ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/164

(2004/C 70 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2928/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: European Spatial Development Perspective and the SRUNA Project

In June 2000, the Sustainable Recreational Use of Natural Assets (SRUNA) project, which examined methods of planning for sustainable recreation in natural amenity areas in Dublin and Mid-East regions and which was funded by the EU TERRA programme, was completed.

How have the recommendations of the SRUNA project been incorporated into the follow-up to the European Spatial Development Perspective?

What current (or planned) EU-funded programmes and initiatives would be of relevance in relation to the implementation of the SRUNA recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The programme TERRA was launched in 1997 in the context of the innovative actions financed by the Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). It concerned 15 experimental, transnational and interregional innovative pilot projects in the field of spatial planning throughout Europe, one of which was the project SRUNA (Sustainable Recreational Use of Natural Assets).

A total of EUR 40 million (of which EUR 20 million from the ERDF) was earmarked for the TERRA programme. TERRA was conceived as a laboratory for testing new approaches to, and methodologies for, spatial planning. In addition, TERRA — together with the Interreg IIC programmes — aimed to contribute to the assessment of the relevance of the policy options proposed by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).

The final TERRA report, published by the Commission at the beginning of 2000, concluded that the SRUNA project had obtained very good results by developing a bottom-up partnership for sustainable development, an inventory of recreational natural assets and best practice guidelines for integrated planning (including a report on access for disabled to recreational natural assets. These results were disseminated via the TERRA seminars and workshops as part of the effort to promote spatial planning in widely diverse cultural and institutional contexts. More information can be found on the web-site. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/innovation/innovating/terra/expplan/toc.html).

As it was pointed out in the TERRA closing event held in Brussels in spring 2000, which gathered partners from all 15 projects, no extension of the TERRA programme as such was foreseen. Rather, the Community initiative Interreg III, 2000-2006, is the natural framework under which the continuation of this type of co-operation is possible. The Commission adopted the guidelines for the Community initiative Interreg III on 28 April 2000 (1). Specific guidelines for interregional co-operation were approved on 4 May 2001 (2).

(1) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

(2) OJ C 141, 15.5.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/601

(2004/C 88 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

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

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

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

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Carrara, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

2. whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/549

(2004/C 78 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3446/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Authorisation for aid in connection with a biological rest period in Sicily in 2002

In March 2002, pursuant to Regional Decree (D.A.) No 22/Fisheries, the Sicilian regional authorities notified the Commission regarding the granting of financial aid to fishermen in connection with the biological rest period in 2002.

Subsequent and wholly justified requests from the Commission for further information considerably delayed the reply from Brussels on the matter.

The aid provided for in the aforementioned decree was based on the legislation in force at the time, namely Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1).

The Commission surprisingly chose to take its decision on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (2) of 20 December 2002, which substantially amended Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999.

The failure to authorise the provision of aid in connection with the biological rest period in 2002 is causing major financial problems for many fisheries operators who have implemented the rest period.

Given the above, would the Commission not agree that it should consider the request from the Sicilian regional authorities for 2002 to be compatible with Community law, so as not to add to the financial difficulties already being faced by Sicilian fisheries operators who are also being penalised by the measures provided for in the Community fisheries action plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the situation described in his question was the subject of a letter from the Commission's Director-General for Fisheries in July of this year in which he referred to the relevant sections of the Community rules (3) and to the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture.

In October the Sicilian Regional Government's fisheries department sent the Fisheries Directorate-General a letter on the matter, and the Commission is still examining the dossier in the light of the abovementioned Guidelines (4) and Regulation.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 49.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 12.

(4) OJ C 19, 20.1.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/907

(2004/C 78 E/0959)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4062/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject: Health and safety of workers — complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2

After examining complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2 and sending its representative to hold meetings in Greece, the Commission reportedly decided to initiate an infringement procedure against the Hellenic Republic and send it a letter of formal notice, to which the Greek Government has replied.

In view of the increasing number of complaints and the commonly held belief in Greece that the departments responsible for implementing Directive 89/391/EEC (1) on the health and safety of workers are not performing their task satisfactorily and employers continue to breach the rules on health and safety at work, what are the main points of the Commission's letter of formal notice and what was the Greek authorities' answer?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

As stated by the Honourable Member, with regard to complaint 2000/4404, the Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to the Greek Government, to which the Greek authorities have replied.

The letter of formal notice concerns the application under Greek law of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the implementation of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (2), and the individual Directives adopted under it. In particular, it reiterates the Member States' obligation to ensure appropriate monitoring and surveillance of provisions adopted to transpose Community directives. Failure to enforce such provisions, or failure to enforce them properly, constitutes an infringement of Community law and may give rise to infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has officially asked the Greek Government for its comments on this subject, especially details of the checks carried out and the occupational accident rate.

