ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/244

(2004/C 65 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: The European Union's cohesion policies

Cohesion policy has for years been a fundamental part of the Union's political activities. The policy's instruments of solidarity are the four Structural Funds (the ERDF, ESF, FIFG and EAGGF), the Cohesion Fund and the Community initiatives (Interreg III, Urban II, Leader+ and Equal).

Of the Community initiatives, Interreg III is the one with a truly European dimension in the sense that it lessens the effects on our continent of centuries of the existence of national borders. It comes under the European Regional Development Fund and promotes interregional cooperation in the European Union. The aim of the new phase of Interreg is to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the EU by increasing crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation and fostering balanced regional development. The EU launched these four programmes, the Community initiatives (to which 5,35 % of monies under the Structural Funds are allocated), in order to find common solutions to problems that exist throughout the EU.

The European scale of this initiative cannot, however, be compared with the boost to cohesion given by the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. The Cohesion Fund, a special aid fund, was set up in 1993 to assist the four least prosperous Member States: Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. It is used throughout these countries to finance large-scale environmental and transport projects. Similarly, the Structural Funds focus on clear priority objectives: 70 % of funding is allocated to help the least developed regions catch up, regions where 22 % of the Union's population live (Objective 1); 11,5 % supports economic and social conversion in areas facing structural difficulties, inhabited by 18 % of the EU population (Objective 2), and 12,3 % of funding is used to modernise systems of training and promote unemployment (Objective 3).

Has the Commission considered separating into different programmes the policies corresponding to the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund and those relating to the Community initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Interventions under the Community Initiatives are currently programmed entirely separately from the programmes supported under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds and from the projects supported by the Cohesion Fund.

These arrangements will apply until the expiry of the financial perspective for the period 2000-2006. For the next period, it is the role of the Commission to propose to the Parliament and to the Council a new financial perspective and a new generation of policies for support from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. These proposals are planned for adoption by the Commission before the end of this year. It is therefore too early at this stage to speculate on the arrangements for the implementation of new policies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/273

(2004/C 65 E/288)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3290/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Work-related illnesses

Could the Commission please give the reasons for its request to Member States to widen their lists of official work-related illnesses in its 19 September approval of a draft Recommendation on professional health risks?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Commission adopted the Recommendation concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases (1) on 19 September 2003. This Recommendation updates and replaces an existing Recommendation of 22 May 1990 (2) on the same subject, because of the need to take account of data arising from scientific and technical progress in this field, to have an up-to-date instrument in the run-up to the European Union's forthcoming enlargement, and to do justice to the special emphasis which the ‘new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006’ (3) places on enhanced prevention of occupational diseases.

The new Recommendation calls on Member States to ‘introduce as soon as possible into their national laws, regulations or administrative provisions concerning scientifically recognised occupational diseases liable for compensation and subject to preventive measures, the European schedule in Annex I’.

In addition to the agents and diseases linked directly to occupation and already included in the previous Recommendation, Annex I to this Recommendation contains a further 16 diseases on whose occupational origin there is a broad scientific consensus.

During the time since the 1990 Recommendation was issued, scientific and technical progress has led to a greater understanding of how certain occupational diseases emerge and of the causal relationships involved.

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the Member States were closely involved in the preparatory work for the adoption of the Recommendation by the Commission, particularly in relation to Annex I, the European schedule of occupational diseases.

In addition, the experience acquired since 1990 by monitoring the above Recommendation in the Member States has highlighted various aspects which could be improved in order to attain more fully the Recommendation's objectives, particularly in relation to prevention and to the collection and comparability of data in this field. These aspects too have been included in the new Recommendation.

The Commission feels that this new Recommendation should be the preferred instrument for effective prevention of occupational diseases in the European Union.

(1) OJ L 238, 25.9.2003.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1990.

(3) COM(2002) 118 final.
—

For each Italian Objective 1 programme and for each of the Structural Funds, what was the exact amount of the expenditure certified to the Commission in respect of projects which were not selected on the basis of a call launched in connection with a RGP or a NGP, and will the expenditure relating to such projects nonetheless be reimbursed under the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/235

(2004/C 65 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2872/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(22 September 2003)

Subject: Salvaging of the ferry Le Joola

A year ago, the ferry Le Joola sank off the coast of Senegal. 1 863 people were drowned, including dozens of Europeans. To this day, the ferry remains on the seabed together with the bodies of the victims. Despite lobbying by their families and friends and by the European Parliament, the ship has still not been salvaged. President Wade of Senegal recently agreed that he would cease to oppose its salvaging. However, there is no money to pay for it. It is very important to the families and friends of the dead that the ferry should be salvaged, so that they can take proper leave of their loved ones.

What has the Council done in the past year to promote the recovery of the bodies of these African and European citizens? Does not the European Union, and hence the Council, have a moral duty to coordinate the salvage operation in cooperation with Senegal? Will the Council do nothing to help the families and friends of the dead, and the dead themselves? What can the Council still do?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

Council Regulation 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning the provision of humanitarian aid does not cover the provision of aid to the families of the victims from the unfortunate sinking of the Le Joola, as recalled by Commissioner Nielsen in its response to the Written Parliamentary question E-3166/02 (15 January 2003).

