ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1796/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Commission compensation

How much money has been paid in total to each of the present Commissioners under the exchange rate compensation scheme, the legal basis of which was recently ruled invalid?

Have all or any part of these sums been repaid?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The legal basis of the exchange rate compensation scheme (the transfer weighting system) as it applies to members of the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors and the Commission has never been ruled invalid. On the contrary, as the Court of Justice has always advised, and re-affirmed on 9 October 2002, the weighted transfer system as applied to members of the above Institutions has always been, and continues to be, legal and in full conformity with the rules.

All payments made over the period of existence of the Court of Justice, Court of Auditors and Commission have therefore been, and continue to be, legal, valid, and in conformity with budgetary rules. Repayment of the relevant sums by members of the Court of Justice, Court of Auditors and Commission would not, therefore, be justified.

The misconception contained in the Honourable Member's question that the legal basis of the transfer weighting system had been ruled invalid may have arisen from reports of varying accuracy made about the system in 2002.

Those reports appear to have arisen from a decision of members of the Court of Auditors in May 2002 to suspend their use of the system from 1st July 2002 and not to resume such use unless and until the legal basis of the system was clear. The Commission was informed of that decision by the Court of Auditors and Commissioners decided on 7th June 2002 to adopt the same course. Shortly afterwards members of the Court of Justice took a similar decision.

Following these events, in October 2002 the Court of Justice again confirmed its established view of the legality of the weighted transfer system. The members of the Court of Justice consequently resumed use of the system in January 2003. On 9th January 2003 the Commission was informed by the Court of Auditors that its members had also resumed use of the system. The Commission has not altered its suspension decision of June 2002, and that decision therefore remains in force.

All of these details have been set out in full in answers to various Parliamentary Questions since autumn 2002.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the salaries and allowances of Members of the Commission are public knowledge and so are the conditions applying to the weighted transfer system. The Commission has always ensured that salaries are paid, and weighted transfers made, in strict conformity with the relevant rules, including those relating to limits. The Commission does not, however, consider that there is any legitimate public interest to be served in disclosing details of how individual Members of the Commission, the Court of Justice or the Court of Auditors organise their personal financial affairs in relation to arrangements which they have been, and are, legally entitled to use.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0992/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Carrara

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 Carrara, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: List of standards

Will the Commission publish a list of all standards that are considered binding under EU directives and regulations stating both the total number of pages and whether they should be added to the figure of 97 000 pages of EU rules recently produced by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

If the term standards used in the English-language version of the written question is a reference to technical standards within the meaning of Parliament and Council Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1), it must be pointed out that these are not binding standards but voluntary standards, which do not fall within the rule-making remit of the Community legislator.

The 97 000 pages to which the Honourable Member refers represent, as far as secondary Community legislation (regulations, directives and decisions within the meaning of Article 249 of the EC Treaty) is concerned, the entire body of binding legal rules in force at the end of 2002. Such technical standards could not, therefore, be added to them.

If the term standards refers to technical standards that take the form of one of the three binding legal instruments provided for in Article 249, all those standards can be included in the 97 000 pages mentioned above.

In both cases, the amount of research needed to provide a detailed answer to the Honourable Member's question would be disproportionate to the result sought and would go beyond the scope of an answer to a written question.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0702/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Infringement by Italy of Community legislation on cheese

In July 2001 the Commission launched infringement proceedings against Italy, pursuant to Article 226 of the Treaty, for its infringement of Directive 92/46/EEC(1) with regard to cheese, more specifically because Italy did not take steps to notify derogations from the health rules for the production of cheeses with a period of ageing of at least 60 days, as envisaged in Article 8(1) of the Directive.

Can the Commission say what point has been reached in the infringement proceedings and whether it has reached a conclusion after assessing the Italian Government's reply to the Commission's reasoned opinion?

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

The Commission did indeed launch infringement proceedings against Italy in December 2000 under the terms of Article 226 of the EC Treaty because this Member State had incorrectly transposed Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products.

