ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Oil pipeline from Odessa to Brody

In Ukraine, an oil pipeline has been completed from Odessa to Brody. The Commission had been assisting the construction of the pipeline since 1995. How much money did the EU provide for the pipeline project, either directly or indirectly?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

The Commission has been assisting Ukraine's energy sector since 1995 by providing technical assistance and transfer of know how to Ukrainian national energy companies with an objective of accelerating reform of the energy sector as well as improving the Ukrainian energy efficiency and security.

As regards the Odessa-Brody oil pipeline, the Commission, through the Inogate programme (Interstate Oil and Gas Transport to Europe) and the TACIS national programme, has assisted the Ukraine in checking the safety and integrity of the pipeline as well as the Druzhba pipeline (TACIS national programme 3,2 million). This project was also instrumental in the transfer of know how to Ukrainian experts in modern maintenance techniques for the operation of all pipelines crossing Ukraine.

No direct investment from Community funds has been made in the Odessa Brody pipeline.

Several additional pipeline-related energy assistance projects are currently being prepared or implemented in Ukraine, including the construction of gas metering stations compatible with international standards in Grebenyky and Kaushany (Inogate 4 million) and a regional gas calibration centre for Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (Inogate 7,5 million should start shortly).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3051/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: The cost of road projects in Greece

In Greece it is widely assumed that major projects co-funded by the European Union are exceptionally expensive compared to equivalent projects in other Member States. Can the Commission give comparative statistics to confirm or refute this assumption? Will it, for instance, provide statistics giving the cost per kilometre of roads in Greece and in other Member States with similar geophysical characteristics? By what percentage have major road projects in Greece overshot their original budgets during the second CSF? What is the corresponding percentage in the other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

The Commission does not have the information needed to make a valid cost price per kilometre comparison between motorways in Greece and in other Member States of similar geophysical characteristics. Numerous factors affect this price and the research needed to distinguish them would be disproportionate to the result sought. The same goes for comparison of the percentages by which major road works in the Member States during the period of the 1994-1999 Community support framework (CSF) overshot their initial budgets.

We can however provide the Honourable Member with the following indications based on information from the national authorities. The cost price per kilometre of a motorway with two lanes in both directions varies in Greece from 3 million under favourable geophysical conditions to 30 million or more where a tunnel is needed. For Germany and France the estimated cost price range is from 6 million to 35 million in densely populated urban zones or where major engineering works are involved.

As regards the overshoot on initial budget for major road works in Greece during the 2nd CSF, it is Member States that are responsible for compliance with national and Community law in the execution of public works contracts. The Commission is not systematically sent performance data for all contracts under this CSF, some of which are still in execution. It examines the conformity of management of contracts of this type only if a complaint or a check indicates the possibility of irregularity.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3141/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2001)

Subject: Problems with management of CSF rail projects in Greece

According to Greek press reports, the Commissioner responsible has written to the Greek Government to point out that there are problems with Ergose's management (running over budget, delays) of the projects designed to modernise the rail network linking Patras, Athens, Thessaloniki and Evzoni, which are funded by the CSF.

What was the original schedule for carrying out the above rail projects and what points of variance with the schedule are there?

What was the original budget for these projects and which project has been completed with those funds?

If there are difficulties in carrying out the above projects, where do they lie and what does the Commission propose to do to overcome them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-3122/01 by Mr Folias(1) as concerns the schedule, cost and points of variance relating to rail projects co-financed by the Cohesion Fund to date, and the issues the Commission has raised with the Greek government.

The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is also co-financing rail projects within the Pathe axis under the Greek Community support framework (CSF) for the 1994-1999 programming period for a total amount of 245 million. Further co-funding is foreseen under the CSF for the actual 2000-2006 period for an estimated amount of 860 million.

The Greek authorities will make a final declaration of work completed under the previous CSF when they submit the final report for the operational programme (OP) Railways at the latest six months after the operation has been finished. It is at that moment that the Commission will have a clear picture of what has been completed with ERDF funding during the 1994-1999 period.

