ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: The Penelope plan

A new constitution for the EU has been drafted within the Commission with the code-name Penelope. Evidently the Commission has not collectively approved it. From the point of view of the Commission as a whole, what is the status of this draft and how well does it represent the position of the Commission in its entirety?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-3860/02, E-3902/02 and E-0034/03given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

At the request of Mr Prodi, President, in agreement with Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino, a working party of Commission officials prepared a feasibility study entitled Contribution to a preliminary draft of a European Constitution. Mr Prodi informed the other members of the Commission of the existence of this working document but it was not discussed by the full Commission and it does not commit the Commission.

It is for each Member of the Commission who has responsibility for a specific area, and for the President where action by the Union is concerned, to ask Commission departments to draft preparatory documents, study papers, feasibility studies, etc. A Commission decision is not needed to launch such work, which is part of the normal activities of Commission departments, i.e. the preparation of decisions and the position to be adopted subsequently by the Commission. Mr Prodi in agreement with Mr Barnier and Mr Vitorino felt that a feasibility study on the European Constitution would help the Commission to adopt its position with regard to the Convention.

The names of the officials who prepared the feasibility study are listed on the first page of the study, which did not give rise to any costs other than Commission overheads.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1560/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Hair dyes and cancer

In response to Written Question P-0090/03(1) on hair dyes and cancer, the Commission said that in the specific area of oxidative hair dyes, the majority of substances have already been banned or their use is subject to specific conditions on the basis of risk assessments made by the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP). It went on to say that the Commission was discussing with Member States and consumer and industry representatives the prioritisation of substances to be assessed or re-assessed.

Could the Commission indicate when a conclusion is expected to these discussions, what action it then proposes to take and to what extent the effects on third persons or non-users of these products are taken into account in the assessment of these products by the EU?

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 212.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

In a recent meeting held end of April 2003 with Member States and representatives of both consumers and industry, the Commission presented for discussion a strategy for the systematic evaluation of hair dyes in relation to published reports on a possible link between permanent hair dye use and bladder cancer.

The main element of the strategy is a tiered, modulated approach requiring industry to submit by certain deadlines safety dossiers on hair dyes to be evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non Food Products (SCCNFP). The overall objective of this strategy is to regulate the use of these substances on the basis of scientific evaluation of dossiers. Substances for which no file has been submitted for risk assessment by the SCCNFP will be treated on the highest priority basis whereas substances for which information is available will be phased in later on. In the former case the Commission will consider the most appropriate measures, including a possible ban on their use.

The approach was very much welcomed by the participants of the meeting. The Commission asked industry and Member States for further information in order to prioritise the future work. The discussion will be continued during the summer and a conclusion is foreseen in the following months.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0578/03

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Council

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Distribution of seats in the European Parliament

At the Brussels and Copenhagen European Councils a framework agreement was negotiated on the future allocation of seats in the European Parliament after the enlargement of the Union. Up to now Belgium has had 25 seats, 14 of which were for the electoral district of Flanders, 11 for that of Wallonia. After the enlargement Belgium will have only 22 seats. As a transitional arrangement, however, pending the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, it is planned that there will be a gradual adjustment in the number of seats to which the present Member States will be entitled at next year's European elections. Various newspapers have reported that Belgium will still be given 24 seats at the 2004 European elections, and that this number will be reduced to 22 only at the 2009 elections.

Can the Council indicate how many seats the present Member States will be given at the elections in June 2004 and 2009?

Has the Council given any recommendations to the Member States as to any proportional distribution of seats among the various electoral districts to be made in each Member State?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Act of Accession (Article 11) modifies the EC Treaty as regards the number of seats in the European Parliament allocated to Member States from the start of the 2004-2009 term. It provides, inter alia, that Belgium has 24 seats. On the accession of Bulgaria and Romania for which the target date set by the European Council is 2007 the number of seats allocated to Member States will again be modified. In the present juncture, seats should be allocated in accordance with Declaration 20 of the Treaty of Nice. In particular, Belgium should then have 22 seats.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0641/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Closing of a Basque daily newspaper

The only daily newspaper published in the Basque language was closed down in Bilbao on the night of 19 to 20 February 2003, and eleven senior members of its staff were arrested. Hundreds of heavily armed, masked police seized advertising and administrative material, as well as personal documents and items belonging to staff working for the paper.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it intend to verify these facts?

