WRITTEN QUESTION E-3312/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community funding for Cross-Border Public Health Centres in Greece.
Date: 2002-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Greece, financial aid, health care, infectious disease, medical centre

C 137 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

the
The Commissioner raised among other issues the security of energy supplies the subject of
Commission Green Paper (1) ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’. The Green
Paper focused on the Union’s structural weakness regarding energy supply and it set out a series of
questions for discussion. Commissioner Bolkestein pointed out several trends already observed in the
Green Paper, such as the increase of energy dependence from 50 percent now to 70 percent in 2030 if no
measures are taken. In his speech to the IEA he also referred to renewable energy resources which still
cover only a small part of the Union’s energy needs.

The Green Paper opened a debate on the Union’s approach to energy supply. Commissioner Bolkestein’s
speech pointed out various elements which are relevant to the debate on nuclear energy, such as the
negligible greenhouse gases emissions which nuclear power produces. It also identified a number of
problems which still have to be solved.

On the basis of the discussion stimulated by the Green Paper, in which the Parliament took an active and
constructive part, the Commission has proposed a series of measures to improve the security of energy
supply in the Union whilst taking into account environmental aspects. These proposals include measures
to stimulate the use of renewables in electricity (the Renewable Electricity Directive adopted in 2001) (2),
to raise the share of biofuels in the transport sector, to promote combined heat and power and to improve
the energy performance of buildings (Directive on the energy performance of buildings adopted in
November 2002) (3), as well as the proposed programme Intelligent Energy for Europe.

In addition, the Commission adopted the 6 November 2002 a package of measures, based on the Euratom
Treaty, with a view to producing a comprehensive community approach to nuclear safety and security of
supply including possible instruments for increased Euratom lendings. These proposals cover the safety of
nuclear installations during operation and decommissioning, management of radioactive waste, and trade
in nuclear materials with Russia. The same day, the Commission adopted also two proposals in the field of
Euratom loans in order to increase the borrowing limit and to ensure the continuing availability of
Euratom loans in particular for nuclear safety and decommissioning projects in candidate and other non-
member countries.

Commissioner Bolkestein gave his view on the utility markets in general, of which the water sector is a
part. He pointed out various instruments available to establish a correct relationship between price, quality
and the standard of the service provided. In this context, he referred to a recent paper of the British
government on its future water policy ‘Directing the Flow’.

Commissioner Bolkestein’s speech was limited to sketching out recent developments in the water sector of
various Member States, including the role of private operators.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
(2) Directive 2001/C of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity

produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(3) COM(2001) 226 final.

(2003/C 137 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3312/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Community funding for Cross-Border Public Health Centres in Greece

At a time when infectious diseases (mainly tuberculosis and viral hepatitis) are spreading in Greece, its four
Community-funded ‘Cross-Border Public Health Centres’, which could provide initial check-ups and
medical care for the numerous incoming economic migrants suffering from such infectious diseases,
are inoperative.

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/193

What was the exact amount of EU funding provided for the construction of these centres? Why are they
not yet operative? Does the Commission know how the funds earmarked for the construction of these
centres in Greece were actually spent? What penalties may, if appropriate, be imposed on Greece?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Under the Interreg II Community Initiative (Cross-border cooperation strand) for the period 1994-1999
the European Regional Development Fund granted 70 % financing for the following cross-border public
health centres:

Location

Public expenditure

Community contribution

(EUR)

Prefecture of Ioannina
(Kalpaki, Konitsa)

Prefecture of Florina
(Kristalopigi)

Prefecture of Serres
(Promakhonas)

Prefecture of Evros
(Orestiada, Didimotikho)

Technical assistance

939 168

1 018 796

1 147 519

673 135

283 198

Total

4 061 816

657 418

713 157

803 263

471 194

198 239

2 843 271

Our information from the national authorities is that the projects have been completed, i.e. the physical
constructions included in the Community programme have been deemed suitable for their purpose and
taken over and will come into operation when the necessary steps have been taken on (recruitment is in
progress).

Greece has not yet asked the Commission for financial closure of the programme. Under the Community
rules in force applications relating to the period 1994-99 must be made by 31 March 2003.

The Commission will at that time examine all the documentation required under the rules before the
programme is closed, including the final report, and decide case by case what action to take.

(2003/C 137 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3336/02

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Designation of origin of Manchego cheese

A meeting recently held in Strasbourg with the European Geographical Indications Club highlighted two
main problems affecting the designation of Manchego cheese from Spain. Firstly, there are various
imitation products on the EU market, in particular a Belgian cheese which uses the name. Furthermore,
the designation of origin cannot be registered in the United States because of opposition from a firm in
California called ‘Cacique’, which markets its own cheese under the same name.

In this context can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it knows about the imitation Manchego cheeses on the EU market and what steps have been

taken to ensure compliance with European legislation on the subject;