ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0045/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Welfare of wild-caught primates

Is the Commission aware of the RSPCA footage and a new report, Caged and Cruel, which exposes the suffering caused to primates through trapping from the wild and breeding for use in research?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that primates captured for use in EU laboratories are treated according to international guidelines?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the RSPCA report Caged and Cruel relating to the use of non-human primates in research. The use of non-human primates in experiments falls under Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986(1) on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. The Commission is planning a revision of the Directive. This revision will also incorporate initiatives regarding the use of non-human primates; their acquisition and transport as well as their breeding are among the issues which will be thoroughly examined.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1273/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Resolution on the BPRC primate centre

The resolution adopted as part of the European Parliament's report A5-0440/2002 on the EU budget for 2003 (paragraph 13, Heading 3: Internal policies) contains the following passage:

Requests the Commission to delegate to the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods the task of verifying whether all tests done at the BPRC are truly necessary and without alternative. Expresses its determination to end the European funding for the BPRC if the ECVAM replies in the negative and requests all new tests on humanoid primates to be cancelled pending this advice.

Has the Commission already taken action in response to this paragraph of the resolution by asking the ECVAM for an opinion on financial support for the BPRC and when can the ECVAM's opinion be expected?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

In the context of the paragraph 3 of the resolution referred to in the question of the Honourable Member, the Commission shares the view that the issue of alternative to tests with non-human primates is an important one.

Whether or not all tests carried out in the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands are truly necessary is, however, not to be judged by the Commission or the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(1), provides in Article 7 that an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available. The Directive had to be transposed into national legislation in 1989.

It is the responsibility of the Dutch authorities to control whether the experiments on non-human primates carried out at the BPRC comply with the Dutch regulatory framework.

Concerning Community funding of research involving the use of non human primates the need and justification for such experiments including the avalability of alternative methods are assessed during the scientific evaluation. An ethical review has been implemented systematically under the 5th Framework Programme for Research for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human primates. The ethical review ensures among others, that all research involving non human primates are conducted in accordance with Directive 86/609/CEE on the protection of laboratory animals. The ethical review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The procedures have in several cases lead to a reduction in the number of non-human primates and in one case to the replacement by other animals. The ethical review at Community level does not replace the need for opinion or authorisation by local ethics committees where this is required by national legislation.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Perugia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Perugia are in great need of European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Perugia has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was not selected for support.

1. The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal Resred did not succeed and was not granted support.

2. The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals 2002. This proposal Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing (APPEEL) was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406 and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia's share of the budget is EUR 42 000 and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Prato

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Prato are in great need of European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Prato has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Prato has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was not selected for support.

1. The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal Resred did not succeed and was not granted support.

2. The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals 2002. This proposal Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing (APPEEL) was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406 and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia's share of the budget is EUR 42 000 and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1062/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci 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 enhance quality, promote innovation and support the European dimension of vocational training systems and practices, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Leonardo da Vinci programme?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0833/03, E-0890/03, E-1062/03, E-1063/03,E-1064/03, E-1065/03, E-1066/03, E-1067/03, E-1068/03, E-1069/03,E-1070/03, E-1071/03, E-1072/03, E-1073/03 and E-1074/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Some of the funds awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme are managed decentrally by national agencies, in particular the transnational mobility projects, whose total budget takes up almost 40 % of the total for the programme.

For these projects, please contact the national agency in Italy for further information:

ISFOLVia G.B. Morgagni 30/eI-00161 Romatel. (+39-06)44.59.01fax (+39-06)44.59.04.75.

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumincino, Ancona, Carrara, Florence, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni showed that:

- only Pesaro has submitted a proposal for a pilot project under the Leonardo programme. This project is entitled: Laboratori Tematici Virtuali: Metodologia di Supporto alla Formazione Nel Sel (Sistema Economico Locale) (virtual thematic workshops: methodology for fostering training in local economies);

- it obtained funding of EUR 264 161 for this project, which began at the end of 2002.

The Honourable Member could contact the local authorities mentioned above for more information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Ancona are in great need of European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was not selected for support.

1. The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal Resred did not succeed and was not granted support.

2. The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals 2002. This proposal Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing (APPEEL) was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406 and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia's share of the budget is EUR 42 000 and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being prepared.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1436/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Women's organisations budget item A-3046

In reply to my Question E-0344/03(1), on budget item A-3046 Women's organisations, Commissioner Diamantopoulou said that in 2002, two proposals had been received in response to the public invitation and that only the project submitted by the Associazione IRENE had been selected for funding, on the basis of transnationality and the financial situation of the proposals assessed.

What was the other women's organisation, whose proposal was rejected? What did its project consist of? What criteria were used for eliminating it? Why did the Commission decide to assign the entire available annual funding to one body? Approaching the issue from another angle, how was the selection criterion concerning the financial situation of the proposals handled? Is it a question of co-funding? And if so, to what extent?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 211.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Further to the answer to the Honourable Member's question No E-0344/03(1), the Honourable Member is informed that the rejected proposal received under open call for proposals No VP/2002/14 was from the International Abolitionist Federation (IAF).