Is it permissible and proportionate that a daily newspaper should have to close down completely on suspicion of aiding and abetting terrorist activities?

Is this acceptable according to principles based on political democracy and freedom?

Does this not require a special evaluation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0641/03, E-0672/03 and E-0801/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The Egunkaria newspaper was closed down by court order. In our democratic States based on respect for the law, the judicial power is independent of the executive and the decisions of the courts cannot be overruled by political pressure. The Commission cannot comment on decisions given by a judicial authority.

All the judicial systems of the Member States of the Union provide the procedural guarantees for legal or natural persons prosecuted or sued in the courts as required by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been breached can bring an action in the European Court of Human Rights after all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Catalan on the Commission's website

Paragraph 4 of Parliament's resolution of 11 December 1990 on languages in the Community and the situation of Catalan(1) called on the Commission to take action to guarantee, inter alia, the use of Catalan for disseminating public information concerning the European institutions in all the media.

It should be borne in mind that Parliament's website is already available in the 12 languages of the candidate countries for enlargement (in addition to the 11 current official languages), and that many of these languages are less widely spoken than other languages of the European Union. This is the case with Catalan, which is an official language of three regions with legislative powers and more than 11 million inhabitants and which is spoken by 8 million people, placing it in front of Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Bulgarian, Slovene, Slovak, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and Maltese and making it comparable, as far as Europe is concerned, to Portuguese or Czech.

Catalan belongs to a group of European languages which are official languages in their respective regions of the Member States but which receive no official recognition at EU level.

Will the Commission introduce these languages on its website, in line with the request made in Parliament's resolution?

(1) OJ C 19, 28.1.1991, p. 42.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Since the Union's Europa website was launched in 1995, the Commission has applied the general principle of publishing material in electronic form in all the Union's official languages.

In addition to official documents, Europa (http://europa.eu.int) makes a large amount of non-official information available to the general public. Here, the Commission's objective, subject to technical constraints and human and budgetary resources, is to maximise efforts in order that the general public can access the official language of its choice. This objective will still be a priority for the next enlargement.

It is for the Member States to decide on its official languages.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, 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 preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from LIFE III, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, and environmental training and awareness campaigns, by the municipality of Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds for the preservation and protection of the environment,

Can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the LIFE III programme, the fifth action programme in relation to the environment and sustainable development, or for environmental training and awareness campaigns?

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

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0835/03, E-0887/03, E-1047/03, E-1048/03,E-1049/03, E-1050/03, E-1051/03, E-1052/03, E-1053/03, E-1054/03,E-1055/03, E-1056/03, E-1057/03, E-1058/03 and E-1059/03given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

In response to the above mentioned questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the municipalities of Frosinone, Fiumicino, Ancona, Carrara, Livorno, Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Siena and Terni did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme. This includes the 2003 selection exercise.

The municipality of Firenze submitted two projects for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2002, that were not financed. It did not submit any project in 2000 and 2003.

The municipality of Massa submitted one project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000, that was not financed. It did not submit any project in 2002 and 2003.

The municipality of Prato did not submit any project for co-financing under the LIFE III Programme in 2000 and 2002. It submitted one project in 2003, the evaluation procedure is under way and it will be finalised by September 2003.

There is no Community funding foreseen in the framework of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

As far as environmental training and awareness-raising campaigns are concerned, none of the communes mentioned by the Honourable Member has benefited from Community funding for the period since 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1743/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Creation of a place of worship

The Comunità templi italici [Italic Temples Community] cultural association, whose membership comprises both church and lay people, has put forward plans for a project involving the construction of a sanctuary within a cave located in a small village (Schiavi D'Abruzzo) as a faithful copy of the sanctuary of Lourdes in France. The project, which has been approved by the Vatican authorities, is strictly religious in nature and it is intended to send out a message of openness and dialogue between different cultures and religions.