As regards the actual CSF, the Commission has asked the Greek government to provide a complete overview of the action required to complete the Pathe railway axis, and a full statement of the progress that is expected by the end of 2008, when eligibility for payments under this CSF expires, taking account also of co-funding expected from the Cohesion Fund.

The Greek authorities sent on the 30 October 2001 a draft report on these issues. The Commission will take contact with them in order to finalise it. When done, it should be attached as an annex to the OP Railways, Airports, Urban Transports 2000-2006.

In the same exchange of correspondence, the Commission has taken note of the changes in the organisation of Ergose that the Greek government has introduced at the beginning of 2001, and intends to undertake an expertise in the near future to check on the functioning of Ergose under these new arrangements.

(1) See page 103.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3314/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Charter of rights of users of the legal system

Several prominent legal experts in the Community have suggested that there is an urgent need at Union level for a charter of rights of users of the legal system, in order to ensure that users are dealt with in a fair and proper fashion in language that they can understand and are enabled to make any necessary complaints.

Such a charter should set out such fundamental principles as the right to be informed on action taken, the possibility of being received by the judge, and the right to be informed of the approximate cost of a procedure and to avail oneself of the services of a barrister, solicitor or legal expert.

Can the Commission state whether, in the context of its powers of initiative, it considers that it could put forward an initiative for the real and effective creation of such a charter of rights of users of the legal system?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

The Commission is carrying out work in relation to improving compensation and redress for victims as well as considering measures to safeguard the interests of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union.

As regards victims, Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings(1) imposes obligations on the Member States as regards communication of safeguards, specific assistance to victims, compensation and mediation. These obligations are to be implemented over a time period ranging from March 2002 to March 2006.

The Commission Green Paper, Compensation to crime victims, dated 28 September 2001(2) considers payment by the State to victims.

As regards suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings, there are plans for assessing and improving compliance with existing human rights instruments, principally the European Convention on Human Rights, and for devising measures to increase compliance where basic human rights are not being respected.

The Commission plans an extensive consultation on procedural safeguards in the period January-May 2002, followed by a Commission Communication scheduled for May/June 2002 outlining measures to be taken by all Member States to ensure that the interests of suspects and defendants are protected.

(1) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

(2) COM(2001) 536 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Cluster bombs

Does the Commission have any view on the proposed new international law which will require users of cluster bombs to clear up unexploded bomblets, and does it support a freeze on the use, manufacture and export of cluster bombs until such a law is introduced?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

A number of studies on the issue of cluster bombs show that no less then 10 % of delivered cluster bomblets fail to explode on impact and that the unexploded ones tend to have effects similar to the anti-personnel landmines (APL); this means that they also are victim-activated and provoke fatal or disabling injuries as serious as those caused by APL.

The Commission is aware of the particular suffering caused by unexploded cluster bombs years after conflicts have ended.

The Commission has also taken due note of the proposal submitted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to the upcoming review conference of the United Nations (UN) Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects (CCW) to address the problems caused by cluster bombs and other explosive remnants of war (ERW).

At the Review Conference which will meet in Geneva, Switzerland, 11 to 21 December 2001, the Union is expected to present a common position on the issue of the unexploded remnants of war requesting a higher level of commitment by the international community. The Union is indeed particularly concerned by the humanitarian and social problems caused by a variety of un-exploded munitions.

Union démarches will be carried out in order to accelerate progress in the discussions of this issue within the group of experts which has been specifically set up.

The Commission will closely follow developments at the CCW review.

On an operational level, the Commission is providing an indirect but tangible contribution to the reduction of the threat posed by cluster bombs/unexploded ordnance (CB/UXO) through the legal and budgetary instrument of the anti-personnel landmines Regulations. Decontamination from landmines often encompasses de-facto clearance of such ammunition; this has been particularly the case with areas such as Laos and Kosovo.

