ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3243/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Action to prevent osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a serious illness and is insidious in that it can go undetected for a long time. In Western women over the age of 50, the risk of an osteoporotic fracture is approximately 40 % and women are just as likely to die as a result of such fractures as from breast cancer. Furthermore, the increase in life expectancy will result in a growing number of hip fractures, which the WH0 estimates are likely to double from 414 000 to 912 000 in the EU over the next 50 years.

We are therefore confronted with a lasting public health problem. It is easy to imagine the financial burden that this disease could represent. As an example, the average cost of a fracture of the femur is estimated at EUR 11 000 for long-stay treatment.

In 1998, at the request of the European Parliament, the Commission carried a study and published a Report on osteoporosis in the EU Action for prevention. Three years later, the audit carried out by the International Osteoporosis Foundation reveals that little progress has been made by the Member States since the Commission's report, and the situation is now worse. Since 1998, the number of osteoporotic fractures in Europe has increased by 25 % and the cost of the disease has risen by 33 % to approximately EUR 4,8 billion every year in Europe.

Although the Commission cannot intervene directly in the health sphere because of the principle of subsidiarity, is it preparing other initiatives or programmes to prevent osteoporosis and if so, what might they cover?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

In 1998, the Commission published eight recommendations in the Report on Osteoporosis in the European Community Action for prevention.

Based on this report, the Commission is funding within the Work Programme 2002 a project to be performed by the IOF (International Osteoporosis Foundation) to analyse how the recommendations of this report have been acted upon in the Member States.

The aims of this project are to work with a consultation panel in order to move to the fulfilment of the eight recommendations and to publish a practical cost-effective plan outlining the next policy steps in this area. Additionally, the Commission intends to use the information generated by this project as the basis for a Report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/02

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Irregular acceptance by the Commission of upwards vision of processed tomato quantity data

On what date was notice given of the holding of the 28 January 2002 Processed Fruit and Vegetable Management Committee meeting? What was the reason for holding the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2811/02, E-2812/02 and E-2813/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

At the meeting of the Management Committee for products processed from fruit and vegetables on 15 January 2002 it was noted, on the basis of information provided by the Member States, that the Community threshold for processing tomatoes had not been exceeded for the 2001/2002 marketing year. Consequently, no reduction in aid was applicable in respect of the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 marketing years. In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2201/96(1), the Management Committee had been consulted regarding a proposal for a Regulation fixing, for all Member States, the additional amount at a maximum level for the 2001/02 marketing year and aid for the 2002/03 marketing year at the level fixed by the Council. The Committee was unanimously in favour.

On 24 January 2002, outside the time limits stipulated by Regulation 449/2001(2), Italy sent a correction of the data previously provided, with the result that the Community threshold was exceeded.

The Commission therefore had two options:

- to reject on formal grounds the new data sent by the Italian authorities and complete the procedure for publishing the version of the Regulation approved at the meeting of the Management Committee on 15 January 2002, which would have entailed a certain loss for the Community budget;

- to take the new data provided by Italy into account in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Council Regulation, which requires aid to be paid while estimating any amount in excess of the threshold based on the quantity actually delivered for processing with aid.

The second option was chosen. Consequently, a meeting of the Management Committee was convened on 25 January and held on 28 January 2002. The only agenda item was a new draft Commission Regulation correcting the proposal presented to the Committee on 15 January. The Committee was unanimously in favour of the draft, which reduces additional aid and the basic aid for the 2002/2003 marketing year in Italy and Spain the Member States whose threshold was exceeded.

The Commission is sure that the Honourable Member shares the concern to defend the Community financial interests which underlies the decisions taken and will therefore agree that it acted properly.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products, OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 449/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables, OJ L 64, 6.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2855/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Use by the municipality of Rome of funding under the SAVE II and Altener II programmes

In September 2002 the supervisory committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs presented a report on how EU funding has been spent.

The inquiry revealed the worrying slowness and inefficiency in the award of contracts by local authorities: commitments for 2000 accounted for only 2 % of the whole CSF.

Alarm at the inadequate use of European funding by local authorities has also been expressed by the Commission on various occasions.

A number of local authorities, such as the municipality of Rome, very much need to use European funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, to improve air quality and combat pollution.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Rome has submitted projects under the SAVE II and Altener II programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Rome has obtained funding for such projects;

3. whether the funding has been used?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

1. The City of Rome has participated in the submission of 2 proposals for the Altener programme in the Calls for proposals 2001 and 2002. One came out successfully: European Solar Housing Exhibitions.

2. The City of Rome participates as one of in all 11 contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal EuSolExhibitions. The total budget for the project is EUR 1 360 000 and the total EC support is EUR 680 000. The City of Rome's share of the budget is EUR 217 600 and

the EC support for the City of Rome is EUR 108 800. The contract is currently being negotiated, and it is expected that it will be ready for signature by the end of 2002. The table below gives details of the other partners in the contract, the budget breakdown etc.

