WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/00 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission. Umbria and Marche.
Date: 2000-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Marches, Structural Funds, Umbria, earthquake, economic reconstruction, poverty

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/73

(2001/C 163 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3277/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Monitoring centre for unaccompanied minors

(20 October 2000)

The large numbers of migrants arriving in Europe, and in particular the hundreds of thousands of illegal
immigrants, include an alarming proportion of (cid:145)unaccompanied minors(cid:146). Does the Commission intend to
set up a monitoring centre for unaccompanied minors, for the purpose of monitoring the activities of the
various organisations authorised to provide reception facilities and services for these young people?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

The Commission does not plan to set up a monitoring centre for unaccompanied minors.

The Commission(cid:146)s approach consists of incorporating the problem of unaccompanied minors into all its
initiatives and giving them specific protection.

In terms of legislation, the Commission is striving to improve the legal status of unaccompanied minors. In
its proposals for directives on minimum standards for the procedures whereby refugee status is granted or
withdrawn in the Member States and whereby temporary protection is afforded in the event of a mass
influx of displaced persons (1) there are specific references to unaccompanied minors and to the extra
protection which they should be given. Similarly, the proposal for a directive on the right to family
reunification contains specific rules which apply to those unaccompanied minors who are recognised as
refugees (2).

Since the launch of the 1998 action plan to improve the collection of statistical data on asylum and
immigration the European Communities(cid:146) Statistical Office has taken account of unaccompanied minors
when collecting data on asylum requests. Information is also exchanged within the Council(cid:146)s Centre for
Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum (CIREA).

(1) COM(2000) 578 final and COM(2000) 303 final.
(2) OJ C 116 E, 24.4.2000 and COM(2000) 624 final.

(2001/C 163 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Umbria and Marche

Years after the event, and despite the funds provided, the people of Umbria and Marche are still living in
conditions of extreme hardship and the process of reconstruction has not been completed. Could the
Commission, therefore, state whether it
intends to launch an investigation aimed at evaluating the
assistance provided and ascertaining whether the procedures laid down by Community law were complied
with?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2000)

Within the partnership, and in particular through the meetings of the Monitoring Committees which
it attends, the Commission is kept informed of how the Structural Funds are being used. It does not
plan therefore to establish a committee of enquiry to evaluate Community structural assistance under
Objective 5(b) in Marche and Umbria. At this stage, it regards as adequate the monitoring of and checks
on those measures carried out under the regulations governing assistance from the Structural Funds.

C 163 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The next Monitoring Committee meeting in both regions will take place in December 2000. The agenda
will
include the approval of the annual reports on the implementation of the single programming
documents (SPD) in 1999, detailed information on the progress and implementation of each measure
and discussion of the evaluation reports. Close attention will obviously be paid to the reconstruction
measures required as a result of the earthquake.

With regard to those measures, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the
fact that information on the progress report is at present neither exhaustive nor final since assistance under
the SPD does not have to be completed until 31 December 2001.

(2001/C 163 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: European shipbuilding industry

(25 October 2000)

In his reply to Written Question E-2568/00 (1), the Commissioner responsible for trade, Mr Lamy, stated
that the consultations held between the EU and Korea in Seoul last July could be said to have proven
relatively fruitful, since they had produced much legal, economic and financial information and documen-
tation and, more precisely, yielded two positive results:

1. Korea will allow the EU to conduct an inquiry into its shipyards, using an antidumping questionnaire
as a basis for ascertaining whether the prices of contracts signed by Korean shipyards are in line with
the (cid:145)normal(cid:146) value established by the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) Antidumping Agreement;

2. The authorities have also agreed to a second round of consultations in September with a view to
reviewing the overall functioning of the agreement, and above all to seeking to resolve the differences
between the two sides.

In spite of this progress, and bearing in mind that the Commission apparently broke off negotiations with
South Korea recently, will the Commission say whether this progress has yielded practical results?

Will it say whether the negotiations have indeed been broken off and, if so, why? Have they been broken
off for good, or will they resume?

Will it confirm that the Koreans have been engaging in unfair practices and detail the impact thereof
practices on the European shipbuilding industry?

Will it say whether it is determined to bring South Korea before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as
soon as the European shipbuilding industry lodges a complaint under the regulation on obstacles to trade
which must precede any action by the EU in this regard?

Does this situation noe bear out the need to maintain European aid to shipbuilding, especially in
Objective 1 areas, until such time as the situation of unfair competition on the part of Korea has
been fully remedied?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 50.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Despite the encouraging results of the meeting in Seoul in July 2000, the Commission(cid:146)s expectations have
been disappointed. The second round of consultations held in Brussels on 28/29 September was
unsuccessful owing to Korea(cid:146)s lack of political will to reach an agreement on an effective and convincing
solution. Korea was unable to implement measures designed to achieve the primary aim of the Agreed
Minutes, namely a rise in prices to commercially viable levels based on (cid:145)normal value(cid:146).