The Commission will make sure that the lessons learned in these operations will be used in future interventions.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2967/01

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2001)

Subject: UEFA Champions League commercial contracts inventigation and implications for the FA Premier League

Does the Commission consider that there are similarities between issues raised by the UEFA Champions League commercial contract arrangements and those of the FA Premier League, in particular regarding the public interest?

Will the Commission suspend its examination of the FA Premier League pending the outcome of its examination of the UEFA Champions League?

If the FA Premier League is obliged to notify the Commission of its commercial agreements and contracts, what would be the likely time-scale for this examination?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2001)

There are clearly both similarities and differences between the two arrangements from a competition law point of view. The principal similarity is that they both concern the joint selling of rights to broadcast football matches on an exclusive basis. However, there are a number of important differences in the way those rights are packaged up for sale to individual broadcasters.

So far as the public interest is concerned, the Commission wishes to ensure that these very important rights are not sold in a way which harms competition on broadcasting markets and which, as a consequence, harms viewers. This goal is the same in both cases.

In this regard, Premier League matches are of particular importance on the United Kingdom (UK) broadcasting markets: if there are any anti-competitive aspects to the way in which the broadcasting rights are sold, their effects would be especially harmful.

The Commission's examination of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Champions' League case is at a fairly advanced stage. Its preliminary analysis in the form of a statement of objections was sent to UEFA in July 2001 and the Commission is waiting for UEFA's response. In the meantime, the Commission is proceeding with an in-depth factual examination of the broadcasting arrangements of the Football Associations Premier League (FAPL) and has been in contact with the FAPL and third parties to this end.

The FAPL has not yet notified its broadcasting arrangements to the Commission. This does not prevent the Commission from examining the case on its own initiative and such an examination is underway. The duration is likely to depend on the degree of co-operation the Commission receives and the extent of third party interest and comment. The Commission is mindful that if action needs to be taken it should be taken as quickly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Tobacco smuggling

There emerges from the OLAF annual report for the year 2000 a highly disturbing picture of fraud in the own-resources field which is perpetrated in particular by means of tobacco smuggling.

Could the Commission confirm whether or not the country which produces the most frequently seized tobacco brands is a Member State?

Could the Commission confirm that the country in question is the United Kingdom?

What action has the Commission taken in order to put an end to this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission would like to point out that, in the year 2000, approximately 50 % of the cigarette seizures in the Community which have been notified to the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) were of brands popular in the United Kingdom. These are brands which are produced by United Kingdom manufacturers.

The Commission co-operates closely with the relevant services in the Member States in order to identify the source of, and to combat, international cigarette smuggling.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Accident at steelworks in Alcalá de Guadaira (Seville, Spain)

On 7 December 2001 a radioactive leak occurred at the steelworks in Alcalá de Guadaira (Seville province, Spain), releasing radioactive matter from a sealed capsule which had been introduced by error into the smelting process. This happened after the signing by the metallurgical companies, several ministries, the national Nuclear Safety Council and Enresa (the company responsible for handling radioactive waste) of a protocol in which they undertook to act to prevent such occurrences. A leak occurred in 1998 at a nearby steelworks which spread radioactive matter whose traces were detected even outside Spain.

Has the Commission been informed of this occurrence? Does it have information on the amount of radioactive matter contained in the capsule and the amount released into the environment? Does it know whether radiological damage was suffered by the workers, the public in general or the environment? What is the Commission's position concerning the protocol signed in Spain and its effectiveness?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

The Commission has not been officially informed by the Spanish authorities about the accidental melting of a radioactive source at the steelworks in Alcalá de Guadaira.

However, Council Decision 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency(1) obliges the Member States to notify and inform the Commission, inter alia, only where a Member State decides to take measures of a widespread nature in order to protect the general public in case of a radiological emergency. This situation did not occur in the case of that accident.

With regard to the cooperation Protocol between the Spanish authorities and the industrial associations concerned, the Commission believes this type of instrument is very useful to help avoid such an accident and to define the measures to be taken by the various parties concerned if a radioactive source is detected or in the event of an accident.