Article 8 of this Directive stipulates that, by committee procedures, Member States may, in so far as certain requirements of the Directive are likely to affect the manufacture of milk-based products with traditional characteristics, be authorised to grant individual or general derogations from certain requirements of the Directive.

As Italy had not submitted a request to this effect by 1 October 1993, as required by the Directive, the Commission took the view that Italy was not authorised to maintain in its legislation the derogation permitting the manufacture of butter or other milk-based products from creams or whey produced using the raw-milk processing procedure that did not meet the Community health standards set out in Directive 92/46/EEC.

Given that Italy maintained that the derogation was not liable to create a risk for human health, the Commission launched a technical dialogue with this Member State to examine the consequences of the Italian measure. It should be pointed out in this respect that the Council reached a political agreement in December 2002 on a proposal for a regulation concerning the hygiene of foodstuffs, which will replace Directive 92/46/EEC, among other legislation.

This draft regulation allows Member States, under certain conditions, to request a derogation from the hygiene rules set out in the regulation.

The Commission is in close contact with the Italian authorities and has asked them to provide it with a detailed technical file so that it can check whether a derogation of this kind can be contemplated under the terms of the new regulation.

In the light of the above and pending receipt of this file, the Commission has provisionally postponed its decision on whether to pursue the infringement proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1173/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Institutional framework envisaged by Europe for jointly funded projects

In recent weeks road networks in Greece have been damaged by landslides, subsidence and fissuring, etc. Despite the progress achieved in recent years by Greece regarding EU-funded public works projects, they are still bedevilled on a regular basis by poor workmanship, delays, overspending, supplementary contracts, the absence of any organisation formally responsible for carrying out surveys, etc.

What view does the Commission take of this and what are its recommendations? What action is it taking to establish an institutional framework at European level so as to shed a clearer light on the awarding of contracts and execution of projects with a view to achieving good standards of workmanship and compliance with deadlines and estimates in respect of projects jointly funded by the EU?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern over the need for a European level institutional framework guaranteeing transparency in the assignment of contracts to carry out work. Such a framework already exists in the form notably of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts(1), which has already been correctly transposed into Greek law.

Under the above legislation the Member States themselves are responsible for the work they carry out.

The Commission considered that it could not ignore the structural weaknesses the Greek public works domain. In the context of the second Community support framework the Greek authorities agreed with it on the need for reform targeted on improving the quality of technical planning and construction work itself and on execution of work within the contracted cost and time frameworks. This reform is to continue in the context of the third Community support framework.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0910/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Compensation for natural disasters

The most recent natural disaster in Greece caused incalculable damage in many regions to crops, property, infrastructure and, primarily roads, giving rise to severe transport problems. Some 11 regions in Greece have been particularly affected by the bad weather and the devastation.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has Greece asked the Commission for aid in view of the fact that in some regions, such as the Cyclades, most of the population has been affected, and for what purposes will the aid be used?

2. Has the Commission initiated the procedure to provide immediate financial aid for the above purposes with the aim of promoting the speedy re-establishment of normal living conditions in the disaster-stricken areas in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002(1) of 11 November 2002?

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its response to written question E-0657/03 on possible sources of support for the reparation of damage caused by the natural disasters in the Cyclades
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Prato

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

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

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

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Prato, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0993/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the decentralised cooperation programme by the municipality of Firenze

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 Firenze, urgently need to use European funds to support actions and initiatives encouraging sustainable development undertaken by operators in the Community and in developing countries,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Firenze has submitted projects for the decentralised cooperation programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0831/03, E-0893/03, E-0991/03, E-0992/03,E-0993/03, E-0994/03, E-0995/03, E-0996/03, E-0997/03, E-0998/03,E-0999/03, E-1000/03, E-1001/03, E-1002/03 and E-1003/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The main decentralised cooperation programmes in the European Union are those part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming documents (SPD) and Interreg programmes.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to Written Question s E-0834/03, E-1118/03, E-1119/03, E-1120/03, E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03, E-1124/03 and E-1125/03. Under the Interreg cooperation programmes, the authority responsible for coordination at national level is the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0645/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice

On 12 February, during the 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice, I asked the Council Office and Commissioner Vitorino the following questions, without receiving any response from them.