The Greek authorities have provided detailed and reasoned replies to the letter of formal notice. In view of the complexity of the matter, the Commission is currently examining the Greek authorities' response and will take the necessary action in the light of the results of this examination and taking account of any information received subsequently.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/383

(2004/C 88 E/0389)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject: Re-opening of mineral extraction plant at Pergamon (Bergama)

The re-opening of Eurogold's gold extraction plant in the Pergamon area of Turkey, opposite the island of Lesbos, is a danger to the ecosystem and public health in the region. Data compiled by experts show that 6,8 tonnes of gold and 8,5 tonnes of silver were produced in 2002 and that these were extracted using 25 tonnes of cyanide. This quantity of toxic waste is stored at a distance of only 25 kilometres from the shores of the Greek island of Lesbos and the town of Mytilini, while a storage basin for toxic waste and cyanide salts has been set up near the village of Ovacik. Given the high level of seismic activity in the area and the possibility of a leakage of toxic cyanide waste into the water table and the Aegean as the result of a major earthquake, the potential consequences are catastrophic.

In view of the fact that Parliament has already adopted a resolution condemning activities of this kind (B4-0410/94) (1), will the Commission ask Turkey for information on the above matter, in the context of that country's efforts to forge closer links with Europe, and take the necessary measures to avoid far-reaching environmental damage in both Greece and Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. The activities of the companies involved in mineral extraction in Bergama have been subject to a judgement of the Izmir Administrative Court of 10 January 2002. In accordance with the principle of the rule of law, which is part of the Copenhagen criteria, the Turkish Authorities are expected to fully abide by decisions of the judiciary. Mining activities such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member may have potentially serious implications for the protection of the environment and human health if they are not carried out properly. As part of its preparations for accession, Turkey undertakes to adopt and implement the ‘acquis’ in due course.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely in light of the relevant political and ‘acquis’ criteria.

(1) OJ C 341, 5.12.1994, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/313

(2004/C 78 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/03

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC

1. Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin in October 2002 should not be published?

2. If so, for what reasons?

3. If not, whether it will try to ensure that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin is published as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The report on anti-Semitism to which the Honourable Member refers was carried out by the Berlin Technical Institute under contract to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and not the Commission. A statement by the EUMC issued on 26 November 2003 rejects the allegations that the report was ‘shelved’. In this statement, the Chair of the Management Board stated that the members of the Management Board ‘considered the work undertaken by the contractors to be of poor quality and lacking in empirical evidence’. The Chair also made clear his regret that a ‘collective decision of the Board based purely on the insufficient quality of the research carried out by the Berlin Centre has been used to discredit the important work which the EUMC has to do in the fight against racism and xenophobia in Europe’.

The Management Board of the EUMC which took the collective decision on the quality of the research is composed of 15 independent and eminent experts in the field of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism as well as a representative of the Commission, the Council of Europe and the Parliament.

The research in question has now been published on the EUMC website at the following address: http://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php.

The report is accompanied by a statement setting out why the Management Board deemed the research to be of insufficient quality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/54

(2004/C 78 E/0052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1906/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject: Credibility of televoting and its cost to the European public

In recent years, the use of ‘televoting’ has become widespread, giving viewers the impression that they are directly taking part in events on the screen.

Recently (24 May 2003), something similar also occurred in the Eurovision Song Contest where — supposedly — European viewers voted for the ‘best song’. ‘Voting’ took place using dedicated lines and text messaging and lasted a total of only five minutes. The results — supposedly again — gave Turkey first place, while the Greek and Cypriot press described as extremely strange the totally unexpected high number of votes which Cyprus gave Turkey via — again supposedly — televoting. However, no details were announced of how many had ‘voted’ in each country and what independent authority had verified the reliability of the ‘voting’. Furthermore, telephone ‘voting’ and text messaging are generally very expensive services, costing in Greece on the evening of the contest up to almost EUR 0,50 (before VAT) per call or message.

Is there any Community legislation covering televoting, the method of checking the reliability of the results and the charge to each consumer using this service? Does the Commission consider, in general, that televoting is credible?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

There is no Community instrument regulating voting procedures used in connection with broadcast programmes. The Commission has no information about the reliability of SMS services for the purpose of televoting. It would be up to the organiser of the vote to ensure that the reliability of the method is commensurate with the interests at stake. The price of SMS messages is determined by the market, subject to any national obligations requiring service providers to give users prior information about the applicable tariffs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/151

(2004/C 78 E/0156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2691/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: EURES expenditure

EURES is an information network which is intended to promote the cross-border mobility of workers. The accession of the new Member States means that EURES will gain in importance. Efficient use of the EU funds provided is a crucial element in ensuring the success of European public employment services.

Can the Commission indicate:

— the level of the (maximum) amounts of support for cross-border partnerships applied for and approved in 2003, and

— how the expenditure in the overall EURES budget for 2003 is broken down (breakdown by type of expenditure), and who the recipients of EURES funding are?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Supporting the co-operation between the labour market actors at cross-border level (involving public employment services, the social partners and others) is an important element of the EURES Decision adopted by the Commission in December 2003 (1). The Commission shares the view that the financial means at the disposal of EURES should be used in the most efficient manner possible — each relevant request for support is examined with rigour to ensure good value for money.