The objective of the IAF is to strengthen the SOS Trafficking network and the existing arrangements for helping women victims of trafficking in Denmark, France, Italy and Slovakia. This was not judged to be compatible with the aim of the call for proposals concerned, which was to fund a network bringing together the main players involved in helping trafficking victims, with a view to boosting their capacity and facilitating transnational exchanges and the transfer of information, experience and best practices.

The transnationality aspects of the proposal submitted by the IAF were also weaker than in the case of the IRENE proposal. Furthermore, monitoring and final assessment procedures were not clearly set out in the IAF proposal.

Finally, the total budget put forward by the IAF was significantly higher than that required for the IRENE proposal.

The selected proposal from the Associazione IRENE is being part-financed by the Commission to an amount equivalent to 90 % of the project's total eligible costs. This percentage is in line with what is laid down in the calls for proposals for the establishing of networks under other social programmes, namely the Article 13 non-discrimination and social exclusion programmes.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 211.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the action programme to promote civil protection by the municipality of Perugia

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 Perugia, urgently need to use European funds for the civil protection of persons and goods, whether by preventing, or at least dealing with, potential natural disasters or even so-called technological and industrial disasters, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0829/03, E-0889/03, E-1091/03, E-1092/03,E-1093/03, E-1094/03, E-1095/03, E-1096/03, E-1097/03, E-1098/03,E-1099/03, E-1100/03, E-1101/03, E-1102/03 and E-1103/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, over the last two years, the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Florence, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni have submitted no projects for the Community action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999(1) and that, accordingly, they have received no financial aid in that context.

The action programme is intended to support and supplement Member States' efforts at national, regional and local levels to protect persons, property and the environment in the event of natural and technological disasters. With an annual budget of EUR 1,5 million (budget heading B4-308), the programme is able to finance action relating to prevention, preparedness, response, immediate aftercare and analysis of the socio-economic implications of disasters. Only action involving all the Member States or a large number of them is eligible. Eligible action has to be in line with the priorities determined each year by the Commission with the assistance of a management committee.

The Commission can also inform the Honourable Member that a whole series of examples of projects carried out through the Community action programme in the field of civil protection can be found at the following Internet address: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/

(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0843/03

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Council

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

The principle of a single farm payment subject to compliance with environmental, food safety, animal welfare, health and occupational safety standards as well as the requirement to keep all farmland in good condition seems to meet society's expectations.

However, there are possible concerns that the principle of cross compliance, which makes eligibility for the single payment dependent on the fulfilment of these requirements, will create some problems for farms in the ultra-peripheral regions. These regions have their own climatic constraints, which are unknown on the European continent.

On the basis of Article 299(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, what measures does the Council intend to take to find an appropriate response to this particular situation?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council is currently examining the package of legislative measures proposed by the Commission on 21 January 2003 on the reform of the CAP and on which it asked the European Parliament to deliver an opinion under the conciliation procedure.

A general preliminary debate was held within the Agriculture/Fisheries Council on 27 January 2003 on the series of proposals for regulations. That was followed by a further debate at the Council meeting on 17 March 2003, which essentially concerned the sectoral proposals and rural development. In view of the foregoing, it is premature at this stage to prejudge the outcome of the proceedings and discussions held within the Council.

Regarding any specific measures for the outermost regions based on Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, the Council can only comment on the issue on the basis of a Commission proposal and following the opinion of the European Parliament.

Nevertheless, the Council will certainly take due account of the European Parliament's opinion and give its attention to the impact of the reform on regions with specific characteristics or problems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Conclusions from the Round Table on Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia

What conclusions has the Commission drawn from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and European Commission Round Table on Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia held in Brussels on 21 March 2003?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Member of the Commission responsible for Employment and Social Affairs requested the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2002 to organise, with the co-operation of Directorate General (DG) Employment and Social Affairs, a series of Round Table meetings on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in Europe. Three meetings took place on anti-Semitism (5 December 2002), Islamophobia (6 February 2003) and Intercultural Dialogue (20 March 2003). The Member of the Commission called for these Round Table meetings as she was concerned about the growing evidence of discrimination against Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001. The Member of the Commission also wished to explore how far intercultural and inter-religious dialogue in Europe could contribute to lessening tensions between communities.

The three Round Tables brought together in total over 100 high-level experts, including religious leaders, academics, journalists and non-governmental organisations, from across Europe to discuss the problems facing religious minorities in Europe today.

The Monitoring Centre is currently preparing, together with the Commission, a conference report containing summaries of the three Round Table meetings and written contributions of key speakers. Although a wide range of views and opinions were expressed during the three discussions, the aim of this report is to draw out the themes and issues which recurred across all three meetings, including in particular the importance of action at local level, of the balanced portrayal of religious minorities in the media, and of the vital role of education in promoting tolerance and respect. This report will be used to disseminate to a wider audience the results of the discussions.