WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Encryption of EU communications.
Date: 2003-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, confidentiality, cryptography, espionage, protection of communications

C 70 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

To what extent are the repeated sales between the steelworks and local authorities since 1990 of the
4.
‘Hüttenbahn’ railway line used by the steelworks, including, most recently, its sale to the Verkehrsgesells-
chaft Landkreis Osnabrück (Osnabrück Rural District Travel Company), compatible with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

From the information contained in the written question it is not possible to see, for which purpose
1.
the Land made the payment of EUR 1,9 million and if
this payment granted an advantage to
Georgsmarienhütte steel works. An assessment, whether this payment is in line with the Union provisions,
is therefore not possible at this point in time. The Commission will request information from Germany as
concerns the exchange of land and the payment of EUR 1,9 by the Land of Lower Saxony.

2.

The payment by the Government of the Land was not notified to the Commission.

As already laid down in the answer to the written question E-0057/01 of the Honourable Member (1),
3.
in January 2000 the Federal Government submitted information to the Commission, from which it
followed, that Georgsmarienhütte steel works had repaid State aid amounting to DEM 46 million including
interest to the land of Lower Saxony.

In addition, as also explained in this answer, on 8 May 2000 the Federal Government submitted
information to the Commission, that the sale of the land ‘Westerkamp’ had been annulled.

The Georgsmarienhütte Holding GmbH has therefore repaid all State aid that had been assessed as
incompatible to the Land of Lower Saxony.

4.
According to the Federal Government, the sale of the ‘Hüttenbahn’ by the Klöckner Werke (1978)
and the repurchase by Georgsmarienhütte steel works (1996) did not result in a significant profit for
Georgsmarienhütte steel works. The Commission therefore, on the basis of the information available, does
not consider that State aid was granted in this context.

The Commission does not possess any information about a further sale of
the ‘Hüttenbahn’ by
Georgsmarienhütte steelwork to Verkehrsgesellschaft Landkreis Osnabrück (Osnabrück rural district
company). The Commission will request further information on this sale from Germany.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(2004/C 70 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Encryption of EU communications

In light of the report on echelon that recommended the Commission encrypt its communications, can the
Commission inform us of the progress made in ensuring the encryption of its communications especially
for overseas offices?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission has taken all necessary steps to ensure that the security features of its communications
are developed in order to deal with the risks properly identified by the report on Echelon.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/135

The Commission is working in close co-operation with competent authorities from Member States on the
choice of systems. The Honourable Member will understand that, for security reasons, the Commission is
unable to communicate any further details in the context of a Parliamentary question. However, the
Commission offers to inform the Honourable Member more comprehensively if he wishes to make direct
contact with the relevant Service.

(2004/C 70 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Recovery of small amounts under EU aid programmes

There have been many complaints recently that under EU aid programmes the calculations are so exact
that, in some cases, even tiny amounts such as a few cents have to be recovered.

Quite apart from the huge amount of work it creates, this results in excessively high costs. In the case of
comparable aid programmes at regional level, however, there is usually a certain discretionary margin,
meaning that small amounts do not have to be recovered.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Is the Commission considering organising aid programmes so that in future a certain discretionary margin
is allowed with regard to settling small amounts?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Under the system of direct management, the Commission applies the rules laid down in the Financial
Regulation (1) and the implementing rules (2) in matters relating to the recovery of its entitlements.

Article 79 of the implementing rules states that ‘to establish an amount receivable the authorising officer
responsible shall ensure that (…) g) the principle of sound financial management is complied with’. This
means specifically that the authorising officer will consider the foreseeable cost of recovery in relation to
the amount to be recovered and assess the impact a waiver might have on the Community’s image
(Article 87(1)(a) of the implementing rules).

This provision answers the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member, and the Commission’s
accounting officer regularly brings it to the attention of the authorising officers responsible for establishing
entitlements in the sectors assigned to them.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the

implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 70 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: The possibility for Commission translators to work in their home countries

It has been put to me that Commission translators could be given more flexible opportunities than at
present to work from their home countries. Given modern technology, this would be perfectly possible.
Some Commission translators (cid:1) both officials and those on contract (cid:1) feel that ‘compulsory’ posting to
Brussels detracts from their quality of life.