WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Call for proposals published in Official Journal C 227 of 10 August 1999.
Date: 1999-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to information, association, domestic violence, eligibility criteria, position of women, public awareness campaign, restriction on competition

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/59

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1999)

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to
draw the attention of the Italian authorities to the practice mentioned by the Honourable Member.
Therefore, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to submit more details on the matter,
in
particular identifying precisely the places concerned by the practice mentioned, in order to allow the
Commission to possibly start an investigation.

Existing Community legislation on waste provides that Member States have to ensure that waste is
recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods
which could harm the environment. The abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste is in
general prohibited (Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1)). These rules
are specified as regards landfilling of waste by virtue of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999
on the landfill of waste (2). Therefore, uncontrolled dumping of plastic waste even within buildings, such as
hangars, is certainly prohibited under existing Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(2000/C 219 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Call for proposals published in Official Journal C 227 of 10 August 1999

The edition of the Official Journal cited above contained a call for proposals for projects under the
campaign against violence against women. The deadline for the submission of proposals was 21 September.
On that day an association wishing to submit a proposal, after various earlier attempts to obtain the
application form (which the local Commission office knew nothing about), succeeded in obtaining it by
electronic mail, after repeated telephone calls to the office of the head of the information department of
DG X. The recipient was told that there was no point in sending the form, as the successful proposals
would be submitted by the Netherlands and Finland.

Does the Commission generally know the identity of successful applicants before the proposals are

1.
submitted or before the deadline for the submission of proposals has expired?

2. Why are the Commission offices in the Member States(cid:146) capital cities not capable of providing specific
information about calls for proposals published in the Official Journal?

3. What are the (cid:141)no doubt serious and understandable (cid:141)reasons that prompt Commission officials to
select the winning applicants before the deadline for submitting proposals?

If proceedings of this kind have become an unfortunate habit, is there any hope that the situation

4.
will be improved with the entry into office of the new Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

This call for proposals consisted of two tranches: the first tranche was published on 7 April 1999 (1) with a
deadline of 21 May 1999.

In this first tranche 69 projects were submitted, and 30 were selected. The second tranche, which was
justified because it was not possible to cover all Member States in the first tranche, was published on
10 August 1999 with a deadline for presentation of projects of 21 September 1999.

C 219 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Item 5 of this second tranche (2), entitled (cid:145)Award criteria(cid:146), notes that: (cid:145)In this second selection procedure,
priority will be given to projects which provide the best cover of the Community as a whole, and the
following countries in particular: Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden,
Finland and Germany(cid:146).

It is possible that the person mentioned by the Honourable Member misinterpreted this information.

The two tranches of the call for proposals were posted on the Europa site at two different addresses:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex and http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/women/index.

The Commission offices in the Member States have access to all the Official Journals and to the Europa
site.

The Commission sent out 333 forms in response to the requests it received. The selection was carried out
in accordance with the rules and deadlines given in the call for proposals.

(1) OJ C 94, 7.4.1999.
(2) OJ C 227, 10.8.1999.

(2000/C 219 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Action to combat corruption

In the light of alarming indications of corruption on the part of leading figures in Russia, a recent G7
decision decreed a freeze on loans to Russia after calling for quarterly information about the state of
accounts as a condition for restoring the flow of funds to the former Soviet empire.

Would the Council set up a committee of inquiry concerning the destination of Community funds
allocated to Russia under the cooperation agreements with that country?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Council would set up a committee of inquiry concerning the
destination of Community funds allocated to Russia under the cooperation agreements with that country.

The Council does not have the power to set up a committee of enquiry. Furthermore, under Article 274 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, responsibility for implementing the general budget of
the Communities falls on the Commission. Similarly, loans from by the European Investment Bank, even if
they are subsidised or guaranteed under the Community budget, are granted under the Bank(cid:146)s primary
responsibility. Finally, it should be stressed that Russia is a sovereign State.

Nevertheless, the Council uses the powers conferred on it by the treaties to ensure the greatest possible
control of the use made of Community funds, particularly in Russia.

In particular, the Council specified in Regulation (EC) 2802/98 (1) of 17 December 1998, organising the
distribution in Russia of 1 850 000 tonnes of
that a
memorandum concluded by the Commission and the Russian authorities should make it possible for
monitoring, auditing, control and evaluation to be carried out on Russian territory, in particular by the
Court of Auditors or by outside bodies delegated by the Commission for the purpose. The Council also
decided on 26 November 1999, during the second reading of the budget for 2000, to increase the
appropriations for controlling the delivery of this aid from EUR 12,4 to 20,4 million. The particularly high
proportion of financial means allocated to monitoring the operation demonstrates the importance that the
Council attaches to this issue.

foodstuffs for a sum of EUR 470 million,