airports, Urban Transport, 2000-2006. Up to the present, the Commission has not received a specific demand for the realisation of this project from the Greek authorities.

The procedure for the approval of major projects for support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) requires the Greek authorities to submit an application as provided for under Articles 25 and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1). The application should concern the project in its definitive form.

Expenditures eligible for ERDF support can only include those submitted by the Member State in its final application to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/02

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

(16 October 2002)

Subject: St Kitts and Nevis

Will the Commission provide a list of the projects approved for EU budget funding in 2001 for St Kitts and Nevis and give details of the total amount of investment for that year?

Joint answerto Written Questions E2909/02, E-2910/02, E-2911/02, E-2912/02,E-2913/02, E-2914/02, E-2915/02, E-2916/02, E-2917/02, E-2918/02,E-2919/02, E-2920/02, E-2921/02 and E-2922/02given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, a table containing the requested information, and the 2001 Annual Report on EC development policy and the implementation of external assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2728/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Non-payment of aid to Greek organic farmers

Organic farmers in the prefecture of Pireas whose applications were accepted from 1999 under the relevant EU-funded programme have not received payment in respect of their 2000 and 2001 crops. It appears that similar problems have arisen in other prefectures in Greece.

Can the Commission give the reasons for non-payment of aid and say what steps it intends to take to ensure that the farmers in question receive the aid to which they are entitled?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2002)

The Commission's initial information is that failure to pay the organic farming agri-environmental premiums to certain recipients in the Pireas prefecture for 2000 and 2001 under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92(1) followed notification to the national authorities by the Pireas agriculture department that these recipients' agri-environmental commitments had been made irregularly in that they were given during 1999 instead of at the beginning of the year (which would have allowed compliance with the commitments to be thoroughly checked during the various growing stages). This in fact meant that the payments made at the end of 1999 should have been made at the end of the following year, i.e. the payments due for 2000 had already been made in 1999 and as long as the legal and control procedure difficulties engendered by the situation remained unresolved further payments were blocked. The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that these difficulties have been cleared up and that the payments for 2001 and 2002 can be made at the end of the year. Given the lack of clarity surrounding agri-environmental commitments in the Pireas prefecture, the Commission will however be seeking further information from the Greek authorities.

According to the national authorities the problem arose in this prefecture only.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside (OJ L 215, 30.7.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3219/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Aid for fishing ports

Is it to be construed from Council Regulation No 2792/1999(1) of 17 December 1999 that facilities in fishing ports that benefit from private joint financing cannot obtain the same rate of aid from structural measures as publicly financed facilities in fishing ports?

If so, for what reasons is the Commission pursuing such a policy that discriminates between projects depending on whether the project is of a public or private nature and does it intend to modify this practice?

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The Berlin European Council (23-24 March 1999) adopted the Agenda 2000 financial perspective covering Structural Fund utilisation over the period 2000-2006. Point 48 of the Council Presidency's conclusions reads:

In the case of investment in firms, the contribution of the funds shall comply with the ceilings on the rate of aid and on combinations of aid set in the field of State aids. The European Council also endorses the lower rates proposed by the Commission for contributions of the funds to revenue-generating infrastructure investment and investment in firms.

At the level of the Regulation(1) dealing with the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance this principle translates into different contribution rates inter alia for fishing port facilities depending on whether or not a financial contribution from private beneficiaries is involved.

Paragraph 6 of Section 2 Rates of financial participation in Annex IV to the Regulation states that the (national) management authority is to determine whether projects do or do not involve such a contribution, in particular on the basis of the following considerations:

- collective versus individual interests,

- collective versus individual beneficiary,

- public access to the results of the operation versus private ownership and control,

- financial participation by collective bodies, research institutions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3064/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Fatalities in connection with the slimming aid Letigen: questionable approval procedure

The Danish consumer magazine T+T discloses in its issue No 28, October 2002 how the slimming aid Letigen may have caused numerous deaths, and that the Danish Medicines Agency approved the product on highly questionable evidence. Slimming aids whose content of stimulants of the central nervous system is similar to Letigen are prohibited in the rest of the EU, and investigations from the USA clearly show that slimming aids with the same structure and composition as Letigen can have serious side effects.

I would therefore ask the Commission to comment immediately on the basis for the Danish Medicines Agency's approval of Letigen. Will the Commission state why products with the same content can be simultaneously permitted in some countries and prohibited in others? We must assume that a Dane and a Swede, for example, are both equally sensitive to a dangerous product like Letigen. Because Letigen is prohibited in Sweden, many Swedes have bought the product in Denmark the problem cannot therefore be regarded as a national matter. What measures does the Commission propose to take against the Danish Medicines Agency in the interests of public health both in Denmark and the rest of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Letigen is a medicinal product which contains 20 miligram (mg) ephedrine and 200 mg coffein.

No divergent decision have been taken by national authorities for Letigen because a marketing authorisation was only requested by an applicant in Denmark.

The competent authority for granting a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product in Sweden (the Medicinal Product Agency (MPA)) has not received an application of a marketing authorisation concerning Letigen. Therefore, the MPA has never rejected a marketing authorisation for Letigen.

The competent authority from Denmark (Danish Medicines Agency) granted a marketing authorisation to Letigen in 1990.

The Commission will bring the Honourable Member's concerns to the attention of the Danish Medicines Agency to comment on the safety of Letigen in the treatment of Obesity with a significant medicinal risk.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1679/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Violence in Kisangani

Following the violence in Kisangani on 14 May 2002, UN sources consider it possible that unrest may also break out in other towns under the control of DRC/Goma. The people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied that the rebel movement, under pressure from Rwanda, is continuing to reject the political agreement between President Joseph Kabila and the rebel movement MLC.