>TABLE>

3. The budget for EuSolExhibitions will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: City of Rome Office of the Deputy Major for Urban Planning and Programming.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2543/02

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: The castle of Barletta

By virtue of resolution No 390 of 18 July 2000 and decision No 1387 of 20 July 2000 the town council of Barletta approved and launched a project for the general restoration of the whole area surrounding the castle of Barletta.

The castle and its surroundings are of great architectural and artistic value, part of the heritage of the whole local community and worthy of being a world heritage site.

Statements made by members of the Italian Government indicate that the execution of the project in Barletta entails worrying damage to the environment which is seriously jeopardising the local ecosystem and the beauty of the landscape. The situation is of particular concern to the town's inhabitants those who benefit most from the area concerned.

Finally, the way the project is being executed is changing and harming the historical and aesthetic integrity of the site.

Can the Commission say whether the required opinions on the project have been received from the competent authorities, in particular Bari's heritage department and the Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities? Has the project received European Union funding?

Can the Commission say whether the situation is damaging the site and spoiling the natural landscape and historic features of what is such an important area in view of the proximity of Frederick II's castle?

Can the Commission say whether, in the light of this kind of situation, which unfortunately is not unique, a permanent monitoring service might be set up to ascertain the scale of such problems of environmental pollution and damage to historic urban areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

1. The Commission cannot act as a substitute for local, regional or national authorities by authorising or refusing to authorise any particular project. This would infringe the principle of subsidiarity. Nor is it qble to verify whether the required opinions on a project have been given by the Bari heritage department and the Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities.

2. The project mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been granted aid from the European Regional Development Fund.

3. Creation of a permanent monitoring service as proposed by the Honourable Member is not at present envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3095/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: The Objective 2 programme for the Madrid region for 1997-1999

Can the Commission provide information on the outcome of the final report for the Objective 2 programme for the Madrid region 1997-1999 and on the error detected by the Court of Auditors audit carried out for the above period?

Can the Commission state whether it is aware of the Autonomous Community of Madrid having taken steps to rectify the errors identified?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

In 2000, the Court of Auditors carried out an inspection of several measures part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Objective 2 OP for Madrid (1997-99).

The conclusions of the Court's report on measure 3.4 Construction of and equipment for research and development centres of this OP found that some expenditure on projects did not relate to research and development (R & D) but to university education. Community rules do not permit the part-financing of investment in education in areas eligible under Objective 2.

The national authorities, however, regarded all the projects included in the declarations of expenditure as concerned with R & D.

To resolve this disagreement, the Spanish authorities, in agreement with the Commission, recently appointed an independent expert to check on all the projects included in the measure and identify investment relating to research and development.

The conclusions of this investigation will be sent to the Commission so that the amount of the expenditure actually eligible for part-financing from the ERDF under this measure can be established.

The Commission is now awaiting this report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2412/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(7 August 2002)

Subject: Meeting of Foreign Affairs Minister Louis Michel with the Iraqi government

It appears that Louis Michel, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, has held a meeting with Iraq's foreign minister and, possibly, with Saddam Hussein himself. In the present international climate, any such event is of obvious sensitivity and could have a significant impact on European external policy, at a time when Iraq could in the very near future become the target of a fresh US military offensive.

Is the Council aware of these meetings of Louis Michel with the Iraqi foreign minister and/or Saddam? Did these meetings take place under the Belgian presidency of the EU, and, if so, were the Member States informed?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

Mr Michel, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, informed the European Union of the outcome of his meeting with the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs in July of this year. The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the press release circulated by the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on that occasion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2545/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Violations of people's freedom of movement committed by the French authorities at the Franco-Italian border on the occasion of the Technival of 15 August in Italy

On the occasion of the Technival techno festival, held in Italy on the long weekend of 15 August, the French authorities stopped lorries carrying musicians and their sound systems at the Col de Larche La Maddalena Franco-Italian border point and prevented them from reaching the event in Italy. The Alpes de Haute Provence prefecture even denied pedestrians access to Italy for several hours between 14 and 15 August.

What action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the violations of people's freedom of movement committed on this occasion?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

Freedom to move and reside in another Member State is a fundamental right conferred directly on every citizen of the European Union by the EC Treaty. However, this right may be restricted on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health.

Public policy measures taken by the Member States must be assessed in the light of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health(1) and Court of Justice case-law. No restrictions in the interests of national security or public safety may be placed on the rights secured by the EC Treaty other than such as are necessary for the protection of those interests(2).

It falls to the national authorities first to assess the situation at hand and then to take appropriate measures in accordance with Community law. In particular, any measures taken to protect law and order and public security must respect the principle of proportionality: the measure must be justified, the end must be commensurate with the means, and the right balance must be struck between the interests of the individual and the State concerned.

The Commission is unable to determine, on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, whether the Community rules governing free movement were infringed in the case of the Technival techno festival. No complaints from members of the public have been received in this connection.

(1) OJ P 56, 4.4.1964.

(2) Cf. Case 36/75 Rutili [1975] ECR II-1219.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2053/02

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Subject: Investigation into Microsoft's dominant economic position

In spite of the investigation currently being carried out by the European Commission into Microsoft's alleged abuse of its dominant economic position, the company appears to be continuing, undeterred, to pursue the same course.