In the Kingdom of Spain on 13 February 1981, that is to say 22 years ago, Joseba Arregi, a Basque political prisoner, died under torture while he was in police custody.

In 2002, 634 politically motivated people were arrested. 127 of them subsequently claimed in court that they had suffered ill treatment or torture.

Has the Commission received clear information about this issue from the Spanish Government?

Does the Commission consider that the transparency principle has been respected by the Spanish Government?

Last year the Spanish Government proposed banning several social organisations media and cultural associations that had denounced the political repression suffered by Basque dissidents. As a result of a Spanish initiative, the European Union has drawn up a black list of associations and individuals accused of specific or tacit support for terrorism. The accused have neither legal means of defence nor effective access to the courts.

Does the Commission consider there has been real enforcement of the democratic control principle with regard to Spain?

Will the Commission put forward a judicial instrument, in the new texts being drafted, for those included on the European Union's black list?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Respect for fundamental rights is a basic principle of the legal order of the Union and its Member States.

Where a person feels that his fundamental rights have been infringed, the fact that he can bring the matter before the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic judicial remedies guarantees him legal protection as a last resort.

Finally, it should be noted that the Council adopted on 19 December 2002 its decision 2003/48/JHA on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism in accordance with Article 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFS(1) 1.

(1) OJ L 16, 22.1.2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1202/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Sport for the Disabled programme by the municipality of Siena

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 Siena, urgently need to use European funds for the integration of disabled people through sport,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the Sport for the Disabled programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written questions E-0860/03, E-0885/03, E-1191/03, E-1192/03,E-1193/03, E-1194/03, E-1195/03, E-1196/03, E-1197/03, E-1198/03,E-1199/03, E-1200/03, E-1201/03, E-1202/03 and E-1203/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission does not doubt the importance of integrating disabled persons through sport, but has no specific programme in this field.

As regards the possible part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the Italian cities listed by the Honourable Member, the Commission would invite her to refer to its replies to her Written Questions E-0834/03(1), E-1118/03(2), E-1119/03(3) to E-1124/03 and E-1125/03(4).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 96.

(2) See page 160.

(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 172.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Personnel recruited under local employment agreements

It is very important for the economic development of the European Union and the sustainability of social protection schemes to achieve full employment. Local Employment Agreements, which are receiving finance from the European Social Fund, are regarded by the Commission as a means of achieving this objective and combating unemployment at regional and local level.

In Greece a considerable number of people were recruited under the Local Employment Agreements, mainly within services and operations run by the local authorities. Most of the schemes are coming to an end in the first quarter of 2003, together with the employment contracts of those recruited under these schemes. Despite continued Commission funding for European employment initiatives, those recruited under this programme are now being given notice, notwithstanding their work experience.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that continued funding for these schemes does not result in job losses among those already in employment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Territorial Employment Pacts (TEPs) are pilot actions to test the possibility of bringing together local employers, local employment services and local authorities in order to elaborate and implement small scale development schemes through which jobs may be offered to local unemployed. These jobs are of a temporary nature and last for as long as the actions run. Although TEPs do not guarantee permanent jobs, successfully evaluated TEP actions may be included later in Community mainstream programmes and funded through them.

According to the relevant regulation(1), the selection of the projects and actions to be co-funded through Community programmes by the Structural Funds is the responsibility of the Member States. Consequently, the funding of a second generation of TEPs and/or the mainstreaming of first generation TEP actions within the regional operational programmes, is the exclusive responsibility of the Greek authorities.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.