Furthermore, the construction of the sanctuary will also involve developing a full range of infrastructure (including roads, lighting and parking areas), which will further enhance the part of central Italy concerned. All of this will create new jobs, not least on account of the presence of a major archaeological site of great historical significance.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is funding available for places of worship?

2. Are there any similar initiatives within the EU?

3. Can the Commission provide an overview of the situation?

Joint answerto Written questions E-1743/03 and E-1744/03given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

1. The Commission may support initiatives in the cultural sector only under the Culture 2000 programme and in accordance with its selection criteria. This programme is the EU's sole financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation.

The programme is designed to support projects which are jointly run and financed by at least three operators from a minimum of three participating countries.

The Honourable Member can find further information concerning calls for proposals and the annual priorities of the Culture 2000 programme on the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/c2000condition_en.html.

2. The Commission is not aware of the submission of any projects of this type by Member States.

3. The Commission cannot comment on a project's eligibility for financial assistance or sponsorship unless an application has been submitted to the appropriate department in accordance with the terms and conditions in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1733/03

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Linguistic discrimination in EU job vacancy notices

In its answer to Question E-0941/02(1) the Commission states that the term native speaker is not acceptable, under any circumstances, under Community law. The Commission also states its intention of continuing to use its powers to fight against any discrimination caused by a requirement for native speaker knowledge in job advertisements.

A job advertisement published recently by Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) in Thessaloniki, on whose governing body the Commission is represented, bore the title English mother tongue secretary. However, the list of qualifications referred only to excellent English.

Does the Commission take the view that the misleading title of this job advertisement discriminates against all applicants who are not native speakers of English?

What action will the Commission take on this matter?

Will the Commission try to prevent job advertisements such as this from being published in future?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 161.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is a decentralised body set up under a specific Regulation(1). It is autonomous as regards its staff policy, over which the Commission has no control, beyond being represented on its Management Board. Indeed according to its basic Regulation, it is the Director who is responsible for all staff matters and for engaging and dismissing staff. The basic regulation of Cedefop specifies that its language regime is that of the Community.

The Commission considers that the use of the term native speaker in a job advertisement breaches Community rules on free movement of workers and discriminates against applicants who are not native speakers of English.

The Commission has investigated the matter of the job-offer for an English mother-tongue secretary published by Cedefop on 7 April 2003. Cedefop has informed the Commission that the use of the term English mother tongue in the vacancy notice for a secretary was considered important since the job involves substantial assistance to non-English native-speaking experts in the Agency who publish 80 % of their work in English. Part of the role of the secretary will be to assist in ensuring quality of the language in the Agency's publications. Cedefop therefore considered that the highest level of English was required for the post.

Due to the information received by the Commission, Cedefop will be republishing the above post without a requirement for native speaker knowledge in the job advertisement.

The Commission will remind the Directors of Community decentralised organisations of this topic and ask them to inform promptly their services.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council of 10 February 1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, Article 7, § 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/03

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

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Failure to consider the responsibility of the Spanish State authorities in the communication from the Commission to the Council of 5 March 2003

In the communication from the Commission to the Council of 5 March 2003(1) on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster, under the heading a far-reaching cross-border catastrophe, no reference is made to the decisions taken by the Spanish State authorities before the vessel sank off the coast, nor to the possible responsibility for the scale of the disaster as a result of those decisions, mentioning only the accident in which the vessel was involved and weather conditions as factors.

Why has this been forgotten?

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the aim of its communication to the Council of 5 March 2003 as suggested by its title was to report on action taken by the Union in response to the disaster.

Accordingly, as indicated by the Commission in its working document reporting on the wreck of the oil tanker Prestige, presented on the occasion of the hearing by the European Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on 19 March 2003, only the judicial authorities and accident inquiry boards are competent to establish the exact circumstances of the wreck and identify those responsible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1203/03

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 Terni

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

can the Commission state:

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

2. whether the municipality of Terni 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.