The European Union has not been approached by the Senegalese authorities to help refloat the Joola. The EU has not extended any direct financial assistance to the victims and their families but it provides regular aid to Senegal from the European Development Fund. The European Investment Bank is considering providing a contribution (in co-operation with Germany) to the complete re-establishment of the maritime line between Dakar and Ziguinchor, interrupted due to the accident.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/43

(2004/C 33 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Lifting of secrecy surrounding dubious financial transactions via the Republic of Cyprus

1. Is the Commission aware that during the 1990s large sums of money amounting to hundreds of millions of euro left civil-war-torn Lebanon and the states of the disintegrating Soviet Union and Yugoslavia through banks established in the southern part of Cyprus, and that some of these money flows were recorded in Cyprus as ‘investments’ and the rest were channelled to other areas regarded as tax havens?

2. Does the Commission refute the fact that a mysterious firm, Antexo Trade Ltd, headed by former officials of the Beogradska Bank, played a key role in financial transactions with foreign countries and that all data concerning these transactions and the company were kept secret from the public as far as possible, partly with the help of the national central bank of Cyprus, and that those who dared to report what was going on, such as the newspaper Alithia and the businessman, P. Djordjevic, were threatened or put under pressure to leave the country?

3. Does the Commission consider that secrecy of this kind surrounding possible money-laundering is appropriate for an EU Member State?

4. Is the Commission aware that even after the law was changed in 1996 in order to combat money-laundering through Cyprus, such transactions in fact continued, including large transactions valued at hundreds of millions of Deutschmark in 1998, and that once again the banks and the government maintained the highest possible degree of secrecy and one of the candidates in the forthcoming presidential elections is alleged to have been involved?

5. What additional measures are required to ensure that Cyprus complies speedily, and before its accession to the EU on 1 May 2004, not only on paper but in practice with EU financial regulations concerning inexplicable money flows and how does the Commission intend to ensure that these measures are introduced in good time?

Source: Netherlands TV2, Twee Vandaag' news programme, 8 February 2003.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The Commission has addressed the matter of money laundering in detail in all the Regular Reports on Cyprus' progress towards accession.

In the 2002 Report (1) it was stated that Cyprus has implemented all the necessary legislation in the area of money laundering and put in place the necessary administrative capacity.

Further progress is still expected in terms of completing the reinforcement of the administrative structure of the Unit for Combating Money Laundering (MOKAS) with the recruitment of the approved additional staff.

The Commission continues to monitor how Cyprus is meeting the commitments it has made in the accession negotiations. A recent monitoring mission to Cyprus has shown that the country is generally meeting its commitments. A comprehensive monitoring report will be presented six months before accession.

(1) COM(2002) 700 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/232

(2004/C 65 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject: Introduction of deposit system for beverage packagings in Germany

Is the Commission aware of the leaked report by the independent German institute Prognos concerning the impact of the introduction in Germany of a deposit system for non-returnable beverage packagings (cost: up to EUR 1,2 billion and nearly 10 000 jobs)?

Does the Commission conclude from this that even greater efforts are needed to improve or secure the abolition of the German deposit system?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission's position on the German deposit system was explained in the replies given by the Commission on 3 July 2003 to Written Question E-1549/03 by Mr Manders (1) and on 29 August 2003 to Written Question E-2519/03 by the Honourable Member and Mrs Grossetête (2). Currently, measures are being prepared in Germany to introduce a return and collection system for one-way packaging affected by the German deposit system. The Commission is closely monitoring this process. The study mentioned by the Honourable Member will be taken into account in the assessment of the German system. Based on the results of this assessment, the Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate action to ensure compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 192.

(2) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 267.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/88

(2004/C 33 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Public supply contracts

Article 7(2) of Greek law 2955/2002 authorises the supply of products in the absence of estimates regarding annual requirements or procedures for the awarding of contracts. It does not provide for any means of establishing which product is the most suitable for patients and allows prices to be set arbitrarily at the highest level thereby limiting competition. Similarly Joint Ministerial Decision DG6a/GP/73754/24-7-7-02(Official Gazette 984/31/7-02) implementing the above law is not based on any technical specifications, observing that no comparison is possible as, more specifically, that entire categories of products cannot be compared with each other, on the principle that, by definition, all manufacturers produce items which cannot be compared with those produced by any other manufacturer. It also fails to stipulate procedures for the according of public supply contracts or require estimation of annual requirements to be drawn up specifying either exact content or quality, leaving matters to the discretion of the body concerned.

Is Greek Law 2955/2002, together with the Ministerial Decision implementing it, in accordance with EU legislation in this field and more specifically Directive 93/36/EEC (1). If not, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that Greece fully complies with the directive and when?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission has in fact obtained Greek law No 2955/2001, and the Ministerial Decision implementing that law (2). After an initial examination, it appears that these provisions might not comply with the requirements of Directive 93/36/EEC (3).

