WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/02 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Jurassic museum at Lourinha.
Date: 2002-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal, cultural transmission, museum

C 205 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

This decision obliges the Member States to report their greenhouse gas emissions and their policies and
measures annually to the Commission. It requests the Commission to assess these data and to submit
annual progress reports on the actual and projected progress of Member States.

The latest assessment of progress at Member State and European level can be found in the annual
Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Report (3) published by the Commission in November 2001. Spain as the fifth
largest emitter in the EU accounts for 9 % of total EC GHG emissions and increased emissions by more
than 20 % between 1990 and 1999. Significant additional effort would seem to be necessary in order for
Spain to remain within its EU burden-sharing target under the Kyoto Protocol of + 15 % during the Kyoto
commitment period 2008-2012.

To enable the Community to meet the agreed greenhouse gas reduction targets, the Commission not only
calls for the development and implementation of national climate change policies and measures, but has
complemented these by concrete proposals for policies and measures at European Union level.

(1) OJ L 309, 27.11.2001 Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001

on the limitations of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

(2) OJ L 117, 5.5.1999.
(3) Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council under Council Decision 93/389/EEC as amended by
Decision 1999/296/EC for a monitoring mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions, COM(2001) 708
final.

(2002/C 205 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Jurassic museum at Lourinha

Western Portugal, in particular the municipality of Lourinha, has important remains of representatives of
fish and invertebrates going back
the major groups of dinosaurs, as well as of crocodiles,
150 million years.

turtles,

The Lourinha Museum is at present very small, considering the extraordinary cultural and scientific
significance of its exhibits. This has prompted the scientific community, with various forms of local
support,
to promote the idea of executing in the near future an ambitious multicultural project,
incorporating a new museum and an area covering a variety of activities, including scientific research,
cultural information, teaching, leisure activities and entertainment.

This active commitment on the part of various institutions and people has made it possible to make
available a vast area of thirty-two hectares, situated near the village of Lourinha and, thanks to the
creativity of a team of architects, an architectural project has been drawn up of enormous scientific,
cultural and educational importance for Portugal, the region and Lourinha, at an estimated cost of EUR 20
million.

Can the Commission say whether it considers it possible to fund this important cultural initiative?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

The Commission has negotiated with the Portuguese authorities the operational programme for culture for
the 2000-2006 programming period. This includes measures for the modernisation and upgrading of
national museums and for the preservation and restoration of historical and cultural sites.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/177

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, under the partnership, both the selection
and implementation of projects are the responsibility of the regional authorities responsible for the
management and monitoring of the programmes part-financed by the European Regional Development
Fund. Accordingly, the project promoters could submit their proposal to the Ministry of Culture, Gabinete
de gestão do P.O. Cultura, Palácio Nacional da Ajuda.

(2002/C 205 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0625/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Cedefop’s methods

(6 March 2002)

According to a report in the well-respected news bulletin ‘Agence Europe’ (No 8131, 18 January 2002),
the European Ombudsman has decided to investigate the phraseology used by Cedefop when
communicating with the general public. The report gives a full description of the pejorative terms
contained in official documents of this decentralised agency which it uses to convey its views to European
citizens who have protested against its methods. The Centre’s methods have raised concerns in the
Community Institutions and the international press on numerous occasions, indeed, the Court of Auditors
stated last December that many of the appointments made by Cedefop were ‘insufficiently justified’. The
entire situation has a negative impact on Greece, the Centre’s host, which does everything in its power to
enhance its role and facilitate its tasks but which suffers the repercussions of the methods used by the
Centre.

What
is the Commission’s view of Cedefop’s policy in this regard? Who is responsible for the
inappropriate language used in its documents? Who exactly is responsible for the irregularities detected
in recruitment? In how many languages are Cedefop documents and information bulletins drawn up and
which languages are they?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

Cedefop is a decentralised body set up under Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of the Council of 10 February
1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (1), article 7 § 4. It is
autonomous as regards its staff policy, over which the Commission has no control, beyond being
represented on its Management Board. Indeed according to its basic Regulation, it is the Director who is
‘responsible for all staff matters and for engaging and dismissing staff’ (2). Written opinions to the
Ombudsman are signed by the Director who is responsible for personnel matters.

On 7 January 2002, the Ombudsman started an own initiative inquiry and addressed a letter to the
Chairman of the Management Board concerning language in correspondence used by Cedefop not with the
general public but between Cedefop and the Ombudsman’s office. On 6 March 2002 the Chairman of the
Board replied on behalf of Cedefop.

In the reply it was stated that Cedefop regretted the language used in its opinions on complaints and that
it had not anticipated that this correspondence would be published. Cedefop underlined that its services
have always been very careful to be courteous and accessible in their dealings with the general public and
complainants. This was also the case with the three plaintiffs involved in the cases referred to in the
Ombudsman’s letter. The Bureau invited the Director to take appropriate measures and give instructions to
his staff to avoid any repetitions of inappropriate wording when providing written opinions on complaints
in the future.

On 13 March 2002 the Ombudsman wrote to the Chairman of the Board that on the basis of his inquiries
there appeared to have been no maladministration by Cedefop. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.