The international community is very lenient towards Rwanda, which continues to commit serious human rights violations in Congo.

When will the Commission begin to implement the decisions of the international community: the demilitarisation of Kisangani, the reopening of the Congo River, the reunification of the country and the withdrawal of foreign armies?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Implementation of the decisions of the international community is essentially a matter for the parties involved in the conflict.

The Commission gives its full support to the United Nations but cannot implement measures such as the demilitarisation of Kisangani, the reopening of the Congo River or the withdrawal of foreign armies.

Concerning the reopening of the Congo river to commercial traffic during the month of April, representatives of Government of Congo, the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD)-Goma and the Movement for the the Liberation of Congo (MLC) signed an agreement proposed by the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). The first convoy has already reached Kisangani escorted by MONUC riverine units.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Checks on compliance with the origin rules for imports of ACP sugar

Under the Sugar Protocol, certain ACP countries are permitted to export sugar to the EU at prices which are attractive to them.

1. Can the Commission confirm that this sugar is produced solely in the ACP countries concerned?

2. Can the Commission confirm that the sugar in question consists of surplus sugar produced in the ACP countries and not surpluses which have arisen because the ACP country concerned has also imported sugar from the world market?

3. How is this checked and how many inspection missions, if any, have been carried out from Brussels?

4. Have any studies recently been performed which shed light on which sections of society in the ACP countries benefit from the Sugar Protocol?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

1. The Commission has no reason to believe that the sugar imported under the Sugar Protocol does not originate solely in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries concerned.

2. The Sugar Protocol does not prohibit the ACP from importing sugar from other countries while at the same time exporting their own production to the Community.

3. The origin of the ACP sugar is certified and verified in accordance with the relevant provisions of Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement, notably Title IV on proofs of origin and Title V on arrangements for administrative cooperation. Inspection missions can be carried out to identify and prevent contraventions of the provisions of Protocol 1, which has not been the case with regard to the origin of sugar imported under the Sugar Protocol.

4. The Commission is not aware of any recent studies on the benefits of the Sugar Protocol to various sections of society in ACP countries. However, the Commission is regularly informed by an annual Memorandum (submitted by the ACP States signatories to the Sugar Protocol) of the efforts of the ACP countries to increase efficiency and competitiveness and of the important role of sugar in their economies and societies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/02

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: European Union funding in the water sector

At the World Summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, which closed on 4 September 2002, the Commission press release dated 3 September stressed that the EU is already investing EUR 1,4 billion per year in scientific cooperation and development aid in the water sector (press release IP/02/1265).

Can the Commission answer the following:

- Under what Community funding instruments has this EUR 1,4 billion investment been made available?

- What is the annual breakdown of this investment between the various European funding programmes concerned?

- If so, what are the respective annual amounts concerned?

- What water projects, by country, have been funded by the EU within the framework of each of these programmes?

At the Johannesburg Summit a European water initiative was adopted. How does the Commission intend to develop and implement this initiative? Is the Commission in a position to say whether additional European funding will be made available over and above what has already been invested, and if so, under which funding programmes and for which types of project?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H 696/02 during question time at Parliament's October 2002 session(1) and adds the following elements of reply to the specific questions raised:

- The figure of EUR 1,4 billion is an average of Union (Community and Member States) aid assistance in the field of water. The figure is based on information received from Member States about allocations for 2002, completed by information from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) reports.

- For the Commission EUR 135 million are allocated to water in 2002 from the Community Budget and the European Development Fund (EDF). The calculation does not include water-related activities included under other sectoral headings, such as health, environment, rural and urban development, as well as research programmes.

- An inventory is currently being carried out in the framework of the Union Water Initiative, which will result in a more detailed presentation of Community and Member States' bilateral projects in the water sector.

(1) Written reply 22.10.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3174/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

Sustainable development is a priority of the European Union. The protection of biodiversity is a global necessity. Birds have been affected by intensive agriculture. Within the framework of the Commission's proposals for a mid-term review of the CAP, the Commission has increased the importance of biodiversity protection and the maintenance of natural habitat.

1. Does the Commission agree that there is a need to give priority to Pillar II funding to farmers who arrange their agricultural practices in such a way that they benefit species and areas under the Wild Birds and Habitat directives?

2. How will the Commission encourage Member States to give priority in Pillar II activities of farmers who arrange their agricultural practices in such a way that they benefit Special Protection Areas under the Wild Birds and Habitat Directives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Commission is of the opinion that it is necessary to further increase the scope for Member States to encourage the provision of environmental services through agri-environmental schemes under rural development, the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Biodiversity protection and the maintenance of natural habitats are a key element of the services that farmers can provide to wider society.

For this reason, the Commission proposed a number of elements to further facilitate the support of these activities under the CAP in its Communication on the Mid-Term Review(1). This included proposing the reinforcement of rural development funding, a higher intervention rate for agri-environmental measures as well as long-term environmental set-aside.

It is up to Member States to decide the focus for increased support within the context of their priorities and needs. With respect to Natura 2000 sites responsibility for ensuring their favourable conservation management lies with the Member States who will need to consider how best to use currently available Community funds to contribute to this objective. As in the past, the Commission will examine any proposed changes to rural development programs within the framework of each Member State's legal commitments.

The financial requirements for the management of the Natura 2000 network is currently subject to consideration by an expert group convened by the Commission. The Commission is committed in its 2003 work programme to submit a Communication on this issue to the Parliament and Council. This will provide the basis for further debate on the long term structure of Community co-financing.

(1) COM(2002) 394 final.