The Commission has just received a complaint about the same matter, which seems to give a more comprehensive description of the way in which the Greek legislation applies to hospital supplies.

The Commission will examine the bulky documents it has received on this matter and, in dealing with this complaint, will contact the Greek authorities to obtain their point of view both on the allegations made by the complainant and on the Commission's analysis of this case.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) DY6a/GP/73754/24-7-02/FEK 984/31-7-02.

(3) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/142

(2004/C 65 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2397/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Legislation on fermented milk

In the Commission's answer to priority Written Question P-0027/03 (1) and to my Written Question E-0873/03 (2) on the denomination ‘yoghurt’, Commissioner Fischler states that ‘the Commission received several complaints concerning the Spanish legislation, based particularly on Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 (3) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs’ and that it was ‘currently examining these complaints and the legal situation in the Member States as regards the denomination of yoghurt.’

In its turn, the Codex Alimentarious Commission, which was created in 1963 by the FAO and the World Health Organisation (WHO) and is an international reference body that reports to the United Nations and the WHO, adopted a standard on fermented milk at its meeting in Rome at the end of June 2003 that makes it impossible for desserts pasteurised after fermentation to be denominated ‘yoghurts’, at least in countries without any legislation governing this area.

In the light of the above, and to avoid creating any further confusion, how would the Commission view the introduction of common legislation on fermented milk and regulation of the denomination ‘yoghurt’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission took notice of the adoption of a standard for fermented milk by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. However, some aspects like presence of characteristic bacteria, permitted raw materials, reference to heat treatment, content of non dairy ingredients and labelling may have to be addressed in a more precise way than in the Codex standard. The Commission is therefore examining the need for yoghurt legislation and may submit a proposal to the Council.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 147.

(2) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 209.

(3) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/166

(2004/C 65 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Rental of the City Center Building

The Commission's Brussels Office for infrastructures and logistics (OIB) is about to rent the City Centre Building near the Gare du Nord district even though the administration's health and safety unit has advised it not to do so.

The Brussels property lobby has been attempting for years, without success, to persuade the Commission to establish a third centre of activity for the European institutions in the Gare du Nord district.

1. Is the rental of the City Center Building intended to pave the way for a large-scale transfer of staff to the Gare du Nord district?

2. If so, can the Commission say why it is choosing to move officials to an area with serious problems as regards quality of life and security?

3. Could the Commission say, at all events, what it will do to stop the rental of the City Center Building?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Consideration of the ‘City Center’ as a possible location for Commission staff originated from a request of the administrative services of the Parliament to occupy the ‘Montoyer 75’ building (MO75). The Commission responded positively to this request and asked the OIB to search for a new building in which to relocate the officials of the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD) who currently occupy MO75.

Over an extended period the Parliament had itself commenced negotiations to lease City Center for its own requirements if it became evident that an exchange with the Commission was not possible. In the apparent absence of alternative options which would have allowed the Commission to vacate MO75 by the date requested by the Parliament, OIB took over these negotiations. After due consideration it was recognised that City Center would not be suitable, and OIB therefore continued to work to finding better alternatives, within or close to the European quarter. Despite some complications, discussions on a more suitable option are now progressing, and the promoters of the City Center project have been informed that Commission services will not be taking this building.

For the record, it should be noted that the CSHT (Comité de Sécurité et Hygiène au Travail) of the Commission in Brussels did not reach either a negative or a positive opinion on the suitability of City Center and the USHT (Unité de Sécurité et Hygiène au Travail) laid down a number of conditions to be fulfilled for occupying the building. It is consequently not strictly accurate to suggest that consideration of the possibility of renting City Center was against the advice of health and safety specialists in the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/59

(2004/C 65 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ 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 support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/171

(2004/C 33 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Cosmic radiation

In 1996, the EU agreed a directive (96/29/Euratom (1)) on basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. With reference to aviation, provision was only made for aircrew and pregnant women. In the light of the recent evidence on risks, does the Commission now agree that frequent flyers should be included in the safety standards?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Title VII (Articles 40 to 42) of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation relates to significant increase in exposures due to natural radiation sources as a consequence of work activities.

The only activity specifically identified in this Title is aircrew exposed to cosmic radiation (Article 42). Member States can always adapt at national level, specific provisions for example for frequent flyers if they consider that appropriate.

The Commission is not aware of any new evidence on risks arising from cosmic radiation which would justify an adaptation of the radiation protection basic safety standards Directive at this stage.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/270

(2004/C 65 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3154/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Mobile telephone safety

Given the findings of recent studies which show that the new generation of mobile telephones can interfere with many types of heart pacemaker, can the Commission detail what measures are being taken to prevent harm to the health of EU citizens?

It would seem that newer pacemakers that are fitted with a ceramic filter are immune. Can the Commission confirm that steps are being taken to introduce these models across the industry and to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of using the old models?

Can the Commission also detail what information it has provided regarding the safety of using mobile telephones in conjunction with a pacemaker since 1994?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.