ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1092/03

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 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 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 Carrara has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the municipality of Carrara 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-0972/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

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

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 Siena 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 Siena has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Siena 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-1094/03

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 Florence

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 Florence, 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 Florence has submitted projects for the action programme to support civil protection?

2. whether the municipality of Florence 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-1065/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leonardo da Vinci programme by the municipality of Livorno

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 Livorno, 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 Livorno has submitted projects for the Leonardo da Vinci programme?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno 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-1558/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Soccer and racism

Can the Commission please give its response to the rise in racism and the organised racist behaviour of soccer supporters of particular soccer clubs within EU countries and to the fines recently levied by UEFA on particular soccer clubs?

Does the Commission have a view on the disturbing evidence of organised racism at soccer matches in particular accession countries, again identified by UEFA (for example in Slovakia)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern at the recent manifestations of racist violence at football matches in certain Member States and Applicant Countries.

The Commission is providing financial support for practical initiatives designed to tackle racism in football, including FARE (Football Against Racism in Europe).

The Commission has also adopted on 28 November 2001 a proposal(1) for a framework decision to approximate the laws and regulations of the Member States regarding racist and xenophobic offences. The purpose of this framework decision is twofold. First, to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, which can give rise to extradition or surrender, and second, to improve and encourage judicial cooperation by removing potential obstacles.

Finally, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Council has adopted on 25 April 2002 a decision concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension(2). For exchange of information in relation to a football event and with a view to the necessary international police cooperation in connection with football matches with an international dimension, this Decision establishes national football information points.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2) OJ L 121, 8.5.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/03

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

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Iraq-related threats made against Chile and Mexico by the Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar at a press conference held in Madrid on 27 February

At a press conference held in Madrid on 27 February in the presence of the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar issued implicit threats against Chile and Mexico (current UN Security Council members) which could be carried out should those two countries fail to support the US stance in favour of war with Iraq. Mr Aznar pointed out that both Mexico and Chile are awaiting the conclusion of association agreements with the EU, which must be signed by the Member States' governments and parliaments. The way in which he made this point and the moment at which he did so (just before the decisive UN vote on war or peace) implied that he intended to threaten the two countries in question with a refusal on the part of the Spanish Government to sign or implement the association agreements.

How does the Council intend to react to Mr Aznar's behaviour? Does the Council deem it politically, morally and procedurally acceptable that such an attempt should be made to by-pass the European Council and to bend the views of two sovereign countries in order to serve the particular interests of, and to promote political positions favourable to, a country (namely the USA) which is not part of the EU?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

1. It is not Council practice to comment on public statements made by Heads of Government of the Member States.

2. The Council recalls that the EU-Mexico Global Agreement was signed on 8 December 1997 and entered into force on 1 October 2001. The EU-Chile Association Agreement was signed in Brussels on 18 November 2002 and the bulk of its provisions are being implemented since 1 February 2003. Member States will have to complete their ratification procedures before the Agreement may be concluded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/03

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject: Consequences of Pressure Equipment Directive on small boiler manufacturers

Is the Commission aware that the implementation of the Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC(1) will devastate Britain's copper-boiler-making industry?

The seven professional boilermakers who export their handcrafted copper boilers for use in model steam engines across the world are faced with going out of business due to the prohibitive costs of complying with the directive. While the directive exempts amateur boilermakers and those building for heritage steam engines, such small but important and unique craftsmen and women have no other choice but to give up.

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that this world leading industry is not forced into extinction due to a directive about which it was not properly consulted?

Will the Commission look favourably upon an application for these craftsmen and women to be granted a de minimis exemption from this directive?

(1) OJ L 181, 9.7.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC (PED) has been adopted in 1997 after intense consultations with Member States, the Parliament and industry and has to be applied in all Member States since May 2002. It lays down harmonised rules concerning the essential requirements and certification procedures for pressure equipment to be placed on the market or put into service with regard to the safety risk arising from pressure and replaces former manifold national laws by a unique European legislation, thereby simplifying cross-border procedures and reducing cost. This is particularly true for small manufacturers having little administrative resources and for manufacturers, which are export-oriented due to the uniqueness and the high quality of their products. The Commission recognises that the adaptation to the requirements of the PED implies some initial investment for manufactures, which however has been kept as low as possible due to a sufficiently long notice period of five years.

The main objective of the PED is to minimise and control safety risks for the citizen. Existing exemptions of certain products (e.g. products of small dimensions) or products used under certain conditions (e.g. experimentation, presentation at exhibitions) from the PED are justified, since the associated safety risks are minor, covered by some more specific regulations or well-controlled due to the special circumstances.

An exemption from the PED based on the (small) size of the manufacturer or the uniqueness of a product would not be adequate, because these criteria are not related to its safety risk. The dangerous potential created by a copper boiler is not diminished if it is unique or produced by a small manufacturer. Therefore, the Commission does not look favourably upon a de minimis exemption from the PED.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Cervical cancer screening practices

What information does the Commission have on the variation in cervical cancer screening practices in EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The average incidence of cervical cancer in the Union was in 1997 of 10,48 cases per 100 000 women. This incidence varied among the different Member States, from a minimum of 4,24 in Luxembourg or 5,06 in Finland to a maximum of 17,34 in Portugal or 14,62 in Denmark. This wide variation reflects both background risk and screening activity during the previous decades. The mortality rates have been falling in all Member Sates, where screening programmes have been implemented.

The Commission acknowledged this variation through the information provided by the European Network on Cervical Cancer Screening, the Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention, and other experts from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as well as other different sources.

Organised cervical cancer screening has been implemented in some Member States for decades (e.g. the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom). In some other Member States the programmes are regionally administered and therefore vary in coverage and implementation. In some countries screening is based on recommendations to service providers only.

As a reaction to this situation, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Recommendation on Cancer Screening on 5 May 2003(1). The purpose of this proposal is to make recommendations for organised screening programmes on a sound scientific basis and to close the gap between differences in screening among the Member States. The final aim is to achieve a similar reduction of cancer-specific mortality in all Member States bringing about a similar high level of health protection for all European citizens.

(1) COM(2003) 230 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0345/03

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2003)

Subject: HGV transit problems

After the so far very unsatisfactory attempts to solve the Europe-wide HGV transit problem, which has extremely serious repercussions, particularly in the Alps, with their special environmental and geographical characteristics, there are now a great many protest campaigns in the offing, organised by outraged citizens in the areas concerned.

Can the Council understand the protesters' motivation, and what specific steps is it currently thinking of taking?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council is very well aware of the problems relating to the Europe-wide transit of heavy goods vehicles, including that of the transit through the Alps. This awareness stems from the discussions and negotiations devoted during the year 2002 to this overall problem and in particular to the closely linked proposed Regulation aiming to establish a transitional transit system through Austria for the year 2004 (COD 2001/0310), not only at numerous Council meetings but also at the European Council in Copenhagen, including the Council meeting (Transport formation) in Brussels on 31 December 2002 dedicated to this very issue. On this basis, the Council is well informed on the protesters' motivation referred to by the Honourable Member.

As regards future steps which the Council intends to undertake, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is now considering the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposed Regulation in question. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Council is awaiting the Commission's initiatives with respect to the charging of infrastructure. Such a system, when applied to the different modes of transport on a Community-wide basis, and when applied in a more transparent way taking into account the external cost by the traffic, should constitute the appropriate framework for addressing the overall problem of the HGV transit throughout the Community, including the particular situations such as the transit through the Alps, as referred to by the Honourable Member.