ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/662

(2004/C 84 E/0746)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0716/04

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Radio alarms

The problem of jamming is increasing exponentially due to the spectacular growth of the private security sector, and particularly sales of radio alarms, with security firms competing to under-price, so as to obtain the largest share of the market, ignoring the fact that alarms are security systems.

Does the Commission intend to take any steps to regulate this sector, so as to plug the existing legal gap?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member points out, the market for surveillance services that is offered to the public is growing. These services are competing on both quality and price aspects.

The Commission is, however, not aware that there are currently problems with the quality and reliability of such services that are attributable to congestions in and/or jamming of the radio frequency spectrum that they use.

This issue was discussed with Member States in the context of Directive 1999/5/EC (1) (the R&TTE Directive) in September 2000. At the time, it was judged that additional regulations to protect specific applications such as security alarms from harmful interference and to ensure access to emergency services were not necessary as it was deemed that market forces would already ensure this.

The Commission however intends to raise this issue again in the next meeting with Member States, scheduled for June 2004, so as to assess whether recent developments would require the Commission to reconsider the matter.

Furthermore, the Commission is currently studying the harmonisation across the EU of conditions of use of the radio spectrum for short-range devices including security alarms. Part of this analysis will consider how best to enable the effective operation of such devices via agreed technical parameters and appropriate radio spectrum frequencies.

(1) Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/345

(2004/C 84 E/0403)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Propagandist mileage from Community funding in the run-up to elections in Greece

Criticism has been voiced in the Greek press regarding the spate of propagandist media publicity in Greece (particularly on television) being given to ‘new hospitals’, ‘major projects’, ‘measures to improve educational standards’, etc. Many of which refer to the ‘2008 Community Support Framework’.

Is such publicity for EU-funded projects in the run-up to elections permissible under Regulation (EC) 1159/2000 (1)? How many months prior to the date of elections must all such publicity be halted? What penalties are imposable on Member States infringing the provisions of the above regulation? Can the Commission take immediate action to end such promotional activity?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 of 30 May 2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds does not establish specific rules relating to pre-electoral publicity. However, the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece, for the period 2000-2006, states that information and publicity actions relating to Structural Funds interventions should be suspended two months before European, national, district or municipal elections. With regard to the national elections of 7 March 2004, the Commission was informed by the Greek authorities that they issued the necessary instructions on 8 January 2004 to all ministries and other bodies involved in the management of Structural Funds, in accordance with the CSF requirements.

The Commission has no information at its disposal suggesting a breach of the rules on this subject.

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/546

(2004/C 84 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0198/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Creation of a Community body for the study of unexplained atmospheric phenomena

For a long time now, sightings of unexplained atmospheric phenomena have been reported in all corners of the globe.

Some of these phenomena have been classified as ‘unidentified flying objects’ (UFOs), sightings of which not only cause considerable perplexity but also fuel theories — so far lacking any foundation — on the probable existence of aliens.

The serious study of the phenomena in question by various European space centres and research establishments warrants special attention from the European Commission, since these phenomena do not fall within the scope of individual Member State competence.

In the light of the above, would the Commission not consider it appropriate to promote and coordinate research and information on unexplained atmospheric phenomena at a Europe-wide level, possibly assigning this responsibility to a specialised and experienced body such as SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes Rares Aérospatiaux) in Toulouse or the European Space Agency?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Following an extensive consultation for the development of the European Space Policy (‘Green Paper’) (1) the Commission adopted in December 2003 a White Paper entitled ‘Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union’ (2).

The White Paper, which has been prepared in close collaboration with the scientific community and the European Space Agency, sets an action plan for implementing the future European Space policy. The actions recommended by the Commission to strengthen European excellence in space science are presented in Section 4.2.

On 28 January 2004, the Commission had the opportunity to address some of these issues in its oral reply to the oral question O-84/03 during Parliament's January 2004 session (3) on the content of the White Paper.

One specific activity which may be of particular interest to the Honourable Member concerns an action recently launched in the context of the 6th Framework Programme for Research (4). This action aims at promoting cooperation between Europe's national research funding agencies and national research organisations. It includes a task specifically addressing European solar terrestrial and atmospheric research. This endeavour should help to improve the level of understanding of atmospheric phenomena and to provide space weather services.

(1) COM(2003) 17 final.

(2) COM(2003) 673 final.

(3) Oral reply, 28.1.2004.