In particular in the area of upgrades or licence renewal for software, the company is intending very shortly to introduce a number of disproportionate price increases.

Is the Commission aware that, while the investigation is going on, Microsoft is continuing to abuse its dominant position, specifically by imposing new licensing arrangements for software?

Is the Commission aware that swift action on its part is desirable in view of the major economic interests at stake and the possible damage to European companies?

What action does the Commission intend to take against Microsoft in the short-term?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of Microsoft' revised practices as regards the pricing of its software upgrades and licence renewals. As the Commission has not yet formally investigated this issue, it is not in a position to confirm or deny whether such practices may constitute an abuse of a dominant position.

As the Commission has highlighted in its reply to written question E-1823/02 by Mr Meijer(1), for reasons of efficient allocation of its limited resources and in light of its ongoing case against Microsoft, the Commission agreed with several national competition authorities in 2001 that these competition authorities would conduct the first analysis of Microsoft's upgrade licensing policy. Taking into account the work that has been done by the relevant national competition authorities on this issue, the Commission is currently examining with these authorities the most efficient way to carry the investigation forward.

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 95.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2329/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Increasingly alarming reports have been received in recent times concerning the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The number of executions announced by the official press during the first six months of 2002 was three times as high as in the corresponding period for 2001. The current wave of repression in the country has resulted in 21 public executions in a week and the incarceration of thousands of people.

Furthermore, government sources reveal that four women who have been condemned to death by stoning are in prison, awaiting their tragic fate. Their execution would bring to 23 the number of people who have been condemned to this barbaric punishment under the Khatami presidency not to mention the public floggings and the harassment of ordinary people by the security forces.

The fact that the resolution on human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (which was tabled in Geneva during the final session of the UN Human Rights Commission to be held under Spain's presidency of the EU) failed by one vote to be adopted has been interpreted by the Teheran authorities as a sign of relaxation on the part of the EU. This has prompted the Iranian Government to aggravate a situation which was already serious enough.

What means can the EU employ in order to monitor the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, apart from the dialogue which is proceeding with the country's authorities?

Since the date of the next UN General Assembly constitutes a deadline for assessing the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, is the EU intending to table a resolution on the subject?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council notes that in her question the Honourable Member assumes that there is already a Human Rights Dialogue between the EU and the Iranian authorities. It is true that the question of human rights is one of the numerous political issues that have already been discussed by the EU and Iran at the six-monthly meetings that have taken place in the framework of the enlarged political dialogue.

However, it was only at its meeting in Luxembourg on 21 October 2002 that the Council formally decided to open an official Human Rights Dialogue with Iran. That dialogue is expected to begin in December 2002.

Nevertheless, the formal establishment of a Human Rights Dialogue with a certain country does not prevent the EU from denouncing breaches of human rights in that country, particularly in the appropriate international fora, or from raising the matter in meetings with the third country concerned at every level, as the EU has done with Iran.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2991/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 13 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls on the Commission to compel Member States to establish a computerised life-raft service database to ensure that all fishing vessel owners are automatically notified to service their life-rafts on an annual basis as well as a similar reminder system for EPIRB and SART batteries.

Paragraph 14 calls on Member States to ensure that all fishing vessels are inspected annually to ensure that their obligatory lifesaving equipment is on board and in date.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

What measures does the Commission think should be adopted with regard to life-saving to help reduce the number of fisheries accidents?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Paragraph 13 of the resolution to which the Honourable Member refers has not given rise to any approach by the Commission to Member States for the purpose of their establishing computerised life-raft service databases designed to ensure that all fishing vessel owners are automatically notified each year of the need to have their rafts serviced and similar reminder systems for the batteries of emergency position-indicating radio beacons and search and rescue radar transponders. This would involve a very considerable amount of work where there is no equivalent for merchant shipping and responsibility for it would fall directly on the Member States.

Turning to paragraph 14 of the resolution, where Parliament calls on Member States to ensure that all fishing vessels are inspected annually to ensure that their obligatory life-saving equipment is on board and in date, it should be stated that Directive 97/70/EC(1) makes regular inspection by the flag Member State compulsory only for vessels more than 24 metres long. Other vessels are subject to national inspection arrangements. There is no provision, whatever the size of the vessel, for any audit of national administrations by the Commission on this matter.

(1) Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, OJ L 34, 9.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Organic farming in the European Union

The Commission estimates that in some Member States, organic farming which is expanding rapidly as a whole has reached a plateau.

What measures will the Commission take to develop and secure the sustainability of organic farming?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

The Commission has stated in its Sustainable Development Strategy that the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy should reward quality rather than quantity by, for example, encouraging the organic sector and other environmentally friendly farming systems.

Currently, and as a farming system beneficial for the environment, organic farming is supported by the Community via its Rural Development Policy, as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(1), in the frame of agri-environmental schemes. All Member States have currently measures in place to support the conversion to and/or the maintenance of organic farming.

In addition, the Commission is now developing an Action Plan for organic food and farming. The objective of the Action Plan is to analyse the existing situation and to develop proposals for action, which will facilitate continued growth in the sector. A communication on the Action Plan is expected to be presented to the Council and the Parliament in December 2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.