Given the possible consequences of this type of accident on the health of workers and the importance of prevention, the Commission is in the process of finalising a draft proposal for a directive aimed at ensuring adequate monitoring of radioactive sources by users and national authorities.

(1) OJ L 371, 30.12.1987.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Seychelles

Have the recommendations of the study of the Seychelles economy by Maxwell Stamp & Co been acted upon? Was compliance with the recommendations a condition of the EU's support?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Macroeconomic Study conducted in 2000 by Maxwell Stamp is still, technically, in draft form, since the validation workshop one of the components of the study has not yet been held, due undoubtedly to the reluctance of the Seychelles Government to take on board the Study's recommendations.

The Government of Seychelles has nevertheless acted on some of the recommendations of the study (though not necessarily as a response to it), in particular in the form of reduced public expenditure on capital projects and encouragement of greater private sector participation in certain policy areas (e.g. education). It has not, however, acted on the more far-reaching fiscal and monetary reforms recommended, such as devaluation of the Rupee.

Compliance with the recommendations of the Study is not a condition of Community support to Seychelles, though the macro-economic and financial situation will obviously be taken into consideration in deciding the focal sector of future Community support to Seychelles.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2938/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Radar systems at airports

The serious accident that occurred on 8 October 2001 at Linate airport in Milan involving a runway collision between a scheduled airliner and a small private jet raises serious concerns in that the airport was not equipped with ground radar for controlling air traffic.

Although this technical equipment exists in other European airports its installation is not compulsory.

Does the Commission not think that it would be useful to require the installation of ground radar systems to control runway movements at the larger and busier airports in the Union in order to prevent similar disasters in the future?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2938/01 and E-2940/01given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members' concern about the risk of runway incursions, as happened at Linate airport.

The Commission has started work in this area under the research programmes and two years ago a project called BETA was launched to assess the benefits that can be achieved through a common definition of requirements, and field demonstrations are being organised now. The Commission is working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol to define technical requirements, and the results of present activities are being presented to ICAO fora.

Once the technical requirement will be assessed, the Commission's recent proposals on the Single European Sky1(1) will make it possible to mandate the necessary measures to be taken at each European airport in order to ensure a very high safety standard. This will include any means, including runway signs, to ensure a comprehensive and efficient way of surveying surface movements.

(1) COM(2001) 123 final and 564 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/01

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Impact of the ACP-EU partnership agreement and the Everything but Arms initiative on the outermost regions

The challenge of integrating the outermost regions into their regional areas has been proclaimed in various international fora. However, the fact is that the similarities between their agricultural products and those of their ACP neighbours, with the wide differences in wage levels can put the outermost regions at a serious competitive disadvantage.

In its report of 14 March 2000 the Commission undertook to have an independent analysis carried out of the impact of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement on the outermost regions, a commitment which was confirmed on 12 June 2001 in the Commission's work programme in respect of a sustainable development strategy for the outermost regions.

1. Could the Commission keep Parliament informed of the state of progress of this expert analysis, and at the very least provide it with details of the subject of this impact study?

2. If this impact study showed that these agreements were having a destabilising effect on the agricultural markets in the outermost regions, to what extent would the European Parliament be involved in the effort to devise ways of compensating producers in those regions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

The Commission will keep Parliament informed of the progress of the impact study. The terms of reference of the study are being finalised by the Commission. All the departments that come under the Inter-Departmental Group on the Outermost Regions are involved, which means that all aspects of the dossier can be taken into account. The study is scheduled to start at the beginning of 2002.

The study will cover the possibilities and questions posed by the Cotonou Agreement and the Everything but Arms initiative for the outermost regions. It will include a socioeconomic analysis of the impact of these instruments, taking account of the specificity of the outermost regions in the Community and in their broader geographical areas. In view of the nature of the outermost regions, the consequences in terms of economic and commercial activity will be examined.

It will, of course, be an independent study and its outcome should not be prejudged. However, the Commission undertakes to keep Parliament fully informed, not only of the state of progress of the study but also the follow-up that it is given.