ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/02

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: SIDEX

Has the Commission received all relevant information concerning the purchase of Sidex by LNM/Ispat and is it confident that all disclosure requirements have been fulfilled?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Council and Commission Decision 94/907/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 19 December 1994 on the conclusion of the Europe agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States and Romania(1), Romania engaged to ensure transparency in the area of State aid to the steel industry by a full and continuous exchange of information, including amount, intensity and purpose of the aid and detailed restructuring plan.

As far as Sidex SA Galati is concerned, in October 2001 the Commission received a file prepared by the Romanian Authority for Privatisation and Management of State Ownership relating to the privatisation of that company. The Commission requested additional information which was provided in April 2002. The Commission is currently analysing this information and, if needed, it will request any additional information or clarification to the Romanian authorities.

(1) OJ L 357, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1452/02

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

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Whiplash injury

As the Commission stated in its answer E-0310/02(1) of 21 March 2002, whiplash injury is a major car safety issue. The Commission goes on to say, the Commission decided, as part of its 4th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development, to launch research initiatives [] with a view to introducing new designs of seat backs and head restraints systems.

In the meantime the fifth five-year framework programme has been completed. When can we expect results, practical measures and new rules designed to prevent whiplash injury?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 111.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

In its answer dated 21 March 2002, the Commission informed the Honourable Member that the Community legislation concerning head restraint systems has already been amended in 1997 to take into account the main findings of TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) research work. The Commission also underlined the fact that further improvements were necessary with a view to tackling the prevention of whiplash injuries more efficiently.

Research and technology development programmes focussing on the whiplash issue are being performed all over the world and also within the 4th and the 5th Framework Programmes which include the following two projects:

- Whiplash I: Reduction of neck injuries and their societal costs in rear end collisions (project completed in October 2000).

- Whiplash II: Development of new design and test methods for whiplash protection in vehicle collision (project started in March 2001).

The overall objective of these projects is to contribute to the realisation of a new generation of vehicles which offer better protection against neck injuries by improving the design of the complete seat-head restraint system but also to the development of a new approach to the global restraint system issue.

The results obtained up to now have a high potential and are very promising. However, some important issues still remain to be completely understood, such as the mechanisms that cause the injuries to the neck. Therefore, it is presently difficult to forecast the outcome of the research work in progress and the resultant introduction of new regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Professional training in Greece

In Greece, unemployed people who participate in subsidised professional training programmes receive the subsidy eight to ten months after completing training. The trainers are paid two to three years after the conclusion of training programmes.

1. Does the Commission consider the length of time which unemployed people and trainers have to wait before receiving their money to be satisfactory?

2. It is satisfied with the results of professional training in Greece in relation to the second CSF?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 August 2002)

1. During the period 1994-1999, the Ministry of Labour, in agreement with the Commission, established common rules and regulations for the management, monitoring, control and evaluation of European Social Fund-financed training actions across the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece.

According to these rules, the payment of the trainees' allowance had to be paid by the training provider as a priority following the completion of the training courses.

Annual expenditure incurred for training actions under the different Operational Programmes was paid on the basis of annual final payment claims presented to the Commission by the Member State six months following the end of the year concerned.

2. The effectiveness of vocational training actions under the CSF 1994-1999 will be examined as a whole following the conclusion of the ex-post evaluation exercise.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1712/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Europe Day Celebrations in schools in the EU

The government of the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands has declared 9 May (Europe Day) a holiday for schools, institutes and universities in its territory, and obliges them to devote the day to EU-related activities.

Can the Commission provide information on similar initiatives in the other EU countries and regions? Would the Commission be willing to put forward a proposal for schools throughout the Union to devote 9 May, in coming years, to activities relating to European integration?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2002)

The Commission does not have at its disposal any study giving an overview of the Member States or regions which might have declared 9 May a lesson-free day which must be devoted to activities relating to the European Union.

The Commission nevertheless congratulates the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands on having taken such an initiative. However, the Commission does not at present have any plans to submit a proposal for making this a general practice.

It is quite probable that some schools choose 9 May as a symbolic date, but other dates are also suitable for the theme of European construction. In 2001, for example, thousands of schools took part in a European Comenius Week from 24 to 27 November 2001; these dates had been chosen in consultation with the national agencies in the 30 countries participating in the Socrates programme. For 2003, a number of representatives of Parliament within the Convention have proposed that 21 March be devoted to a debate on the future of the EU in all secondary-level schools throughout Europe.

The Commission also supports, to the full extent of its means and powers, other initiatives in schools (Europe at school, European Young People's Parliaments etc.). It is for each Member State to assume full responsibility for the organisation of its education system and the content of its programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/02

by Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Subject: Ban on the association of Alevi-Bektashi institutions in Turkey

On 13 February 2002, the second court banned the association of Alevi-Bektashi institutions because it allegedly violates the Turkish Law on Associations. Approximately 20 million people in Turkey are Alevi Muslims.