(4) Specific Support Action: European Science Foundation Collaborative Research Programmes Scheme (Eurocores).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/665

(2004/C 84 E/0750)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Information on the performance reserve for the Lazio Region

Community regulations on the use of the Structural Funds (Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (1)) provide for 4 % of the total resources of the Community support framework for 2000-2006 to be set aside for mid-term payment on the basis of the performance — in terms of the effectiveness of the form of assistance, proper management and financial implementation — of the regional and central authorities receiving funding.

This form of premium, referred to in Italy precisely as a ‘reward’ and accompanied by an extra payment by the Italian Treasury, would appear to have been granted recently to the Lazio Region in recognition of its outstanding achievements under Docup Objective 2, with EUR 314 million being committed to the region, of which over EUR 290 million was provided by European funding, and 1 527 projects funded in addition to investments totalling EUR 403 800 000 and the designation of five industrial zones and three production zones as excellent (source: www.tesoro.it).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. In view of the above, can the Commission state how much has been paid by the EU to the Lazio Region pursuant to Article 7(5) of the above Regulation?

2. Which other Italian and European regions have been recognised in this way and how much of the 4 % set aside have they received?

3. Is it planned that a general report be published on the payment of the 4 % set aside to the various European authorities rewarded in this way?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

Council Regulation (EC) Nol260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) states that the Commission will allocate the performance reserve not later than 31 March 2004 on the basis of proposals from the Member State.

On 23 March 2004, the Commission decided the allocations of the performance reserve (3). The Lazio region received EUR 16 118 352. All Italian and most EU regions received allocations from the performance reserve. In total, over 90 % of Structural Funds programmes received an allocation. The precise amounts are outlined in the text of the decision.

A report on the operation of the performance reserve is being prepared for discussion with the Member States in the context of the Committee of the Development and Conversion of the regions. This report will be available in May 2004.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(3) C(2004) 883 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/786

(2004/C 84 E/0882)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0408/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in the Netherlands

Directive 2002/49/EC (1) on the management of environmental noise requires every Member State to make environmental noise maps for all major airports which have more than 50 000 movements per year.

Correspondence between the Netherlands Government and the Second Chamber shows that the Netherlands is planning to make an environmental noise map and draw up an accompanying action plan solely in respect of Schiphol Airport.

Movement data provided by the Central Statistical Office in 2001 show a different picture. The airports in Rotterdam (92 874), Groningen (61 324) and Maastricht (58 534) are already above the 50 000 limit, while Lelystad, with 47 135 movements, has almost reached the critical threshold.

Can the European Commission publish a definitive list of all the airports in the Netherlands which have more than 50 000 movements?

What will the Commission do if the Netherlands remains in breach of its obligations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has been interested to note the Written Question from the Honourable Member concerning the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (2) in the Netherlands.

In accordance with 7(1) of the Directive, Member States have until 30 June 2005 to inform the Commission about the airports situated within their territory which are covered by the scope of the Directive. These airports are defined in Article 3 (p) of the Directive as ‘civil airports, designated by the Member State, which have more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft’.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 14, Member States have until 18 July 2004 to transpose Directive 2002/49/EC into their national legal order. To date, the Commission has not received notification of transposition from the Netherlands.

In view of the above, the Commission does not presently have the list of Dutch airports covered by the scope of Directive 2002/49/EC but considers that it is not appropriate to launch infringement proceedings against the Dutch Government. It wishes to thank the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to this particular point and will see to it that the provisions of the Directive on environmental noise are applied by the Member States to all infrastructures and agglomerations covered by its scope.

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

(2) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.
2.

At the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia on 10 July 2003, the Commission, together with the other representatives of the international community, voiced its strong support for the work undertaken by the Office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, noted with satisfaction the Colombian Government's pledge to implement the recommendations made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and urged the Colombian Government to implement these recommendations promptly. The recommendations include: (a) that the Attorney-General submit a bill to Congress establishing a career structure for officials and employees of his Office, with a view to strengthening the independence and impartiality of that institution; (b) to ensure and to strengthen the independence of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit in the Attorney-General's Office, to guarantee the protection of its staff and to provide it with the means necessary to carry out its investigations; (c) to establish within the Attorney-General's Office's Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit a group specializing in the investigation of possible links between members of the military and the police and paramilitary groups. During the recent high-level contacts between the Commission and the Colombian Government (visit of the Member of the Commission in charge of External Relations to Colombia on 21/22 January 2004, visit of President Uribe to Brussels and Strasbourg on 9/10 February 2004), the Commission expressed its strong support for these recommendations. The report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of its recommendations will be discussed at the forthcoming 60th session of the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. On this occasion, the EU will draft the Chairperson's Statement on Colombia. In addition to its political support for the work and recommendations of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, the Commission also funded some of its activities through the ‘European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights’ (budget chapter 19 04): — EUR 783 536 have been allocated to a project in favour of municipal ombudspersons for the period 2002-2004; — EUR 600 000 have been allocated to a project aiming at strengthening the country's penitentiary institutions for the period 2003-2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/649

