WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Subsidies for the Sensus police project.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, Europol, research project

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/17

Problems with labelling may appear if laser pointers are misclassified, due to an incorrect application of
the standards. However, the Member States are aware of these problems and, according to their reports,
take the appropriate measures when needed.

Recently, the International electrotechnical commission (IEC) has approved an amendment to standard IEC
60825 that introduces a new classification structure. Cenelec, the European electrotechnical standardisation
body, has decided to incorporate this amendment into the relevant European standard. The American
authorities have stated their intention to harmonise, to the extent possible, the requirements applicable in
the United States to laser pens with those of the new international standard. Therefore, the Commission
expects further progress in the near future towards further international harmonisation in this area.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2002/C 40 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

Commissioner Erkki Liikanen(cid:146)s reply to question P-0009/01 (1) was that on 25 May 1999 a new
Commission decision (E/696/99) was adopted which amended the original decision in such a way as to
allow Europol to take part in the Sensus project. The original decision established rules for the fourth
framework programme of the European Economic Community for Community actions in the field of
research, technological development and demonstration (1994-1998).

Was the original decision amended at the request of:

(cid:129) EU Member States,

(cid:129) law enforcement and security services such as the German federal security service (Bundesnachrich-

tendienst) and the front organisation, the Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen, and/or

(cid:129) Europol?

If so, what Member States or law enforcement and security services were involved?

If not, at whose request was the original decision amended by the Commission on 25 May 1999?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission would have to point out that the original decision (Commission Evaluation Decision
E/1791/97), which was amended by the new Commission decision (E/696/99) concerned the evaluation of
projects for future funding and did not establish the rules for the fourth framework programme as the
Honourable member indicates in his question.

Europol(cid:146)s anticipated involvement in Sensus is referred to in the initial project work programme. However,
their participation as a contractor was delayed by the fact that Europol(cid:146)s charter had not been ratified by
all Member States at that time, and therefore there was no legal entity that could sign a contract.

C 40 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

The request for a Commission decision (E/696/99) to allow Europol(cid:146)s involvement after its charter had
entered into force (cid:129) required according to Article 7,
indent 8 of Council Decision 94/801/EC of
23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including
demonstration in the field of telematics applications of common interest (1994 to 1998) (1), because of the
status of Europol as an international organisation (cid:129) was initiated by the unit responsible for the contract,
according to the rules and procedures governing the Fourth Framework Programme (see the Commission(cid:146)s
reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question E-1066/01 (2)).

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994.
(2) See p. 19.

(2002/C 40 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0999/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge (cid:129) agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire
on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the
Commission therefore clarify the following points?

With regard to question 2.7(b):

(cid:129) Can the Commission be more specific than merely stating that it is monitoring the matter? Can the
Commission guarantee that the falsification of dairy products by the enterprise concerned did not
involve intervention or aid schemes?

(cid:129) Does the Commission(cid:146)s answer imply that it is responsible only for the falsification of dairy products

which benefit directly from intervention or aid schemes?

(cid:129) Did OLAF or the French authorities notify the Commission of the falsification of milk by the

enterprise concerned?

Supplementary Answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Within the resources available the Commission takes note of fraud allegations appearing in the press or
brought to its attention by other means. As mentioned in the reply to question 2.7 (b) of the second
questionnaire on the granting of discharge for the financial year 1999, it does not seem that the case
mentioned by the Honourable Member involved any Community subvention, but the Commission is not in
a position to give a clear-cut guarantee on this matter. No new information has surfaced and no further
action is foreseen at this stage.

Adulterated products are not eligible for aid under the dairy aid schemes or any other scheme. The
Community regulations define the products eligible and an adulterated product will not fulfil such
definitions. The implementation is the responsibility of the Member State. The regulations include control
provisions, which must be enforced by Member States to ensure, inter alia, that adulterated products do
not benefit from any Community aid. The Commission verifies the implementation and shortcomings that
can lead to financial corrections imposed on Member States within the clearance of accounts procedure.
Any suspicion of fraud is referred to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

An adulterated product may also breach other Community legislation on standards, denomination and
labelling. Also in these areas are Member States responsible for implementation and controls that again are
subject to verification by the Commission(cid:146)s control bodies.