In imposing the ban, the Court invoked paragraph 5 of Law No 2908 on Associations which makes it a punishable offence to seek to undermine the unity of the Turkish nation and its territory by activities to promote a language, race, religion, or ethnic group.

These provisions are not in consistent with a pluralist and democratic society and they violate the rights of religious freedom and freedom of thought.

1. Is the Commission aware of the ban on this religious movement?

2. What is the Commission's view of the Turkish Law on Associations Law?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the closure, on 13 February 2002, by the Ankara Civil Court of the Cultural Association of the Union of Alevi and Bektashi Establishments.

The Commission noted the arguments of the prosecutor that according to Articles 14 and 24 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 5(1) of the Law on Associations, it is not possible to establish an association by the name Alevi or Bektashi in Turkey.

In a recent development, an appeal to the Court of Cassation by the Association has been made. At this stage, the Commission was already informed that if the appeal was rejected the case would be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

As regards the Law on Associations, the Commission noted in its Regular Reports the restrictive nature of the Law and the equally restrictive way in which it is implemented. The matter has been one of the regular items in the political dialogue between the Union and Turkey.

The latest set of legislative amendments adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 26 March 2002 includes some amendments to the Association Law but not to Article 5(5), which was the basis for the recent ban on the Cultural Association of the Union of Alevi and Bektashi Establishments. The Commission therefore remains critical to the way freedom of association could be exercised in Turkey.

(1) Article 5(5) of the law on Associations indicates that it is forbidden to found an association for the purpose of engaging in any activity on the grounds of or in the name of any region, race, social class, religion or sect..
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 March 2002)

Subject: Murders committed by Ariel Sharon's troops in Palestinian refugee camps

It is clear that the end of the conflict between Israel and Palestine can come about only through the mutual recognition of both states and that, in the meantime, all violence must cease. A particularly cruel form of violence which can be compared to that suffered by Jews in Europe 60 years ago is being practised by Ariel Sharon's troops, who have again murdered 22 people in a Palestinian refugee camp, as well as holding thousands of Palestinians in disgraceful conditions.

What effective measures will the Council take in the face of these acts, which arouse feelings of horror and shame in all right-minded people?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0856/02 and E-0859/02

(22 July 2002)

The Council will not comment on the specific allegation referred to by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament about which it does not have all the necessary facts. In its declaration on behalf of the European Union of 20 April 2002, the Presidency stressed the importance of the initiative taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to obtain detailed information on the events that took place in the Jenin refugee camp. Furthermore, the European Union has urgently called for medical and humanitarian organisations to have immediate access to the Palestinian population as called for in the UN Security Council Resolution 1405 of 19 April 2002, which stated its concern at the dire humanitarian situation of that population.

The EU has repeatedly called upon both parties to break the cycle of violence. On 10 April 2002, in a joint statement with the UN Secretary-General, the US and Russia, the Presidency and the High Representative i.a. called upon Israel to refrain from the excessive use of force and undertake all possible efforts to ensure the protection of civilians.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/02

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked the Council and the Commission to report by the end of 2000 on the ongoing review of EIB and EIF financial instruments in order to redirect funding towards support for business start-ups, high-tech firms and micro-enterprises, as well as other risk-capital initiatives proposed by the EIB. Did it so report?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Yes, the Commission prepared together with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) a Commission communication called Review of specific Community financial instruments for SMEs(1). The Ecofin Council of 7 November 2000 welcomed this communication.

(1) COM(2000) 653 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Seignorage revenue forecast in 2002

1. Will the Commission estimate the seignorage revenue accruing to each Member State's central bank either on the basis of a forecast for 2002 (taking into account the new key for sharing seignorage revenue of the European Central Bank) or on the basis of applying the new key to the actual seignorage revenue in 2001?

2. Will it express this as a proportion of GDP in each case?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

1. The calculation of monetary income (often called seigniorage) belongs to the responsibility of the European System of Central Banks (hereafter: Eurosystem). It is up to the central banks of the Eurosystem to apply the coefficients of the adjustment scheme the Governing Council has agreed upon in December 2001. Moreover, such estimates would have to depend on interest rate assumptions, which the Commission has decided not to publish on a regular basis as the European Central Bank (ECB) has full responsibility for setting interest rates in the euro area. They would also crucially depend on the forecast of the development of the monetary base in the euro area in the year 2002, which appears to be difficult to provide given extraordinary circumstances (e.g. euro cash changeover, dual currency period).

For these reasons the Commission is not in a position to provide estimates of monetary income accruing to each Member State. In that regard it should be noted that even central banks of the Eurosystem have informed the public that they cannot give definite calculations so far (e.g. Bundesbank Governor Welteke at the occasion of the press conference on 13 December 2001).