With regard to the requests for subsidies and grants provided for the EURES Cross-border partnerships in 2003 following a call for proposals, the Commission received requests amounting to EUR 8 025 005. In the light of the Commission's analysis, a total of EUR 7 443 411 was committed to support the work of the 21 partnerships making up the EURES cross-border network (representing 93 % of the funds requested)

The following is the breakdown in commitments for the whole of the EURES budget for 2003 (covering both parts A and Β of the B3-4011 budget line):

(euro) National public employment services 5 104 580 Cross-border partnerships 7 443 411 Maintenance and upkeep of databases and website 754 886 Training programme 738 445 Job mobility information campaign 979 790 Conferences and seminars 93 131 Publications 152 000 Total 15 266 243

Recipients of EURES funding include the Member State public employment services responsible for the delivery of EURES services, the cross-border partnerships which support labour market mobility in frontier zones, contractors selected to organise the training programme aimed essentially at training EURES advisers, contractors selected to participate in the European job mobility information campaign (which forms part of the Commission's Action Plan on Skills and Mobility) (2), contractors selected to organise conferences and seminars, and contractors responsible for publishing EURES promotional and other material.

(1) OJ L 5, 10.1.2003.

(2) COM(2002) 72 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/554

(2004/C 78 E/0589)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3457/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Reform of the olive oil sector

Commission Communication (1) on ‘accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP — the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors’, it states that ‘for simplification, the olive grove payment will not be allocated before EUR 50 per aid claim’.

Various interpretations have been placed on this formulation. Would the Commission therefore please clarify whether this means that all olive growers currently receiving less than EUR 50 will henceforth receive EUR 50, or on the contrary, cease to receive any aid whatever, which would be very unfair?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission's communication Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP- the tobacco, olive oil and sugar sectors (2) was followed on 18 November by its adoption of the proposals for the legislation introducing the reforms in question.

The particular provision to which the Honourable Member refers has to be seen in context: simplification of the aid provisions for a sector with a very large number of recipients (more than 2 100 000 in the Community), most of whom receive very small amounts of aid. This simplification is designed not to harm the interests of the smallest producers.

A second provision has to be taken into account in this connection. Growers with an area of less than 0,3 geographical information system (GIS) hectares will be entitled, irrespective of the amount of aid received, to convert into single payment entitlement the average aid received during the reference period whereas for producers with more than 0,3 GIS hectares the conversion level proposed is 60 %. The first provision in turn makes operation of the system less burdensome by specifying that if the amount of olive grove aid claimed is less than EUR 50 it will not be paid. For the purposes of this provision the actual size of the grove is irrelevant.

Thus under the new system proposed the very small producers will receive at least the average amount granted during the reference period. Those whose grove is considered by the Member State to have an environmental or social value will also be able to receive the olive grove aid provided that the amount actually falling to be received is more than EUR 50.

(1) COM(2003) 554 final.

(2) COM(2003) 554 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/462

(2004/C 84 E/0537)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0857/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Purchase of Corus by Outokumpu

Following the purchase by the Finnish company Outokumpu of the stainless steel business of the Anglo-Dutch company Corus, will the Commission say what action it took to ensure that the purchase did not create an over-concentration of ownership in this industrial sector?

What effect on competition and employment in the sector does the Commission think the purchase will have?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

As there is no single operation that can be regarded as the purchase of Corus's stainless steel business by Outokumpu it may be useful to outline the main developments in the process. Between 1992 and 1994 there was a series of operations through which British Steel plc acquired joint control with Swedish investment institutions of Avesta Sheffield a company combining British Steel's stainless steel business with the Swedish stainless steel producer, Avesta. Subsequently, the Swedish institutions withdrew in two stages so that by the end of 1994 British Steel plc had sole control of Avesta Sheffield.

In 2000 Corus and Outokumpu notified a concentration to the Commission which would combine their respective stainless steel businesses in Avesta Polarit. This operation was cleared on 4 December 2000 under both the ECSC Treaty and the Merger Regulation (1). After an extensive first phase investigation the Commission concluded that the concentration would not give rise to competition problems. The clearance decisions (2) are available on Directorate General Competition's web site.

The final operation occurred on 28 August 2002 when the Commission authorised the acquisition by Outokumpu of sole control of Avesta Polarit through the purchase of Corus's minority interest (3). This operation had no direct effect on either competition or employment as it involved only a change from joint control by Coras and Outokumpu to sole control by Outokumpu. Outokumpu subsequently bought out the remaining minority shareholders.

In assessing the effects of the concentrations falling within its jurisdiction the Commission is required by the Merger Regulation (4) to base its analysis on competition considerations. It does not therefore directly consider the effects of a particular operation on employment. However stable long-term employment is best served by competitive companies operating on a level playing field, conditions which Community competition policy fosters.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 24 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2) COMP/M.2180 - Outokumpu/Avesta and COMP/ECSC.1342 - Outokumpu/Avesta.

(3) COMP/M.2900 - Outokumpu/Avesta Polarit.

(4) http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html