WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/02 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Transparency.
Date: 2002-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, access to EU information, governance, transparency in decision-making

C 172 E/220

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

(2002/C 172 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Closure of the Petrogal refinery at Leça de Palmeira

(6 March 2002)

The firm Petrogal, with plants in Sines and Matosinhos, is of great value for Portugal. It is the only
Portuguese company in the fields of the exploration, production and distribution of petroleum,
its
derivatives and natural gas, which guarantees thousands of jobs directly and indirectly, thereby making a
decisive contribution to hundreds of companies upstream and downstream of its activities.

The closure of the refineries (in the immediate future the one at Leça da Palmeira in Matosinhos) would
have serious consequences for the Portuguese economy and workers.

It should be noted that unemployment in Portugal is rising once again and the socio-economic indicators
are the weakest in the European Union.

Can the Commission therefore say what support can be granted at Community and national level to keep
the refineries in operation and thereby safeguard Petrogal’s employees’ jobs and their rights?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

The Commission does not know the reasons for the possible closure of the Petrogal refinery in Leça da
Palmeira, nor the circumstances in which this might take place.

It would point out to the Honourable Member that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), both the selection of projects
and their implementation are matters for the national and regional authorities that are responsible for the
management and monitoring of the programmes co-financed under these Funds. The Commission is
therefore unable to provide direct support to enterprises in order to safeguard jobs there, and calls on the
enterprises concerned to contact the said authorities in order to obtain information on the possibility of
co-financing.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 172 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: Transparency

Will the Commission please comment on the proposal concerning transparency and openness in the EU
institutions entitled ‘Transparency and openness in the EU institutions’, as proposed by SEAP, the Society
of European Affairs Professionals?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing to its attention the document produced by
the ‘Society of European Affairs Professionals’ (SEAP), which it examined with the greatest of interest.

The document concerned contains a certain number of proposals aimed at increasing the transparency of
the work of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/221

Generally,
openness of the decision-making process of the European institutions.

the Commission shares SEAP’s concerns about maintaining better involvement and more

In this connection,
particularly those in the White Paper on European governance.

the Commission would remind the Honourable Member about

its proposals,

Moreover, the Commission intends to continue with its efforts on transparency by fully complying with
the new rules introduced on this matter under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of Parliament and of the
Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents (1), and by developing best practice in order to guarantee citizens the most extensive access
possible to its documents. Accordingly, the Commission has committed itself to improving transparency in
the exercise of its implementing powers by allowing public access, subject to the exemptions laid down in
Article 4 of the above-mentioned Regulation, to draft decisions on the implementation of acts adopted
under the procedure set out in Article 251 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0640/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 March 2002)

Subject: ECJ and ban on British beef

Given that it is now two months since the European Court of Justice ruled that the French ban on British
beef imports was illegal, and given that, to date, France has not lifted the ban despite this ruling, what
specific action does the Commission propose to take to see that the law is enforced, and precisely when
does it propose to take it?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member.

The Commission has already requested France to indicate the action it intends to take to comply with the
judgement of the Court of Justice of 13 December 2001 in the case concerned (Commission v French
Republic C-1/00).

No satisfactory reply having been received to this request, the Commission has decided to invoke the
procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

(2002/C 172 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0643/02

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Certificate of suitability for building materials

Research has shown that the accumulation of radon emitted from building materials in domestic dwellings
causes various forms of lung cancer to which children are particularly susceptible. This situation could be
remedied by using appropriate building materials. However, building materials circulate on the European
market without certificates of suitability, which creates problems not only in the abovementioned
circumstances but also in relation to other substances used in building materials which could potentially
create serious public health problems.