(2004/C 84 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/04

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Position of the French language in the European institutions

According to press reports, the Commission is apparently earmarking some EUR 20 million in order to make French ‘the’ official language in the institutions. The relevant decision was apparently taken after it became clear that the vast majority of future officials from the ten new Member States had English as their second language. Still according to press reports, the aim is, apparently, to teach French to 5 000 officials by 2008. (The French Government itself is also making an effort to promote the French language in the future Member States).

Is this information correct?

While nobody would deny the desirability of promoting a knowledge of languages other than the mother tongue, primarily in the European institutions as well, it would seem that the learning of one specific language (namely French) is being promoted as a reaction to the perceived dominance of another language. Were similar measures set up in the past with the same view in mind? Which languages were then involved?

Is not the Commission giving the impression that it is trying to regulate the relationship between languages in the European Union for the benefit of one specific language and to the detriment of others? Should not the Commission be adopting an impartial stance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0308/04 by Mr Seppänen. (1)

(1) See page 358.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/196

(2004/C 84 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0304/04

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Prison guards

Various press reports and reports from the department concerned have highlighted the difficulties currently facing the Italian prison guards' service.

In accordance with staffing provisions laid down by former Minister Fassino (Ministerial Decree of 8 February 2001) this service is currently estimated to comprise 45 000 men and women in more than 200 prison establishments in Italy, including 12 in Puglia, with a total staff of 2 850 officers, which means 500 fewer than requirements for a prison population of 3 800, of whom many are terrorists, or members of the Mafia or other organised crime networks.

Despite this precarious situation, the Minister of Justice, Roberto Castelli, has decided, as part of new personnel plans, to transfer some 300 units provisionally from the south to the north of Italy, including 77 officers from Puglia, without even providing for mission expenses, other than a tiny allowance of EUR 12 per day.

It is well known that international organised crime and the activities of Albanian mafia groups are constantly increasing in the south of Italy. This transfer of prison personnel has therefore given rise to serious concern, which has been voiced by the OSAPP trade union.

In view of the above, does the Commission intend to take action to ensure that this situation does not adversely affect the internal security of prisons in Italy, law and order, and the quality of life of prison personnel and their families?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The transfer of prison personnel within Italy, to which the Honourable Member refers, must be considered as a question regarding the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security in Italy. The Commission can not intervene in this matter, as it is the Member States themselves, which, pursuant to Article 3 3 of the Treaty on European Union, are responsible for what action should be taken to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security. The transfer of prison personnel within Italy is, therefore, not a question of police or judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the framework of the Treaty on European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/926

(2004/C 78 E/0979)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Retirement benefits

A constituent of mine has recently been made redundant from a Dutch-owned construction company, based in the UK. The firm is now in the hands of administrators. My constituent has been advised that his pension and those of his colleagues will not be paid in full, despite having paid into the pension fund for many years. He has been told that an average sum of 17 % may be available but he has not been told to what amount the figure of 17 % refers.

Can the Commission confirm whether there are any EU rules that would prevent employees from being left in this awful position? If so, can the Commission clarify whether any action could be taken in this case? If there is no relevant EU law, can the Commission state whether any such legislation will be drawn up in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) obliges Member States to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business at the date of the onset of the employer's insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivor's benefits, under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security scheme. Article 3(4)(b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employee's rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (2) contains a similar provision with regard to situations involving the transfer of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses.

Due to several reports recently received and suggesting that the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business might not be sufficiently protected in specific Member States, the Commission is currently complementing and updating the information it disposes of about the arrangements for implementing Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC and Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC in the Member States. Should this analysis establish the existence of clear and serious transposition deficits, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.
Project 8.ACP.PNG.003 was financed under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF). The main legal base is Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990 adopting the general regulations, general conditions and procedural rules on conciliation and arbitration for works, supply and service contracts financed by the EDF and concerning their application (1).

The EUR 200 000 limit is based on Decision No 2/2002 of 7 October 2002, which covers the implementation of Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement. It applies to service contracts under the 9th EDF and not contracts under the 8th EDF.

In accordance with Article 7.5 of Annex I to Decision No 3/1990 adopting the General Regulations for Service, Supply and Works, a shortlist of companies was established in order to carry out a restricted tender procedure.