WRITTEN QUESTION E-1108/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. UN 2000 Millennium General Assembly and Summit Meeting.
Date: 2000-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: UN General Assembly, UNO, common foreign and security policy, competence of the institution, peace, poverty, sustainable development

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/39

So far the Commission has only been informed about the existence of one non-priority butterfly species
under Directive 92/43/EEC, without any proof by scientific literature, information about population size,
importance of the area or compensation or mitigation measures which are already foreseen.

According to this information, it is not possible to draw a conclusion on whether the area has to be
proposed as a site of Community importance according to Directive 92/43/EEC. Nor can it be said at the
moment whether the authorities have not respected Community legislation in this specific case. The
conservation of the two butterfly species mentioned by the Honourable Member might be possible on
parts of the golf course if they are maintained and managed for the conservation of their habitats and if
the appropriate compensation or mitigation measures are applied.

Given the information available so far, an infringement of Community legislation cannot be proved. The
Honourable Member is invited to provide specific and detailed information on the site to enable the
Commission to assess the case fully.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 53 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Millennium Forum, Summit and Assembly in New York

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the proposals that will be put forward by the
Millennium Forum in May this year will be seriously considered by the Millennium Summit and Assembly
later in the year and also to ensure that the proposals become plans for actions and do not remain merely
talking points with good intentions?

(2001/C 53 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1108/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: UN 2000 Millennium General Assembly and Summit Meeting

Does the Commission recognise the opportunity offered by the United Nations 2000 Millennium General
Assembly and Summit Meeting to address shared international concerns for peace, environmental
sustainability and poverty reduction?

Will the Commission clarify how it intends to reform and strengthen the UN on the principles of greater
efficiency and greater accountability?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0918/00 and E-1108/00
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The Commission expects that the proposals to be made by the Millennium Forum in May 2000 will be
presented at the Millennium Summit by a spokesman for the Forum. The Commission also expects that
such proposals will be discussed in the (cid:145)round-table(cid:146) discussions, the reports of which will be annexed to
the Millennium Summit declaration.

C 53 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

The Commission fully recognizes the opportunity offered by the 2000 Millennium General Assembly and
Summit Meeting of the United Nations to address shared international concerns for peace, sustainable
development and poverty reduction.

The Commission is of course open to taking on board such proposals to the extent that they are
compatible with Community policies and within the limits of the Commission(cid:146)s competences.

With regard to the organisational aspects of reform and strengthening the United Nations to increase
efficiency and accountability, the Commission plays its role in the coordination with regard to Community
decision-making in this area, as well as in the external representation of the Community(cid:146)s position on
these issues.

(2001/C 53 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0923/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Funding application

The group Research into Ageing were promised an EU grant almost 4 years ago? They have yet to receive
the funding which they were promised. The reference numbers of the agreements are SOC 96 102180 and
SOC 97 101790. Research into Ageing ws subsequently informed that the grants could not be made until
the judgment on case C-239/96 was received from the European Court of Justice. This case challenged the
Commission(cid:146)s call for applications for grants from budget line B3-4104, concerning elderly people.

The UK withdrew case C-239/96 in October 1998. The grants made conditional on the outcome of the
case (including SOC 96 102180 and SOC 97 101790) have yet to be paid.

When will the Research into Ageing group receive its funding pursuant to SOC 96 102180 and SOC 97
101790? Surely, this is contrary to the established Community principle of (cid:145)legitimate expectation(cid:146)?

Will the Commission please give general clarification as to when the grants made conditional on the
outcome of C-239/96 will be paid? What action does the Commission intend to take in light of the
withdrawal of C-239/96? Will all conditional grants now be paid out and how does the Commission
intend to avoid similar unacceptable delays in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2000)

The two agreements mentioned by the Honourable Member were only concluded conditionally, following
cases brought by the United Kingdom (cases C-239/96 and C-240/96) and in accordance with the
consequent order made by the President of the Court of justice. These cases challenged the Commission(cid:146)s
call for applications for grants from two budget lines, concerning elderly people (B3-4104) and social
exclusion (B3-4103) respectively. These challenges were made on similar grounds to case C-106/96 also
brought by the United Kingdom, where on 12 May 1998 the Court found against the Commission. This
ruling was followed by the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 13 October 1998 between the Parliament, the
Council and the Commission on the legal bases and implementation of the Community budget (1).

Having regard to these considerations and in particular to the very close similarity between the
expenditure contemplated by the above-mentioned conditional agreement and that in case C-106/96, the
Commission was regrettably left with no choice but to refrain from making the payments concerned. The
Commission is writing to Research into Ageing and all organisations with similar agreements to inform
them of the position.