With respect to the formula that will be used to allocate monetary income one should keep in mind that the coefficient applicable to monetary income in the year 2002 has been set to unity, i.e. the old and the new allocation patterns are identical in 2002 (for details see: the Official Journal of the European Communities(1)).

2. In accordance with the reply to the first question no such data can be provided.

(1) OJ L 337, 20.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0435/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Advertising leaflet and television campaign about the euro published in Britain

With reference to a leaflet and television advertisement entitled The Euro. Our Money Getting ready for the Euro, both published in the name of the European Central Bank,

would the Commission like to explain:

(a) on what basis the ECB, a supposedly independent central bank, is taking it upon itself to provide unsolicited information on the euro to the British people;

(b) which institution paid for the advertisement and leaflet;

(c) from which budget the money to pay for the advertisement and leaflet originated;

(d) whether or not the decision to enter the euro is a national decision in which the European Institutions may legally interfere?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to a document and a television advertisement which have been produced under the authority of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the framework of their information campaign on the euro.

The necessary conditions to be fulfilled by a Member State for the adoption of the euro are spelled out in Title VII of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2002)

Subject: Economic integration

Will the Commission give figures for the most recent available year, for the previous five years and for the previous ten years, relating to the stock of foreign direct investment in each Member State of the European Union as a percentage of that Member State's GDP, and will it also break down that figure into foreign direct investment from other Member States and from non-member countries?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The data are available for 1992-2001 and are being sent directly to the honourable Member as well as to the Parliament Secretariat-General.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1387/02

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Review of the Common Fisheries Policy

Could the Commission please indicate how fisheries policy would be regulated within European Union waters in the event of a failure to agree on the review of the Common Fisheries Policy by 31 December 2002?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1332/02, E-1346/02, E-1364/02 and P-1387/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

If the review of the Common Fisheries Policy is not agreed by 31 December 2002, with the sole exception of the rules relating to access to the 12 mile zones of Member States, the existing rules will remain in force unless the Commission proposes and the Council adopts other amending Regulations prior to or following that date.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Ambulance services

With regard to the European Committee for Standardisation's new regulations such as Medical Vehicles and their equipment Road Ambulances and Specification for stretchers and other patient- handling equipment used on road ambulances, to be effective from 6 June 2002, and the extra money that will have to be spent as a consequence to allow all ambulances to meet the Committee's requirements: Does the Commission agree that, in areas where manufacturers cannot produce fully CEN-compliant vehicles, and local NHS Trusts can only purchase them from abroad at a considerably higher cost (£78k as opposed to £62k), the process becomes unreasonably difficult, expensive and technical? Does it not also agree that in the case of Britain, the NHS contract for supplying ambulances, the National Contract for Vehicle and Bodybuild Conversions, which, although not compliant with the new regulations, ultimately improves quality and safety levels, should be sufficient?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

According to Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993, on Medical Devices(1), manufacturers must declare the compliance of their products with the essential requirements of this Directive, and not the compliance with European standards. The use of standards is only one of the possible ways to comply with the Directive's requirements. The CEN standards referred to are implemented by all national standards bodies, including in the United Kingdom, the British Standards Institute (BSI), that published them as BSI standards: BS EN 1789:1999 (Medical vehicles and their equipment Road ambulances) and BS EN 1865:1999 (Specifications for stretchers and other patient handling equipment used in road ambulances).

The Commission has no reason to believe that NHS contracts, even if it would be different from the Standards referred to, do not comply with the 1994 Medical Devices Regulations transposing Directive 93/42/EEC.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0706/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2002)

Subject: Irregularities in the southern Caucasus

Allegations of irregularities and mismanagement have been made in connection with the former head of the Commission's delegation in Tbilisi, Georgia.

Does the Commission have any knowledge of irregularities or mismanagement which have occurred within or around the Commission's delegation?

Will the Commission say whether the former head of the delegation has left the Commission's service on age grounds? If that is not the case, will the Commission state the reasons for his retirement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The Commission carried out a full inspection of the Delegation in Tbilisi, Georgia, between 25 September and 3 October 2000 and can confirm that it found no evidence of irregularities or mismanagement. It previously carried out an inspection of that Delegation between 28-31 October 1997.

The former Head of the Commission's Delegation in Tbilisi in Georgia, retired on 1 September 2001 following his own request made several months earlier.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: European funding for Belgium and the city of Antwerp

The Commission subsidises through its various funds many laudable projects in the EU Member States. Can it state how many EU subsidies Belgium receives and what the exact amounts of subsidy are for the cities of Ghent and Antwerp?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to Belgium?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to projects in the city of Antwerp?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to projects in the city of Ghent?

What type of subsidies have been granted in Antwerp?

What type of subsidies have been granted in Ghent?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

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